two female roommates,i tickle their feet. thoughts.

[DontAskJusTckle]

I realize you're still not getting my point! I'm saying that you shouldn't sneak in something that turns you on with people you are not sexually involved with at all!

Yes, but that's not all you're saying. You made a big point that the recipient needs to know so she can have the opportunity to say no. So yes, I'm getting your point. I'm just not letting you get away with shifting it.

And that's exactly why most people are not the slightest little bit suspicious that someone is getting their jollies off by tickling them. Which is exactly what I think is wrong!

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Instead of saying "which is exactly what is wrong" you said, "which is exactly what I THINK is wrong."

I have no problem with you thinking it's wrong. We all have a right and I dare say a responsibility to judge right and wrong for ourselves. But up until now, that's not what you've been doing. You've been making absolute statements. "It's wrong. It's immoral." Statements which unless otherwise disclaimed as personal opinion apply to everybody by default. If you think it's wrong, then don't do it. Anybody else who thinks it's wrong shouldn't do it. But when you jump into every thread of this nature to proclaim this behavior as wrong, you adopt a posture of judgmental holier-than-thou sanctimony.

All I do is take the arguments of those who say it's okay to tickle unsuspecting people for sexual gratification and put them in another context with the same result!

That other context is always pedophilia. By doing that, you're introducing a new element. Children. When children are introduced into a sexual scenario (or even an alleged one), that changes all the rules. There are radically different standards of conduct and behavior around children that don't apply when we're dealing strictly with adults (as was the OP) and therefore it's not only an invalid comparison, but a ridiculous one at that. And the fact that pedophilia seems to be the only comparison you ever use, it shows how desperate you are to prove a point. Can't you make a comparison that still involves two adults??

For some reason you seem to think it's okay only if it's your fetish, but if the same thing happens with another sexual preference, it's not okay anymore. Why is that? Nothing happens to the child. No harm done. So why is it different? Can you explain it to me?

Okay, you're (reputedly) from Germany, so maybe it's different there. Maybe sex with children is considered no big deal there. Here in the US, we don't consider pedophilia simply "another sexual preference." We consider it a crime and one of the more heinous ones, right up there with rape, murder, etc.

But more than that, whenever news stories of pedophilia are aired, it touches us Americans in a deep and personal way. We are very protective of our children, and these acts of sexual abuse stir up maternal and paternal instincts to the point where we have difficulty treating the issue rationally. We tend to regard pedophilia as a social malignancy, a cancer that's 100% evil. We toss out our normal sense of justice, fair trial by jury...the things we're generally proud to boast about our country. Instead, we revert to a mob mentality, and just want to kill the perps in the most inhumane ways imaginable.

But for the sake of argument we'll pretend that none of the above applies, and that pedophilia is "just another sexual preference." Under those hypothetical givens, there is no difference. The pedophile can have the kid in his lap as long as the kid wants to be there and as long as the pedo does not fondle any private parts.

I don't know what you think that proves, but I'm sure you'll tell us.

I've tried it with someone watching women in dressing rooms. But it seems like I can't get people to listen until I get to more extreme examples!

Why is it so important to "get people to listen?" Why the urgency?

This is the discussion forum. It's here to discuss opinions, views and morals. So I am discussing mine!

You're doing more than that. You're going to whatever extremes you have to go to to "get people to listen." In other words, you are pushing your morals on the rest of us.

1. Haggling over semantics (and still wrong), because tickling is sexual behavior to somebody who gets off on tickling. Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that somebody who gets off on giving oral sex/masturbating their partner isn't engaging in sexual behavior and receiving arousal? 😉

I'm not haggling over anything. I'm doing what I always do...proving you wrong, yet again. Oral sex and partner masturbation are sexual behaviors. Like any such behaviors, they are not contingent on the opinions or interests of the participants. The activities themselves are either sexual in and of themselves or they're not.

