Anyone noticin' that, thus far, there's no women sayin' "go for it" here? Women are sayin' no, here. Sunrise, Bella, QB...
Some of the men are even sayin' it's a bad notion.
Yet, somehow, the idea of tickling a woman against her wishes, with or without her jealous husband around, is being discussed as if the notion had ANY sense whatsoever.
Karma says that everything goes around, and comes back around on you. I'm hopin' you boys tellin' this guy that he oughta go against both the daughter-in-law's and the son's wishes WITH THE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW'S body are ready for such things to happen to you.
TTD, how are you about such? If someone put hands to Patti after she'd said not to, I have a clear notion in my head as to how long they'd continue seein' straight, and stayin' vertical. If the young man in this scenario is anything like either of us, then the gent askin' this question could be riskin' himself. At the least, it'll bring about bad feelings, given that we know, by his own description, that the young man's not too open in general, and the lady's already against such notions. That's what I'm sayin', man. If it was YOU, and your father-in-law (speculate, brother) was spanking/foot-fondling/insert-OTHER-kink-here, how down wit' it would ya be. I picture mayhem.
My worry is that the enthusiastic among us are forgettin' the bounds of social interaction outside of our kind. Some folks don't dig physical intrusion like we do, and tickling IS a physical intrusion. Given the ladies here, thus far, nix the notion, and some gents do as well, I'm hopin' that you either don't do it, or that you misrepresented the situation, and there's no worries. Hate seein' one of us injured.