Tickling/Religion/Guilt & Evil...

[quinn65]

My brain hurts

Man, this is a tough thread to post to. All the arguments reach so far back that you'd almost have to write a book to justify any position. I mean, just look at the title. Fresh off of Halloween, and it's the scariest thing I've seen all day... 🙂

Setting tickling aside for the moment (and why not, since it's the basis of the entire community 🙂), the whole issue of religion and guilt is sorta being covered in ReturnToGod's thread under General Discussion. Ok, so that's that, I hope.

Which leaves the question: is tickling evil? I think we all agree that a mother tickling a baby or one friend poking another in the ribs is not evil. So if tickling is not *intrinsically* evil, and if the potential for tickling-related evil does exist (if it doesn't, there's no issue), evil must inhere in the *context* of tickling.

But you can't go from here without addressing evil itself. It's tempting to cut one huge corner and replace "evil" with "wrong," and then cut another huge corner and hold "wrong" undefined. The shortcut is to rely on a gut sense of what "wrong" is. (I hope none of you are professors of rhetoric, but if you are, bear with me to the end of the post.)

These shortcuts get us straight to the contextual aspect of tickling. We've already agreed that mother/baby, etc. contexts are ok. But which contexts start to push the envelope? Here are some examples...

EXAMPLE 1
You partner asks to be tickled. You oblige enthusiatically and you both have fun. In the course of the ticklefight, you snag a shoestring or something and tie them up. You keep at it. The doorbell rings, and it's your friend. You invite your friend back to help. Your friend whips out a camera and starts filming. You post the film on the internet...

[In this example, I intentionally left out the ticklee's reactions, because they would dictate the course of the action, wouldn't they? Once your partner clearly stopped having fun and started to voice serious objections, I think most of us would agree that you'd be obliged to stop. To do otherwise, against your friend's will, would start to seriously flirt with the concept of "wrong".]

EXAMPLE 2
Just like example 1, but in the past your partner has stranded you naked in a public restroom stall as a practical joke. You had to dash across a crowded restaurant to get to your car...

EXAMPLE 3
New scenario: Two college roommates know the third is ticklish, so they stage an ambush tickle-attack in the dorm room one night. It escalates like example 1...

[Same deal, right? You'd have to focus on the nature of the interaction among participants]

EXAMPLE 4
Example 3, but the ticklish roommate is an incredible jerk who plays loud music, never repays money, and has any other number of nasty traits that makes them generally unlikeable.

EXAMPLE 5
Example 3, but the ticklish roommate is incredibly attractive and lusted after by either of the other roommates, who has a tickling fetish.

EXAMPLE 6
(Sorry, Kuj, but it would just be transparent to tapdance around this) A student wants into a club, and as an initiation ritual, is tricked into a vulnerable position and tickled.

[This would go back to the 'nature of interaction' standard, woiuldn't it? Should the tricked student be given a safe word?]

I think this all has to get back to two things: ascribing what specific "natures of interaction" would constitute a ticklee's clear desire to stop; and somehow defining "wrong" or "evil," which I conveniently skipped at the outset. I think both of these things are easier to tackle with some sense of context.

At least I hope so. 😉

Pax,
quinn

 

[qjakal]

Evil vs. wrong....

See? This is why the thread chugs along...we have so many aspects to discuss, brought on by the fascination that tickling creates for us. Quinn has resurfaced one of the ongoing debates about tickling and the guilt it can produce...are we actually no better than vampires lusting after a "need"? Where do the lines get drawn? Is it intent that rules the day, or must we poll each ticklee to see if we've been "evil" today? Does defining the 'lee as evil mean it's an open field day on them? When we tickle someone that is evil, are we therefore performing a "good" deed by punishing them? (better hope not elaah...lol) Why should I feel guilty if the 'lee obviously is enjoying the tickling? For pandering to THEIR need perhaps, as one would feel badly if handing a fix to an addict?

Many here have said that the evil is in your heart and intent. Many have responded that that "evil" is not exactly high on the list of sin and vice in general, intent aside. Some of us have called for a separation of the definition of evil...one that throws these emotions towards the category of being "wrong", not even understanding, as Quinn stated, what wrong entails in and of itself.

