Tickling (2018) | Hacker News Reader

Tickling (2018)

jefftk.com

104 pointsluu47 comments

This short post has caused a war in my own mind!

On the one hand, sometimes my girlfriend and I tickle each other and sometimes she gets the better of me. She can be relentless. I'll plead for her to stop, and I really truly want her to stop because I can barely breath, but she won't because she's interpreting my laughter as a "keep going" signal. So I've had to resort to ruthless counterattacks or ruins-the-fun physical defense (grab her wrists and force her to stop), which makes me feel like a jerk. Thus I fully support the "no means no" rule when it comes to tickling.

On the other hand, when your kid giggles and says "no..." but clearly wants to be tickled, you should tickle them! Just keep a careful eye out for signals that the fun is over. What kind of heartless monster trains kids to be as literal as possible all the time? Why not strive to teach them about appropriate context instead?

This post has made me realize that I hold these conflicting opinions simultaneously.

My wife and I have a safe-word. After 4 years married (8 years together) we seem to know each other well and can read each other. But it's an additional comfort to have a safe word we can resort to whenever.

Seems like when you're breathless there's not much you can say, but perhaps you can have a safe gesture? Grab your own nose? Or something similarly unambiguous? Good luck and thanks for sharing!

> What kind of heartless monster trains kids to be as literal as possible all the time? Why not strive to teach them about appropriate context instead?

A heartless monster who understands that "appropriate context" is a rapidly moving target in the modern world, and who wants to ensure that their kids grow up safe from either side of both misunderstandings and "misunderstandings", insofar as that is possible.

Honestly interested, do you have kids that you make this statement?

I don't, but appreciate that as an adult, "appropriate context" is a rapidly moving target, and it seems that being trained to be and assume all-literal, all the time would have left me deeply unprepared for interacting with other human beings in the real world.

I do not yet have kids. I don't think that the original article author intended to convey that they're teaching their kids to be all-literal, all the time, but to take a verbal "no" very literally, other statements aside.

Lastly, I don't know that I would actually choose to raise my kids this way. I might instead think that it's enough to warn them about people at appropriate (to me and them) times. However, I think that choosing to prioritize social safety over social ease is not an indefensible child-raising strategy.

Yes, I have kids. It's especially important for kids to learn how to express consent/non-consent clearly, because they can be easily manipulated, confused, and lied to.

I don't want a molester or bully to teach my child that molestation was my child's fault because "'no' means 'yes'".

"literal all the time" is absurd hyperbole. Literal about personal bodily safety is good sense. And frankly, sarcasm is a "low" way of speaking, and we'd all do better to have less of is, particularly because people tend to forget that sarcasm is communicated through tone, so they keep trying and failing to use sarcasm effectively in text communication.

I also let my kids say no when they don’t want to be tickled because I think its important at a young age to know they should have some control over their bodies. Because I’m not going to be the only adult they interact with.

"appropriate context" isn't so much a moving target, as it is something people are learning about rapidly, and taking victims more seriously.

Think of cats and belly rubs. Now that's a mind war! Kitty lays on the floor showing you it's belly, you pet it two-three times, suddenly claws are out and you 're screaming for help! Learn to read when claws are close, and you 're golden :)

Kitty lies on its back because it wants to play-fight with you.

...and what do you believe tickling is? :)

play fights are consensual. You can and should consent before a play fight starts, and have a clear way to end the play fight before you start.

> What kind of heartless monster trains kids to be as literal as possible all the time?

He doesn't say he trains them not to be sarcastic? Just to be literal about their personal boundaries. That doesn't seem heartless to me.

"This post has made me realize that I hold these conflicting opinions simultaneously."

I am not good with poetry, but I've enjoyed "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." from Walt Whitman's Song of Myself.

If it's not fun, you can't ruin the fun.

It's, of course, anybody's right to make oneself a toy for a partner, even if it hurts. But the partner might not like to actually hurt you, and might be sorry if she learned she did so by mistake.

>What kind of heartless monster trains kids to be as literal as possible all the time?

Kids start out as literal as possible all the time, no training necessary. As far as my kids are concerned Amelia Bedelia's a documentary.

Grown ups should be able to interpret spoken words in context and act accordingly. If my kid says 'no' but clearly signals the opposite, I take it as a yes. In doubt, I take it at face value.

Clear communication is important to learn. But learning to understand subtext is in my opinion just as important.

>What kind of heartless monster trains kids to be as literal as possible all the time?

A "modern" parent who has read too much for their own good.

