Talk:Tickling/Tickle torture debate

Torture

Does anyone know if the information in this article about tickling as a form of torture is true? It seems a bit far-fetched. I have already removed the reference to tickling as a form of execution. Rls 18:22, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

It is true as torture, but not for execution.--Codenamecuckoo 18:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

it can be used as torture. if you look at any tickling fetish sites (www.myfriendsfeet.com for example), you cam tell it is a horrible torture for those men to be tickled.

no evidece of tickling in China

I am Chinese and I have never heard of any tickle torture in China. I think that is a myth created by Westerners. Pure fiction. -(unsigned anon user)

I've read about it happeneing in the Han Dynasty. As stated in the article, the true nature of it has been losdy to myth and, yes, there is no doubt a heavy western fiction element to it. I dont't think its pure fiction, though. -Husnock 21:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where have you read about it? When the Chinese wanted to torture people they did not mess about. It is a trivial task to find accounts of really important people tortured in real ways. The idea of tickling someone as a form of torture strikes me as more or less asinine. Why not just beat them or hold their heads under water? The worst thing is not just that it is obviously rubbish but that a rather large ethnic group gets a slur on top of everything. Look if there is anything that approaches a real source for this I will happily go along with it. But I strongly doubt there is. Just look up how Han Wudi dealt with his wives when he thought they were plotting against him. Any reference to China ought to be removed. Lao Wai 11:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it then. Be bold. If it turns out to be real, someone will put it back in down the line. Jeeves 11:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am against removing the reference. I read about this happeneing when i was in college and is apparently a punishment reserved for nobility as it left no marks. The person above says the statement is "rubbish" and a "racial slur". I see no evidence of that. The article simply states the Chinese are credited for it (which they are) and that the practice and records have been lost in myth (which it has). -Husnock 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I take it that means you do not have a source for this claim? In which case, given it is self-evidently foolish and offensive, why keep it? You don't see how silly it is to use tickling as torture? Some significant percentage of the population simply is not ticklish. Even those that are don't care that much and will get bored of it in time. There are now two people on this page who find it offensive. Don't you think that if other people see it as a slur it may well be even if you do not? The Chinese may be credited with it but by which author? I also have a problem with the similar silly claim attached to the stocks. Stocks were for exposing people to things like being stoned to death. I know of no source that suggests they were for tickling. I can trivially find references to homosexuals, for instance, dying after being put in the stocks. Daniel Defoe was so exposed and he did not fear a little tickling. Anyone got a source for this claim as well? Lao Wai 16:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote it as best I could. Complete removal seems a little harsh. I think all will agree there is a perception in America that the Chinese use tickle torture but the article doesnt say that they did or didnt in accordence with non-POV. I dont remember exactly where I read it, it was in a book about the Han from when I was in college, cirica 1995. As far as stocks used for tickling, thats right out of what they (historian/actors) tell people at Williamsburg, Virginia but they also state the stocks were used for harsher articles. Sorry you find this offensive. Its not meant to be. -Husnock 16:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP: The term "Chinese tickle torture" returns about 350 hits on the internet. To be fair, I will also try and find the book I mentioned. I think it called the History of torturte or something like that. I think the current rewrite is not offensive to Chinese are merely states that there is a perception in the West that this was used as torture but it is surtrounded by myth. -Husnock 16:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am happy enough with a claim that there are people in the West who *think* the Chinese used it as long as it is clear that it is not factual. But this is not what the article said and as far as I can see still does not say. It says the Han are known for using it. Only finding 350 hits on the internet means, essentially, it is a myth. Try searching for something really dumb like Nazi UFOs under the polar ice cap and you will find more than 350 hits. The problem is that Western people enjoy fantasys about Chinese torture. Wikipedia reflects that. No doubt you can find any number of works that refer to bizarre tortures in China but it would be hard to find credible evidence of any of it. Frankly Chinese torture is dull by Western standards. I think the whole idea of tickle torture is silly, a-historic, and any reference to it ought to be deleted. Anyone got a real source on the subject? Williamsburg wouldn't be a theme park aimed at children would it by any chance? Lao Wai 09:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Colonial Williamsburg is not a theme park, to answer your question -Husnock 13:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It ain't the Library of Congress though is it? So we are back to no evidence, no source, no mention of it in surviving Han legal documents (not that there are many), no mention of it in the Han Shu that I can find (not that I have looked that hard), little evidence of it from the Web (indeed one of the Websites linked to the page acknowledges no evidence of it) and most of that is in fact copied from Wikipedia. So for mildly offensive claim we are relying on the memory of one guy who sort of remembers something he may have read in College. I don't want to be rude about this, but it is not very compelling. Oh, and what they tell tourists in a place which isn't quite a theme park. Interestingly enough the links from the Williamsberg site to pillory and stocks are not big on tickling. I vote to remove all references to China or torture. Lao Wai 14:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to be nice about this, but the sarcasim above you could cut with a knife. Chinese tickle torture is in the article becuase its a perception of western society. The article clearly states it may or may not be true. It is not offensive in any way, in my view. Colonial Williamsburg is not a theme park, and the book I read was called "The History of Torture" published in 1993 by Simon & Schuster. I dont have the ISBN but if I did I would give it to you. It really appears that you are taking this personally as an attack on Chinese people which is clear not the case. I will leave this open to comments by other users, since the two of us have said all that can be said for both sides. -Husnock 18:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't meant to be sarcasm but frustration. As I have said, as long as it is clearly stated that there is a perception in Western society the Chinese did this I am happy. The problem remains that it does not say that. It still says the Chinese are known for it. Which they are not. Again I do not want to be rude, but does it really matter if you find it offensive? Only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches. The article says nothing about your culture, your homeland, your religion or anything else related to you specifically. The very first person to post in this was not only offended but more importantly Chinese. I have searched the British Library for a book of that title. They have five, none published by Simon and Schuster. I will check. Is it too much to ask you to do so as well? It is clearly offensive to at least one Chinese person. It is also clearly part of a larger Western discourse on torture that denigrates Chinese people. Given that someone cares enough to be offended, why are you determined to keep it? Surely the most reasonable solution would be to let me remove it and for you to put it back if you can find a real source? Or at least agree to change it so it makes no mention of torture in China, but only of the Western claims that such torture existed in China. This ought to be something we can both agree on. Lao Wai 19:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the section per your aspirations, I hope it is sufficent. Also put the article on request for comment to get other opinions. -Husnock 19:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The rewrite looks unoffensive. Good show. ℬastique▼^talk 02:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be successful in not offending anyone, however as far as I can tell, the article is still absent a source for even the claim of a widespread public perception. The current weasel terms "According to some sources" isn't sufficient; which sources, and what do they say, precisely? siafu 29 June 2005 17:50 (UTC)