I am confused. Both by the guilt that this tickling fascination produces in myself, and by the need that drives it regardless of the other emotions it provokes within me....it's difficult for me to perceive it as evil, but as I've said before,I am a bit too close to the situation to judge it in an evenhanded manner...lol. The only outsider who has wandered into the forum was the former founder of it, returned to god and full of fire and brimstone and youthful zeal. Perhaps we need a nontickler to really assess this topic, but I certainly am hesitant about inviting one of MY acquaintances in to review the thread!

We shall stumble along....

 

[omega]

Time to pastor? Are there 26 hours in the day?

Yes, here I am a man of the cloth, a minister, a preacher, a Reverand, (if I must have a title I personally prefer Pastor). I promise to take no offense at what is written here (unless you start to throw flames at my dog).

q wrote:
Nope...but, you SHOULD live a life that demonstrates the
virtues of the lifestyle you espouse. You SHOULD be ready to
assimilate new experiences and thoughts and grow and learn
and adapt and adjust and NOT acquire and covet and hoard and
insulate. And that's just to APPLY to become a theologian!!

As for your analogy, let me toss that 'ol potato back at
you...do YOU think you have the time to properly run
a "business" such as a church, and give the proper time to
actual pastoring that you should, or would like to be able to?

I like your qualifications for ministry. I should send them to my alma mater to use on their applications🙂

If I may combine my response to these two areas. No, I don't feel like I have time for proper pastoring. I think that comes from the knowledge that there are many needs out there and I just can't touch them all. However, taking your list of qalifications, how do we work on those areas? I do it by rubbing elbows with people. In other words, as I am out and about, doing my pastoring, I am learning and growing and expanding. While I am with people I learn to be patient, forgiving, unselfish. The only way for me to work on those areas is to be around other people. Also I am making mistakes, dropping the ball, apologizing for doing and saying stupid things. And hopefully learning from my mistakes.

q writes:
I have ...issues...with god. He/She/It has NOT met the
criteria that I so desperately need a deity to attain. There
must be a reckoning, and I have called forth all the god/s
to come, whether it be to smite me down or debate me to my
knees, but none answer the challenge.

I have lots of questions for God also. I would love to debate God on what's going on in my life and in the world. Has he adquately answered any of my questions? I don't know. Maybe I have just accepted that some things are and we don't need an answer. Is that the right response? Probably not.

q writes
You will say it is due to a lack of faith on my part, a
refusal to "see" god all about me in his glory. You will
shame me with my pride and cast aspersions upon my character
for daring to ask for such a thing.

Wrong again, I will not do any of these things.

q writes
You MUST call me a man of egotistical bluster...a pariah
and fool!

Hey! Do not tell me what I MUST do. It only makes me dig in my heels and do the exact opposite.

q writes:
But....still they or he or she remain aloof....I stay
vigilant and ready, I prepare myself daily for such an
event. My anger runs deep...someones God/s are to blame for
the things we have endured, both privately and worldwide. Of
course I have no right to such a summit...but it is all that
will satisfy me, and none can convince me that any other
thing will be enough.

q you could easily be one of the psalmists in the Bible. Or perhaps Habakkuk the prophet. Maybe even Job. Welcome to the ranks of great saints who have been angry enough to challenge God to a boxing match.

 

[quinn65]

Re: Evil vs. wrong....

Many here have said that the evil is in your heart and intent. Many have responded that that "evil" is not exactly high on the list of sin and vice in general, intent aside. Some of us have called for a separation of the definition of evil...one that throws these emotions towards the category of being "wrong", not even understanding, as Quinn stated, what wrong entails in and of itself.

Evil or "wrong" *has* to inhere within the nature of interaction. It can't exist in the act itself -- movie actors can depict evil without being evil themselves. I think it comes down to some notion of "harm" and the questions:

-Was harm intended? ('lers perspective)
-Was harm inflicted? ('lees perspective)
-Was harm deserved? (overall context)

So it's not the act of tickling at issue, and it's not purely the actors themselves, but rather the *quality of interaction* that (ahem) binds the actors together. And any kind of quality is hard to define. It's something where we just know it when we see it, based on our values.

Which brings us to...

I am confused. Both by the guilt that this tickling fascination produces in myself, and by the need that drives it regardless of the other emotions it provokes within me....it's difficult for me to perceive it as evil, but as I've said before,I am a bit too close to the situation to judge it in an evenhanded manner...lol.

