|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I've been thinking about this a lot. When unthinking str8 folks meet gay couples they tend to wonder "Who is the man and who is the woman?" And they are programmed to pigeonhole gay folks by heterosexual stereotypes.
We gay folk are not wonderful, sometimes, at avoiding stereotypical roles. "Obviously" the flaming queen" is the girl! Only that is by no means always the case!
And, pretty obviously, neither of two boys is a "girl"!
And, of course, what is great one way round one night is great the other way round the next night. And by no means every gay couple inserts a penis in an anus.
And then there's this "Tops are dominant, bottoms are submissive" thing.
I will bet that there are as many dominant bottoms and submissive ones! That's gut feel, not a sample!
There will be people with wholly valid experiences who agree with my thoughts, and people with other valid experiences that differ.
What I hope to do is to get people thinking about it, and talking about it.
Why?
Well, it is my own discomfort as I discovered that I am a natural bottom. I was worried that made me less of a man, somehow. A great deal of thought later I realised that it just makes me a man. But I felt unhappy until I worked it out.
I was 48 when I worked it out!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 19:45] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Interesting, isn't it. Nowhere do you equate "top" with "domination". And "giving" is undefined, probably because it means "giving what the other appears to need," which could be anything at all.
And the boy/girl element is entirely absent, perhaps because it never had any relevance except to heterosexual folks who appear to need a role equivalent?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy, I enoy both giving and receiving. I consider myself to be an agressive bottom, controlling both the pace and depth of penetration. I get great pleasure from this. As a top, I am gentle and caring of my partner. My pleasure comes from being romantic and tender while topping.
So I guess you could say that I am an agressive bottom and a subserviant top. Now that I have said this, I see it as completely going against the grain as to what str8 people believe about gay sex. I'd never given it much thought before. This has certainly opened up my eyes a bit. I hope this helps to answering your question.
aqua
ps. I do believe my new tagline answers yours. Great song, probably the best one on the whole album.
There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are the messengers of overwhelming grief, of deep contrition, and of unspeakable love. Washington Irving
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Your tagline certainly does!
I think this entire topic deserves a lot of thought. I posted it for the younger members here to see and understand and also to question.
Your answer reinforces to me that we are not stereotypes. We are people first, with a huge variety of self inposed roles which may vary with time or with a different partner.
I was "set in stone" for years by believing that my (regretfully unexamined) preference for the mode of sex somehow made me less than I am. In fact it leaves me precisely as I am, not more and not less.
I wonder of that made as little sense as I fear uit has!
[Updated on: Sat, 29 December 2007 09:24]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy, you made perfectly good sense. When we were younger, matters of homosexuality were not out in the open. We had no internet, no "rights" such as the younger generation has now. At best, we had secret moments of "forbidden" lust. If we were bottoms, we were weak, we were the "girl".
Now in this age of openess and the progressivness of society, things appear in a different light to us. And those of us who are older often find ourselves questioning the topic you raised. Therefore, to answer you last question, you made a great deal of sense.
I cannot answer for the younger group here but it seems by their posts that they are much more comfortable in their "skin" than we were. You only have to read their posts to see that they not only have sex, but they also have a great deal of passion and truly feel passion about their lovers.
I hope some of them reply to this post. I do believe that our old perceptions of stereotypes do not exist in their world. That, my friend is a good thing. These guys are free to love who the choose and to ,make love how they choose, without any of the baggage that we had. There is so much more to say about this and I hope we hear from them. I hope you receive some kind of "validation" from them. Because you did make sense, and I for one agree with you.
Geez, one more pharagraph from me and I will feel as if I'm stepping on Cossies toes in the "long winded response" catagory
aqua
[Updated on: Sat, 29 December 2007 01:32]
There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are the messengers of overwhelming grief, of deep contrition, and of unspeakable love. Washington Irving
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't really planning to post in this thread because it's not a subject either that I've thought about very much, or that I've felt the need to think about. But I will post, briefly, as aqua is looking for some younger outlooks.
I feel strongly that what two private sexual partners get up to in the bedroom is completely irrelevant to everyone except them. Nor do I have any particular interest in what they get up to. I don't know if that's because I'm unusual, or because I'm not concerned with taboos. I'd like to think it's the latter.