For example, I'm 100% heterosexual. I have no sexual interest in other men. By your typically flawed logic, if I were to masturbate another man, that wouldn't qualify as a sexual activity because according to you, the sexual nature of the activity is determined by the sexual interest of the one performing the act.

In reality, it would definitely be a sexual activity, because it is the activity itself that either has the sexual nature to it, or doesn't. The same principles apply to all activities, even tickling. There is no sexual nature to the activity of tickling someone. If the tickler has a tickling fetish, it just means that he has an atypical reaction to the situation. It doesn't magically change the activity itself into a sexual one.

DAJT, the cognitive dissonance you display is astounding. I can't believe that after spelling out the syllogism to you, you failed to see it.

More than seeing it, I saw right through it. Labeling your flawed arguments with pseudo-intellectual buzz words doesn't make them any less absurd. Your so-called "syllogisms" are nothing but "silly jisms."

 

[rhiannon]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Instead of saying "which is exactly what is wrong" you said, "which is exactly what I THINK is wrong."

I have no problem with you thinking it's wrong. We all have a right and I dare say a responsibility to judge right and wrong for ourselves. But up until now, that's not what you've been doing. You've been making absolute statements. "It's wrong. It's immoral." Statements which unless otherwise disclaimed as personal opinion apply to everybody by default. If you think it's wrong, then don't do it. Anybody else who thinks it's wrong shouldn't do it. But when you jump into every thread of this nature to proclaim this behavior as wrong, you adopt a posture of judgmental holier-than-thou sanctimony.

In that case I guess I have to apologize - maybe I worded myself wrong. Of course I can't make a moral statement for everybody! But still I'd like to discuss WHY I believe it's morally wrong, and I guess you understood, because by saying this:

But for the sake of argument we'll pretend that none of the above applies, and that pedophilia is "just another sexual preference." Under those hypothetical givens, there is no difference. The pedophile can have the kid in his lap as long as the kid wants to be there and as long as the pedo does not fondle any private parts.

you have shown that your morality is consistent. I respect that.

Maybe sex with children is considered no big deal there. Here in the US, we don't consider pedophilia simply "another sexual preference." We consider it a crime and one of the more heinous ones, right up there with rape, murder, etc.

This actually goes beyond the topic of this thread, but I'd still like to remark that I'm sure pedophilia itself is not considered a crime in the states as long as the pedophile doesn't act out his phantasies. Just like it's not a crime to have non-con tickling fantasies unless you act on them.

 

[PurpleStyle]

I'm not haggling over anything. I'm doing what I always do...proving you wrong, yet again. Oral sex and partner masturbation are sexual behaviors. Like any such behaviors, they are not contingent on the opinions or interests of the participants. The activities themselves are either sexual in and of themselves or they're not.

For example, I'm 100% heterosexual. I have no sexual interest in other men. By your typically flawed logic, if I were to masturbate another man, that wouldn't qualify as a sexual activity because according to you, the sexual nature of the activity is determined by the sexual interest of the one performing the act.

In reality, it would definitely be a sexual activity, because it is the activity itself that either has the sexual nature to it, or doesn't. The same principles apply to all activities, even tickling. There is no sexual nature to the activity of tickling someone. If the tickler has a tickling fetish, it just means that he has an atypical reaction to the situation. It doesn't magically change the activity itself into a sexual one.

That's a poor analogy, because if you didn't have a thing for men, then you have no reason to go around masturbating them in the first place. My analogy may not be perfect either, but no analogy is. That's the point of analogies; which makes it even more absurd that I have to point this out to you. So, let's try going in another direction with it, by asking:

Would you consider it sexual activity when a male doctor physically examines your genitals/anus?

I'm going to go ahead and speculate that your answer would be "no, of course not, because the doctor has no sexual intent". In this context, it is indeed the intent behind the act that matters, not the act itself. If you enjoy tickling people in a sexual way, then you have no business doing it to people who haven't consented to the sexual arousal.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

In that case I guess I have to apologize - maybe I worded myself wrong. Of course I can't make a moral statement for everybody! But still I'd like to discuss WHY I believe it's morally wrong...

