• The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

The TMF is sponsored by:

Clips4Sale Banner

Origins of tickle fetish in ticklees

GQguy

3rd Level Red Feather
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,581
Points
0
So this is in connection to my previous thread called "origins of tickle fetish". The previous focusing on the masculine aspect. This thread will focus on the feminine aspect based on David Deida's book "The way of the superior man" and linking it to tickling. Ticklees and women please enter your input....as I/we try to further understand you......

Dr Deida describes me as the void. Conversely women are described as life, passion, color. Pretty much the saying girls are made of sugar and spice applies. If the masculine is the empty void of the universe, then the feminine are the stars, planets and life. Radiant music, attractive women,emotions, nature and even beer are all part of the feminine. Logic, rationality, integrity strength sports are all masculine. While I may use men and masculine/ women and feminine interchangeably they are not. Men have feminine traits and women have masculine. But to be truly feminine that person has to be with their compliment...truly masculine. Girly girls like manly men. Girly men like strong women. Ect.

Ok. So for the feminine to really be feminine and give her gifts to the world she needs to be with a strong masculine. Ask any masculine man "what would you do without women?" The feminine is our muse that propels us to be better than we are. Every guy has a girl that makes them want to be better. So the masculine is best when he is around the feminine. But when is the feminine at her best? When she is around the masculine and loved my him. Read romance novels to get the idea. Women fall for guys that are logical, rational, not emotional, strong ect. It is then that the feminine can be her playful, emotional, radiant and beautiful self. But it's tough. Women that are truly feminine without a masculine guy by her side don't go far. So she must be rational, logical, not emotional ect...even though its not fully in her nature.

Think about this ladies...2 scenarios for your bday: 1) Your guy is going to take you out for your bday to an awesome pricey restaurant of your choice. You don't have a dress so you have to go shopping. He asks for you to drive because he has no car.
2)Your guy picks and awesome restaurant for the both of you. It's a surprise. On your bed is a dress picked out for you to wear. He says to be ready by 8 and he picks you up in a cab.

Which scenario best brigs out your feminine? Which scenario would make you a more beautiful, lively radiant date? Why? Because the date took care of all of the masculine stuff...allowing you to be completely feminine.

Finally sex. The feminine wants to be submissive during sex. Not to say all women want to be submissive....but the feminine does. But she has to trust that the man knows what he's doing. If she has to give direction it kills it for her as she has to bring out her masculine. The feminine will give her gift to the world "orgasm" when she is completely out of control. Ever heard of foreplay starting long before sex? Thats what they mean.

So as for tickling for the "lee". It is a moment where the feminine is completely out of control. And the feminine can laugh and spread joy. She is completely submissive. This desire to be tickled is done in place for the sex that she wants where she is completely submissive to her loving masculine partner. This is the deep dark desire of the feminine. Very few women will acknowledge it. Many would say they don't have that desire. Some don't but most do. The ticklee reenacts this by being tickled into submission. The ticklee gets their high from this. Again it's far more psychological than physical. Accepting this desire for submissive sex by the ticklee with a masculine loving partner will bring the ticklee to new sexual heights.

Let me know what you think as it helps us guys better help you!

cheers :drinkup:

GQguy
 
That's very interesting. I always thought the origin was when a cavewoman tickled a caveman, and he popped a boner.
 
Ahem. Male 'lees?

Good question. The book says that men and women fit anywhere on the masculine to feminine continuum. Some men are masculine some are more feminine. Feminine doesn't mean they wear pink or anything like that...but they are men that are more in touch with their feelings and are at their best when the don't have to think logically and rationally but instead with their hearts.

So for male lees simply reverse man for woman and my theory still holds. Men that are more feminine look for women that are more masculine. It is of no surprise that a male ticklee would find a relationship with a dom more satisfying that a relationship with another submissive lee. Opposites attract. These men yearn for the moments when they lose control and are totally submissive. These men can even be powerful leaders of industry with beards and all of the markings of a manly man but when it comes to their deepest darkest desires they are happiest when they lose all control and can take a back seat to someone else.

Again their true desire is to be had sexually by a sexually aggressive loving woman. This desire however is manifested in a desire to be dominated by a woman through tickling. For whatever reason(each person is different) tickling became the outlet for this deep sexual desire.
 