The name of one book is listed above but it has been a very long tiem since I read it and it was a library copy. Also, the perception idea in the west can probably be found in in a lot of books, TV shows, and movies. They even had an episode of Transformers where one of the deceptacons talked about Chinese tickle torture and it was also mentioned in a rather silly show called Brisco County Jr. In any event, if every statement in every article on Wikipedia had to have a specific source mentioned then there would be a lot of articles that would come under fire. I think "some sources" is fine unless its a feature article candidate. Unfair to call it a weasel statement, it just indicates that a source was remembered but cannot be exactly quoted. -Husnock 29 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)

The references and sources should be able to cover all the assertions made in the article. Also, see weasel term; it's not a matter of fairness, it's just that generalized references like that are not much better than no references at all. It's not that I'm disagreeing with the veracity of the claim myself or advocating its speedy removal, but it would be good to provide a source for it. siafu 29 June 2005 19:36 (UTC)

I would suggest that it be removed entirely until a specific source can be cited; the vague statements now, as siafu suggested, are not helpful. Sources need to be cited for anything that is questionable; this discussion clearly show that this is. If this torture method is indeed pure fiction, I don't see any evidence that this Western "perception" is notable enough for inclusion either.

Some more context for why someone might find "Chinese tickle torture" offensive - at least in American culture, calling something "Chinese" can mean "bizarre" or "foreign" or "screwed up", and have little basis in anything that Chinese people actually do. Two examples that come to mind - 1) a "Chinese fire drill" is a pointless exercise involving a lot of running around, and 2) more obscurely, in sailboat racing, a "Chinese jibe" is a really screwed up maneuver that usually ends up with people swimming behind the boat. I take both of these to be mild slurs against Chinese people. CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 03:32 (UTC)

I have tried to recast the language again to make it slightly less silly. I would still vote for a complete deletion as I have found no evidence of it. In fact any mention of tickling as torture is, I think, without evidence and self-evidently silly. Who would still object? Anyone have any evidence for this? Lao Wai 2 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)

I like the current rewrite. As far as evidence, I gave you all that I add. ive been around Wikipedia for a while and am not known for making stuff up. -Husnock 2 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

You don't see how silly it is to use tickling as torture? Some significant percentage of the population simply is not ticklish. Even those that are don't care that much and will get bored of it in time.

