Lees, lers, switches, all that crap...

[Excess]

Warning, tl;dr rant upcoming. Want short version, skip to bottom.

As I've been here for some time now, this is something that has come up once in a while. The subject of preference, why we have different ones, and, in the case of lers and lees, why we go for the other side.

Now I dunno about all of you, but on more than one occasion I've had someone question how I can just be a ler. This leads into different questions, like "If you don't lee, how can you know how to be a good ler?" "If you just ler, then isn't that unfair since all you're doing is taking?", and such comments as "I don't understand how you can like tickling if you don't lee too" and "You should give back sometimes". And of course I'll gladly explain why, but really, why would I need to lee to be a good ler? Why would it be unfair?

Giving and taking. What does this even mean? To say that being a ler is just 'taking' and being a lee is just 'giving' is rather incorrect I'd say. If you're tickling someone who enjoys it, what are you taking from them exactly? Aren't you giving them what they enjoy? The way I see it, it's mutual. So I don't follow why someone needs to 'give back' by being a lee themselves.

I've also been witness to numerous attempts at 'turning' someone. A girl states that she's just a ler/lee, and that's that, yet some guy comes along trying to convince her to go against her preference. Now there's nothing wrong with trying something new, but if someone doesn't want to do something, why continue to try and persuade them? It's not like there's a vast shortage of people from either side, and it more often than not simply comes across as selfish in my opinion.

A preference for tickling is the same as apples and oranges. Some might only eat apples. Some oranges. Some both. What does it really matter what someone's eating? In the end, it's still just food, which all serves the same function. To satisfy us. Two roads leading to the same destination.

So I guess what I'm saying overall is that it's fine to be willing to help someone experiment, but you should also be respectful of their differences. We're all unique and should be treated as such. It's our differences that make us part of a whole. This goes for all aspects of life. So next time you see that hot new girl here and are disappointed to find out she's not a lee, let her be her and look elsewhere if you want something else.🙂

 

[melanie2]

I was once called selfish because i was only a lee..i don't have any interest in becoming a ler..never will either..it's just how i am..

In the past i've been tickled in those sessions i did have by only lers and i found nothing missing in their technique..i don't think one has to become a lee in order to know how to tickle best..

 

[Crushertitan]

Does someone need to be shot to be a good marksman?

Okay, extreme example, there... but as far as technique goes, what about people who 'ler and literally are not ticklish? Even if they did 'lee, it would do no good. Our ability comes from knowing where to touch and how and reading the reaction of the 'lee. Some of us are dedicated to give the 'lee a hell of a tickling and that means we're willing to learn their spots and find the right way to attack 'em.

If anything, a 'lee may fall into a trap of thinking they know how to tickle others just because they've BEEN tickled... but not everyone has the same ticklish spots nor the same reaction to stimuli. Someone only ticklish for harsher treatments like nails or forks or the like might cause a particularly sensitive 'lee serious pain with that method. The trick is to step into the situation knowing nothing and experimenting and then using what works--or at least it's worked for me.

I've met two people recently who aren't in the least bit interested in 'ler-ing, who want to be dominated by tickles, and those are the sort of people perfect for us 'ler-only types. It might be distasteful or boring to them to try and tickle someone... I don't know the reason but in the end it's best to respect it and try to find the right sort of partner for the job.

 

[Coda1]

I avoid references to "lees" and "lers" because I think using them has the potential to mislead the unwary to believe that they irrevocably "are" one of the two, rather than merely using the term as a description of which role happens to be their favourite.

(I think the same may apply to the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual." In either case, I doubt the reality of most people's orientations is black-and-white.)

 

[the_jimmy_james]

I think the same may apply to the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual." In either case, I doubt the reality of most people's orientations is black-and-white.

To that thought, there actually isn't a gray area. One can't be "a little bit gay". That's a different classification entirely, bisexual. The same applies to this situation.

One is a top (ler), bottom (lee) or switch. I've seen people say they're "half lee" or some rot like that. That means you're a switch, since that is the only classification that makes sense in this context at all.

All of this goes back to Ex's original post by saying I believe this poor understanding of things is what leads people to think they can turn someone. Most people are switches. They can get their jollies in one spot or the other. A great deal of those people, though, choose one side or another for some reason, rather than just saying they're a switch. So...

Our specimen tiklmanfootballguy5032149 is perfectly able to get his rocks off on top or bottom. However, he writes in his profile, and tells people, that he's a ler. Why? He's a guy. Guys are supposed to be the ones in control, in charge, right? Sure, whatever you poor deluded fool.