Guilt can stem from several sources:

-Guilt from sexual thoughts
-Guilt from sexual thoughts related to a *fetish*
-Guilt from knowingly doing "harm" (based on the assessment above)

These three examples sort of build in relation from an orthodox religious context (sex = wrong), to a more mainstream western / religious context ("wierd" sex = wrong) to a purely secular ethical context (doing harm = wrong). One would have to find their place on that ethical spectrum and see which value base was driving their guilt in order to assess the validity of either 1) the value in conflict or 2) the nature of actions causing the conflict.

So, open items:

-Agree on a notion of harm
-Agree on a definition of "quality" as it relates to human interaction
-Determine the nature of any guilt we may be feeling
-Assess our value base on a spectrum of ethical beliefs
-Reconcile our feelings of guilt from tickling (if any) with our value base by changing either the "quality" of our tickling behavior or rejecting our value assumptions.

No problem, right? 😉

 

[qjakal]

Under the Microscope!

Yikes...I haven't been quoted that much since I stopped teaching a training seminar at Pepsi-Co.!

BTW, Omega, that "MUST" refers to the only logical course of thought/action, not meant to be a command tense, although I admit it CAN (see?) be seen that way..lol. Happy to see you plan on continuing your input, whether you be reverend or renegade! Your puppy is safe from any of my barbs, as I would much rather hang out with his breed than our own. The friendship of such a sweet souled animal is one of the few things that gives me any hope for our species...we can't be all bad if they find so much to admire in us...besides our ability to feed and shelter them. As for my being wrong, hell, I've been married almost 25 years, I'm used to being REALLY REALLY wrong most of the time! Not sure if you've read/assimilated the entire thread yet, so I'll refrain from asking a few questions until I know that you are at least familiar with the background, ok? Another day or so though and the gloves are off....if you are a representative of an organized religion complete with flock and House Of Worship, we need to talk. There are a few...mysteries....to be queried and bandied about.

Meanwhile, could you shame me with my pride a little bit? I am really getting quite out of control, and Strelnikov hasn't been around to remind me of my lowly status and general ineptitude in days!

Last BTW(by the way), are you a member of the forum and do you share our fascination with tickling and its associated activities, or have you merely dropped in to duel with my dulled and fading intellect? And if you have any delusions regarding me being akin to any type of saint, ye had best run now!! As for a boxing match with god, nah...I spar lefty, and even a god doesn't want any part of that ugly scene. My buddy dvnc, maybe...a god...no. But...any sort of a confrontation will do. It doesn't even have to be on even terms, if it is possible for such to exist. I wish to sally forth and have my say, and if the smiting comes, so be it! It's such a simple question I have for him/her/it........

 

[Strelnikov]

A puff of smoke, a whiff of brimstone...

...and here I am. God's watching the ball game tonight, Q, so you'll have to settle for me. I'll take your challenge - how about thrown tomahawks at 20 paces?

Strelnikov

 

[quinn65]

Re: A puff of smoke, a whiff of brimstone...

I'll take your challenge - how about thrown tomahawks at 20 paces?

Ah, I see we're zeroing in on the notion of "harm." Nothing like a little field work to flesh out a concept. 🙂

 

[omega]

At least my dog is safe!

Thanks for leaving my dog out of it😛

I will stay and continue to contribute to the tread but I am not here to debate or duel. You might be disappointed in my passiveness.

 

[omega]

Re: Under the Microscope!

q wrote: if you are a representative of an organized religion complete with flock and House of Worship, we need to talk.

I often say that if people want organized religion they should not come to our church. We are so unorganized that I have no idea what all is going on at church or with the people. So much for the idea that pastors just want to control their people.

Sorry about the extra post. I forgot to put this in the first one. 🙁

 

[harvey]

More of the same

Oh, what a curiously tangled and convoluted web we weave when we attempt to postulate philosophies about something so elegant but uncomplicated as tickling. For those who insist on taking themselves and everything in the entire Universe too seriously, I offer these few straightforward opinions:

Most ticklers tickle because they enjoy it, and it is the multiple facets of this enjoyment and the discussion thereof which keep this Forum alive.