I disagree - for those who are ticklish it really is sheer torture! Personally, I have been tickled (in the sides) to the point of hyperventilation and find it incredibly unpleasant. I can quite easily see how effective it would be as a form of torture. Actually, intense tickling tends to bring about fight or flight and I've seen quite a few of my friends get violent when trying to extricate themselves. --^pirate 02:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A possible solution

With all the talk up above, one possible solution is to make an article about Chinese tickle torture and remove references from this artickle. The article on Chinese tickle torture could then state the myth/peception/truthfullnes sof it all. For those who find that thought offensive, remember we have articles on such topics as nigger, cunt, and cracker. Also, if someone was so violently opposed to the article, they could put it up for VFD as original research. What do people think? It is a possible solution. -Husnock 2 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that is even worse from the perspective of the original objection. Making it a seperate article increases its prominence, rather than decreasing it. If it were VfD'ed, the proposed solution would likely be to merge it back here again. siafu 2 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

The whole objection to the concept is that Chinese Tickle Torture is offensive as a racial slur to the Chinese people. Yet, as stated over and over again, there ia a perception of ti in western society, there are over 350 internet hits, and I have read at least one book (and I recall hearing about it in two others) which mentions it. I will probably go ahead and make the article for I truely believe a VFD will fail. -Husnock 2 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)

Seens to make sense to just create an article there to discuss whether there is anything to back up the alligation. Seems a pretty rediculous racial slur, I mean, Chinese tickle torture?? Why not simply call it "Tickle torture" and be done with it. It would never even occur to me to think that Chinese tickle torture actually came from China, any more than couch potatoes are actually potatoes. Probably just a tale and they used China because it was far away and couldn't be disproven. It sounds like a joke. In any case, torture clearly has occurred in China at certain times so why should saying that the idea of tickling people into pain came from China be a particularly bad racial slur? --komencanto 6 July 2005 07:43 (UTC)

It is not a particularly bad racial slur, but it is obviously a slur. It matters because it is part of a larger problem Western people have with dealing with China. In itself it would not matter (although as it is a-historic and self-evidently silly it should not be on Wikipedia anyway) but as part of a wider tradition it does. Mildly. In the same way if I had a history of repeatedly saying your Mother was a prostitute, a crack-whore, a sufferer of several major learnnig disabilities, you might feel a little sensitive and get upset if one day I merely said she was fat. I think it would be best to try a VfD. I think it would go down as it remains based on the memory of one man who can't find a source - this is not good enough I'd guess. Lao Wai 6 July 2005 09:51 (UTC)

With all respect to your views, you keep on saying "there is no evidence" and "there is no source". I gave you the source, right down to the title of the book as well as provided the info about the 315 some internet hits. Its its own article now, so you can try a VFD if you want but there is no denying that the term at least exists (just take a look at the internet). See Chinese tickle torture for further discussion. -Husnock 6 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)

I am sorry I must have missed that. I can't seem to find it on this page either. Would you mind reproducing it again? What I do have is you saying "I dont remember exactly where I read it, it was in a book about the Han from when I was in college, cirica 1995." You cna surely understand why I am unimpressed. I agree the term exists, but I am not sure it requires a webpage. More importantly any article should not refer to China at all but make this clear it is like "Dutch courage" - a commonly used ethnic smear with some mild amusement value. Lao Wai 09:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as Chinese tickle torture, it is now its own article, I suggest moving further debates over there. If you feel strongly about the existence or use of the term, VFD is always available. However, the amount of internet hits, and the use of this term in the world of BDSM (sorry, but those guys do happen to use it), there is enough I feel to warrant an article. The one line left in this article makes it clear enough (I feel) that the term Chinese Tickle Torture is a term and not accusing the Chinese of doing anythng or making a racial slur against them. -Husnock 12:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

opinions

Everyone has one...why not use democracy to settle this dispute -(unsigned anon user)

As our hosts here are quick to point out: Wikipedia is not a democracy. -Husnock 5 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)

Techniques

I was going to add a bit about tickling techniques...any objections?

