The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

...And this is why you are a Bottom.

rareboy

rareboy

coleos patentes
50K Posts
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Posts
118,103
Reaction score
27,787
Points
113
....two studies of out of University of Toronto found some interesting correlations among men who have anal sex with other men. Researchers contacted more than 240 men at the 2015 Toronto Pride festivities, asking them to fill out an online survey about their sex positions—both in practice and in preference.
Click to expand...

I want to say that it is a load of horseshit...but I have no brothers and one older sister and consider myself versatile.

http://www.newnownext.com/top-bottom-gay-sex-study/05/2017/
 
If they were mining for gold...they would be broke.

I don't think they found anything.....and it is kinda embarrassing (for them) that they even published it.
 
I suspect the 'studies' were performed by a couple of first year, Psych 101 students and then 'published' on their Facebook pages.
 
LOL!! Of course you do. Oh well, so much for science, eh?
 
mikey3000 said:
LOL!! Of course you do. Oh well, so much for science, eh?
Click to expand...

The first thing you should learn if you want to pretend "Science!" (let alone semi-understand, which is the pinnacle scientists tend to land at because Shit's Complicated) is that correlation doesn't equal causation. And that half the time the correlation is manufactured by unintended cultural bias, but I don't think you've reached that level of actual education yet.

As for the article, I sneer at it. Boiled down it states "We know sexual behavior occurs for hosts of various reasons but let's all agree to wave our hands at who is considered more feminine in our cultural consciousness while waggling our collective eyebrows at 'biology', eh?

Right up your alley, Mikey.
 
Calm your tits down; obviously you missed a class or two on sarcasm. My comment was in jest to the obvious scientific snobbery existent here, but you demonstrated it much more clearly. Maybe read the full details of the study first?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27734170
 
mikey3000 said:
Calm your tits down; obviously you missed a class or two on sarcasm. My comment was in jest to the obvious scientific snobbery existent here, but you demonstrated it much more clearly. Maybe read the full details of the study first?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27734170
Click to expand...

I know other forum members are familiar with your previously stated opinions and posting history, claiming sarcasm after the fact doesn't work well here.

You seem to be unawares an abstract does not contain 'full details of the study'. That's why it's called an abstract.

You'll have a bastard of a time claiming scientific snobbery when you can't figure out what an abstract contains.
 
First off, their sample size was way to small to even draw any conclusions that they did. They also need to look at who was actually answering the survey. To many lose ends in this study.
 
luckynumbah7 said:
You'll have a bastard of a time claiming scientific snobbery when you can't figure out what an abstract contains.
Click to expand...

....'Course, that says nothing on the article's contents versus the abstraction. Which aren't quite the same because the article is half wink-n-nudge and the abstract blatantly shows cultural bias in assuming the questions chosen were 'most important' in determining what's commonly considered a masculine vs feminine role. You would've realized that if you knew how to read an abstract for content and how to read an internet article for content.
 
The size of the sample renders it statistically invalid. It is a pity, because they must have had about 100,000 homos to hit on.

But I don't see anyone disputing the study findings here....what is everyone's own personal experience with this?
 
rareboy said:
The size of the sample renders it statistically invalid. It is a pity, because they must have had about 100,000 homos to hit on.

But I don't see anyone disputing the study findings here....what is everyone's own personal experience with this?
Click to expand...

Eh, I think they could've had much broader questions to pull some data beyond the bloody obvious.
 
So left-handed is a bottom... right-handed a top... and ambidextrous mayhap versatile?

Remember being a lesbian last time because of my fingers... as a male, that can´t be right...
 
LOL. What are you, a cop? The "other members" you so politely refer to send newbies running from this site, so I really don't give a shit about his opinion.
 
Someone hitting the bottle early this afternoon?
 
When I was younger, I was always into being a top. However, as I started getting into my 20s and started messing around more, I found that I much prefer to bottom rather than top. I think preference can change a lot for most gay guys. It's just part of being... gay!
 
Well this gender-conforming, right handed, eldest child must be the exception which proves the rule.
 
I think these ladies know more about bottoms.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top