being a LEE vs being a SUB

[theObsessed1]

I'm just curious to see what people's experiences are here. I got a note from soneone about the story I've been writing. The note was great. But, it raised a question that I thought I'd pass along. The observation was made that, while I am a lee, I don't seem like much of a sub. That observation is accurate. I've always loved being a lee. But, I'm only just beginning to explore true sub mode.

I do believe that someone can be a lee without truly being a sub. Those who are into feet will likely be among the quickest to recognize that someone on the receiving end may actually be the Dom of the scene. A beautiful woman orders someone to worship their feet. I see it much the same when related to tickling. I can be on the receiving end of a good session without necessarily being the submissive player.

I have a theory as to part of the reason why many see them as being conflicting roles. Many lers are just that, lers. They're in control. So, they see themselves as the Dom. They don't explore/indulge in the lee side. For some, it's a matter of control. For others it's the fact that they can't take being tickled themselves. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons as well.

Personally, I'm a very controlling person. I try to not be controlling towards others. But, I definately prefer to be in control of myself. During a tickle session, I finally get to give up that control...at least in part. It's a challenge to control my own thoughts, emotions and actions during a session. So, control comes into play there. I also find that I sometimes coach a ler that hasn't had much experience with me...also controlling. Some would likely refer to this as topping from the bottom. I suppose it can be that. But, I think it can also be an act of a sub wanting to ensure the most enjoyable and satisfying experience for their Dom. For me, it's definately a mixed bag.

So, what about you? What are your thoughts...either as a lee or a ler? Do you cross over too?

Hazel

 

[TickledToDeath]

I am both LER and LEE but definitely NOT a sub by any means. The only time I am in a "sub" roll is when I am the LEE and I am a LEE who has no limits and expects no mercy as the LEE by the tickler or ticklers but I am by no means a "Sub" by definition.
Big difference in my eyes.

 

[lk70]

The closest TTD gets to subbing is deli for lunch.

I can relate to this. I don't have a submissive personality by a LONG shot and as much as I'd like to be submissive in the bedroom once in awhile (or more often), I have found that most men don't assume the dom role very well. Not really. They talk big, but they don't really know what's involved.

I don't think that leeing and lering necessarily translates to sub/dom behavior. That's someplace both players need to want to go and it's not all that common. I think. Maybe. 😀

 

[Illtcklu]

Well, no matter what the SUB controls the game. I mean he/she has the 'safeword' which means he/she can end the game at will. I see it as SUB doesn't mean they don't lay down the rules. Of course they do. When the game is over is a SUB still a SUB?

By any other name.............



Am I making sense?

 

[bellystrokes]

Sub=apples
Lee=oranges

 

[Illtcklu]

'lees' are orange?

And I thought my post would be considered 'out there'! 🙄

 

[theObsessed1]

'lees' are orange?

Well.....until they're tickled PINK, at least!

 

[bellystrokes]

Actually dear Illtcklu, I was sort of suggesting that you were talking about a lee as oppose to a sub. A person can be both, of course, but it is often not the case. Sometimes a lee views herself or himself as the sub when functioning as a lee in a tickling sections. But my exposure has shown me that there are many subs who are subs 24/7. And subs in all of life, not just a play session.

 

[Illtcklu]

Actually dear Illtcklu, I was sort of suggesting that you were talking about a lee as oppose to a sub. A person can be both, of course, but it is often not the case. Sometimes a lee views herself or himself as the sub when functioning as a lee in a tickling sections. But my exposure has shown me that there are many subs who are subs 24/7. And subs in all of life, not just a play session.

True, but often one who is a SUB, is someone who in their regular life likes to take control. So in their sexual life they like to be controlled for a while.




And Obessed1..................I will gladly tickle you PINK!

 

[bellystrokes]

True, but often one who is a SUB, is someone who in their regular life likes to take control. So in their sexual life they like to be controlled for a while.




And Obessed1..................I will gladly tickle you PINK!

