What exactly does top & bottom mean?

[Pix]

In the lesbian community it's usually more versatile, and more likely for someone to say, "She topped me" or "was being a total top" rather than "she's a top." In other areas of life most lesbians strike me as fairly feminine (not as beholden to the girl code as straight women, and I think some who first come out feel a great liberation from that burdensome code and seek to explore new possibilities, but most lesbians won't be easily recognizable just by looking or even interacting with them), yet they remain versatile sexually regardless. Even when I was with a stud who was very masculine (and encouraged me to be very feminine) we were completely versatile in bed and I've heard enough masculine lesbians gripe about pillow princesses (who won't "return the favor").

There are "stone" lesbians who adopt a "purely top/bottom" relationship sexually, though it's important to note that a bottom is the one who gets the "service" rather than the top (and the top is probably a "service top"). These types are described as typically adhering to heteronormative values in other ways as well (the "stone butch" very masculine, may even reject she's a woman at all, and the "stone femme" supposed to be stereotypically feminine, though I've also heard of stone femmes who were stereotypical femmes and yet acted as tops much like the "stone butch").

So I can't help but be a little confused when I hear so many men describe themselves as "top" or "bottom" while at the same time so many reject gay men who are "feminine" (though oddly even bears seem to face a lot of shunning, too). Just as lesbians tend to be fairly feminine who prefer feminine women to masculine ones it seems gay men tend to be fairly masculine who prefer masculine men over feminine ones...and yet unlike most lesbians they identify themselves as "top" or "bottom." That is if I'm understanding it right a gay man is most likely to be fairly masculine (not as much as a bear, but no one would suspect they were gay through casual interaction) while adopting a heteronormative sexual role that may be aligned with either masculine or feminine, but not particularly versatile (save possibly as an "courtesy/obligation" done grudgingly, if even that).

Is my impression correct? :confused: And do top/bottom partners have an egalitarian relationship, or is one assumed to be the "alpha" and "wearing the pants"? Does the bottom get "take care of" in other ways the way a woman normally would? Or is the non-sexual aspects more versatile, as in they're 2 men living together who are fairly equal the way any 2 male roomies would be equals, and doing guy things together (like going to see action movies together with all the cool explosions and fight scenes, cheering on sport teams, etc)?

(Obviously I'm speaking in general terms, and I'm avoiding androgyny for simplicity's sake.)

I'd be especially curious to hear someone who is a masculine bottom try to share what it's like. mile:

[MisterTinkles]

Top = the person who is the one "giving"

Bottom = the person who is the one "receiving"

[TimeSage]

With regards to men, I've always assumed Top and Bottom refer to who's giving and who's receiving in regards to sex, and that's it. Thus the terms are interchangeable with stuff like "Pitcher" and "Catcher".

There are people who are bottoms sexually but wear the pants in the relationship. Going on from that there's "Topping from bottom" where they're the more dominant partner in bed in terms of who's in control and stuff but are the bottom.

There's also guys that are versatile, in that they like both/will do either. Also known as switch hitters.


I'm sure guys who actually have experience in this have more to say on these matters then I do.

[partisan]

Being a gay female and being versatile isnt the same thing as being gay man and being versatile, sexually of course, What you said about "do top gay men take care of there bottom partner, like a man would a woman" well that can be the hope, and my 2 past partners took that stance with me, which i liked, i do not want a "roomy" or a "mate" though the love can still become equall, naturally, and respectfull of each other as in any relationship, i dont think theres anything wrong with a maculine man wanting another masculine man, it just damn annoys me if a masc gay men slate fem gay men as being somehow false, and id say even a very effimenit gay man will always retain some masculinity from growing up in a masculine enviroment

[dvdbwn]

while some gay men consider themselves versatile, many are very static in their roles. top/bottom is typically meant as a sexual preference. my partner "wears the pants" in our relationship in the sense that he is the breadwinner. he's the sexual bottom however. now, he hates when i tell people because there is a negative stigma attached to being a bottom and being a masculine guy and ex-military it bugs him a lot to be feminized.

i consider myself versatile but i've only been in one relationship where the guy was versatile too, so i usually have had to fill the needed sexual role. of course, a lot of sex advice columnists swear that two bottoms and two tops can make a relationship work... i can't speak to that however.

a pet peeve of ours, regarding negative stigma, is people will express this stigma to us as a couple. for example, there's this effeminate older man who lives around the corner who, creepily enough, brings up sex in every conversation. he swears he's not a bottom and could never "do that". and we're like, "um... you're talking to a couple here... odds are one of is a bottom. how stupid can you be?"