Nailed it. Right on the head. I felt much of what was said here to be accurate for myself in ways I had not realized. :)
 
I dislike your book. So far everything you have posted about it is annoyingly stereotypical.

I see where it may apply to some people, but personally I feel the books need to put people in little boxes disturbing and counter productive. People do not belong in boxes, each one of us is unique.
 
I see where it may apply to some people, but personally I feel the books need to put people in little boxes disturbing and counter productive. People do not belong in boxes, each one of us is unique.

I totally agree with this.
 
I'm very very newto the forum so hi! :) Having just read this and being a "lee" it is indeed the sense of being out of control. Started at a very early age I liked being tickled and once in a game of tickle chase I was caught and tied up and tickled for ages at the age 6. I actually had semi erotic dreams from then on of being tied up and goop and slime that caused tickling poured over my feet while people watched and laughed at me laughing....this then progressed as I got older to dreaming about feathers and brushes and also other parts of my body until I came upon genital tickling...so yeah. Thats my origins. *The newbie runs and hides*
 
I dislike your book. So far everything you have posted about it is annoyingly stereotypical.

I see where it may apply to some people, but personally I feel the books need to put people in little boxes disturbing and counter productive. People do not belong in boxes, each one of us is unique.

I see where it may apply to some people, but personally I feel the books need to put people in little boxes disturbing and counter productive. People do not belong in boxes, each one of us is unique.[/QUOTE]

You read it too? Interesting. I never got the impression that it put people into boxes. They put people on a spectrum though.

Masculine--------------------even balance------------------------Feminine

Men and women can lay anywhere on that spectrum. I'm simply taking the info from the book and creating a theory as to our tickle fetish origins and making predictions based on life and experiences.

What is disturbing about my theory? And how is it counter productive? In my opinion this theory provides a link to mainstream. It's far easier now to explain why one is into tickling. It helps one understand their own urges, and makes those urges acceptable. I think this will lead to healthier sexual relationships.
 
It only gives another of many explanation for domination and submissiveness. It doesn't explain at all why some people enjoy the feeling and others hate it - even though they might be submissive otherwise.

The theory that lers are dominant and lees are submissive and everything that comes with it is not quite a new theory.
 
Like what Music said ... this is pretty oversimplistic and stereotypes in an unhelpful way. I don't see how this "helps you guys better help us (girls)".
 
Everyone is taking this too seriously. This is one author's observations, and it doesn't have to fit you if you don't want it to. I for one found the information very interesting and do see where it applies to me. I don't see how it helps to say that this info is oversimplistic or stereotypical. Again, if it doesn't apply to you, fine, but there are some that may find things in what was said to be applicable. And you don't have to agree with all of it applying, it's okay if some of it does. But the OP was merely trying to start a discussion that I for one think is more interesting than a lot of the fluff topics that get posted daily over and over again.

With that said, GQguy, I hope you will continue to post interesting threads, and I hope the rest of you have a wonderful day! :)
 
Not to be rude, but I call epic bullshit on this.

1) This book tries to avoid sexism by saying "feminine" and "masculine" are labels that can apply to enyone, yet it is gendering those terms. If it didn't buy into gender stereotypes, it would be "Personality type A and B." Calling it "masculine" and "feminine" implies that it expects males and females to conform to one type, and even though they don't have to, such occassions are not normal.

2) What if I like to spread joy, but am also rational? This book is taking every personality trait it can conceive of and putting them into one of two camps, which each comforming very obviously to long-standing stereotypes. Why can't there by joy and gift-giving in rationality?

3) Masculinity and femininity need each other? Says who? That's a thinly veiled heterosexist point claiming "men and women need each other." How about two homosexual women who are both "feminine?" According to this nonsense, either something is missing in the relationship, or one of the women is a manly woman.

4) Suppose even for a split second that any of this gender analysis is accurate. Is there any examination in this book of why that is? All the examples for support that you've shown (ladies, which would you prefer your man to do...) can easily be explained away by expected, learned, socially constructed behaviour, and have nothing to do with inherent truths about masculinity and femininity.
 
