Fem/Twink Tops!

[larafan25]

I don't do anal, so I have no opinion.

Should try, it's fun to give it. <3

[Bowyn Aerrow]

I think its unnatural.

But then I am talking about three billion years of evolution that dictated that the "man" of the relationship (ergo penetrator) is supposed to be big, burly and larger than their partner.

There is a reason why partents don't murder their offspring in the first week.
Humans have this instinct to protect those humans which are smaller than them. This does blend over into the relationship between male and female.

Just because a man gay doesn't mean that he is going to be free of the drives that served to make humans able to survive and dominate the world and over populate the world and at this point the evidence suggests that this dynamic will lead to the end of the world.

However I did know of a couple three couples where this dynamic was smaller "fem twink" with the larger male being more "straight acting" and the bottom.

There is also the BDSM aspect. Not the leather thing, but the Dom/sub aspect where there are small men who rise up to the top... you know what I mean.

Personalities have a lot to do with this.

We know now that homosexuality is indeed a biological process. BUT we are uncertain of why it happens. We have development in the womb where apparently the more fertile mom is the high the chance she throws off gay sons. Lesbianism hasn't been linked to this.

This womb development is hormonal/chemical differences during different periods of the developement of the fetus. While we are not certain (yet) which stages lead to behavioral patterns scince there is several periods where mom's hormonal production can affect the developement of personality and of course the body.

Scince homosexuality falls at a very low percent of children born, between 1 and 2%, this is outside of the average and may actually be driven by exterior forces that affect mom's chemical balances.


I hate the word "normal" and abnormal but in this case homosexuality and femininity are "abnormal" as these factors are a very small minority.

Another factor, in at least my case, was the society and social mores of the period of childhood and early adulthood. I am stuck with the "traditional" model of a strong ape man protecting the weak sex. These "notions" are of course due to my being born durning a time where women were not accepted a equals and there were definate ideas about what a man is supposed to be.

I have noticed that the later generations of males show an increase in "sensitivity" and "weakness" which is closer to the mid 1900's ideas of what woman should be like.

There are periods of time were "weak" or soft men were considered the real men. Think back to the dandy 1700s where men were more "fobbish" and elegantly attired in patters now reserved for females, plus velvet, ruffles, etc. Roman Empire Era a man who was soft, effeminate was a sign of great wealth. If he had no callouses on his hands it was clear he owned slaves and/or had many servants to do the labor.

So social pressures mold the standard of what being man or woman means.

I find it unnatural due to decades of programing which I cannot shake. I am also considered way to manly to be gay, even though I'm skinny, with little body hair and facial hair I can barely grow, needing a week to get a good whisker "five o'clock look."

I don't condemn any relationship if it works for the couple.

So biology, social systems of the period of history you live in drive the personalities and what people do.