moriaritytk
TMF Poster
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 127
- Points
- 0
The recent thread about the genetic vs. environmental source of our shared tickling interest was fascinating. But, it raises another mystery–why are so many more men into tickling than women.
The disparity is huge. This forum has attracted more women than most tickling efforts, but there are still probably ten men for each woman. There has always been more M/F material and F/F material (usually purchased by men) than F/M material. And, much of the F/M material is created by and consumed by men. Why is that?
If the source of a tickling interest was purely genetic, the “wealth” should be spread more randomly. We might see a 60-40 breakdown with a pure genetic trigger, but not a 90-10 breakdown. Something else must be at work here.
If tickling had a sex-linked genetic trigger, like color-blindness, we would see all male ticklers and no females, except hermaphrodites with too many chromosomes . That’s clearly not the case. Even though there are far fewer women into tickling, there are too many to believe that the trigger is attached to the male chromosome.
What if there is a genetic predisposition to tickling that must be triggered by an environmental event early in life? Since many of us cannot recall a triggering event, it must have happened at a young age. In this culture, anyway, young kids seem to get and give “gitchee-gitchee-goo” tickling without huge gender bias, so that wouldn’t account for the huge disparity.
Nor would the environment account for the fact that men seem to have a bias toward being “lers” rather than “lees”. Among young children, both males and females are generally on the short end of the power equation, especially when dealing with adults. Our earliest experience is usually of being tickled. Some of us latch on to that experience and want to repeat it. Others somehow make the leap from being tickled to wanting to tickle, even though the tickling experience requires a cognitive appreciation of the control equation–a level of thinking that pre-schoolers are just beginning to consciously develop. The visceral experience of being tickled is much stronger and should turn most of us into “lees” if the environment during our formative years is the only factor. It should be much easier to turn anyone–male or female–into a “lee” but, in fact, we seem to have many more male “lers”. Again, reality destroys a reasonable hypothesis.
There is another easy answer, but it collapses under scrutiny. When males and females move into their period of sexual awakening at puberty, there are cultural sex roles (males dominant, females submissive) that could be shaping the paths we travel and leading far more men to the “ler” camp. But, the self-reports on this site pretty much destroy that theory. My own experience and the experience of a high percentage of the people here show that the interest in being a “ler” existed before puberty did it’s hormonal number on us. The hormones seemed to enhance the interest, but, for the most part, the interest was already there.
Another theory is that, in fact, no significant disparity exists. What if there are roughly the same amount of women and men who are turned into “lers” and “lees” by a combo platter of genetic predispositions and environmental triggers? What if societal pressures simply cause more women to suppress their dominant “ler” urges and more men to suppress their submissive “lee” urges? If everybody in the world could cast a secret ballot on whether they were interested in tickling at all, would we see something close to an equal amount of male and female “lers” and “lees”.
I’ve long been stumped by the male-female tickling gap. It shouldn’t exist, but it does. As Jerry Seinfeld would say, “What’s the deal with that?”
The disparity is huge. This forum has attracted more women than most tickling efforts, but there are still probably ten men for each woman. There has always been more M/F material and F/F material (usually purchased by men) than F/M material. And, much of the F/M material is created by and consumed by men. Why is that?
If the source of a tickling interest was purely genetic, the “wealth” should be spread more randomly. We might see a 60-40 breakdown with a pure genetic trigger, but not a 90-10 breakdown. Something else must be at work here.
If tickling had a sex-linked genetic trigger, like color-blindness, we would see all male ticklers and no females, except hermaphrodites with too many chromosomes . That’s clearly not the case. Even though there are far fewer women into tickling, there are too many to believe that the trigger is attached to the male chromosome.
What if there is a genetic predisposition to tickling that must be triggered by an environmental event early in life? Since many of us cannot recall a triggering event, it must have happened at a young age. In this culture, anyway, young kids seem to get and give “gitchee-gitchee-goo” tickling without huge gender bias, so that wouldn’t account for the huge disparity.
Nor would the environment account for the fact that men seem to have a bias toward being “lers” rather than “lees”. Among young children, both males and females are generally on the short end of the power equation, especially when dealing with adults. Our earliest experience is usually of being tickled. Some of us latch on to that experience and want to repeat it. Others somehow make the leap from being tickled to wanting to tickle, even though the tickling experience requires a cognitive appreciation of the control equation–a level of thinking that pre-schoolers are just beginning to consciously develop. The visceral experience of being tickled is much stronger and should turn most of us into “lees” if the environment during our formative years is the only factor. It should be much easier to turn anyone–male or female–into a “lee” but, in fact, we seem to have many more male “lers”. Again, reality destroys a reasonable hypothesis.
There is another easy answer, but it collapses under scrutiny. When males and females move into their period of sexual awakening at puberty, there are cultural sex roles (males dominant, females submissive) that could be shaping the paths we travel and leading far more men to the “ler” camp. But, the self-reports on this site pretty much destroy that theory. My own experience and the experience of a high percentage of the people here show that the interest in being a “ler” existed before puberty did it’s hormonal number on us. The hormones seemed to enhance the interest, but, for the most part, the interest was already there.
Another theory is that, in fact, no significant disparity exists. What if there are roughly the same amount of women and men who are turned into “lers” and “lees” by a combo platter of genetic predispositions and environmental triggers? What if societal pressures simply cause more women to suppress their dominant “ler” urges and more men to suppress their submissive “lee” urges? If everybody in the world could cast a secret ballot on whether they were interested in tickling at all, would we see something close to an equal amount of male and female “lers” and “lees”.
I’ve long been stumped by the male-female tickling gap. It shouldn’t exist, but it does. As Jerry Seinfeld would say, “What’s the deal with that?”
When video conferencing becomes a more common and economical technology, we all need to find a time, and have a worldwide tickle gathering where we all take shots of rum, hold virtual hands, and talk about these things deep into the night