Now, toughasnailstickleegrrl shows up in his tunnel-vision-like radar and bills herself as a very submissive ticklee. How he found her when pretty much all he does is cruise the video clip section, hitting refresh every five minutes is beyond me, but we'll ignore that part. He sends a poorly-written PM to our hypothetical victim of 3rd grade-level writing saying the following:

hai i here u r a lee i bet i can make u want 2 ler me come on girl itll be so fun an sexy and u can only wear a little pink thong an stuff yea

This sends the woman into a rage and she ends up breaking her keyboard, punching her boyfriend in the dick, and blowing up some asshole's H2 (he deserved to get that POS blasted anyway.) All because Dr. Fuckhead can't figure out that he's really a switch, and that not everybody is a moron like him.

See? It's so goddamn simple.

 

[TKLVR181]

I've teased Ex on this point for years, but that's our back-and-forthing. Even I know when to agree with him. It's disrespectful to tease others about their prefrence--I'm a switch. I used to think I was only a ler, and I got the s*** teased out of me for my lee side.

I grew to love both sides of the coin---that's my way, not the 'right' way. Some common courtosy, people!

~K

 

[Crushertitan]

To that thought, there actually isn't a gray area. One can't be "a little bit gay". That's a different classification entirely, bisexual. The same applies to this situation.

One is a top (ler), bottom (lee) or switch. I've seen people say they're "half lee" or some rot like that. That means you're a switch, since that is the only classification that makes sense in this context at all.

All of this goes back to Ex's original post by saying I believe this poor understanding of things is what leads people to think they can turn someone. Most people are switches. They can get their jollies in one spot or the other. A great deal of those people, though, choose one side or another for some reason, rather than just saying they're a switch. So...

Our specimen tiklmanfootballguy5032149 is perfectly able to get his rocks off on top or bottom. However, he writes in his profile, and tells people, that he's a ler. Why? He's a guy. Guys are supposed to be the ones in control, in charge, right? Sure, whatever you poor deluded fool.

Now, toughasnailstickleegrrl shows up in his tunnel-vision-like radar and bills herself as a very submissive ticklee. How he found her when pretty much all he does is cruise the video clip section, hitting refresh every five minutes is beyond me, but we'll ignore that part. He sends a poorly-written PM to our hypothetical victim of 3rd grade-level writing saying the following:

hai i here u r a lee i bet i can make u want 2 ler me come on girl itll be so fun an sexy and u can only wear a little pink thong an stuff yea

This sends the woman into a rage and she ends up breaking her keyboard, punching her boyfriend in the dick, and blowing up some asshole's H2 (he deserved to get that POS blasted anyway.) All because Dr. Fuckhead can't figure out that he's really a switch, and that not everybody is a moron like him.

See? It's so goddamn simple.

Well, there IS a difference here. One can like being a 'ler better than being a 'lee or vice versa. In those cases it's perfectly fine to say "half 'lee, full 'ler" or something of that nature. Or hell, often we have people who only 'lee for a certain sex or on only certain ticklish spots of the body.

Also, rare as we may be, us non-switches DO exist. I won't flip out on someone who decides to tickle me but frankly I just don't see the appeal in the being-tickled side of things. That's simple enough to me but for most people, being a switch isn't just 'so goddamn simple' from what I've seen.

 

[Barefoot_Sis]

Well, there's two separate issues here. For the more important issue, of whether you should try to get someone to go against their preference... I strongly disagree. If someone enjoys being pure Lee, or pure Ler, leave them alone.

Though of course if you tickle someone who's a switch, you should expect to be tickled back. 😉 I myself am a switch, and I let people know that I myself prefer to be with another switch. If someone is a pure Lee or Ler, I tell them quite honestly that I am not their cup of tea, and that I won't be forced into a single role, such as being only a Ler.

Personally, I never force my own views on anyone else. Tickle a guy who doesn't want to be tickled and he's liable to get rather irate. And asking a pure lee girl to tickle you is a good exercise in watching her figure out how to get herself tied up and tickled while you stand there with a feather duster shoved into your hands, wondering what just happened.

Not to say that someone won't cater to you once in a while: I knew a sub guy named Mike dating a sub girl named Heidi, and she would reluctantly attempt to domme him just to try and please him. But don't expect it to last. When he refused to reciprocate, ... she left him for a dom guy who would tickle her.

