Tickle torture in medival

[damdu]

If tickling was a form of torture in the Middle Ages, why is there nothing about it in the torture museum?

 

[Comfort Eagle]

In reality tickling would be a really ineffective use of torture for a number of reasons. The story (that I'm not sure is even genuine) about it being used in China on royals because it sucked enough to work but did no lasting damage seems like the most realistic use of it, in any other circumstance you're generally torturing someone you don't necessarily care lives or dies, so just actually hurting them is superior.

 

[SoleMates]

If tickling was a form of torture in the Middle Ages,

How do you know it was a form of torture in the Middle Ages? Fan fiction from this forum doesn't count as evidence.

 

[quinn65]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rothenburg_Germany_Torture_Museum_(4139740862).jpg

Not sure of its provenance, but saw it on display firsthand years ago.

 

[Toesheldback]

Interesting pic. I was curious about the sign in the woman in it that reads "Der Hausdrache," which translates to "The House Dragon" in English. This term was often used in a humorous or derogatory manner to refer to a strict or domineering woman in the household.

I think this type of punishment is supposed to be more humiliating and uncomfortable than torturous.

 

[WickedTouch]

I suspect that the anecdotes of each instance of historical tickle torture fall under one of a few categories:

• A one-time account that was not used in the regular system of torture of the day
• A made up story to satisfy the fantasies of the writer
• A made up story to spark intrigue in the perceived novel insights and inside information of the writer
• A story that was not made up with deceptive intent, but was repeated under the belief that it was true
• In the case of the stocks for punishment, it not being the primary vehicle for torture, but just happened to co-occur due to the circumstances. i.e., people were punished in the stocks, and almost certainly there were incidental cases of tickling by passerbys. I don't think it was intended in the design of the punishment

Additional thoughts are that many museums don't paint a very complete (or sometimes even accurate) picture of the past. They have to balance between entertainment, funding, accuracy, and a manner of other things. There is a lot of...err...history of corruption, deception, and unethical behavior in the museum industry. That is not to say all, or even most are bad actors, but it is worth considering. Most are, however, trying to maximize for certain things and minimize for others. It's just the game they are in.

All that being said, it sparks a lot of fantasy and I completely understand the interest in it. And while I don't know any of this to be true for certain, I don't think anyone else does either. It's mostly just my take from how anecdotal history often falls.

 

[SoleMates]

I suspect that the anecdotes of each instance of historical tickle torture fall under one of a few categories:

• In the case of the stocks for punishment, it not being the primary vehicle for torture, but just happened to co-occur due to the circumstances. i.e., people were punished in the stocks, and almost certainly there were incidental cases of tickling by passerbys. I don't think it was intended in the design of the punishment.

Indeed. I don't remember where I read/saw it, but I either read an article or watched a video on YouTube about the use of stocks and pillory in colonial times, and the primary purpose of such things were to keep the people immobile while they had things thrown at them. Things like rotten fruit, but also rocks and other heavier objects. People had their ears and noses clipped off. Depending on the nature of offense, there would need to be an official standing sentry to make sure the punishment didn't go too far. People died in these things.

I'd say that was more an issue with pillories than stocks, obviously.

Also one thing I've heard is that some of the devices that we take for granted as having been used back in the day, were never actually used back in the day. For example, did you know there's no evidence of the iron maiden existing during the time period it was supposed to have been used?

Now obviously, we do have the occasional first-hand account of tickle torture being a thing, but from what I can tell it was a pretty rare thing. I can totally see why it'd have gone unmentioned except as a passing thing even in a museum, as a previous poster mentioned. And in spite of what the occasional (gross) fetish video or Spanish game show might imply, goat's tongue "tickling" was not intended to tickle, unless you consider being vigorously scrubbed with sandpaper "tickling". People lost skin that way.

 

[WickedTouch]

That's right. As best I can tell, the stocks were primarily for humiliation and leaving the offender at the general mercy of the public (and I'm sure tickling happened to occur at times.

Another example of "it probably wasn't what you think" are things like chastity belts, which for most all instances were probably Victorian era sexual novelty (much like today), based on older misinterpreted myths or literal interpretations of creative metaphors. Like tickling, I'm sure there was some few twisted freaks who imposed them onto others for real, but it wasn't a practice from what I understand.