...in every thread of this topic, it seems. That's what I still don't get. You seem to have some stake in this that goes far beyond a simple discussion or an exchange of ideas. You admitted that you resort to extreme comparisons because otherwise, people "don't listen." I'll ask once again, why is it so important to get them to listen? Why the urgency?

That's a poor analogy, because if you didn't have a thing for men, then you have no reason to go around masturbating them in the first place.

That only makes it an unlikely happenstance, not one that falls outside the realm of possibility. The point of my analogy has nothing to do with the likelihood of it's actual occurrence. It's simply a hypothetical. If the situation happened the way I described for whatever reason, the results would would be as I said, and the conclusions I drew are valid.

My analogy may not be perfect either, but no analogy is. That's the point of analogies; which makes it even more absurd that I have to point this out to you.

The point of analogies is that no analogy is perfect?? Were you high when you wrote that?

So, let's try going in another direction with it, by asking:

Would you consider it sexual activity when a male doctor physically examines your genitals/anus?

I'm going to go ahead and speculate that your answer would be "no, of course not, because the doctor has no sexual intent". In this context, it is indeed the intent behind the act that matters, not the act itself.

Wrong again. A physical examination of the the genitals by a doctor is not a sexual act. Even if the doctor gets off on it and became a doctor only because he gets aroused by medically examining genitalia, it's not a sexual act. It's an established medical procedure. So once again, it has nothing to do with intent. The activity itself is either sexual, or it isn't. In the case of the doctor, and in the case with tickling, they are not sexual activities.

If you enjoy tickling people in a sexual way, then you have no business doing it to people who haven't consented to the sexual arousal.

I agree. But that's not what this thread is about. The OP wasn't "tickling people in a sexual way." He was just tickling their feet. If he was tickling them in a sexual way, this would have been an entirely different discussion altogether.

 

[solescratcher99]

Footguys know the scene, regardless one sister knows I like rubbing her feet. I tickle them playfully if we're just sitting around. I also tickle the other sisters feet too.

They know he likes it.

 

[rhiannon]

I'll ask once again, why is it so important to get them to listen? Why the urgency?

Because discussions are only fun if people participate. 🙂

 

[No_Style]

Excatly! And decency and respect tells you not to force your fetish on other people without them suspecting.

a million times yes

 

[primetime]

What I don't understand is how the OP is "forcing" his fetish on people. He tickles their feet, they enjoy it and laugh. "Forcing" is him continuing to tickle them and they DON'T WANT TO BE TICKLED.

A reason why some do not talk about their fetish sometimes has nothing to do with it being "wrong". It can be embarassment that they like something like tickling. They can be more afraid that the other party will think they are weird, rather than offended that they got their jollies off it.

Here's a plot twist. Let's say a guy (since we seem to be the most guilty....) tickles a girl's feet. She laughs, and doesn't seem to mind because he does it several times over the course of their friendship. She has no clue that he gets a sexual thrill from it. She thinks he is just being playful.

The time comes, and he finally confesses to her that he likes tickling and it is a sexual thrill. The girl laughs it off and thinks it is no big deal. These are platonic friends, not boyfriend-girlfriend. Now, if the girl laughs it off, was his past tickles creepy and morally wrong? According to some on this thread, his actions are morally wrong, no matter what. But if the girl is accepting and shrugs it off, knowing he got his jollies off from tickling her, then is what he did still morally wrong?

Your response may be "how come he didn't tell her about it before he tried to tickle her?" Well, maybe he was to embarrassed to tell her because she might think he is weird for liking something like that. Hate to break this to you "moral police", but that is the main reason why people do not speak up about their fetish. Not because they felt morally wrong about getting their jollies off, but embarrassed about what they like.

 

[smokinj]

A reason why some do not talk about their fetish sometimes has nothing to do with it being "wrong". It can be embarassment that they like something like tickling. They can be more afraid that the other party will think they are weird, rather than offended that they got their jollies off it.