Sean

Well Sean, I was just searching for a couple of good technieques, so please go ahead! (for I'm terrible at it :-S )

Skimming through a sites like this, I allways see a lot of different subjects being discribed. But there is almost nothing that would allow you to either check or influence that object/ subject. No simple do it youreself method for testing, trying etcetera.

So Sean, the objective, for me at least; is obviously to improve (my) techniques. Go for it Sean!!! Show us what you've got!
Also is there someone out there who can tell and show us what neurochemically happens when someone gets tickled?

Unwanted Tickling

Rather than just dumping stuff into the article, perhaps Schultz might like to think about what he is doing and why. And then perhaps explain it to the rest of us. What relevance does any of the stuff he has written have to the article? Where is the evidence for it? Tickling is a real subject and real people do real research on it. Is it too much to ask for some evidence of any of these claims? Lao Wai 22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lao Wai (did we ever think that day would come! :-)) Anyway, the paragraph on unwanted tickling states that tickling is "not involuntary after all" which contradicts every scientific statement on the matter. If you lightly stroke someone who is ticklish, they will laugh. It is a fact regardless of wheter or not they like you or not. As far as "some people get angry when you tickle them", that sounds like massive POV to me. Also, I reverted the tickle story that was placed on the talk page about someone's sister. Does that really have anything to do with this article? -Husnock 21:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Husnock, listen. My sister really doesn't laugh when I tickle her. Just ask her! Email her at snoopy_cutie_10@yahoo.com.

Ask her, "Do you really not laugh when your older brother tickles you?" She'll know who you're talking about because she has only one older brother, and that's me.

PS: Is Lao Wai an ADMIN? --Shultz 21:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey there, Shultz. We probably were a bit too quick with the reverts. I reread what you posted again and I kind of get what you're driving at. I will work on a totaly new section involoving tickling realtionship comparing parent-child, sibling-sibling, stranger-child, and stranger-adult. Reactions are different, to be sure. With that said, if you want to put back in your paragraph, I wont revert it. And, thank goodness...Lao Wai is not an admin! :-) But, then again, neither I am. -Husnock 22:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that those who are frothing at the mouth against the existence of tickling as torture are demanding "proof" or "evidence" that it happened, while in the same "breath" (as it were) stating that none is needed to prove that it didn't happen... apparently, it is common sense that tickling cannot be used as torture. I find this curious, given that it presents some advantages over the infliction of pain as torture (no permanent marks are left; if done properly, no permanent damage is inflicted). Conversely, a person can die of the effects. Being a tickling fetishist myself, I have witnessed extremes where the victim was rendered unconscious due to being unable to breathe; I have also seen a person kept "hovering" at the point of doing so. This is identical with reactions to pain as it is inflicted by the hands of a skilled torturer in many of the accounts I have read of actual instances of pain-inflicting torture, ancient and modern. Basic common sense tells us that given tickling, as with pain, is a physical sensation that a considerable percentage of the population finds unbearable and unendurable, human nature dictates that at some point it would have been used as torture, given the existence of torture in and of itself as so commonplace. And where something occurs, at some point it occurs in regimented/ordered/directed fashion. The statement that ascertaining "some people become angry when tickled" is a "massive POV" is blatantly ignorant; some people get angry when the sun rises, some people get angry when they see butterflies. I've met people who react angrily when tickled--because, y'know, they don't like it? Granted, I don't know everybody in the world, but one can be certain that there are more. Anyway, continuing... many tortures throughout history do not at all conform to the most "logical" fashion of inflicting pain on another person in the most efficient manner. The reasons for this vary from personal preferences on the part of the torturers', to symbolic reasons, to spiritual or ritualistic reasons. I see no reason presented why the use of tickling as torture--all racial or ethnic relationships aside, as I am not attempting to delve into that arena here--is "ridiculous" or "obviously false." And, seriously, if I WAS to dive into the ethnic arena, the Chinese government is widely known for its instances of torture and human rights violations, both now and throughout history, and there are far too many stories, tales and legends about creative and unique forms of torture--many of them perpetuated by Chinese sources, at that--for none of them to have any basis in fact whatsoever (being slowly cut into a thousand pieces, for example, as punishment for trespassing on the grounds of the Forbidden City). Nobody's saying that the possibility of tickling being used as torture is exclusively, or even predominantly, Chinese, and THAT statement at least cannot be made without some kind of hard evidence... but seriously. Taking it as a racial slur is like me being offended at the title of the movie "American Pie" because my life experiences don't match up with it. I seriously doubt that "you people invented tickle torture" is high on anyone's list for disliking China. If anything, the name probably reflects a fairly common Western conception that Chinese methods of such a nature are more subtle than their Western counterparts. Hence the association with tickling, and the gradual emotional collapse caused by the steady drip involved in "water torture" (which was practiced; I've come across it in history books, though I couldn't say off the top of my head as to what culture or individual was said to have used it... I don't recall any mention of Chinese, save for the name). -User:Mardiggan 12Oct05