Most ticklees allow themselves to be tickled because they either like it or they are being well paid to endure it for finite periods.

Most incidents of non-consensual tickling and tickle-torture are either fanciful, overblown, or both. The fantasies many of us enjoy reading about are the products of fertile imaginations. Imagination is a gift which sets us humans apart from all the other life-forms on this planet. Since we have this gift, we can exercise our right to enjoy it as we choose, hence there is no valid reason to feel guilt about our own or anyone else’s mental imagery.

The only situations in which the act of tickling could be considered truly evil are those in which tickling becomes a part of an overall intent to harm another human being, as in kidnapping, rape, or other violations of law and/or another person’s human rights. Beyond this context, there is no reason for considering (or obsessing on) any morality issues related to tickling.

OK, I’ve said my piece and invited the world to attack my thinking. Who’s next?

 

[quinn65]

That's a nice summary -- I don't see it drawing any attacks.

Hey, philosophy's behind everything we do. I'd be happy to go on for pages philosophizing on just about anything, but this seems to be the place for tickling. I imagine once people get tired of obsessing on it, the thread will fizzle. 'Til then, though this remains qjakal's Thread That Wouldn't Die. 🙂

The kidnapping, rape, etc. examples you cite involve other immoral acts besides tickling. I was trying to isolate tickling, figure out what about the context of tickling in itself might consitute harm, and compare that outcome to various value systems to find the source of guilt. I'm pretty intrigued about all this, but if no one else is, I'll happily watch the thread make its merry way elsewhere.

"The unexplored life is not worth living" -Socrates

 

[qjakal]

Hey...no logic...

Who let Harvey in? There's no room here for clearcut logic and simplicity!! Away with ye, straightforward one!😉 Yeah, it SEEMS simple, and yet...those persistent feelings that many of us associate with pangs of conscience and guilt just keep kicking around sometimes. Not as dramatically as they did 40 years ago, but still demanding a response from the cortex. Anyway, although it may be perfectly clear to you that there is no evil inherent in tickling, the thread was started back in 3 b.c. or so in response to the reemergence of Scott/Pyscho in a newly reincarnated form of redeemer of his past mistakes...namely the TMF. The concept of how religion enters into these feelings seemed a natural segue, and certainly has been lively!

Aaah, Omega....methinks thou doth protest thy disorganized state a bit too much. I'm sure you have as good a grasp of the situation as is possible. As for being passive, that's a well known "judo" trick in a debate, and I am now doubly on guard and wary to the max. One quickie...I never thought pastors and such wanted to control their people, merely their wallets and their opinons on some subjects. BTW, you never answered the question regarding your affiliation or lack thereof to the TMF and its guiding fascination. I would like to know if you are either blessed or afflicted similarly with the bug...

Q

 

[Strelnikov]

We Are No. 1...

...in the number of replies, at 118 (119 now, I suppose.) The next highest has only 79. We're No. 5 in number of views even - we're right up there with the baby oil threads. Woo-hoo!

Strelnikov

 

[omega]

Re: Hey...no logic...

Aaah, Omega....methinks thou doth protest thy disorganized state a bit too much. I'm sure you have as good a grasp of the situation as is possible. As for being passive, that's a well known "judo" trick in a debate, and I am now doubly on guard and wary to the max. One quickie...I never thought pastors and such wanted to control their people, merely their wallets and their opinons on some subjects.

Q

You are correct, we are pretty organized. We are in a denomination complete with Bishop, district superintendents, different kinds of important and trivial positions and offices, miles and miles of mindless committees, constitution, by-laws, confession of faith, official membership, etc. And after 14 years of serving in the pastorate I have come to this conclusion: Could we be an organization without the organized structure? NO. Could we be the church without the organized structure? YES.

My first Sunday in my present church I told the people I thought they were giving too much money to the church. As far as controling opinions, the people are smarter than I am, stronger willed too.

 

[qjakal]

Truth....

I should have thrown truth into the thread title as well...it gets neglected way too often as a virtue and beat to death as a vice. You are indeed a "judo" guy, lol, but I'm starting to love ya! Okay, you've put forth a hunk of truth and partially addressed one of my concerns with your organization, namely the contradictory nature of it being an organization at all. Since we're on a hot streak, can we discuss the propensity of many organized religions to build grand edifices, beyond reason and architectural need. I can see a few of them, as they show off the org.s success and can be works of art in general on their own merits, but when every mid sized town in America has a huge and expensive structure that is sucking up both initial costs and ongoing maintenance dollars, it belies the stated purpose of most religions...