I think, in many ways, not respecting personal boundaries is how people show closeness, and how they get close. Asking a prying question, telling a hard truth unprompted, or giving a hug out of nowhere. Asking for permission before every little thing feels like it makes people more distant, and reading that story just made me sad.

It's how we treat strangers, not friends and family.

I think you should always respect personal boundaries, but it's precisely with those whom you are closest that you feel comfortable tinkering with those boundaries. If you never pushed the boundaries, you wouldn't have gotten so close to begin with. But once you find them, you never intentionally cross them too much - that would be a breach of trust.

[Edit] I write a little about the topic of play here: https://goo.gl/jHuUQn

Exactly. The boundaries aren't disrespected - they change as relationships change. Disrespect for boundaries is a disrespect of the person whose boundary you are crossing. If you do it out of ignorance then it can often be forgiven and trust can be rebuilt if you show you can be trusted, but if it is repeated, knowing, or as a display of power, the relationships get worse - not better.

You are okay with a close friend touching you on the shoulder or asking personal questions because your relationship has evolved to a point where your boundaries permit it. It is not okay for a person you dislike to do those things because your relationship is such that your boundaries forbid it.

> you never intentionally cross them too much

I think the 'too much' is key - occasionally, you should cross them a little. But the opposite happened in the story - he was expanding his kid's boundaries.

It's not a matter of "not respecting" personal boundaries, but rather of probing them, by which we become closer. To use a coarse, but common example, if you're chatting someone up, you might probe the boundary by touching them on the arm, or shoulder. You would, generally speaking, not be respecting it by grabbing their ass.

If you're demonstrating closeness by "not respecting" people's boundaries, that's an entirely different matter.

I don't mean to pick on your phrasing, except to suggest that how we say things colors how we think about things, and nuances like that matter when we're talking about something as, you know, nuanced as interpersonal dynamics, and especially so with intimates.

'Probing' is a better term than I used, yes. But neither probing nor disrespecting (or disregarding) really captures the admittedly rather fuzzy idea. I can't shake the feeling that such 100% adherence to verbal (and even intended) yes/no is somehow like keeping people at arms length distance, emotionally.

At the very least, it's not how I'd want to be treated.

If I were to describe how I want to be treated:

I don’t want to have to ask to be touched by someone whose touch I want. Having the touch come unbidden is exciting and satisfying.

But I don’t want to be touched by someone who’s touch is repellant to me (by any degree). Having to experience or rebuff the touch is uncomfortable or disturbing.

Of course it’s tough to have it both ways! I err on the side of expecting less confirmation in exchange for more of that first example. But as for how I treat others? I err on the side of verbal confirmation, so as to avoid crossing a line someone else takes more seriously than I do.

So far it’s working alright! Is it the best system? Hard to say.

> I can't shake the feeling that such 100% adherence to verbal (and even intended) yes/no is somehow like keeping people at arms length distance, emotionally.

Absolutely it is, in almost any context. In most of those where it isn't, that's probably by design. It might even be the right move.

Where the line falls varies on every single edge of your social graph, all the time. Consent to be touched, or whatever, or not, isn't blanket, but "transactional" is the term used in discussions around consent, and revocable or renegotiable.

But, to your point, especially in some contexts, like flirting, the expectation is to push the boundary, not probe it. There, I think, it's very much a matter of execution. But, honestly, that's pretty speculative; I tend only to flirt well accidentally.

EDIT: Phrasing.

This reminds me of an interesting and related story (that I'll post from a throwaway).

I'm an American who moved to Japan many years ago. When I was dating here, a girl made her intentions extremely obvious so I took her back to my place after a night out. Soon after we starting having sex, she said, "No no!" so I stopped an apologized. Then she initiated again, but before long, "No no!" So I stopped and apologized again, very confused.

After two or three times, I realized what was happening. If you've ever watched Japanese porn, you're probably familiar with it, and that's likely where she learned it too. Or maybe she got the habit from guys that were into the rape myth.

After I realized what she was doing I told her clearly, "Look, I'm not into that at all and it's actually a complete turn off. If you don't like this, we can stop and I'm totally fine with you staying the night and I'll sleep over here. But if you do want to do this, don't say no again." She understood and we continued a good relationship after that without anymore "play no"s.

Perhaps Japanese porn got it from Japanese sex culture?

On the one hand, I guess this is good training for the modern "explicit verbal consent" world we live in.