The time comes, and he finally confesses to her that he likes tickling and it is a sexual thrill. The girl laughs it off and thinks it is no big deal. These are platonic friends, not boyfriend-girlfriend. Now, if the girl laughs it off, was his past tickles creepy and morally wrong? According to some on this thread, his actions are morally wrong, no matter what. But if the girl is accepting and shrugs it off, knowing he got his jollies off from tickling her, then is what he did still morally wrong?

Your response may be "how come he didn't tell her about it before he tried to tickle her?" Well, maybe he was to embarrassed to tell her because she might think he is weird for liking something like that. Hate to break this to you "moral police", but that is the main reason why people do not speak up about their fetish. Not because they felt morally wrong about getting their jollies off, but embarrassed about what they like.

Well said.

Harmless tickling that both parties are comfortable with is not a big deal. He probably is just embarrassed to say anything.

Hard to believe so many people are calling him out on this harshly. He should keep his mouth shut about it. Those girls aren't being hurt by not knowing. Far from being violated thats for sure.

 

[rhiannon]

It's easy to set it up as being harmless when you say the girl laughs it off, but is that how it would go down? Would some girl really laugh off knowing you've been getting your thrills by putting your hands on her when she didn't have the slightest clue, all the while leaving her to believe your friendship is completely platonic? She wouldn't pissed/creeped out?

EXACTLY this is what my point is! Unless she wants the relationship to be more than platonic, she will never just laugh it off and think it's not a big deal!

 

[C4S_44000]

Hey Mark,

if they enjoy it, no harm, no foul.
Don't worry about what the self appointed morality police thinks.


Take care,

The Fastest Fingers in The East

 

[waitin2btkled]

I'm a guy, I love sports, pretty active, a nerdy jock ha, love tickling and female feet. I live with two sisters that are gorgeous. They walk around barefoot often. High arch dirty feet. Footguys know the scene, regardless one sister knows I like rubbing her feet. I tickle them playfully if we're just sitting around. I also tickle the other sisters feet too. I'm wondring if before our lease ends on a drunken rage night if I should tell them how much I love female feet and tickling them. I mean the one sister knows when I'm just goofing off, but I haven't flatout said "I have a foot fetish."

Should I tell them? Have any other guys or gals been in this situation before? Thanks.

Ease them into the conversation like say things that would make them bring up the words bdsm, bondage, fetish ect.... and mention it

The word fetish has a negative connotation and I don't use it at all when telling girls about my fetish. I tell them foreplay is a form of tickling and i kinda developed a thing for it and feet are my favorite part. Tell them you feel like a big kid.

Another way is be like "You know, I tickle your feet here and there and I know i'm a tease. That is why I'm just going let it all out and tickle you for a long time." Maybe during a massage or when you guys had a few drinks.

If you inadvertently bring it up or tell them like it came up naturally with being deceitful, you will have no problem my friend!

 

[Myriads]

The base issue that the two sides here are not communicating is this:

What part does intent on the Lers part play in the right or wrongness of any Ler-like action they take?

In question form: If someone gets off on tickling, is it 'wrong' to tickle others who don't know this fact? As, a sexual thrill is being had at the expense of an unknowing individual. Is that 'wrong'?

The answer will vary ie: Guy watches girls in swimsuits at the pool and gets turned on, as opposed to Guy hangs out near windows in hopes of seeing a woman in her underthings to get turned on. The intent of the action, and level of social lines crossed make a difference in how the action will be viewed.

No one likes to feel used. (well, okay some do, but we'll keep to the 'average person') and discovering that someone was jacking off to your photo on facebook, or perhaps was touching you to build up the mental rolodex of splugable moments to treasure when lotion and tissue was all about in good supply, can bother some folks.

I think that is the point you are debating here.

Myriads

 

[Mitchell]

I wouldn't tell them. If you consider them friends, and value their friendship, they might get very angry if they feel you were tickling, and playing with their feet, for "sexual gratification".

This situation happened to me in college. I posted about the tickling part of it before, but not about the other part.