Where to start. I have two distinct positions and your problem is that you are confusing them. The first and obvious one is that Tickle Torture is asinine as anyone who put two minutes of thought into it would realise. That bird don't fly around here so I rely on my second, fall back, position. There ain't no evidence of it. There ain't. It presents no usefulness as torture as you can simply over come the thought through will power. You may have seen consenting, trusting adults playing games, but that is a world away from torture. You cannot be tickled if you do not want to be. Fear is likely to override ticklishness anyway. Basic common sense tells us it has never been used as torture and indeed there is no evidence it ever has. Certainly not in China. The pre-modern Chinese government is known for torture in the same way Jews are known for being cheap or Blacks for being lazy. The fact is China has not have a particularly interesting history of torture. Care to produce any such Chinese sources? Nor was anyone cut into a thousand pieces - again common sense should tell you that. Your comments above show why it is a problem. It is like thinking Jews murder boys and use their blood to make their bread. Why do you think you think what you do? I would like to see evidence that the water torture, again another childish Western invention, was ever practiced anywhere. We have a lot of "I seem to remember in a book I read in college" sources around here. In the meantime I suggest we keep any mention of China out of this. Lao Wai 14:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of sources... any source for the claim that "you cannot be tickled if you do not want to be"? I suppose there's always the option of trying to run away, but as it is, based on the current content of the article, this claim is very similar to "you cannot be punched in the arm if you do not want to be". It may be possible for someone to ignore both sensations; it may be much easier for most people to ignore tickling than a punch. That doesn't mean that people who react to tickling *want* to react, any more than someone *wants* to say "ow" when they're punched. So, got anything besides a "basic common sense" source? Jaeger5432 19:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

replies to 'just a question'

reply 1 I am extremely ticklish just about everywhere on my body, except maybe my armpits! I'd love to see a poll on this page about that!

reply 2 this might sound weird but the most ticklish spot on my body is my back.

reply 3

Torture

I'm very tempted to remove this entire section. It basically says, "The Romans tortured people by having goats lick their feet. But that was primarily about pain. In Medieval Europe and Colonial America, people were put in stocks as punishment. But that was primarily about humiliation." So, it's not very much about tickling. And, there are no sources to back it up. It seems to me like this section has more to do with speculation and fantasy than documented facts. FreplySpang (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Temptation overcame me. Nobody's defended the section so I've removed it. If anyone wants to put it back, please rewrite it to be more relevant and please, please, find sources to back up your claims. FreplySpang (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats a major section of the article and shouldnt just be blanked. it also speaks of stocsk sued for other types of torture and used as public humilation in Colonial America to include tickling. You should probably add the "citation needed" icon but not simple wipe out a fourth of the article. -Husnock 21:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's unverifiable, it should go, whatever percentage of the article's word-count it represents. Conversely, if it's "pretty well established," it should be easy enough to find sources before putting it back in the article. What support is there for the claim that tickling was part of the humiliation of imprisonment in stocks? I imagine that some tickling enthusiasts like the idea that tickling was a significant form of torture in the past, and maybe it would be reasonable to say something about it in the fetishism section. Also, as I mentioned before, the section as it stands is mostly irrelevant. Information about other uses of stocks would go best in the stocks article. FreplySpang (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rm'd again. Please find actual sources before reinstating. See [1]. FreplySpang 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And again. This section is unacceptable without ANY refrences. otocan

A site featuring some examples of modern day tickling fetish in practice

http://www.mytickling.com has some great examples of tickling fetish in practice, the site has some free pictures and lots of movie clips for people to get an idea what "tickling fetish" consists of.

Thank you for the consideration in adding this resource to the external links section.

Mts100 21:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)