Jesse Bering
Image:
It’s my impression that many straight people believe that there are two types of gay men in this world: those who like to give, and those who like to receive. No, I’m not referring to the relative generosity or gift-giving habits of homosexuals. Not exactly, anyway. Rather, the distinction concerns gay men’s sexual role preferences when it comes to the act of anal intercourse. But like most aspects of human sexuality , it’s not quite that simple.
I’m very much aware that some readers may think that this type of article does not belong on this website. But the great thing about good science is that it’s amoral, objective and doesn’t cater to the court of public opinion. Data don’t cringe; people do. Whether we’re talking about a penis in a vagina or one in an anus, it’s human behavior all the same. The ubiquity of homosexual behavior alone makes it fascinating. What’s more, the study of self-labels in gay men has considerable applied value, such as its possible predictive capacity in tracking risky sexual behaviors and safe sex practices.
People who derive more pleasure (or perhaps suffer less anxiety or discomfort) from acting as the insertive partner are referred to colloquially as “tops,” whereas those who have a clear preference for serving as the receptive partner are commonly known as “bottoms.” There are plenty of other descriptive slang terms for this gay male dichotomy as well, some repeatable (“pitchers vs. catchers,” “active vs. passive,” “dominant vs. submissive”) and others not—well, not for Scientific American , anyway.
In fact, survey studies have found that many gay men actually self-identify as “versatile,” which means that they have no strong preference for either the insertive or the receptive role. For a small minority, the distinction doesn’t even apply, since some gay men lack any interest in anal sex and instead prefer different sexual activities. Still other men refuse to self-label as tops, bottoms, versatiles or even “gay” at all, despite their having frequent anal sex with gay men. These are the so-called “Men Who Have Sex With Men” (or MSM) who are often in heterosexual relations as well.
Several years ago, a team of scientists led by Trevor Hart at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta studied a group of of 205 gay male participants. Among the group’s major findings—reported in a 2003 issue of The Journal of Sex Research —were these:
(1) Self-labels are meaningfully correlated with actual sexual behaviors. That is to say, based on self-reports of their recent sexual histories, those who identify as tops are indeed more likely to act as the insertive partner, bottoms are more likely be the receptive partner, and versatiles occupy an intermediate status in sex behavior.
(2) Compared to bottoms, tops are more frequently engaged in (or at least they acknowledge being attracted to) other insertive sexual behaviors. For example, tops also tend to be the more frequent insertive partner during oral intercourse. In fact, this finding of the generalizability of top/bottom self-labels to other types of sexual practices was also uncovered in a correlational study by David Moskowitz, Gerulf Reiger and Michael Roloff. In a 2008 issue of Sexual and Relationship Therapy, these scientists reported that tops were more likely to be the insertive partner in everything from sex-toy play to verbal abuse to urination play.
See what we're tweeting about
74 Comments
Add CommentThis is actually quite fascinating to me as a lesbian. I came out late in life, and I'm totally a top. Yet, I suspect that trait is a result of my discomfort throughout life with my orientation. Despite being openly 'out' now, I still harbor some discomfort with my sexuality. I can understand where this would present health risks to the "str8t" guys and their female partners, because they really wouldn't be exposed to as much preventive advertising. Good article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience should be fearless -- bravo!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Dolmance: No, it makes absolutely no sense at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it both interesting and funny that one person would assume information would not serve anyone! I enjoy science because it's science not because one person is not feelin it haha!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I've been wondering recently about the question of whether gays were all either tops or bottoms, I'm a little disappointed that all I got was "its not quite that simple" and "many gay men actually self-identify as 'versatile' . Maybe somebody can get a grant for some <i>hard</i> science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the article is interesting in that it clarifies that there are some individuals that are open to being either role. Other than that, I'm sure there is more substantive work to further define the roles. It seems like this was more of a teaser article to get you thinking-- which it did!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis kind of social labelling is getting kinda old. with today's relaxed stance on different types of sexual and emotional behaviour, there really is no need to define any "roles" for people. i think that it would be enough to define different types of behaviour that apply in a given situation. it is not necessary to then wrap entire persons in a particular role.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto expand the subject a bit, the same applies to other kinds of labelling as well - taste in movies, food, cars etc.