I've posted before about how I tickled the feet of a female friend, Lora, during a massage in college. I had wanted to date her seriously, but she balked, saying I was a "nice guy", and how she just wanted to be "friends".

There was another time I was massaging Lora (This was before I knew my interest in tickling was a fetish, and when I was more focused on female feet). I can remember saying something like "I enjoy giving you all these massages.. but.. would it be possible if I could kiss your feet.. or smell them.. I have a foot fetish". She suddenly got very uncomfortable.. and said something like "Maybe we shouldn't do this anymore". The first time I had massaged her, while I enjoyed massaging her feet, and tickling them, it got me thinking about the whole "foot fetish" thing. I had made her upset, and then she balked about letting me touch her feet after that, thinking I got a sexual high from it.

This happened, mind you, after I had massaged her feet.. maybe.. two or three times. You have been living with these girls for a while, girls you say are your friends. If they think of you as only a friend, and then suddenly you are all "I have a foot fetish". They can think: "If we are only his friend, and touching our feet turns him on, he's been getting his sexual thrills from us". Bad idea.

Now, if I was in a situation where I had a female friend, and there was opportunities for tickling or foot play, I would either tell her, or just not do it. Or.. if I started dating a girl, and it got serious, I would quickly confess my foot and other fetishes.. so that it was on the table right away.

I dont think you should tell them.. but.. what you do is up to you.

Mitch

 

[PurpleStyle]

I agree.

Finally, you said something sensible! Now we can end the conversation!

Too bad about the rest of the post being filled with complete nonsense. I get that my being correct most of the time can be a little unsettling, but wouldn't it be easier to figure out why, instead of letting your cognitive dissonance force some strange attempt at rationalizing your already-beaten position on the issue?

One would think it's healthy to admit when you're wrong, because then you can grow as a person. I want to see you grow a person, DAJT. I know you can. I believe in you! Sort of. Well not really, I'm lying.

 

[primetime]

EXACTLY this is what my point is! Unless she wants the relationship to be more than platonic, she will never just laugh it off and think it's not a big deal!

That's the problem with your argument. You can't speak for EVERYONE. You are basing your entire argument off of what YOU would do.

It's all about presentation. I have told a platonic friend about my "tickling her feet fetish". Actually, she kind of figured it out. I would always find an excuse to tickle her feet. One day she said, "you like tickling my feet don't you? You have a foot fetish huh?" I replied "um, um sort of. I really like tickling your feet. I love seeing your reaction. You know me, I always like to make people laugh. I hope you don't mind."

Her response, "You're too funny. I never met anyone that likes tickling feet before. No wonder you keep trying to tickle me."

Here's the shocker Rhiannon and the moral police. She didn't get mad at me. She used the word "fetish", which means she knows exactly what that means. She didn't get creeped out. She didn't tell me to never touch her again. She shrugged it off. I was embarrassed as all get out because I got "caught". Oh, and we never ever had "physical relations". We still talk and still hang out from time to time. Do I still try to tickle her? Yep. Does she get pissed? Nope. She knows I have a fetish and she is still my friend.

Does this happen in every situation? No. I was lucky. But I find it hysterical that you think EVERY scenario is bad. We know YOU would be offended, but I find it arrogant of you to think EVERYONE would feel the same way.

 

[rhiannon]

But I find it hysterical that you think EVERY scenario is bad.

I don't think EVERY scenerio is bad! But do you think I am the ONLY person who would feel that uncomfortable? That is pretty optimistic of you, don't you think? Mitch already gave the perfect example that this is not the case, and several people on this forum - all girls, what a surprise! It is already pretty disrespectful from calling us "the moral police" - mind you, we'd like to have our feelings respected, what's so moral police about that?

If there is a possibility that the person across from you is feeling uncomfortable with it, you should respect her enough to give her the possibility to pull herself away from it! If you don't, you just don't give a shit about their feelings - and I thought the people this happens with are considered friends!