As to the secondary issue of 'why' we have the preference to be a lee or ler? I have no idea When I was in High School, I met two girls named Jessica and Lena. Both came from the same exact background, same race, class, nationality, religion, foot size, hair color, etc. etc.. But Jessica was as pure a tickler as you can get, and Lena was a ticklee.

I do know that in real life, most guys are more rigid in what they are and most girls are more flexible, or, like Heidi above, are at least more open to possibilities and more willing to cater, being as they are more willing to have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude in regards to tickling in the first place.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

I think there's a little bit of not-getting-what-Jimmy-said going on here.

Well, there IS a difference here. One can like being a 'ler better than being a 'lee or vice versa. In those cases it's perfectly fine to say "half 'lee, full 'ler" or something of that nature. Or hell, often we have people who only 'lee for a certain sex or on only certain ticklish spots of the body.

But there's not. If one can enjoy only being tickled, they are a "Ticklee". If they can enjoy only dishing it out, they are a "Tickler". If they are able to enjoy both, even if they prefer one, they are a "Switch." Those are the definitions. To discuss something, there must be defined and agreed-upon terms, otherwise you have people shouting at each other over positions that can never be compared because they use different metrics for measuring something, or qualify their terms differently.

I'll use my girlfriend, TT's own Bella Donna as an example. She's crrrazy submissive and prefers that role. Under the right circumstances, she can turn, but these circumstances are exceedingly rare. Don't think that you're ever going to end up on the receiving end, brah. By definition, she is a switch. She claims to be submissive. Why? Because by saying so, she gets to choose when she can take a dominant role, rather than having people assume that she'll do it for them.

Also, rare as we may be, us non-switches DO exist. I won't flip out on someone who decides to tickle me but frankly I just don't see the appeal in the being-tickled side of things. That's simple enough to me but for most people, being a switch isn't just 'so goddamn simple' from what I've seen.

Non-switches aren't rare, and nobody said they were, I simply said that there's a lot of people (which can be shortened to the word "most") who can go both ways, but who feel they must choose. This is my observation based on the limited insight we get into people via their oft-illegible Internet postings.

As I said above, there was a lot of not getting what I said. I think you might have read the first and last sentences of my post and missed the point entirely. Let me explain.

No... it is too long, I sum up.

For the people who are switches and know it: They can equally enjoy both ways. For the people who are switches and don't know it, don't consider the possibility, or prefer one side or the other: They, too can find enjoyment both ways. A lee or a ler can only find enjoyment in the one role that they're wired for.

As to the secondary issue of 'why' we have the preference to be a lee or ler? I have no idea When I was in High School, I met two girls named Jessica and Lena. Both came from the same exact background, same race, class, nationality, religion, foot size, hair color, etc. etc.. But Jessica was as pure a tickler as you can get, and Lena was a ticklee.

None of those socio-economic or phenotypical factors have anything to do with the wiring of the brain. Some of it may to a certain extent be environmental, but not a lot, I don't think.

I do know that in real life, most guys are more rigid in what they are and most girls are more flexible, or, like Heidi above, are at least more open to possibilities and more willing to cater, being as they are more willing to have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude in regards to tickling in the first place.

This is due 121.45% to the fact that every thought in a guy's mind happens in the malebrain (scrotum), which is what generates this little liability we like to call the Pigheaded Male Ego(TM). A man is less likely to be flexible, because to the Pigheaded Male Ego(TM), being flexible is the same as admitting defeat, being wrong, or getting seen shopping with your girlfriend in her favorite shoestore.

 

[TKLVR181]

Tickle a guy who doesn't want to be tickled and he's liable to get rather irate. And asking a pure lee girl to tickle you is a good exercise in watching her figure out how to get herself tied up and tickled while you stand there with a feather duster shoved into your hands, wondering what just happened.

*falls over laughing at the trueness of that paragraph* Oy, it's true--there's no point. You'll just end up frustrated.

*Huggles mah switch Senshi* :ggrin:

~K

 

[Excess]

Thanks for the responses everyone, it's offered some great insight. :super_hap

Though of course if you tickle someone who's a switch, you should expect to be tickled back. 😉 I myself am a switch, and I let people know that I myself prefer to be with another switch. If someone is a pure Lee or Ler, I tell them quite honestly that I am not their cup of tea, and that I won't be forced into a single role, such as being only a Ler.

