Tops are men, bottoms are women

[gsdx]

I don't make puns. Puns are the lowest form of wheat! there's your pun.


Seriously thought, puns are terrible.

And puns are involved in conundrums. Perhaps you were thinking 'riddle'.

 

[hummer7979]

I think I understand what you're trying to suggest, but you're being a bit vague in your wording.

First of all, "man" and "woman" are biological terms that refer to your sex chromosomes. However, there is also masculinity and femininity, which are gender qualities that both men and women possess.

When you say gay bottom men "yearn to be a woman," it is unclear whether you mean they want to physically change their sex with surgery, or that they are feminine as the average woman and yearn to live in a world where their place in society is the same as the average woman. Perhaps, even more generally, you mean that gay bottoms wish to be loved by straight masculine men.

Regardless of your intention, I would hesitate to categorize people so simply. It may seem like you are trying to come up with an explanation for behavior, but because you are further simplifying sexual desire, the best you can do is come up with another stereotype. Any explanation that you come up with must allow at least the same amount of complexity as the people you are modeling, usually more.

Try looking at a person with more depth. Rather than consider their outwardly desires, consider the condition to which such desires arise. What life experiences do gay tops share that may make them prefer such a position? What sort of relationships do they form? How securely do they feel about their role in a relationship? Were they brought up to be "manly"? Were they punished for being "unmanly"? Were they taught to be open minded? These are much more revealing correlations than "Gay bottoms get fucked," "Straight women get fucked," "Straight is normal," "Therefore, gay bottoms want to be women."

 

[nitish]

And puns are involved in conundrums. Perhaps you were thinking 'riddle'.

conundrum
One entry found.

conundrum

Main Entry:
co·nun·drum Listen to the pronunciation of conundrum
Pronunciation:
\kə-ˈnən-drəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
origin unknown
Date:
1645

1: a riddle whose answer is or involves a pun
2 a: a question or problem having only a conjectural answer
b: an intricate and difficult problem

who would've thought. Words have more than one meaning. These moderns dictionaries are crazy!

 

[woaini]

haha... you are twisted...

 

[3stripes]

men who are tops only are insecure in their manhood/masculinity because they believe the myths being perpetuated here.

men who are bottoms only didnt get their diapers changed often enough when they were infants and still long for the caress of their mothers hand on their derrier.

men who are versatile are a threat to male/female role types and will eventually lead to the downfall of society.

bisexuals have truly learnt the meaning of pleasure and are unfettered by the controlling yokes of a patriarchal society.

Logic is the right way of coming to the wrong conclusion. Particularly when combined with the mushroom theory - keep them in the dark and feed them lots of bullshit.

 

[pinest]

 

[-Lance-]

I love a masculine bottom.

 

[trawler69]

"Socrates was a man therefore all men are Socrates"

*Actually all men are Spartacus*

What rubbish Socrates was a cat. All Cats die. Socrates is dead therefore Socrates was a cat. Duh!

 

[screwnutty]

Okay I'm just going to throw this out there......but what are Gay men that don't do any thing anal then? no top....no bottom...no rimming or fingering or anything to the anus? Just curious.

 

[screwnutty]

Yeah, "men" like me. Huh, what am "I"? Huh? HUH?

Yeah! Count me in too...I'm standing right behind you on this one Pianist!! oh god....let me rephrase that...I'm standing beside you on this issue Pianst!!

I don't care for anything anal!

 

[floorrunner]

Asexuals lack the basic human desire to be intimate with a person. This can only mean they're not human. Not human in the way that me, and the reader feels. They don't share our basic feelings. A square has four sides, that's it's basic feature. Humans have intimacy with partners, that's our basic feature. If a square is missing a side, it's no longer a square. If a human is missing his or her emotions, It's safe to say they're nothing like us.

That's what i have on asexuals so far. I will have to do some research to back that up though, because our prof. is not too keen on making stuff up. she failed my last paper titled "Bonobos have more soul than the average republican." According to her, it was nothing more the childish tirade, unfit to be called a paper, much less a college paper.

I have the feeling that your professor will be saying the same thing about this paper also.

 

[G-Lexington]

OP has a woman's breast for an avatar. What does that have to do with the original post? Well, everything, if you think about it.

Lex

 

[jtearth]

I'mz a virgin. Iz also seez mez az a bottemz. But Iz has no desire to bez a womenz

(wtf is with the Z's? )

I like my penis, thank you very much.

 

[hubbellgardner]

And yet certain twats are on full view to all.

HE'S BACK ! In a big way

 

[nitish]

Yeah! Count me in too...I'm standing right behind you on this one Pianist!! oh god....let me rephrase that...I'm standing beside you on this issue Pianst!!

I don't care for anything anal!

I <3 the Doctor.