I'd like to give this post a more thorough reply and explain what I feel is correct about the info. I am private by nature so sharing this is somewhat personal, but the information given has helped me a little bit to make sense of my own experience as a ticklee and as a woman in general.

What I agree with most is the feminine/masculine concept. I don't like to kiss and tell so to speak, but this response calls for it in a way. In my past relationship, initially, I definitely started it out in the feminine role, and he the masculine. I discovered however very early on, that he was far more emotional than I was, and it caused me to naturally pull back on my feminine. I became more masculine in the relationship. Other factors that helped drive this were his lack of desire to work, which put me in the position of sole breadwinner for our family. That alone does not make for my more masculine aspects to come out, as both husband and wife can and should be equally responsible for the financial health of the household. However, that coupled with his very emotional side caused a severe retreat in my feminine qualities. I hated this. I am a girly girl, so to speak, though I do enjoy the so-called "masculine" traits that help make one a strong, independent woman.

This carried over into intimacy as well. I was left to take charge there and do most of the things that led to any kind of intimacy beginning/ending. This, I noticed, led to a severe reduction, and dare I say, drought, to me experiencing any pleasure, while the other party was frequently "happy". There were other factors such as various abuses present in the marriage which reduced desire for me in that department, but overall the lack of time I got to spend in my feminine characteristics helps me understand why I was so unhappy.

Admittedly, I would have to say, that does explain a small part of my fascination with being a ticklee. There is something very attractive and potent about not being in control, and being able to experience that kind of pleasure at the hands of someone I care about. If that is the so-called feminine coming out, then I now understand why that desire is perhaps stronger than it used to be. While I would not necessarily call myself submissive, I think I have spent long enough in the "dominant" role in some areas of my life, and am looking forward to the "submissive" experience of being a ticklee.

(Sorry for the mini-novel I just posted :D)

So thank you again for posting this. It did help me gain a little more insight into my own experience and helps me understand me a little better...that is priceless.
 
What I agree with most is the feminine/masculine concept.... In my past relationship... I discovered however very early on, that he was far more emotional than I was, and it caused me to naturally pull back on my feminine. I became more masculine in the relationship.

What you're saying here is that you become less overly emotional. The fact that you call that behviour "feminine" is problematic to me and others.

It may be "feminine" in that it's commonly associated with women, but the reason for that, many would argue, is because women are socialized to act that way. And if the reason women act a certain way is because they're "programmed" to, that behaviour has no inherent presence in "maleness" or "femaleness," so to treat it as naturally occurring is dangerous.


That only deals with one of the points I made earlier, though.
 
What you're saying here is that you become less overly emotional. The fact that you call that behviour "feminine" is problematic to me and others.

It may be "feminine" in that it's commonly associated with women, but the reason for that, many would argue, is because women are socialized to act that way. And if the reason women act a certain way is because they're "programmed" to, that behaviour has no inherent presence in "maleness" or "femaleness," so to treat it as naturally occurring is dangerous.


That only deals with one of the points I made earlier, though.

No I said I became less emotional (or for that matter even in touch with anything else other than cold hard logic.)

I am only speaking in the language as presented by the book. Had the author called it eggs and bacon, I would be calling it that. I am the last one to stereotype, so I apologize if you are offended. I was merely sharing my experience. I found some of the info useful in understanding myself, so I guess for me, that is all that matters, not whether anyone else gets it or not, or whether it applies to anyone else. I got something from it. But again, I was just using the language used, and did not mean to offend by copping to a stereotype. Have a good day!
 
But here's the thing... the author didn't call it eggs and bacon. S/He called it masculine and feminine, and in so doing drew credibility to his/her practice of grouping personality traits together.

For example: submissive, emotional, giving, tender. There's absolutely no reason to think that these emotions go together any more naturally than do rational and tender, giving and dominant. But the author draws upon non-credible gender stereotypes to make his false dichotomy seem intuitive. If one set of traits is male, and one if female, that seems likely. If one is eggs, and the other bacon, people would start asking why he's grouping them the way he is.

Anyway, I'm not offended, I just disagree with pretty much everything presented from this book so far and am expressing my opinion. I hope I didn't upset you.
 
But here's the thing... the author didn't call it eggs and bacon. S/He called it masculine and feminine, and in so doing drew credibility to his/her practice of grouping personality traits together.

