closets...

[robinhood]

x

Edited September 21, 2010 by aaronwriter

[Nephylim]

Well I have an idea why bottoms are looked down on but that probably isn't what you meant

[TetRefine]

If every gay guy was a top, there would be a lot of right hand (or left hand) action! Me personally, I'm very glad there are bottoms out there who enjoy it.

[robinhood]

x

Edited September 21, 2010 by aaronwriter

[robinhood]

x

Edited September 21, 2010 by aaronwriter

[option]

Its the bottoms that have the real power in terms of sex.

 

yet take porn as an example;

its become all about looking for bigger & bigger tops, yet they cant do anything by themselves

[robinhood]

x

Edited September 21, 2010 by aaronwriter

[Y_B]

i think perhaps bottoms in the gay world are treated like women in the straight world,

often as second class citizens...

(if you don't know what i mean by bottom just ask)

 

 

 

You totally missed Neph's joke.

[option]

You totally missed Neph's joke.

 

 

or he got it & used it to carry on

[robinhood]

x

Edited September 21, 2010 by aaronwriter

[robinhood]

x

Edited September 21, 2010 by aaronwriter

[Y_B]

why is being a gay bottom looked down upon,

 

It's not about how much you enjoy it, it's about power. Bottoming is a submissive position and when you're submitting yourself to the "authority" of another (the top), it's easier to be viewed as the weaker of the two. Another thing is that there seems to be a whole lot more bottoms than tops out there (I may be wrong, but it just really seems that way) and when you have this sea of bottoms waiting for one top to do them, it's harder to see the quality in any of them. If that is true, then it becomes the problem that the bottoms are more eager to give themselves up cuz of they're in surplus and that little heightened desperation decreases their attractiveness.

[option]

It's not about how much you enjoy it, it's about power. Bottoming is a submissive position and when you're submitting yourself to the "authority" of another (the top), it's easier to be viewed as the weaker of the two. Another thing is that there seems to be a whole lot more bottoms than tops out there (I may be wrong, but it just really seems that way) and when you have this sea of bottoms waiting for one top to do them, it's harder to see the quality in any of them. If that is true, then it becomes the problem that the bottoms are more eager to give themselves up cuz of they're in surplus and that little heightened desperation decreases their attractiveness.

 

 

the impression that there are more bottoms comes from 2 factors:

 

to be a good top, they also need to bottom sometimes, otherwise how will they know what really works

bottoming/receiving is the 'different' part of gay sex, & so everyone at some point is willing to do so

[robinhood]

x

Edited September 21, 2010 by aaronwriter

[robinhood]

x

Edited September 21, 2010 by aaronwriter

[Lugh]

Heh.

 

I'm sorry. I'm laughing my behind off right now. For someone who claims in the first sentence to be a writer, where is the grammar? Anyway -- tops, bottoms, dominates, submissives -- why must we all be categorized? I prefer to shake it up with my partners. I won't go as far as to say take turns, but unless there is a signed contract between two people why fall into a rut?

 

Discussions about sex are good, and healthy, but please refrain from coarse language and detailed discourse. If you have an issue with word choices please consult the thesaurus. Remember there are queerlings who can read this also... so manners, manners, manners!

 

Happy writing!

 

Lugh.

[TetRefine]

The whole problem with all this train of thought is we are getting too caught up in straight stereotypes. One guy has to be the "man" and the other guy has to be the "woman" of the relationship. Honestly, I don't view Cam as one of the two and he doesn't view me as one either. I see him as my equal and another guy who I view as my boyfriend boyfriend. Not my boyfriend girlfriend. If that makes any sense. Ok, never mind. A true same sex relationship, in my opinion, has to be equal with no one playing the dominant or submissive role. Not in bed or any other aspect of the relationship.

[Y_B]

I'm sorry. I'm laughing my behind off right now. For someone who claims in the first sentence to be a writer, where is the grammar?

 

It escaped me where he claimed he had perfect writing skills. I'm a writer...of a lotta things...I don't have good grammar.

J.

Boob.

me is. **

Peanut #%# butter.

Was that funny as well?

 

And it's not as if he was publishing an article in some global news report so it kinda just goes over my head what you're getting of on.