If you're talking being in a relationship with someone, then yes, I agree, since you'd be interacting with that person on a regular basis. Otherwise however, I disagree. That is I don't think there's anything wrong with, say, a ler tickling a switch so long as the switch is agreeable to the idea that there isn't going to be any 'revenge' tickling. I mean unless there's some part of you that NEEDS to tickle someone back, you can go one way for someone since it's not something that has to be constant.

 

[P[a]pi]

The sliding bar of ler to lee doesn't land on 100% of one or 50% of both for most people with a tickling fetish.

 

[Coda1]

the_jimmy_james,

Okay, all substantial points, and I think we agree on a lot of them...

I don't agree that anyone who isn't a pure 'lee or a pure 'ler is only a switch, or that someone who is even slightly disposed to bisexuality can't be described properly as homosexual or heterosexual.

What about our word choices as they pertain to specific occasions? For example, if a self-proclaimed "switch" is currently tied up and laughing, we naturally describe her as "the 'lee" in that case, not "the switch."

In the same way, if a bisexual woman is currently in a relationship with a man, we refer to that as a "heterosexual relationship," not a "bisexual relationship."

Also, I think it's important to consider that the TMF's control panel offers its 80,000 members the option to describe themselves as a " 'lee," a " 'ler," or "both."

Since words are defined by their usage, and the TMF comprises the vast majority of people who use those terms, and surely a lot of them implicitly accept that usage, I think it's at least a little presumptuous, and probably not accurate, to say that anything else is their only acceptable definition set. (Although, if you personally define the words that way, then that's fine.)

Even if those words were so strictly defined as you suggested, that's exactly the reason I avoid them in the first place; newcomers might be mislead to believe that they can only be a 'ler or a 'lee, when in fact they could be, if you like, a "switch," and that's all that I wished to mention earlier.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

the_jimmy_james,

Okay, all substantial points, and I think we agree on a lot of them...

I don't agree that anyone who isn't a pure 'lee or a pure 'ler is only a switch, or that someone who is even slightly disposed to bisexuality can't be described properly as homosexual or heterosexual.

On the first count, you say:

"If you aren't A or B, you don't have to be AB"

And then you say:

"If you are AB, you may also be A OR (exclusive or) B"

I think.

The fact is that what I said is absolutely true. Being "lee" and being "ler" are what we call mutual exclusives. There is a third class, and the term "switch" is used, borrowed from BDSM culture where it means a person who enjoys both submissive and dominant roles.

What about our word choices as they pertain to specific occasions? For example, if a self-proclaimed "switch" is currently tied up and laughing, we naturally describe her as "the 'lee" in that case, not "the switch."

That doesn't change the person's preference, which is what we're talking about, that is their role. A switch in a submissive role is still a switch.

In the same way, if a bisexual woman is currently in a relationship with a man, we refer to that as a "heterosexual relationship," not a "bisexual relationship."

And there, you've changed the subject of the example. You've shifted things from being about the person, who is bisexual no matter what, to the relationship.

Dirty pool, old man. Keep your discussion straight. 😉

Also, I think it's important to consider that the TMF's control panel offers its 80,000 members the option to describe themselves as a " 'lee," a " 'ler," or "both."

So, they offer the choice to choose...

Lee: One who enjoys being tickled.
Ler: One who enjoys tickling.
Both: One who enjoys both.

Sounds identical to what I said, though with a different word used. Yeah... sounds like semantics.

Since words are defined by their usage, and the TMF comprises the vast majority of people who use those terms, and surely a lot of them implicitly accept that usage, I think it's at least a little presumptuous, and probably not accurate, to say that anything else is their only acceptable definition set. (Although, if you personally define the words that way, then that's fine.)

I don't agree, though. Even further, I can't understand how there can be an argument with these definitions.

Tickler: One who enjoys tickling.
Ticklee: One who enjoys being tickled.
Switch: One who enjoys both.

That's what they mean. I'm sorry, but that is what those terms do mean.

Even if those words were so strictly defined as you suggested, that's exactly the reason I avoid them in the first place; newcomers might be mislead to believe that they can only be a 'ler or a 'lee, when in fact they could be, if you like, a "switch," and that's all that I wished to mention earlier.

I totally agree on that one, there. That's the point I'm trying to make. Many people seem to feel they much choose one end or the other, and I think, due to this, they lose the concept of being able to enjoy both.

They don't use "switch", and it's not really part of their thought, meaning the entire concept essentially doesn't exist to them. It's like Newspeak from "1984". If you remove the concept of Liberty from language, then you remove it from thought. If one feels compelled to choose tickler or ticklee, with no gray area, then to them, there is no middle-ground.