Now we are really talking apple and oranges (who turn pink). You are talking about someone who role plays. I am talking about a person in a lifestyle. Big difference.

 

[Illtcklu]

Now we are really talking apple and oranges (who turn pink). You are talking about someone who role plays. I am talking about a person in a lifestyle. Big difference.

I suppose so...........

 

[Strider]

This is probably oversimplifying things, but leeing (or bottoming in general, for that matter) is physical. Subbing is mental.

I have no problem letting someone else tickle me or inflict some kind of pain on me, in fact, I love it. However, you could count on one hand and still have fingers left the number of people I'd be willing to submit to.

 

[baby]

very interesting question..I'm a very devoted 'lee and I'm very submissive in the bedroom and I love my tickler to be very dominant, but 24/7 ? - no way, I am not a dominante person at all, but couldn't stand someone ordering me around all day either.

 

[kilitiinko1]

Interesting question,Hazel!

Can I be all four? That is,`ler,`lee,sub,and dominant? I personally think I`m too complicated an individual to just be one of these. In tickle play,I am clearly a `lee,but I am also sexually submissive. I enjoy ocassional times as a `ler,but again,I prefer to be a `lee. In the real world (my public persona) ,I am more of a leader,and would probably be considered dominant and controlling.Complex,oh yes!In any of my profiles, I list/consider myself submissive.Perhaps I should just call myself confused and seek professional help! 🙄

 

[darvon96]

Personally, I'm a very controlling person. I try to not be controlling towards others. But, I definately prefer to be in control of myself. During a tickle session, I finally get to give up that control...at least in part.

This is exactly the relationship my wife and I have. There’s nothing more exciting than seeing that sheepish smile on her face when I give her the “look” in mixed company, which means she’s in trouble later for the line that was just crossed.

 

[Tkltime]

As I have always understood it, a submissive is a person who derives pleasure from submitting to whatever their Dominant partner finds pleasurable, whereas a person who submits only for something that is considered torture would be a masochist.

I'm not the least bit submissive, however I enjoy being a lee as much as a ler. The difference is that I enjoy being a lee for my pleasure, not necessarily someone elses.

Now of course it's infinitely better if my ler enjoys that role as well.

 

[Mastertank1]

Okay, folks.

'lees are a subset of subs.
For those who never took or flunked freshman logic in college, that can translate this way;
All 'lees are subs, but not all subs are 'lees.
In similar fashion, 'lers are a subset of doms.
Now, a 'lee may not manifest ANY other sub behavior, or they may.
A 'ler may not engage in any other dom behavior, or they may.
Personally, I'm a full on Pack Alpha Male.

Some years ago, I wrote a scholarly study of the bioevolutionary roots of BDSM and tickling. I've posted it in two earlier threads on TMF, for those of us who have arrived since then and those who didn't see it before, let me put up a summary, minus all the boring footnotes and bibliography. Let me add that my conclusions have all been endorsed and confirmed by no less prominent a paleo-anthropologist than Desmond Morris, author of 'The Naked Ape' and other books on evolution for the general reader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My take on the origins of DS goes to an ongoing problem in Paleoanthropolgy; why is it so consistently difficult for professionals in that field to find analogues to human behavior patterns in other primates? The answer is that they are ignoring a major fact of evolutionary biology; the genetically selected behaviors any animal species keeps and passes on to future generations are determined primarily by the ecological niche that species occupies in its environment.

The pretribal, indeed precultural human animal occupied an ecological niche called 'cursorial hunter'. No other primate has ever occupied a niche even remotely similar, hence the lack of analogous behavior patterns. The only other species to occupy that niche in the history of this planet have been Wolves and Feral Dogs.

If one looks at the behavior patterns found in Wolf and Dog packs, EVERYTHING you see has close analogies in human behavior patterns!
Wolf packs have dominant Alpha males, secondary Beta males and submissive Gamma males. The female Wolves have their own, separate dominance order. In general, there is one chief dominant Pack Alpha and one or more Deta lieutenants, totaling one third of the male adults in the pack. All the females and all theGamma males are submissive to the Alphas and Betas. The Gammas are submissive to the females.