For example: submissive, emotional, giving, tender. There's absolutely no reason to think that these emotions go together any more naturally than do rational and tender, giving and dominant. But the author draws upon non-credible gender stereotypes to make his false dichotomy seem intuitive. If one set of traits is male, and one if female, that seems likely. If one is eggs, and the other bacon, people would start asking why he's grouping them the way he is.

Anyway, I'm not offended, I just disagree with pretty much everything presented from this book so far and am expressing my opinion. I hope I didn't upset you.

Not at all :). I understand what you are saying. I just didn't think anyone would weigh in on my own experience, I was merely sharing how it applied to me, not that the author was right or wrong. Again, it just helped me get a small bit of insight into myself, regardless of the possible stereotyping. But you are right to call out what you see as crap. I just didn't think anyone would say that my own insights into my life might be 'problematic'. :(....:D
 
What you're saying here is that you become less overly emotional. The fact that you call that behviour "feminine" is problematic to me and others.

It may be "feminine" in that it's commonly associated with women, but the reason for that, many would argue, is because women are socialized to act that way. And if the reason women act a certain way is because they're "programmed" to, that behaviour has no inherent presence in "maleness" or "femaleness," so to treat it as naturally occurring is dangerous.


That only deals with one of the points I made earlier, though.

I guess you'd have to read the book for yourself. Taking it from my point of view and how I applied it to my life won't help everyone.



Myth's testimony sounds like the other side of all of my failed romantic relationships. If for whatever reason I lost my edge as the logical rational one in the relationship she'd pick up the slack. Soon i'm the one crying and eating ice cream and wondering where it went wrong (jk). She'd of course run off to be with the next guy that makes her feel like a woman again. Ask any guy, we've all been there. As for the girl....she really doesn't get why she lost all attraction. All of this before the relationship ends will manifest itself in the bedroom.

That book is in no way law.Hell some might even see it as a joke. But it made me think. Wow I could blame an ex for becoming so cold and logical and rational despite being really nice to her...or I can take responsibility and realize that it was my behavior that turned her that way. Become a real man. Not acknowledging the differences in men and women and your own needs may they be masculine or feminine will leave one unfulfilled.

You assume the literature has an agenda but it preaches loving your woman, having integrity for her to fully trust you, and to sweep her off her feet in the bedroom. How is that dangerous? Successful marriages and relationships...oh the horror :Kiss2:

But I get that some will disagree with what is being said. Debate is fun! I'd love to hear their own theories on how things work and how we can improve our lives and experiences. Testimonials on how this applies to your life helps too. Thanks Myth for your story!

GQ
 
I understand what the gendering/stereotyping issue is, buy I also agree with the article in a way. The article indeed provides the theory of a "spectrum." any person can be any ratio of masculine or feminine. I do not agree that opposites "need" each other, it just seems to be a trend and the author noticed that trend.

As a female ticklee and submissive, I recognize that I'm more feminine and feel the desire to be dominated; it doesn't matter to me if the dominator is a man or woman. I also enjoy ler-ing in return, and switches are something the author doesn't seem to address.

What I don't agree with is the lumping together of personality traits, since I believe every person is an individual mix of traits and a fluctuating ratio of masculinity and femininty.
 
Not to be rude, but I call epic bullshit on this.

1) This book tries to avoid sexism by saying "feminine" and "masculine" are labels that can apply to enyone, yet it is gendering those terms. If it didn't buy into gender stereotypes, it would be "Personality type A and B." Calling it "masculine" and "feminine" implies that it expects males and females to conform to one type, and even though they don't have to, such occassions are not normal.

2) What if I like to spread joy, but am also rational? This book is taking every personality trait it can conceive of and putting them into one of two camps, which each comforming very obviously to long-standing stereotypes. Why can't there by joy and gift-giving in rationality?

3) Masculinity and femininity need each other? Says who? That's a thinly veiled heterosexist point claiming "men and women need each other." How about two homosexual women who are both "feminine?" According to this nonsense, either something is missing in the relationship, or one of the women is a manly woman.

4) Suppose even for a split second that any of this gender analysis is accurate. Is there any examination in this book of why that is? All the examples for support that you've shown (ladies, which would you prefer your man to do...) can easily be explained away by expected, learned, socially constructed behaviour, and have nothing to do with inherent truths about masculinity and femininity.