 

Anyway -- tops, bottoms, dominates, submissives -- why must we all be categorized? I prefer to shake it up with my partners. I won't go as far as to say take turns, but unless there is a signed contract between two people why fall into a rut?

 

Yes, yes, yes, labels = bad/unnecessary/incorrect/whatever, not everyone falls into categories and it's bad to generalize yada yada but for the sake of talking about idea, the idea could be, well, talked about and I don't think this incapable of producing a good discussion.

[Lugh]

Well Yang, at least you show the capacity to press the shift key and another key at the same time. So, yeah it is funny. Boob. That always makes me laugh. Boobies. That makes me laugh more.

 

Do people even bother reading the rules here? Ever?

 

Anyway I noticed you skipped the most important part of my post. That's ok. I'll forgive you this time.

 

As to the original topic in the thread (because you know we are getting off topic and that is bad too). I don't believe you are born being a top or a bottom. I think those tastes are developed as you are exposed to people and their behaviors, sexual and non-sexual. I also believe that a person can be a dominate personality but a total bottom in the sack. One does not exclude nor does it preclude the other. Many type A personalities are bottoms, it's the only place they can totally "let go" and be not in control. Something to consider, don't you think?

[Y_B]

Well Yang, at least you show the capacity to press the shift key and another key at the same time. So, yeah it is funny.

 

I have the capacity for a lotta things, not that I'm bringing attention to any of them or the lack of them in someone else.

 

Anyway I noticed you skipped the most important part of my post. That's ok. I'll forgive you this time.

 

Cuz that part didn't need a response.

 

 

As to the original topic in the thread (because you know we are getting off topic and that is bad too). I don't believe you are born being a top or a bottom. I think those tastes are developed as you are exposed to people and their behaviors, sexual and non-sexual. I also believe that a person can be a dominate personality but a total bottom in the sack. One does not exclude nor does it preclude the other. Many type A personalities are bottoms, it's the only place they can totally "let go" and be not in control. Something to consider, don't you think?

 

Of course. I agree with all of that and it could be interesting to point em out in contrast to the black & white top/bottom idea. But something could just be said about the specific act of bottoming and topping and why each is viewed differently with different respects and my original response to the thread was just me giving my thoughts on why bottoming is "looked down on".

[DragonMando]

My closet is triple-doored with locks all the way from ceiling to floor.

 

as far as tops and bottoms...another social cue I don't pick up on. What's the big deal if I guy likes bottoming more than topping? It makes as little sense to me as if a guy got ridiculed for liking his coffee with cream rather than having it black.

[robinhood]

x

Edited September 21, 2010 by aaronwriter

[DragonMando]

-i think tops copy behavior from the straight world.

in the straight world a guy who has a lot of women is a stud a hero.

a women who has a lot of men is easy and a lot of not very nice adjectives.

my yang friend thinks he's a hero for providing all those needy bottoms with his services.

but the bottom who welcomes the top inside is like the woman who sleeps with many men.

my friend yang shows that he has no respect for bottoms just because they welcome his member inside them

yang is allowed to feel desire but not the receiving bottom.

perhaps yang can only respect a bottom who is raped.

 

 

See...I don't understand any of that either

Guys, girls, straight, gay, bi, all of them essentially want the same thing so why is it "bad" for some and acceptable for others? I'll never get it :wacko:

[robinhood]

x

Edited September 21, 2010 by aaronwriter

[Nephylim]

i think perhaps bottoms in the gay world are treated like women in the straight world,

often as second class citizens...

(if you don't know what i mean by bottom just ask)

 

 

 

I know what it means. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have made a joke about something that was so important to you. I was being literal... and my usual sarcastic self. Bad Nephy

 

Heh.

 

I'm sorry. I'm laughing my behind off right now. For someone who claims in the first sentence to be a writer, where is the grammar? Anyway -- tops, bottoms, dominates, submissives -- why must we all be categorized? I prefer to shake it up with my partners. I won't go as far as to say take turns, but unless there is a signed contract between two people why fall into a rut?

 

Discussions about sex are good, and healthy, but please refrain from coarse language and detailed discourse. If you have an issue with word choices please consult the thesaurus. Remember there are queerlings who can read this also... so manners, manners, manners!

 

Happy writing!

 

Lugh.

 

 

I totally agree about categorising. That's why I'm bi. Love is love no matter what their gender or sexual preferences.