In my opinion: I consider two different '*articulatory tensions*': * (1) tension from physically tensing the speech muscles, or * (2) tension from air pressure alone By definition, everyone, even non-stutterers and all speakers experience articulatory tension from air pressure, which is a fluency law because it will always happen when we breathe out. Breathing out is a necessary part of speaking. I think most **people who stutter (PWS)** (and likely even SLPs) neglect this simple fact, and therefore believe that all tension needs to be dealt with for normal speech production, and "as long as **PWS** still experience tension" they justify the stutter program. Does this idea make sense to you? Now, physically tensing speech muscles is unnecessary, in my opinion. But I think it shouldn't make the action/decision/instruction of "*executing speech movements*" harder, at least, not to the point that we should therefore justify the stutter program (which in my viewpoint isn't a valid enough reason). In contrast, I argue that **PWS** learned to use this as a valid reason to justify the stuttter program. Lastly, if we replace the fluency law (which is actually required) to "*instruct motor movements*", with "*tensing speech muscles in an attempt to instruct motor movements*" then it creates a stutter disorder on its own. Does this make sense to you? This is exactly what happened to me. **This is just my take on it. Do you have any questions?**