Quite a straightforward question really: in your experience, are passive guys likely to be attracted to guys who are smaller (could be physique, or height) than they themselves are?
I'm thinking not, as it would go against the whole idea of what they find attractive in a partner... of the partner being taller/bigger, more dominant, that kind of thing.
On the other hand, I really have no clue, because I never thought to consider this before.
It's relevant to me because I've been kind of dating a guy who is passive and into 'dominant' and active guys, and yet he is quite a lot bigger (a bodybuilder) than me. So really, I'm thinking there is no point in pursuing anything deeper with him because I will inevitably be insufficient.
But I don't really know how malleable these things are with people.
I always tend to be the bigger/taller guy in the relationships I've been in before (which is, erm, not many). So I never really considered how I might feel if things were reversed and I was the small guy, or how it might feel to the other guy.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
I don't think a persons size is anything to do with them being dominant or passive. Thinking about friends and people I know, I see no connection at all. I also think that for many people these things aren't quite as clear cut as Gaydar/Manhunt etc would have you believe. People are more flexible than they like to imagine.
•
I have never got the "type" thing. I may have thought I was attracted to a type or even types, but I can't say I've ever had a relationship with anyone who could be said to have fallen into that category. For me it's the whole person, not the type that seems to be the most important thing.
•
I know a guy who's built smaller than me who says he's quite dominant in the sack lol.. I've never tried it out with him... yet... but I was quite surprised to hear it.. I fully expected him to be a bottom... not necessarily submissive given he's quite outspoken and assertive in social situations, but bottom nonetheless.
•
I know from talking to the guy that he likes his guys taller than himself and muscular. That he wouldn't really be attracted to them otherwise. That strikes me as him definitely having a 'type'.
But it got me thinking, because I guess although I like my guys muscular (though I'm not fussed about the height), I wouldn't date somebody just because of that. I guess I would see it as an additional boon, assuming there was personality chemistry between us.
But I tended to think of myself as being a little odd in this regard, as when I look around I see either small(er) guys coupled up with big(ger) guys (always seeming to be that the small guy is more 'passive', the big guy being more like the 'daddy' figure); or else I see guys who look a bit like clones of each other (and I guess they count that as 'equals', regardless of position in bed, which presumably solves the whole 'role' scenario for them).
So I tend to assume that most people play a 'role' of some description, be it in their relationship generally, just in bed/fantasies, or maybe just in their mind, which I supposed was because, unlike straight relationships, there isn't the gender equation to sort all that out for us.
I'm still not convinced guys are really that flexible. The two of us get on great personality-wise, but I'm concerned about getting involved with somebody who's probably always going to be on the lookout for someone more his type. I'm a smidgen taller, but, like 50lbs lighter. I'm sure 99% of people would assume he was the 'dominant' person between the two of us. And it makes me feel a bit awkward too. But maybe that's just an overactive insecurity on my part?
I dunno, I am a bit clueless about all this stuff... people are always seem so random and confusing to me. :frown:
•
Why try and find trouble?
Heck, my "type" is 6'+, blonde Scandinanvians, and rippling with muscles. My husband is 5'7", brown hair and from Derbyshire, and not exactly ripped... And I wouldn't change him for a minute.
•
aspidistra Wrote:...So I tend to assume that most people play a 'role' of some description, be it in their relationship generally, just in bed/fantasies, or maybe just in their mind, which I supposed was because, unlike straight relationships, there isn't the gender equation to sort all that out for us ...
I dunno, I am a bit clueless about all this stuff... people are always seem so random and confusing to me. :frown: I wouldn't have a clue about who is more, or less, dominant in my relationship with Albert - not a clue ... and it has never crossed my mind to think about it before.
kitschcamp Wrote:Why try and find trouble?
Heck, my "type" is 6'+, blonde Scandinanvians, and rippling with muscles. My husband is 5'7", brown hair and from Derbyshire, and not exactly ripped... And I wouldn't change him for a minute. 
•
•
I don't really think I'm trying to find trouble. I'm responding to difficulties he talks about with me, like telling me he doesn't know if he can stop thinking of or looking at other guys who are more his 'type' when we go out (basically, he doesn't know if I'm 'enough'). Even though he tells me he connects with me in so many ways.
He does have a tendency to reduce everyone to quantifiable properties of height, personality, looks, body etc. He told me that he won't go for anyone 'less' than me in future. I wasn't sure if that was supposed to be a compliment.
•
Posts: 4,192
Threads: 73
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation:
1
Starsign:  Libra
Mood: None
I think having a type is normal? Its just the type of people you are more attractive too.. I really don't see any issues with that? :confused:
[COLOR="Purple"]As I grow to understand less and less,
I learn to love it more and more. [/COLOR]
•
|