This article is more scientific than the vast majority of the global warming articles found here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't put much faith into self-labeling, starting with constantly changing terminology/labels like gay, queer, homo, butch, queen, top, bottom, versatile, bi-, bi-curious, fem, on the down low, frot man, bringing a "trick" home, or being someone's "trick", heterosexual transvestite, genderf**k, transgendered, etc. There are no such things as active or passive orgasms. A scientific investigation of "insertive" and "receptive" practices MIGHT have some value regarding safe sex practices, but I find it very hard to believe that in the US in the 21st century that there are adults who lack basic HIV prevention knowledge, and if they DO, like I'm going to assume that their self-labeling is any more informed? Yes, naming, labeling, and categorization are all science activities, just as are counting and quantifying. We get just as lost when we try to discuss racial differences, given that race is a scientifically bogus concept, and racial self-labeling is equally futile as a scientific concept. I don't look to science to answer the question "Who am I?", and without consensus of even basic terminology, "What am I?" is difficult. Being a white man, or black woman, are totally valid concepts, but hardly scientific. Self-labeling will lead us into inane statements like, "I was a bi-curious bi-racial man until I got married and fathered children, but now am a transgendered female top with my ex-wife and her latin lover. So much for Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHellblade,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, this kind of social labeling or categorization is important from an epidemiological point of view. Lives are at stake, not only of MSM, but also of the women they may sleep with and possible children born to the women.
For those of us who grew up in the 90s, tops and bottoms seems like a weird cultural throwback to the '70s when ritualisation was a necessary artifact in the the absence of sexual variation being considered normal. The new generation seems to regard this as less a cultural thing than neuroses; lucky them for not having to put up with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, your piece seems to infer you feel the mechanics of sex are of universal concern. It's not. Circumcised people are way disproportionately more concerned with their deficits in 'getting it on', or more generally speaking, Americans. One suspects this has something to do the the harder impact of HIV in the US as compared to other western countries - good luck sorting that one out....
The first to accuse is usually guilty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome times we like to make things seem more complex than what they are; doctors are an excellent example of this practice. It helps to define the layman from the professional. If you are not the type of person who rushes into relationships to enjoy that "one night stand" and will grab hold of anything that comes your way, then you can recognize the other persons preference; this applies to whatever kind of sex you are looking for or whatever you consider yourself, straight, gay, ect.. You develope this ability at a very young age. It helps us find our life partner. A man can tell if a woman perfers to be on the top or bottom and versa versa. Even a child, according to a test conducted in Sweden 30 years ago, can recognize, whither they understand it or not, the person they perfer to be with, straight, gay, top, or bottom. We are all animals of habit, so don't make us more complex or simpler than what we are. If you just watch humans interact for awhile, the answers will come to you. Pay attention and then enjoy each other, you just might find you real life mate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotslic, you only proved yourself to be grossly ignorant of human sexuality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotslic has also shown himself to be grossly ignorant of evolution in general by writing:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sex is evolutionary and about the continuation of the species."
Continuation of the species? Wow. That's just dumb thinking.
"This effect refers to the finding that the shorter the difference in length between the second and fourth digits of the human handparticularly the right handthe greater the presence of prenatal androgens during fetal development leading to subsequent masculinizing characteristics."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is incorrect. The opposite is true -- the GREATER the difference in length between second and fourth digits indicates the presence of prenatal androgens.
"For those of us who grew up in the 90s, tops and bottoms seems like a weird cultural throwback to the '70s when ritualisation was a necessary artifact in the the absence of sexual variation being considered normal"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs someone who grew up in the late 70's and early 80's, I find this comment totally backward. We were more open minded and versatile during the free love period of the 60's and for a decade or two afterwards. I find it was the 90's and later that gay men tended to gravitate towards top/bottom and a strict emulation of hetero top/bottom. I assumed it was because of the rise of the religious right in politics during that time.
The 70's was definitely a time of versatility, not strict roles. It was pre-AIDS, people were free and exploring.
