I rolled my eyes as each member in the group divulged their position in bed. In this really what we’d been resorted to in a bar on a Wednesday night? Watching the bottom’s salivate as the tops identified themselves, and the tops eye-up their counterparts like a piece of meat, while the versatile queens greedily checked out everyone like bisexuals.
Apparently sexual compatibility was just as important – if not more so – than intellectual and conversational boners. But as the discussion of sexual preference delved *deeper*, it was certainly stirring something with me – intellectually.
“Everybody in this city is a bottom,” complained Martin, a New Yorker. I’d heard the same thing about LA, too. But then I moved there and found it to be Bible. But in NY, it seemed to me like more of a sexual cocktail, where people regularly flip-fucked, and sexual preference was less of an issue.
“No, seriously!” He insisted.
And despite seeing a handful people on social media whinge that London had no tops, I fought the corner of my hometown. “We don’t have that problem in London.” And I genuinely believe that we don’t. There’s always and equal amount of each banging on my door. (Although granted, tops come round the back).
So was this a Western sweeping dilemma that would gradually hit the UK like an overseas wind? Did certain guys just simply attract different types of men? Or was it something more culturally appropriate than that? Were there more bottoms in America than the UK? And if so, why…
“It’s not that the thought of topping a guy doesn’t turn me on, but I just get so much more pleasure as the bottom”, chimed in another guy. And that’s when I wondered, is our sexual preference (aside from being related to our mind-set) directly linked to our anatomy?
We’ve all heard the theory that the bigger the dick, the more likely the guy being a top. And not because it’d be a waste of a cock either, but because they tend to get more pleasure than guys who aren’t packing as much. But was there more it? What if, men who has been circumsized (as such with a majority of the US) are more likely to be bottoms because they’re dicks are less sensitive? I mean, it’s hardly far-fetched. And when I suggested it to the group, it had a number of them scratching their heads.
There’s obviously never going to a straight answer for the question, ‘why are some men top and some men bottom’, and there would always be exceptions to the rule even so, as things just simply aren’t that rigid – but sensitivity is related to levels of pleasure, and our sexual desires clearly derive from that too.
Clearly our mentality plays a part (as some people just don’t find certain roles sexually stimulating), and perhaps the perviously mentioned size-debate does contribute too (hitting that second sphincter comes in handy) – but are whether we’re cirumsized or not another factor that contributes to the mystery of gay sexual roles?
It would certainly be one basic explanation for why Americans feel more top-deprived. I’d love to insert a quote here from a scientist or college professor that says it’s possible, but I only know weed dealers. So for now, it’s still a debate. Sound off below!