I feel no need to label myself a bottom or a top. I'm sexually inexperienced, but I'll readily admit it and I'm happy to be. I have never felt, heard of or come across any prejudice against bottoms, which may explain why I feel no such need. Until this thread, I hadn't even really considered the possibility that others might think a bottom to be "the girl". It's not at all intuitive to me; I can only imagine it comes from ignorant people trying to draw a correlation between their own experience and something well outside it.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you've ever attempted to put your profile on a gay, social networking site, they ask you to define yourself as a top or a bottom. What's up with that? As you've read from the above there are many roles a gay man can find himself in within a given relationship. I think the gay community tends to foster the stereotype of a person being either dominant or submissive just as much as the straight community does. And of course if you list yourself as a top then you are automatically assumed to be the dominating one. I think these sites need to re-invent themselves.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Deej, your response was very accurate. You have just the right perspective I was talking about. Also, your views about the topic are in line with what I figured your generation feels about the subject.
Since I do not consider yourself to be "unusual", I am convinced that it is just because you don't concern yourself with taboo's. That further affirms my beliefs about the younger generation. You younger guys don't have problems with sex and the baggage the we older ones had to deal with.
It's great to know that you have your head screwed on right. You do not need sexual experience to figure this out. Only a reasonable mind. Thank you for your input, as usual, it is well thought out and validates my answer to Timmy's question.
aqua
There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are the messengers of overwhelming grief, of deep contrition, and of unspeakable love. Washington Irving
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul, isn't there a 3rd option they give you to list ? Usually there is another response accepted.....versatile ? That is usually how some describe there sexual position preference. That is how I would descrbe myself.
aqua
[Updated on: Sat, 29 December 2007 04:07]
There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are the messengers of overwhelming grief, of deep contrition, and of unspeakable love. Washington Irving
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I have problems with "Versatile". It also reinforces stereotyping, and it seems to have been invented in order for gay people to appease the heterosexual expectations.
I can see the virtue if the description is being used in order to have sex.
"Hi, WHAT (caps intended) are you?"
Except I am not a "WHAT", I am a person.
Like Deej I am sexually inexperienced (in the gay sense at least), but I imagine a sexual scenario where we, together, decide, because it is natural, what happens next with sex, me and my theoretical partner.
I know the sensations I prefer, but that does not mean I an unwilling or unable to give those sensations to my putative partner.
That is the direction I was headed when I made the post. I like the point being made by Aqualino that he hopes that the received stereotypes do not exist in the modern world. I know of no real way of checking that - I can't nip in to the local school and ask without being arrested, I suspect - so validation of that by our younger members would be good. I suspect ot may be geography dependent, though. In the macho worlds of "Redneck America" (that state needs its own flag), South Africa, or Australia that may be different from where I live and where Aqua lives.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Timmy,
I don't understand how one can have a loving relationship where the partners are not equal or nearly so. I've had my share of sex with partners who were purely in lust with each other - indeed one beautiful black man I had sex with never even gave me his name! That wasn't loving but it was fun.
I agree with Timmy that it is beyond comparison more satisfactory if partners are each trying to ensure that the other is as fulfilled as possible.
But that probably means that neither can be dominant. Neither is top. Neither is taking either of the supposed roles of the two heterosexual partners. Indeed in a heterosexual relationship it is less satisfactory if one partner is always expected to take the initiative. (Or even do the penetration!!)
When I was homosexually active it was not assumed or expected that one partner would be buggered and the other would do the buggering. In my experience most people who were penetrated suffered some symptoms of bowel disorder afterwards - at least those I buggered did. You have to remember this was back in the 1950s when the thought of using condoms would have been really weird. And I was never buggered: the only prick I've had in my arse was when Peter was going to get married and I wanted to try what it was like before I lost him. I sat on him and I don't think I was well at the time. It wasn't painful but the world didn't stop for me either.
Indeed it is the notion that loving relationships ought to be between equal partners that persuades me that heterosexual love is possible and that so many religions that treat men and women differently must be wrong.
Love
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
One may be as equal as one chooses, of course.
Do you suppose the bowel disorders might have been because of the type of lubricant used? Semen is, after all, a very simple concoction of proteins.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> Do you suppose the bowel disorders might have been because of the type of lubricant used? Semen is, after all, a very simple concoction of proteins.
I can't say I ever suffered bowel disorders - no condom, vaseline as lube of choice (this was in the 1970s and early 80s), and I was almost exclusively a bottom.
But it wouldn't surprise me if it did happen: semen contains proteins, in a different mix for everyone, and I certainly experienced an allergic reaction (itchy red rash for several days) whenever I got one particular lover's semen on my skin.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Timmy,
The only lubricants I ever used were KY and spit so I don't think it was that. But on the whole I didn't do anal intercourse unless a friend asked for it and that was rare so my sample was too small to learn anything from it (I'm pretty sure it wasn't more than half a dozen).
I reckon you do what you both like; if either dislikes something you don't do it.
