Are most gay men tops or bottoms
A lot of people think that homosexuality is a easy matter of genetics—if you have the so-called “gay gene,” well, you realize the rest. In other words, gays and lesbians are just “born that way” and that’s that.
While this explanation is intuitively appealing, the reality is that things are far more complex. Increasingly, scientific investigate suggests there are multiple factors that might contribute to homosexual orientation—and they’re very different from one person to the next. The end result of all this variability is that unlike “kinds” or “types” of homosexuality probably exist. In other words, being queer isn’t just one thing, and not everyone who is gay is same-sex attracted for the alike reasons.
A fascinating brand-new study supporting this idea was recently published in the journal PLoS ONE. This examination focused specifically on exploring the potential origins of male homosexuality, but did so in a way that was very different from almost all previous studies on this topic. Whereas most research in this area has treated gay men as a homogeneous organization, the researchers foremost this study instead looked at subgroups of gay men w
Tops, Bottoms, and Versatiles: What Straight Views of Penetrative Preferences Could Mean for Sexuality Claims Under Price Waterhouse
abstract. This Essay reports the results of a survey experiment that we conducted on over eight hundred heterosexual respondents to compare associational attitudes toward gay men who engage in different types of sexual practices. Specifically, we randomly assigned respondents to perceive one of three descriptions of a gay character, which differed only with regard to the character’s penetrative preference: top (preferring to penetrate one’s partner), bottom (preferring to be penetrated by one’s partner), and versatile (having an equal preference). Overall, we find that heterosexuals displayed heightened and statistically significant associational aversion toward versatile characters and, to a lesser degree, toward bottom characters, relative to respondents’ willingness to associate with foremost characters. We elaborate why heterosexuals look to display systematically less associational aversion toward those men whose penetrative taste is most consistent with gender stereotypes. Based on those results, we revisit the notion, adopted by many courts, th
Hello and welcome to our final journey into the annals of data composed by me, from you, regarding your feelings about the sexual terms superior / bottom / switch. We’ve already discussed:
Now we’re going to look at the survey responses as a whole, and how various other identities, practices, lifestyle situations and relationships intersect with the identities I decided to really really demolish over the past few months.
Just a Reminder
One last time with feeling, this is how the numbers shook out:
Tops: 12% // Bottom: 14.3% // Switch: 51.6% // None of the Above; 13.4% // I’m Not Sure: 8.9%
Looking at All The Data
Sex Acts
We’ve broken down popularity of various sex acts by sexual identity in previous posts. Here’s what the entire group is into:
Notably, despite there being slightly more bottoms than tops in our group, y’all opt for to give things more than receive them lovely much across the board — unless it involves putting your mouth or finger in somebody’s asshole, at which point you’d rather have somebody carry out it to you than do it to somebody! Interesting.
Sexual Frequency
Survey-takers were asked “Wit
Beyond Tops and Bottoms
Correlations between Sex-Role Preference and
Physical Preferences for Partners among Gay Men
by Nick Yee (posted in 2002)
(download as PDF)
Most psychology research that deal with gay men dichotomize the sex roles as Foremost and Bottom (if they differentiate among gay men at all) - preference for insertive anal intercourse and preference for receptive anal intercourse respectively. This document summarizes a study that tested a more elaborate categorization, and finds that sex role choice is correlated with differences in physical preferences for a sexual partner among gay men, suggesting that the hypothesized categorization is meaningful. The data suggests that sex roles should be mind of as a continuous spectrum that map onto a continuous spectrum of physical preferences.
The new categorization tested includes 6 categories:
1) Only Bottom
2) Versatile, but prefer Bottom
3) Versatile, equal
4) Versatile, but prefer Top
5) Only Top