 

[Coda1]

All right; good that we agree on that main point.

That time, you explicitly defined a 'lee as "someone who enjoys being tickled," and a 'ler as "someone who enjoys tickling."

You continued to say (naturally) that it's possible to be someone who enjoys being tickled, and someone who enjoys tickling. Just by substituting the definitions, you've conceded that it's possible to be both a 'lee and a 'ler.

But, you'd also just said that being a 'lee and being a 'ler were mutual exclusives.

 

[P[a]pi]

I've gotten tired of labels because I don't fully fit any of them. Ler fits me best, but if ler means you never like to be tickled, then it doesn't fit me completely. Ler doesn't mean that to me, but it does to others.

I have ler, dom, lee and even sub qualities. My lee and sub qualities only pertain to Meka. She's the only chick I'd ever let do me. My ler and dom qualities pertain to her and every female I find attractive, real or fictional.

Like if we were to play with another female I'd be ler/dom. When I'm looking at artwork I'm ler/dom.

I don't even like the word dom. I don't like a lot of things that full doms do.

Basically, I don't pick and choose from those 4 labels, I just do what I like, but if I sit down and think about it I can break down what I do into those 4 categories.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

All right; good that we agree on that main point.

That time, you explicitly defined a 'lee as "someone who enjoys being tickled," and a 'ler as "someone who enjoys tickling."

You continued to say (naturally) that it's possible to be someone who enjoys being tickled, and someone who enjoys tickling. Just by substituting the definitions, you've conceded that it's possible to be both a 'lee and a 'ler.

But, you'd also just said that being a 'lee and being a 'ler were mutual exclusives.

... Reading comprehension! Since the start I have claimed there are three classes.

A = Lee
B = Ler
AB = Switch

What I said originally was...

One is a top (ler), bottom (lee) or switch. I've seen people say they're "half lee" or some rot like that. That means you're a switch, since that is the only classification that makes sense in this context at all.

Top (ler), bottom (lee) or switch. Three classes. Three. Not one, not two, but three.

The same divisions are used in BDSM culture, where one is dominant, submissive, or switch, and they don't have this much trouble agreeing that three distinct states have three different classifications.

I've gotten tired of labels because I don't fully fit any of them. Ler fits me best, but if ler means you never like to be tickled, then it doesn't fit me completely. Ler doesn't mean that to me, but it does to others.

I have ler, dom, lee and even sub qualities. My lee and sub qualities only pertain to Meka. She's the only chick I'd ever let do me. My ler and dom qualities pertain to her and every female I find attractive, real or fictional.

Like if we were to play with another female I'd be ler/dom. When I'm looking at artwork I'm ler/dom.

I don't even like the word dom. I don't like a lot of things that full doms do.

Basically, I don't pick and choose from those 4 labels, I just do what I like, but if I sit down and think about it I can break down what I do into those 4 categories.

So you're a switch in tickling and in BDSM.

I am curious, why is there such reason to speak against the term switch? Seriously, is it only because the guy that runs another forum doesn't use the word?

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

Talking about switches, obviously they do exist in the definition which Jim has presented here. However, I feel that you can't ignore the ratio of 'ler to 'lee in a switch. A 50 / 50 breakdown would be a true switch. That person doesn't care one way or the other.

However in my case I am, like I state in my preference much more 'ler than 'lee. I see tickling far more from the perspective of a 'ler than a 'lee. Therefore I do consider myself a 'ler even if Jim wants to call me a switch. That label may be technically correct, but in the spirit of how I feel I am a 'ler.

I'm not crazy about being a 'lee. I think this is where the difference lays. A true 'lee really wants to be a 'lee. A 'lee who's a switch still enjoys the 'lee part. I will consent to it, but it is not my preferred choice. So the switch label doesn't really apply to me. Even though on occasion if the stars align I can enjoy it.

So its not truly a black, gray, white definition. Each person is unique.

 

[Coda1]

jimmy,

Yes, you have claimed...

Tickler: One who enjoys tickling.
Ticklee: One who enjoys being tickled.
Switch: One who enjoys both.

... but you still seem to be insisting that if someone is a "switch" and enjoys both, then it's somehow incorrect to call them "a tickler and a ticklee."

You've said being a "tickler" and being a "ticklee" are mutually exclusive, but those definitions there are clearly not mutually exclusive. That confusion is not a matter of reading comprehension.

It's that question that I'd like you to clear up. I'm not objecting to the term "switch."