Anyone familiar with the scene has noticed, and perhaps wondered why, submissives seem to outnumber dominants in all categories. Straight, Gay, Bi, Male, Female, there are always more subs than doms. It's a holdover from a time when the survival of the species was furthered by such patterns of subordination. In any survival-critical emergency, there had to be someone in charge, whose orders would be obeyed without question.

Another pattern which ensured the strongest possible offspring was that the females simply would not mate with the Gamma males, who often engaged in homosexual relationships to relieve their needs. This is seen in Wolf and Dog packs today. This was biologically engineered into our genetic makeup by evolution, and explains why even the most liberated woman feels attracted to a dominant man, while even the most liberated man feels the need for some degree of submissiveness from his woman.

The fact is, of course, that modern technological society has made these patterns of D & S totally unnecessary, which is why I prefer D & S ONLY in the bedroom. The fact we no longer need these patterns does not cause them to automatically go away, for two reasons.

First, it takes about 100,000 years for evolution to effect any major change in a species, and conditions which made male dominance/female submission no longer a survival advantage are less than 100 years old IN THIS COUNTRY. In many parts of the world, Male D/female S is still a powerful survival advantage.

Second, an evolved trait does not evolve away just because it is not an advantage anymore. Look at our tail bones and appendixes. To evolve away, a trait must become a significant disadvantage, so that those who do NOT have it are much more likely to survive and have children than those who do.
That has not happened with D & S, in fact quite the contrary.

This all relates to tickling too. Among Wolves and Dogs, in order to resolve dominance disputes without actual injury to a valuable pack member, they have evolved a submission behavior which turns off further aggression by the dominant victor like throwing a switch; flipping onto the back and exposing the vitals to the dominant animal. The dominant responds by very lightly touching the tips of it's fangs to the throat or belly of the submissive, symbolizing that the dominant could have fatally injured the submissive but chose not to.

In humans, the analogous behavior is tickling. If you look at all the places on the human body that are usually ticklish, they are all areas where an injury would be fatal to an animal whose survival depended on running with a hunting pack, or take away it's ability to successfully have/rear offspring.
Toes/soles of feet-ability to run
backs of knees/kneecaps-ability to run
inner thighs-femoral artery (if it is cut, the individual bleeds to death in 30 seconds)
backs of thighs-hamstring tendon
hips-pelvic joints
lower belly-reproductive organs
ribs/sides-all the major organs in the body trunk
underarms-major nerves and arteries
neck/throat/under chin-major nerves and arteries/windpipe
breasts(women)-ability to feed newborns.

This is why for a human to allow another to tickle/tease them is a profoundly submissive act, and to choose to take advantage of that permission is a profoundly dominant act. One thing makes this expression of deep submission and dominance different for humans than dogs or wolves. While wolves are sexually active only once a year when the females come into heat and their females activate the sex drives of the males, and for dogs it's about every month and a half, humans alone are sexually active 24/7/365 while physically capable.

For this reason, all expressions of dominance and submission among humans take on sexual overtones. For any person to allow another to tickle them will involve arousal for both. I have noticed that when a bound person of either sex and any orientation is tickled, they ALWAYS become aroused,(some will adamantly not admit it!). Even if the tickler is an inappropriate sex partner, such as an animal, a machine, a person of the wrong sex for the victims usual orientation, or an underage child this remains true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who wish to see Morris' confirmation of my work, see his book about the relationship between humans and dogs. I forget the exact title, but I'm pretty sure it's either Dogwatching or Dogs, and it may be in the introduction.

 

[EBunbury]

Since I suspect it was my note that started this thread, I guess I should put in my two cents as well, for whatever it's worth.

I choose all of the above.

I also choose none of the above.