Just like you think o well, not everybody is uncomfortable with it, I know not everybody would be comfortable with it either, and that's, in my opinion, of much more importance than the possibility that the person could be cool with it. She could NOT be cool with it!

Like Myriads said, nobody likes to be used!

 

[smokinj]

Like Myriads said, nobody likes to be used!

They don't need to know anything! Hes just tickling them for pete's sake, ever heard the term, blissfully unaware? Its not a big deal and would cause more harm than good by telling them. I'm not just singling you out but why can't people get it?

 

[rhiannon]

I'm not just singling you out but why can't people get it?

Why can't people get it that it's creepy and uncalled for to use people like that without them knowing it?

I've heard the term "blissfully unaware", and I think it's a good thing for stupid or ignorant people! I and just about everybody I know likes to be aware of what's going on around them!

 

[smokinj]

Why can't people get it that it's creepy and uncalled for to use people like that without them knowing it?

I've heard the term "blissfully unaware", and I think it's a good thing for stupid or ignorant people! I and just about everybody I know likes to be aware of what's going on around them!

These girls are not complaining, they enjoy the playful situations. He enjoys it too. There is nothing sinister here going on. Who cares if he is getting his jollies by tickling them? Its information they simply don't need to know. I guess you are used to insulting people you don't know either. I am neither ignorant or stupid. Thanks

 

[rhiannon]

Well, you're not in the situation where someone takes sexual advantage of you without your knowledge, are you? Or would you like to be? If not, then it didn't apply to you! Since I don't believe there is anybody who would like to be in this blissfull unawareness, I didn't really insult anybody.

Who cares if he's getting his jollies tickling them? THEY might. That's the point.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Because discussions are only fun if people participate. 🙂

Oh, I see. So you're not trying to convince anybody that what they are doing is wrong? Because if you're not, you should know that it's really REALLY coming off like you are.

Just FYI.

It's easy to set it up as being harmless when you say the girl laughs it off, but is that how it would go down? Would some girl really laugh off knowing you've been getting your thrills by putting your hands on her when she didn't have the slightest clue, all the while leaving her to believe your friendship is completely platonic? She wouldn't pissed/creeped out?

Not if she was reasonable. What you're describing here is a girl who doesn't mind being tickled until she finds out he likes it more than she thought he did. Does that seem reasonable to you?

EXACTLY this is what my point is! Unless she wants the relationship to be more than platonic, she will never just laugh it off and think it's not a big deal!

Blanket statements anybody? Oh wait. Let me guess. This must be just another "extreme" you go to "get people to listen" so they'll "participate in the conversation," right?

The base issue that the two sides here are not communicating is this:

What part does intent on the Lers part play in the right or wrongness of any Ler-like action they take?

My position has been all along that intent plays little to no part. There are one or two who seem to feel that intent alone is enough to magically transform an activity from nonsexual to sexual, and that by doing so, are "forcing" sexual behavior on the unsuspecting. A position I personally find preposterous.

In question form: If someone gets off on tickling, is it 'wrong' to tickle others who don't know this fact? As, a sexual thrill is being had at the expense of an unknowing individual. Is that 'wrong'?

The answer will vary ie: Guy watches girls in swimsuits at the pool and gets turned on, as opposed to Guy hangs out near windows in hopes of seeing a woman in her underthings to get turned on. The intent of the action, and level of social lines crossed make a difference in how the action will be viewed.

No one likes to feel used. (well, okay some do, but we'll keep to the 'average person') and discovering that someone was jacking off to your photo on facebook, or perhaps was touching you to build up the mental rolodex of splugable moments to treasure when lotion and tissue was all about in good supply, can bother some folks.

Forgive my bluntness, but they'll get over it. We all get bothered from time to time, and we all bother others from time to time. The question to ask is simply this: Is it reasonable to be bothered by an activity simply because one of the participants "likes it too much?"

Purple Style
If you enjoy tickling people in a sexual way, then you have no business doing it to people who haven't consented to the sexual arousal.

