Hyperlite Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 Just wondering.. why is it that a person cannot tickle themselves, not relating to any sexual act, but the simple act of tickling to encite laughter and excitement? I would assume that you would know what to expect with regards to what you were doing to yourself... Any ideas?
Jake712 Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 perhaps it is because you know you are doing it. However, I don't think it relats so much to you knowing conciously you are doing it to yourself. For example, you feel yourself touching your stomach or your feet when you try to tickle yourself and therefore there is no reaction. When someone else would tickle you, you only feel the person's hand instead of both your hand and your feet.
fuhrerkeebs Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 I think it has more to do with approval, I mean, if you are on good terms with someone and are in a good mood, being tickled usually...tickles. But if you aren't on good terms with someone, and they tickle you, or you are pissed of and don't care about their approval at the moment, then it doesn't tickle. Logically if you tickle yourself it won't tickle, because you already have your approval...(just a guess though)
Jake712 Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 no, i have been tickled by someone and been mad and it still tickled.
Sorcerer Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Hmmm odd, I can inflict pain on myself, why not tickle......wait, a slight tingling sensation when I lightly pass my hand over my skin.... hmm digging my fingers into my ribs and moving them up and down, kind of painful..... is that tickling.... you know I've never really been tickeled before although I've inflicted many a crotch wetting tickle on the unsuspecting relation.
Callipygous Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 i think its more of a psychological thing than a physical stimulus. there is a certain thrill that comes along with contact with another person, especially someone your on good terms with as mentioned above.
SubJunk Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 i have no idea, and i've never thought about that before. tickling can really piss me off but it still tickles, and i still laugh even when i'm thinking about killing them. i wonder why? great topic! i hope someone has an answer that makes sense or is proven
AzurePhoenix Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 when i lightly brush my palms, feet, lips or, um, female-chest-parts, i get a very intense "tickling" sensation that's almost unbearable, but it's very similar to the feelings i get, um, *cough*, down there, *cough* when i'm with a guy (or on my own ). Otherwise, i can't tickle myself whereas anyone else can, say, my abbs or neck. Odd. Didn't realize i had a foot fetish
fuhrerkeebs Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 no, i have been tickled by someone and been mad and it still tickled. But were you mad at the person or not care for them?
indignity Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 I've been tickled by people I didn't much care for... and it still tickled
cubexican Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 I think it's because you're feeling the tickling and doing the tickling. You have nerve endings on both your fingers and wherever it is you intend to tickle
CPL.Luke Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 heres a question could a person be tickled by anouther person of the same sex (assuming that that person was completely towards one sexual orientation, in this case straight). I would believe that it is related to relationships. such as couples usually exhibit a sort of playfulness with eachother (referring to relationships other than the one your thinking of here) so it could be some sort of courtship thing.
Sorcerer Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Yeah, I tickle my newphews and they seem to be tickled alright... don't think theyre gay.... dunno yet though, I doubt all are.
CPL.Luke Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 well considering the number of people who question at some point or experiment (no statistics just what I've heard) then maybe it is just that we don't think of it on a high enough level mentally that is? because if you think about it have you ever been tickled by an inanimate object that was not used by anouther person? (feathers don;t count)
Glider Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 It has to do with control, predictability and afferent feedback. When you are tickled by another, you are not in control, it is also unpredictable. When you try to tickle yourself, you are in control and the sensation is predictable as you have afferent (proprioceptive) feedback telling you that the sensation you are feeling is being generated by you. This seems to nullify the effect. There was an experiment done in which a robotic arm was designed to reproduce the movements of an individuals' arm, but the servo had a built in delay (less than a second). So, the robotic mechanism would reproduce exactly the movements of the individual, but after a very short delay. It was found that this delay was enough to disrupt the 'nullifying effect' of proprioceptive feedback, so although the individual was tickling themselves (for all intents and purposes), the slight delay between the proprioceptive feedback and the tickling sensation meant their brain could not reconcile the two as being the result of that person's volitional actions, and the person lost control (i.e. was tickled).
YT2095 Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 tickling doesn`t make me laugh, if anything it gets me angry eventualy, and I can tickle my own feet if it`s done lightly, I find it almost impossible to touch the soles of my feet they`re that sensitive, I have to make sure it`s with firm positive pressure, then it doesn`t tickle.
Sorcerer Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Chinese feather torture must drive you insane then.
YT2095 Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 it would, and I don`t fancy doing time for mass murder! )
Sorcerer Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Na all u have to do is plead autonomy on the grounds of insanity..... stupid system.
Sorcerer Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 yeah, I always thought that it was a bit stupid to call it that, since Kant used it to describe freedom of the will, but here in NZ it means when you are not incontrol of your actions and hence cannot be held accountable for them when you are in control of your actions.
YT2095 Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 sounds a little like the "Temporary Insanity" plea. although there have instances when something else was used in cases involving Somnambalism (sleep walking), I don`t rem what the plea was though?
Sorcerer Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 Its been used here in instances where the offender has used a drug, in this case took GHB and didn't know what it was..... then commited grevious bodily harm, since he wasn't incontroll of himself he got off.... thing is, if I drunk two bottles of spirits, I'd be basically in the same state, but alcohol can't be used for the defence, its a pretty stupid system.
YT2095 Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 not really, you see the alc would have to be Voluntary, there`s NO WAY as sure as god made little green apples that you could drink 2 bottles in one sitting and NOT know about it whereas a spiked drink with whatever mind altering substance, you couldn`t be held accountable for. that`s more than likely the diff
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now