Being a 'lee is a subset (no pun intended) of being a sub. For many 'lees, it is the only sub behavior they exhibit. For others, it's part of submissive role-playing games or of a submissive lifestyle. Many 'lees here will vehemently deny that they are submissive, and they'll be right.

I think what's missing is recognition that we're trying to pigeonhole a spectrum of behaviors and attitudes. It is possible for one person to be submissive in some relationships and dominant in others. The woman who organized and ran a local BDSM group I was in for awhile was a sub with her SO and a domme with everyone else. It is possible to be a dom in some behaviors and a sub in others. A friend was a professional mistress, but loved to be tied and tickled by a selection of her friends. It is possible to change over time. I know subs who eventually decided topping was more fun, and vice versa.

I suspect Mastertank1 is right about there being a biological basis for these behaviors, but the overlay of culture has broadened the spectrum. There are people at either end, and you probably have to be able to empathize with one end to be effective at the other. Most people are portable, and spend time at various places on the spectrum.

🙂 E. Bunbury

 

[Redmage]

I'll disagree with Mastertank a bit: Not all 'lees are subs. In BDSM we make the distinction between "bottom" and "submissive," though bottom is the more general term. That is, it has both a general meaning and a specific meaning. Generally, a bottom is any person who enjoys the "accepting" role in a scene (as opposed to a top, who enjoys the "delivering" role). More specifically though, a bottom is one who enjoys mainly the physical character of play, whereas a submissive enjoys a more emotional/psychological form of surrender.

So in tickling terms, a bottom would be analogous to a 'lee. They're definitely different. A submissive enjoys those elements of surrender or of offering himself or herself as a gift to the Dom. A 'lee/bottom is mainly interested in the physical sensations. These aren't hard lines, though, and many people partake of both to some degree.

 

[steph]

I don't give orders (losers) and I don't take them from anyone else. I am primarily dominant IRL but as a lee, I totally submit to my ler, once they've proven themselves worthy of my trust. I don't know what box I fit into, I bet no one else does here either, unless you really know me, which is maybe 3 or 4 people here.
XOXO

 

[Mastertank1]

Oh, Lord, my ideal woman1

I don't give orders (losers) and I don't take them from anyone else. I am primarily dominant IRL but as a lee, I totally submit to my ler, once they've proven themselves worthy of my trust. I don't know what box I fit into, I bet no one else does here either, unless you really know me, which is maybe 3 or 4 people here.
XOXO

One who truly understands, not just intellectually but emotionally as well, that the sub/dom roles we wear during tickle play need not have any effect on the rest of our lives, nor do they have to affect the rest of two people's relationship with each other!
a couple can be 'lee and 'ler at play and still live as complete equals in all other shared aspects of their lives, or not, as they choose.

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

I think everyone is getting confused a bit.

A submissive/dominant are for BDSM.

A tickler/ticklee are for tickling.

The only time this comes into action is when the initial "play" is in effect. Domninant/submissive usually take it out of the bedroom and into their lives. Unlike tickling, D/s is usually always on.

The submissive has agreed to listen to the dominant..however the lee has only agreed to be the one that is tickled.

So after that...personality traits really have nothing to do with it. Even though being a lee may have a submissive quality about it..its only for tickling. The Ler has agreed to be the tickler and the one in control.

Just like going to a job...for those eight hours..you are submitted yourself to your bosses authority lest you get fired or if you are the boss/forman...during those hours you are the boss. After the job is done..you neither have to listen or will be listened to. Doesn't make you any different as a person.

As for giving orders and following it 24/7 with no free will. That's a totally different title altogether..its called Master/slave.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

being a "switch" in a relationship with another "switch", i'm not entirely certain of a difference myself. while CS2K will, generally, be submissive to me in play, and even in other cases not involving play, she still dominates rather well. in one relationship, i had dated a total submissive. she had no interest in playing the part of a switch or a dom...i was the one, effectively, "in control", so to speak...and it bothered me. as many times as i had tied her up and played with her, i'd always ask if she would like to do the same. and she never would. allowed me to understand, just a little bit, of the true submissive mindset. however, with the 'lees i have had in my life, most of them tickled back, which was enjoyable.
i'm sure i'm rehashing right now, but this is how i see it: a ticklee is a ticklee, and a sub is a sub. i guess the only time when the two are the same is if the submissive in question will submit to his/her domme for tickling. i could be wrong, i dunno. but that's how i sees it.