DAJT
I agree. But that's not what this thread is about. The OP wasn't "tickling people in a sexual way." He was just tickling their feet. If he was tickling them in a sexual way, this would have been an entirely different discussion altogether.

Purple Style
Finally, you said something sensible! Now we can end the conversation!

Since we're in agreement and you've offered no rebuttal, I accept your concession.

I don't think EVERY scenerio is bad! But do you think I am the ONLY person who would feel that uncomfortable? That is pretty optimistic of you, don't you think? Mitch already gave the perfect example that this is not the case, and several people on this forum - all girls, what a surprise! It is already pretty disrespectful from calling us "the moral police" - mind you, we'd like to have our feelings respected, what's so moral police about that?

I can answer that. You're being referred to as "moral police" because despite your insistence that this is all about discussion, your posts convey an intent to convince people that doing this behavior is wrong and that they should stop doing it.

If you think it's wrong, then don't do it. Those who agree with rhiannon that it's wrong, don't do it. The rest of you who have no moral issues with it, keep on doing it as much as you like.

If there is a possibility that the person across from you is feeling uncomfortable with it, you should respect her enough to give her the possibility to pull herself away from it! If you don't, you just don't give a shit about their feelings - and I thought the people this happens with are considered friends!

Respect is a two-way street rhiannon. How can a guy respect a girl who tries to police his inner thoughts and desires? What kind of "friend" would say, "It's okay for you to tickle me unless you like it too much?"

I have many friends, but the point at which any of them tried to police what goes on in my head would be the point we'd cease being friends. Respecting your friends is not about making sure you aren't aroused by touching them. In the case of tickling a friend, it's more respectful to keep any sexual feelings to yourself. The guy who brandishes his boner or does something equally appalling to let her know he's turned on by the tickling...THAT's the guy who shows no respect.

Just like you think o well, not everybody is uncomfortable with it, I know not everybody would be comfortable with it either, and that's, in my opinion, of much more importance than the possibility that the person could be cool with it. She could NOT be cool with it!

If people went through life with that philosophy, nobody would every touch anybody else, and nobody would talk to anybody else...because as soon as you do either one you risk that uber-catastrophic possibility of somebody not being entirely cool with it.



If that's the way you want to live, rhiannon, be my guest. Me, I'll respect my friends feelings as long as those feelings don't involve what goes on in my head. That's nobody's business but mine.

 

[primetime]

Respect is a two-way street rhiannon. How can a guy respect a girl who tries to police his inner thoughts and desires? What kind of "friend" would say, "It's okay for you to tickle me unless you like it too much?"

I have many friends, but the point at which any of them tried to police what goes on in my head would be the point we'd cease being friends. Respecting your friends is not about making sure you aren't aroused by touching them. In the case of tickling a friend, it's more respectful to keep any sexual feelings to yourself. The guy who brandishes his boner or does something equally appalling to let her know he's turned on by the tickling...THAT's the guy who shows no respect.

This quote right here says it all.

 

[proud2tickle]

I, like i think most normal people use tickling as flirting....i can also take it to another level of high sexual thrill.... point being is if you put ur arm around a girl and she goes move away then she is probably ok with it.... i had a girl who i am good friends with last night sit on my lap..... i think she would know as good looking as she is that is almost impossible for me not to get somewhat "thrilled" for her sitting on my lap..... i think what is being policed here is basic social interaction and instincts.... i am sure everyone here has had a friend that they have fallen for and then spent time with that person and probably never told them their feelings..... i am sure at some point you have touched or been touched by that person and felt the hormones racing.... i dont see how that would be any different then this situation... basically some people on here would be the most boring people to date cause its like u would have have to ask to do anything and that would slaughter the mystery in the relationship

 

[proud2tickle]

oh and last point..... THEY ARE FRIENDS!!!!! HE ISNT TICKLING A STRANGER!!!!!! he is socially interacting..... I am gonna give these young ladies more credit then yall and say..... they will probably know when they are getting taking advantage of