Disclaimer: I know JanT won't like this and I respect and understand why. On the other hand we don't all live in BA and get to dance with the milongeuros very week! So I've been reading a lot of posts in various threads about the 'follower' just following, or the follower creating part of the dance. Is it possible that the dislike of calling the role of the person facing away from the line of dance 'the woman' for PC reasons (I agree that calling it the woman's role is heteronormative and not always the best use of language depending on who is in the class) has led to an over-simplification in terms of roles within the partnership? I can see why, and agree that the primary driver of the dance by way of choosing when to step and in what direction is the 'leader'. Clearly only one person has a view of the dance floor in the direction of progress and because women are on average smaller, a woman might not have much peripheral vision depending on her partner (or man if he is short and following a taller man!). But this doesn't mean the other person can't contribute by interpreting the music in the way that they step or when. Isn't it nice to feel like a conversation is going on and that you are creating the dance together? I'm not picking on JohnEm, he's just the most recent person to have use the phrase "one body four legs". To me that doesn't proscribe the 'follower' from influencing the dance, if you mean that the two bodies are in tune and responding to each other. If on the other hand it means 'my body with two extra legs that I'm borrowing from someone else for 10 minutes' that doesn't sound so poetic. I can see how, as a beginner follower or whatever, when you still have to work hard to interpret what is being led, dancing with a really excellent leader who doesn't require any effort on your part to follow can be really nice and enjoyable when you totally surrender and let him do all the work. Having a break from resisting hideously over led ochos or being flung around in a giro that gives you no time to complete a step is blissful and completely switching off can be very very nice. There is a point, when you no longer have to 'work' to follow where being moved around like a piece of furniture is very pleasant but not quite fulfilling. You dance with the same guys week in, week out and they all have things they like to do at a particular time, in a particular way for most pieces of music that come on. Or they just do Miles's golden nugget the whole time, but with a beautiful embrace (JK!). Shoot me for being a bi*ch, but I get bored. There is a point when having no influence at all is dehumanising. It always makes me smile when someone points out a follower and says "she's dancing by herself" and what you see is her following by rote 90% of the time but every so often she puts in an embellishment or takes two tiny steps instead of one big one. OK yes, if a woman is back leading or ignoring the leader to a large extent, maybe she's dancing by herself, but if you think the other way, if the leader never listens to the follower, or doesn't like listening to the follower... maybe he is the one dancing with himself. Why bother dancing with another person if you aren't interacting with them except to control them? Why not just dance with a robot or a rubber crash dummy... or dance on your own? I'll probably get pedantically ranted at for this but I just wanted to describe a little of why followers sometimes want to have some input. I find it much more rewarding when I am allowed a bit of back and forth and if it's playful music... maybe to make my partner laugh without compromising the flow. I agree that back leading and endless big adornos are distracting and unpleasant... but hey guys I often hear "we're doing it to please the follower, it's all about the follower!" ... maybe sometimes you'd let us please you! Not trying to start an argument just trying to put forward my view on the role of the person who can't see.