 

[Iggy pop]

Second, an evolved trait does not evolve away just because it is not an advantage anymore. Look at our tail bones and appendixes. To evolve away, a trait must become a significant disadvantage, so that those who do NOT have it are much more likely to survive and have children than those who do.
That has not happened with D & S, in fact quite the contrary.

This all relates to tickling too. Among Wolves and Dogs, in order to resolve dominance disputes without actual injury to a valuable pack member, they have evolved a submission behavior which turns off further aggression by the dominant victor like throwing a switch; flipping onto the back and exposing the vitals to the dominant animal. The dominant responds by very lightly touching the tips of it's fangs to the throat or belly of the submissive, symbolizing that the dominant could have fatally injured the submissive but chose not to.

In humans, the analogous behavior is tickling. If you look at all the places on the human body that are usually ticklish, they are all areas where an injury would be fatal to an animal whose survival depended on running with a hunting pack, or take away it's ability to successfully have/rear offspring.
Toes/soles of feet-ability to run
backs of knees/kneecaps-ability to run
inner thighs-femoral artery (if it is cut, the individual bleeds to death in 30 seconds)
backs of thighs-hamstring tendon
hips-pelvic joints
lower belly-reproductive organs
ribs/sides-all the major organs in the body trunk
underarms-major nerves and arteries
neck/throat/under chin-major nerves and arteries/windpipe
breasts(women)-ability to feed newborns.

At this point I would have to ask why are the calves(at least they tend to be) and wrists so much less ticklish? Also the tops of the feet seem to be less ticklish, but an injury there would handicap the ability to run? Then again why are some people not ticklish in these areas while others are? This is not to say the theory is wrong, but it still leaves us with some interesting questions.

 

[wendynpeter]

OK - here's how it goes. In order to understand any activity, you have to understand the vocabulary associated with it, because that's how distinctions are made and clarity gained.

In the tickling fetish world, there are ticklers, "ticklees," and switches. Please understand that I'm talking about the tickle fetish world, not the broader world of tickling that includes tickling fetishism, but only as a very small part.) In the tickling fetish world, there are people who desire to be tickled (ticklees) and actively seek out partners who are willing to tickle them. Often this includes bondage, but not always.

Some people assume that the act of tickling someone in a tickle fetish scene is equivalent to dominating them. Not so. Here's how it breaks out (in the simplest sense).

Bottoming: allowing someone (the "top") to do something to you that you desire.

Topping: doing something to a bottom that they desire.

Submission: allowing someone (the dominant) to do something to you that the dominant desires, and that you agree to, either specifically or as part of a more general agreement/understanding.

Domination: doing something to a submissive that you desire and that they agree to.

Slave (bdsm): a person who allows someone to control them, at least sexually, and do things to them that they have no say in, except in the broadest terms (i.e., an all or nothing proposition). Often, but not necessarily a "true" masochist.

Master (bdsm): a closet masochist.

Anyway, you get my drift. There are absolutely no universal statements that can be drawn from the information above.

It is not true that all ticklees are bottoms and all ticklers are tops, even for a specific scene, because it's possible to "top from the bottom." This is a difficult concept to explain, but think of someone who says "I want you to tickle my sides while you give me a blowjob." That said, MOST ticklers are topping while tickling, and MOST ticklees are bottoming while being tickled.

So, given the above, you can see how it's NOT true that all (or even most) ticklees are submissives. MOST ticklees are bottoms. As it works out, some ticklees are submissives, and some are slaves. But this is not necessarily so. In a world where there could be no submissives or slaves, tickle fetishists could still have tickle scenes.

Hope this helps.