Okay, one BTW, is there a problem with this question, and if so, I shan't continue to ask, but ARE you a true TMF member, afflicted or blessed with the fascination we all share, or merely a voyeur? As I've said before, it matters little , other than judging a perspective that answers are formed from on that basis. Enjoying your input Omega, and hopefully we can continue.. Q

 

[quinn65]

::Quinn straps on his parachute and jumps for the General Discussion Forum's "Religion - Future Discussion" thread::

"Give 'em hell... er, heck Omega! Good luck!"

(I'll keep reading this, but with kids, wife, clients, life, etc. I gotta stay focused. Here's my official vote, if anyone's reading, for merging the threads -- whatever that does...)

Pax,
quinn

 

[qjakal]

Following Along...

Ignoring the laws of physics, Q leaps after Quinn, effortlessly floating by him and posting in the General Discussion Forum first! Quinn, in a fit of jealousy posts up about common sense and reality, trying to inhibit further subjugation of the so called "Natural" laws!!

 

[RichardAuc]

Three Cheers for SoleTkl!

Bravo. Just when I'd read dozens of posts w/ticklephiles making hairsplitting distinctions, along comes someone who reminds me what this forum is really all about. Sir, your post is the first I've seen in a long time that I really identify w/. I've read a lot of posts that on this forum while I've been lurking here, but there's one phrase I haven't seen yet during my all-too infrequent viewings.

Thank you.

I hope you don't feel too badly about the length of your last post. If all posts were as heartfelt as yours, I wouldn't mind the length and it might not be as necessary to make your points so effectively. Don't change anything.

Sincerely,

Richard A. of Houston, TX

 

[Strelnikov]

The Edifice Complex

A friend of mine is a member of a large Protestant congregation (4000 members) that recently built new quarters for themselves. He was a member of the Building Committee and, as a former semi-pro musician, took the responsibility of selecting the pipe organ. He coordinated the organ builder with the architect (apparently, it's important to tune the building to the organ.) He had a budget of $1.5 million bucks to do this, and the results were worth every dime.

Yeah, they could have made do with a sound system and a J. S. Bach CD. But why should they? The church members agreed that they wanted an organ and agreed to raise the money to pay for it. Their money - their call. Who says it all MUST go to foreign missions or feeding the poor anyway?

It had nothing to do with need - most of us here have progressed beyond need anyway. Q recently bought a new vehicle for his business (see the General Forum for details.) He could have made do with the old one, or bought a plain-jane Econoline. He made his purchase because, at bottom, he WANTED to. Just like my friend and his pipe organ.

Strelnikov

 

[qjakal]

Vehicle...

Hmmm...you dignify a 1990 Chevy AstroVan with nearly 200,000 miles of non highway driving and a dent on every side possible with the word "vehicle". Nope...it's time had come, and I donated it to a guy who had no car at all to use to get to work. My decision was based on sheer usefullness and safety, not on money and 1.5 million dollar pipe organs, bud! And actually I did buy a pretty plain jane e250 cargovan, because it was the last one from 2001 and I got a good deal!

Regardless, I still don't agree that spending that kind of money on a building, (with or without giant pipe organ)while people need affordable housing and job training and day care programs and on and on...is the right thing to do, but as you have said Strel, their money...their choice...their consequences, if any. The easy rebuttal is that therefore none of us should be purchasing any luxuries or enjoying perks while there is need for these programs that I mentioned, but I feel it is incumbent upon a large organization with the stated purpose of "helping all" to implement these things on a widespread basis...individuals should do small things as they can, IMO. Anyway, happy piping! Q

 

[Strelnikov]

Even large organizations are made up of individuals. If those individuals want to change the way their donations are spent, they have a vote in church meetings, or they can go somewhere else that's more congenial to their values. I see no need for a church to meet in a Butler building, unless that's what they want or they can't afford anything better.

