I have a 5-year-old girl. Sometimes, she enjoys tickle play; for instance, she will purposely say something a bit naughty/silly, while I am teaching her the piano or reading to her, and I will tickle her as a "punishment".
I discovered that a core part of making tickle play more fun is teasing. In other words, I will pretend to not tickle her, and then I will suddenly tickle her a lot. In my (perhaps uneducated) opinion, there's a corresponding type of invitation on her part, where sometimes she will says "Stop", but she may actually mean "Continue". There have been times when she is not in the mood for tickling, or the tickles are too much; in such situations she gets angry or sends other nonverbal signals which give me the clear message that it's not the right time for tickles.
Recently, my wife was furious at me when she witnessed us engaged in tickle play. I was saying something like, "I am not tickling you", and then suddenly start tickling her briefly. My wife was angry because she feels that it is critical for our daughter to learn "No means No!", and also for her older siblings to understand this concept. She brought up the point of the risk that our kids may encounter sexual predators who might gaslight them by saying things such as, "You enjoy being touched."
I feel quite confused because I think there is some truth in what my wife says. However, I can't imagine that tickle play makes sense if I have to ask my kid at every moment, "Do you want a tickle now?" That would seem too structured. I feel like there is some value in me learning to read her cues, and her learning how to communicate when "Stop" means "Stop", and when "Stop" means "Continue".
How should I reconcile the concept of "no means no" / "Stop means Stop" when I tease my 5-year-old during tickle play?