Love
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I think there is a tendency for top/ bottom, dominant/ submissive, masculine/ feminine and older/ younger roles to be correlated.
Much as males as generally masculine and females are generally feminine. This is not always the case. There are plenty of males that hate sport, aggression and throwing things preferring fine art, food and theatre. There are plenty of females that hate make-up and prissiness, preferring cars and guns.
Females in general are more nurturing and make better teachers- yet some of the best teachers I've had have been male.
I used to think stereotypes were a bad thing. I now think they are often accurate. Prejudice is the thing to be wary of, not stereotypes.
Being in a relationship although it isn't explicit I've found that Ryan and I do fall into stereotypical "male/female" roles if you want to put it in those terms. I think biologically we're different. His brain probably does share more in common with a female.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being a female, or feminine. Hence I don't see it as a bad thing for being "bottom" to be considered a "female".
Of course, sexual position preference I think shares the least correlation with actual role in a relationship. A submissive person might be more likely to be feminine, but the correlation between that and being a sexual "bottom" is less definite. Sex is, after all, just sex.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I've never noticed any bowel disorders having been both a top and a bottom. But I have noticed a need to rush to the toilet soon afterwards.
I managed to suppress the urge once- a decision I regret, I spent most of the next day using the toilet instead.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
A couple more thoughts-
Stereotypes might often be true, but I don't really care if they are or not. I used to deliberately avoid being stereotypical, now it doesn't bother me. I am who I am, I like what I like, if that means being stereotypical or mainstream, so what? Stereotypes shouldn't be used to prejudge someone, but often they tend to be accurate.
I've been versatile sexually. With different partners and indeed in my current relationship. It took about a year for Ryan and I to even think about switching roles- but now we do whatever we feel like. Most of the time I'm still the top. But occasionally he'll be feeling "top" so we negotiate. Sometimes we don't feel like penetrative sex at all. Sometimes we're out of lube and have no choice. Couples do lots of different things together, especially once in love. But Ryan says he can't imagine topping anyone but me. I can't imagine bottoming to many other people, either.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Saben,
Well said. You are who you are. You don't do things because it is your role. You do things because you and your partner are happy with them and you both enjoy them. Yes, yes, yes!
Love
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
Saben.
Well said so true,
Its all about trust and pleasure for both.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
This thread spawned, I think, the thread on stereotypes per se. But has this parent thread run its course?
Are the stereotypes created by the heterosexual (and majority) world the stereotypes the homosexual people wish to sit within?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
"Has this parent thread run its course?" Only the future will answer that.
"Are the stereotypes created by the heterosexual (and majority) world the stereotypes that the homosexual people wish to set within?" Firstly, stereotypes are created by society, not necessarilly the majority. Minority groups have their own stereotypes of the majority groups. Secondly, in direct answer to the question, no. That is part of what we are fighting for, along with equal rights under the law, equal protection by the law, legal recognition of our partners, etc. I have deliberately avoided the word marriage, its just a word but comes with much baggage. If some want it to mean the union of a man and woman, fine. What we want it the same legal recognition of our partner as exists in marriage; I personally don't care what you call it.
As far as the top/bottom - dominant/sub - boy/girl original topic the previous responders have revealed it to be meaningless; in that there is, for the most part, really no such associations in actual life. It is all about getting pleasure from and giving pleasure to your partner.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dunfyn
|
 |
Getting started |
Registered: November 2005
Messages: 16
|
|
|
I am not sure that top/bottom stereotypes are promulgated by straight majority. Here I would agree with JimB that minority can create their own stereotypes. The definitions of top/bottom and dominant/submissive are much wider used within gay community itself. They display certain similarities with male/female roles in a relationship so straight people may draw some parallels, but to me it looks more like gay people stereotyping (or categorizing) one another. Also it seems that, when bottom is associated with feminine it brings objections mainly because feminine is viewed as something of a lesser value. And then it's just another stereotype.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Bears, twinks, chubs, subs, doms, fairies, daddies, tops, bottoms, machos and toyboys.
Just a few of the terms used by the gay community about the gay community. "Boy" and "girl" are unwelcome terms to me and while the rest may not be applicable to me, I don't have a problem with their existence.
There are other stereotyped attitudes amongst straight people about gay people, that we talk or walk a certain way, for example. I've met gay people that talk and walk that way, I've met gay people that don't.
I tell people I'm gay and the assumptions they choose to make from that are up to them. But I don't live as a stereotype myself, even if some people might think some of my behaviours are "gay". I don't care. I am me. If a label is convenient, use it, but I'm more complex than a single label, you'll need about 50 contradictory labels to even start describing me.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