[partisan]

I feel same way, and hate to be over feminized, i was going to add that but forgot.

[sbtrains]

Me and my partner were both Tops and had a great relationship. We both shared duty in the household. We had a great life together in and out of bed. Some guys can not get past that one being has to be dominate.

[Sylph]

Oh sis, I love this topic with a passion!

I believe I even had a topic on it, in regards to dichotimization of males in modern culture.

Because as we all know, human nature is very curious, both heteronormative nature and homonormative.

To speak in lamens terms;

Top : is the one who penetrates sexually, is typically dominant although not always, usually more masculine and what most call "The Man".

Whereas,

Bottom: is the one who is penetrated sexually, is typically more demure or gentle although not always, is usually more feminine and what most call "The woman/girl"

But to go into it a little more specifically, and yet more broad, It's simply a way for identification in human social structure and heirarchy, as with a lot of other animals, particularly the more intelligent and social species (such as Bonobos).

Because, if we see two men holding hands in public, we can safely say they are an item or at the very least attracted to each other on some level, but we cannot say where their roles lie and thus it makes no sense. So when said couple, or rather one more than the other displays traits of what society can make sense of, such as one male having longer hair, gentler facial structure and a more slender frame, then we can say he's "the girl/woman" or even the bottom in the relationship, because it then fits the "parody" of hetero-identities, which is what society as a whole can make sense of.

This then begets the whole idiosyncratic thought process of modern day gay males, where you find masc 4 masc and "no fems", because (and I'm assuming, as I'm not a "masc" ) in the mind of a "masculine" gay male, if there can be no distinction between who is the man and who is the "woman" in their relationship, then there can be no judgement placed on them, as both a couple and individuals and then there would be less drama, less controversy, as opposed to having a feminine partner, who would be more obvious due to the fact that it's obvious and would most likely garner more attention and judgement.

And speaking as a so called "fem", when I look at a man, I see him for the man that he is and there are times when I could see myself somewhat filling the role of the woman, only because I do not see myself being stereotypically male, which is what masculine men tend to view themselves as, but it makes me no less of a man and definitely makes me no less of a valuable partner.

I often wonder what masculine men, who favour or prefer feminine men see in them. Whether it be the fact that we resemble or exhibit female qualities, but packaged(no pun intended :p ) as a male, or the fact that we are men with a different mind set. Because I will admit, I am attracted to "masculine"men, because they exhibit traits that I do not and I find those traits desirable (being able to figure out directions and fix a bloody sink! lol ), but it seems to be the norm for feminine males to seek out masculine males, while it's ironically the masculine males who tend to only seek out each other.

Which brings us to the matter of Versatility. To me, this is similar to Bisexuality, only within the same sex though, as opposed to both.

I can't speak too much on Bisexuality, but to me, it seems like a much more sexually freeing way to live and as such, versatility is also freeing in the sense that you are not restricted to only one way of exploring your and your partner(s) sexuality. And this is where I find both gay men and gay women find their versatility factor; in the way that they want to explore their virility and sexuality, by "flip-flopping" or "switch-hitting" and eventually acquiring a tolerance, if not blatant love for all aspects of their sexuality and sexual desires.

But again, Dichotomy states that what comes from one, will then become two to become four, to say;

A - Gay Men
Aa - Masculine Men
Ab - Feminine Men
B - Versatile Men
Ba -Versatile Men who prefer to top
Bb - Versatile Men who prefer to bottom
Bc - Versatile Men who only bottom from the top/top from the bottom

and so on.

I hope I didn't sound like a smarty pants :p ... cause my pants aren't all that clever

[Juniorlove]

Being a gay female and being versatile isnt the same thing as being gay man and being versatile, sexually of course, What you said about "do top gay men take care of there bottom partner, like a man would a woman" well that can be the hope, and my 2 past partners took that stance with me, which i liked, i do not want a "roomy" or a "mate" though the love can still become equall, naturally, and respectfull of each other as in any relationship, i dont think theres anything wrong with a maculine man wanting another masculine man, it just damn annoys me if a masc gay men slate fem gay men as being somehow false, and id say even a very effimenit gay man will always retain some masculinity from growing up in a masculine enviroment

I hate when masculine men assume that feminine men are somehow worthless and inferior. I've even had some gay males tell me that they're not really down with the "fag shit". I mean is there some kind of mental closet there? But yes bottom is receiver and top is the giver, not necessarily as a whole in the relationship, but just sexually.

[Counselor]

VERSATILE 4 LYFE

*dap*

Respeck.