Happy piping indeed - it sounds like a million bucks - actually 1.5 million. Their public music program is an asset to this community, which lacks the cultural wealth you're used to in NYC. Like I said before, the results were worth every dime.

Strelnikov

 

[qjakal]

Inspirational...

A beautiful piece of music needs no justification other than existence, and perhaps the melodious sounds will inspire the congregation to "heavenly" efforts above and beyond the norm! As for the cultural aspects of NYC...well...the price of Broadway tickets has fallen dramatically lately, but the musuems have always been the best shows anyway! I'll be listening Strel...expect to hear updates on the 1.5 million dollar band! 🙂 Q

 

[omega]

Re: Truth....

Since we're on a hot streak, can we discuss the propensity of many organized religions to build grand edifices, beyond reason and architectural need. I can see a few of them, as they show off the org.s success and can be works of art in general on their own merits, but when every mid sized town in America has a huge and expensive structure that is sucking up both initial costs and ongoing maintenance dollars, it belies the stated purpose of most religions...
Q

Buildings can be artistic and beautiful, yes, but it seems to me the real purpose of the building should be to enhance and provide for ministry. I am one that thinks a church building should be as multi purpose as possible. In other words, after Sunday take down all the chairs, put up the hoops and "presto" you have a gymnasium.

There may be something to be said about "sacred space", meaning that the sanctuary should be considered a holy space set apart for the worship of God. I guess I prefer to think that for a Christian any space can be sacred space. We are supposed to be able to meet with God anywhere.

Also, most congregations build too big. Instead of building an auditorium to seat 1,000 we should build seating for 200 and have five weekend services. Then the money that may have been spent on building can be put into people.

I am really torn about the pipe organ. I myself am a musician, I taught music in public schools before going into the pastorate. The organ is one of my favorite instruments to play. I would love to have a pipe organ in the church. Yet, with the trends in contemporary music today can I justify 1.5 million dollars for an instrument that almost none of the younger generation listens to?

Lot's of questions and no good answers, the story of my life!

 

[qjakal]

Honesty...sigh.

Indeed a judo master...I bow to the Omega mindset, and envision a fellow seeker. Yup...the questions pile up and the answers trickle in slowly if at all. Perhaps that's the purpose of this journey we are on in life, but it's ticking me off. Resolving these conflicts is stressful and timeconsuming, if possible at all. Often even the appearance of a solution leads to further questions and the cycle accelerates into a spin that threatens my already fragile grip on this reality.

I don't debate the need for and uses of a well designed building, but that's NOT what I see happening throughout the United States. Why must the space be so ornate, the trappings so elaborate and giving the appearance of unapproachability? I KNOW that's not the message that the organization wants to project, and yet....these structures continue to proliferate and become even more grandiose. Each example of this type of mindset draws me further away from organized religions in general, and forces me to conclude that the True Word can only be attained in a face to ? meeting with an actual deity or pantheon.

There IS "good" loose in the world, just as evil is on display, but I'm convinced they would exist regardless of the existence of all Holy Scripture of any type and without the foundation being laid for a single House Of Worship. No man will ever convince me otherwise, though many serve to illustrate my point, inadvertently....lol.

Perhaps you'll argue that there is MORE good loose because of the existence of these organizations and their buildings, but it would be a tough concept to push in a logical fashion. Your best bet would be the group dynamics theory that exerts influence over a large number of organisms placed in certain situations, but it's not conclusive of anything but a short term pyschological effect IMO. To state that these religions act as a "focusing point" for good to be drawn towards makes them akin to a magnetic pole rather than a thought process derived by intelligent, rational beings.

Your willingness to admit being overwhelmed by the questions is disarming, but I shan't let myself like you too much regardless...unless you can direct me to my desired goal and meeting. Would that it were within your abilities... Q

 

[Strelnikov]

C'mon, Q...don't tell me that no one has ever told you where to go.

Padre, it's true that few people appreciate fine music, and even fewer learn to play it. But is that a reason to give up on it? No more perfect instrument has ever been invented than the pipe organ. "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor" wouldn't be the same, played on kazoo, band saw and spoons.

You could make a good case that people are hard-wired for music. It's found in every culture. It's an integral part of religious practice. This congregation could afford to do it right, and chose to do so. No one will starve because of it. Everyone who hears it is richer for it.

Strelnikov