Also, the people who are not having sex has zero effect on my hypothesis. I mean they must be either top, bottom, or versey in preference. Just because you don't have teeth doesn't mean you stop liking pizza.

 

[3stripes]

sex is not all penetration. There are plenty of gay men reguarly having oral sex only.

For a university paper you seem awfully close minded and your outcome predetermined. I can sense another F coming.

 

[oralsex]

I can understand where you are tyring to go with your theory, but I feel that you need to listen to your teacher because what you are tyring to do will get you another F on your paper. Your idea has so many angles and view points that it will take you a long time just to try and cover everthing. I would choose another topic, such as when a man is being intimtate with another man, does that have the same psychological effect on the person as a man being intimate with another woman? Do heterosexual couples expereince the same pleasure as a homosexual couple? What is the determing factor for pleasure? Your topic needs to be more narrow. Just remember human sexuality is a huge field.

 

[Claudio63]

I won't lie, I do have some symbolic hang ups with the whole top/bottom thing. Even though I've done both, there is part of me that thinks bottoming is a bit "lessening." You're allowing another man ultimate dominance over you and are being his subordinate. Almost like you're surrendering and letting him control (men often fight and kill each other for control) and put his TAG on you.

thus women are basically submissive?

"You gave birth half an hour ago, wench! So get your lazy ass off that bed and get in the kitchen. I need food, bitch!"

 

[probeteam1]

I'm going to do nitish the favor of treating this as a real idea rather than blatant trolling, mostly because I've actually seen thoughts like this genuinely held.

And versatiles are bisexual

discuss.

Discuss what?

You've simply declared a new set of definitions, and left it at that. If you're writing a paper on sexuality and gender, perhaps you could at least provide the entire hypothesis for discussion?

No, that's my hypothesis for a psychology class paper. Deep down, all bottoms yearn to be a woman. While all top yearn to be with a woman. versatile are ruining my hypothesis though, so I will just claim they're hermaphroditic bisexuals...on the inside.

Ah Here we go.
First off, let me say that I find it commendable that you just write off whatever contradicts your hypothesis rather than amending it - that shows real intellectual integrity there.
Second, to my knowledge most psychological studies these days treat sexuality and gender identity as separate entities, so you're going to have a loyt of precedents to contest.
Also, your hypothesis is already flawed if you're boiling the whole thing down to penetrator/penetratee. Gender identity is built on a lot more than that - are you honestly saying that the partner who tops is the more "male" of the two even if all other indicators of gender identity would say the opposite?

Asexuals lack the basic human desire to be intimate with a person. This can only mean they're not human. Not human in the way that me, and the reader feels. They don't share our basic feelings. A square has four sides, that's it's basic feature. Humans have intimacy with partners, that's our basic feature. If a square is missing a side, it's no longer a square. If a human is missing his or her emotions, It's safe to say they're nothing like us.

That's what i have on asexuals so far. I will have to do some research to back that up though, because our prof. is not too keen on making stuff up. she failed my last paper titled "Bonobos have more soul than the average republican." According to her, it was nothing more the childish tirade, unfit to be called a paper, much less a college paper.

WTF? How do you get from "lacking sex drive" to "lacking emotions"? Intimacy doesn't just mean fucking, after all. Far more important to the emotional context of the human condition is emotional intimacy, not necessarily physical. Someone incapable of lust doesn't lack all emotions or capacity for intimacy, only one broad tone from the whole range, and one avenue of human intimacy.
(Also, a square has four equilateral sides at right angles - that's its "basic" feature that distinguishes it from other rectangles, parallellograms, quatrilaterals, and polygons - so when you think about it the criteria are rather specific, and you can't say a rhombus is nothing like a square, since it can share other qualities.)
And with a title like that and the tact and intellect you've shown here, I suspect that your professor may have had a point.

The ideas you're addressing just don't reduce so easily. For example, your whole their seems to be founded on the fact that there's only one way to have sex.
What about oral sex? Mutual masturbation? 69? Frottage? Docking? Sounding? BDSM? Hell, what about straight guys who like their girlfriends or wives to play with their asses from time to time (or who play with their own)?

Your paper is going to need a great deal more work, I think.

 

[nitish]

I'm going to do nitish the favor of treating this as a real idea rather than blatant trolling, mostly because I've actually seen thoughts like this genuinely held.Discuss what?

First of all, thanks. The paper is due tomorrow, and your inputs are greatly appreciated. In fact, I am going to quote you as counter arguments to my thesis.

I am really not mixing gender and sexuality...well I was till i reached the point of declaring all herms are bis.

Thanks for catching that emotion thing. I should say desire instead of emotion. They don't have the same desire as we do.

All other sex acts are unimportant. It all comes down to penetration.