Agreed. Deida is simply describing what happens within a particular culture which has conditioned men/women to take on certain roles in sexual relationships. So, he's actually describing an old social analysis of male/female dynamics instead of a metaphysical/spiritual theory. So, its not actually describing the "essence" of men and women at all.

Plus, this just seems like a reinforcement of those old, stubbornly stable, male/female paradigms which are, thankfully, becoming extinguished.
 
You assume the literature has an agenda but it preaches loving your woman, having integrity for her to fully trust you, and to sweep her off her feet in the bedroom. How is that dangerous? Successful marriages and relationships...oh the horror :Kiss2:
GQ

I never said it had an agenda. In fact I think it's more likely that the book is oblivious to itself, the assumptions underlying its view, and the dangers involved.

You can want happy relationships and still perpetuate a view that's flawed and ultimately harmful. Subtle dangers exist in philosophies like "become a real man" and "take care of your woman."
 
I see where it may apply to some people, but personally I feel the books need to put people in little boxes disturbing and counter productive. People do not belong in boxes, each one of us is unique.

You read it too? Interesting. I never got the impression that it put people into boxes. They put people on a spectrum though.

Masculine--------------------even balance------------------------Feminine

Men and women can lay anywhere on that spectrum. I'm simply taking the info from the book and creating a theory as to our tickle fetish origins and making predictions based on life and experiences.

What is disturbing about my theory? And how is it counter productive? In my opinion this theory provides a link to mainstream. It's far easier now to explain why one is into tickling. It helps one understand their own urges, and makes those urges acceptable. I think this will lead to healthier sexual relationships.


What is disturbing to me is that it is trying to prove the stereotypes that I thought we had come so far from leaving, but apparently according to your book we should still be in the 1950s where men are dominant and women submissive. Furthermore it's assumption that we all need perfect harmony and it's solution to that is false. Yes one needs balance in life, but balance does not come from actual physical self.

I do not think this justifies at all why certain people are into tickling and others not. And furthermore, how is dominant vs submissive allow people an explanation about tickling. Our urges can not be explained at this time. Maybe someday they will find a gene for why so many of us have this desire, but as of right now there is no conclusion scientific data that I have ever scene. Besides many people realize they have the urge but do not accept it. Just look at how many members here are lurkers.

Furthermore, for many people tickling is not a sexual entity at all. Your assumption that it is and that people even want it to be is annoying.

Dude, you read a book and that was it. This book is trash and you are following it like it's the be all and end all. If you are that interested in understanding the human psyche go study psychology and talk to real people instead of worshiping some book.

Seriously, I'm sorry you may have not yet experienced what tickling actually is, but once you do I hope it ends up being different then what your little book has told you.
 
Last edited:
I dislike your book. So far everything you have posted about it is annoyingly stereotypical.

I see where it may apply to some people, but personally I feel the books need to put people in little boxes disturbing and counter productive. People do not belong in boxes, each one of us is unique.

yeh... I think that music has a little bit of a point.

first let me point out that from the starting point of the book you read i can see that you put a lot of time and thought into your hypothesis and i applaud you for that.

at the same time, i would say that IRL the human psyche especially revolving around sexuality is greatly complex-especially when you are talking about FETISHES.

for tickling, we can be as psychoanalytical as we want but even among the most feminine of our species there is a major difference in the physiological response to tickling stimulus. you can line up the most outwardly expressive of the feminine ideal and you trace your nail along the sole of their feet some of them will kick you out of sheer reflex and as some women here will attest others will achieve sexual climax if you keep it up long enough.

there's a huge physiological difference for lees and i think that goes back to genetics.

and then when you get into the psychology of submission and dominance my current theory-and this is just my theory-is that outside of actual rape power exchange never truly exists. the dom and the sub are experiencing almost equal levels of control or submission and it's just a different form of expressing a shared addiction to both control and approval.
 
Door 44 Productions
What's New

3/28/2024
Stop by the TMF Welcome Forum and take a second to say hello!
Tickle Experiment
Door 44
NEST 2024
Register here
The world's largest online clip store
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top