On the other... IMO takes a lot of the playfulness out of it. I do this with my son, and part of the "game" is that he is saying no and running away screaming (with a huge grin), and I am chasing him. If he simply says "yes" and waits for me to tackle him without a chase, what fun is that? Obviously requires being able to read beyond verbal cues.

Several people have suggested using a safeword for this. Something like: "I'm going to tickle you, even if you say 'no stop', but if you say 'potato' I'll stop right away". I think this is something my kids would have done well with, though now they're just used to my taking their explicit "no"s literally.

All you have to do is say "yes" and run away screaming. Violating personal boundaries is not where the fun should come from.

Have you ever played or seen a sport? The players pretend fight with all their might within the rules of the game, and they start and stop at the whistle, and they have loads of fun.

This is so incredibly important a thing to teach children. Between this, and not forcing them to hug or kiss people they don't want to, they learn that their body belongs to them. I can't think of much that matters more for people to know at an embodied, felt level.

Thank you! We've taught our daughter to emphatically say "No thank you", and told her she doesn't need to hug or kiss anyone if she doesn't want to, and I've gotten some real angry responses from adults. I've had to intervene when an adult insisted on coming in and hugging after a totally unambiguous no thank you.

This reminds me of a time back in college when I was getting to know my future ex-wife - I was teasing her about something, and made some kind of tickle attempt and her response was to immediately punch me in the stomach. Her father had never respected the 'too much tickle' line, and her tolerance for it as a result was zero. She was in fact terrified by the threat of it. So yeah, have to make sure you're not crossing those limits...

I ascribe to the theory that tickling is a mechanism children instinctively use to learn important survival skills. The seemingly contradictory behavior of wanting something while also not wanting it makes perfect sense in this light. Appearing to want tickling encourages others to "attack," while truly not wanting it motivates a child to vigorously defend. Relatedly, children seem to universally enjoy games of hide-and-seek and chase. Even more fun, are combinations of these such as an adult acting as though they are a horrible monster while chasing children who hide and do their best to avoid a tickle mauling. Similar behavior appears in a variety of juvenile animals who actively encourage being chased and play-attacked. A child who learns to perform well in these play scenarios can apply such skills to the real world when they truly need to evade, hide, or defend themselves while still small and weak. I think that trying to impose adult consent behaviors upon young children in these areas is unnatural and counter productive.

It's easy enough to tell if a child actually wants to be tickled: Stop tickling and then wait and watch if they move further away from you or closer to you. (If necessary move slightly away from them first.)

Based on which direction they're moving you can tell what they really want.

Another way to tell is to do a pretend tickle motion and then backup. Do they follow you? Or do they just stay where they are?

This is fantastic advice.

I have the same issue with my 5 year old. Sometimes no means no and sometimes it means, no but I actually want you to tickle me.

This is a good policy and I'll be using it going forward. It teaches clear communication and I really like that.

My 4yo and I have been using "stop" to mean "use your judgment" and "stop for real" to mean exactly what it sounds like. It's been fascinating to watch her internalize that, start leading with the correct one, or sometimes have a late lazy "for real" as she susses out what she's up for.

I don't think that it is surprising that children do the "no-with-giggles" right away. It is a learned behavior. As far as teaching them to say yes to tickles or not... I don't think it will have any bearing on language development. Some may benefit from knowing that some people will not adhere to your "no" command.

>This was very surprising to me: I wouldn't have expected the mixed signals response to come so naturally, and need explicit practice to learn to suppress.

It's called being playful. Of course it comes naturally.

We're not Hilbertian axiomatic language machines.

I remember this as a kid.. Tickling is interesting in that the initial reaction signals pleasure (laughing) while the experience could be rather unpleasant. I recall multiple times as a kid that an adult would say "I'm gonna tickle you!" and I could feel my mouth widen in a smile but I sincerely didn't want to be tickled and would say no, I'd try to frown, but they'd interpret it as me being playful and go ahead, at which point I'd laugh until I started crying and they'd get the point.

I have a solution to this dilemma.

I have found with kids that virtual tickling works just as well as actual ticking. Who can resist laughing when a parent with a goofy look tickles you without actually touching you?

It's never to early to teach consent

I wonder if tickling them when they giggle-no might eventually teach them to give clear signals too.

I'd try with mine but he loooves tickling.

My father used to tickle me to tears. I think OP has the right idea here.

This text reads as obvious sarcasm to me. The saying "no means no" refers to rape. To apply it to playful tickling in family is so ridiculous that it is even offensive. Of course, kids say NO when you tickle them, and they love it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com