As to sex being about survival of the species: for a species as dynamic and widely populated as our own is it even necessary for everyone to be reproducing? If there were those from our species who were predisposed not to reproduce, yet like all humans still felt the need to belong, would it not be to our cultural advantage? in other words, less children but more people to protect them may not be terrible for a culture/society/group.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis reminds me of those who argue in favor of an altruism gene. Although it may not benefit the altruistic individual to constantly sacrifice for his/her group, evolutionarily speaking, would the group not be better off for having him/her around to help them care for children and secure resources? Although gay men and women may not reproduce, they may offer similar advantages as would the genetically predisposed altruist.
Is this Article tongue in cheek?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author writes about the "epidemic spread of the AIDS virus." This is simply incorrect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the virus while Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by HIV.
A simple (sloppy) mistake like this makes me wonder what else in this article is being misrepresented.
The author writes about the "epidemic spread of the AIDS virus." This is simply incorrect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is the virus, while Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by HIV.
There is in fact no "epidemic spread of the AIDS virus."
Sloppy writing like this in a scientific journal makes me wonder what other facts the author misrepresenting.
Best. headline. ever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBest. Headline. Ever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly if the owner of the tongue is an "inserter" and the owner of the cheek is an "insertee" or whatever the f* terminology he pulled out of his "bottom". This is one of many articles where the comments are just as good as the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI KNEW this article would generate some hilarious responses... from tongue in cheek to lets stay on top of this issue if we ever hope to get to the bottom of it. I have to agree with SteveSinCa that the 60's and the 70's were a hedonistic liberation for everybody. I've copied directly from my Mac dictionary...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.
• the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life.
Perhaps that is why I think the whole label game is bogus... the pleasures of the orgasms of "active tops" and "power bottoms" are equal, there are no dominate or recessive orgasms. The vagina can be viewed to receive the phallus, or take it; the semen inserted, or taken from the man, and thus the double entendre, is the "trick" who bottoms for the "dominate" male being passive or in reality is he taking from the "dominate" one. Men propose, women dispose... and the "smartest" women have always known how to make their men feel like "real men"... as if "queens" don't know what they are doing as well? For every alpha male dog there is an alpha female b***h. And if men don't see the inequity in the disparity between being labeled a stud (dominate male, and such a compliment) and a b***h (a putdown for a female, and doubly so for a male) it only means that both females and males can exploit that blind spot for their own pleasures and purposes. Passive, recessive, submissive gay males??? If you have no appreciation of just how vicious female infighting can be, then I doubt you know or understand just how nasty it is to piss off a queen... Âżpassive? Âżsubmissive? HARDLY (pun intended).
For our friends of the "sex is (only) for reproduction", study the bono monkeys, group sex is such a wonderful way to share the feast and placate the dominate males, just like most dominate male humans, good food, great sex, and then time to snore. Or study dolphins, such wonderful examples of if it feels good, do it. Or just talk to professional "call girls"... or some "boy toys", and if you can't keep up with all the "self- labeling", it is your loss. Lastly, to all the soccer dads... when being accused of being gay is no longer an insult OR a threat to your self-labels, you will experience a taste of the joy and freedom of what "gays" experience when finally being "out of the closet". Free to be me.
to notslic:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI urge you to do some research and you will discover the silenced truth of sexual behaviour. There are lots of studies of homosexual traits in thousands of animal species, not in just humans. So when asimilar happens in humans, we are not the odd one off. It's just common act in animals. Some human groups that take old books too literally have shunned these studies from general knowledge, but it does not make them less true. An if some individual does not like some research, it also does not make it useless. Similar 'gross-out' study area for some is the human gut and it's inhabitats. But today ever more it is recognized that all those millions of bugs living in each of us are important modifiers of our health. We could not live without them, that is sure. But this gross-out factor has had the effect that this area of study is only now getting the interest it surely needs. Of course previously we also did not have necessary tech to do good studies (DNA-sequencing to identify the species involved). Or did you know that each of us have differences even between our colonies of bacteria at each of our hands?
Sorry to belabor this BUT... "top dogs" deserve ??? And so are there "gay top dogs"? and they deserve??? The opposite of nymphomania is ??? And if you don't know the term, that should be a clue that you have a blind spot, which leaves you vulnerable. And to all men, nymphomania is considered an illness and its male equivalent is not, which is why so few have even heard of it, and can be "loosely" defined as a studly dudly lucky man, or a Don Juan (latin lovers anyone?) And to try and pretend that there is a REAL connection to sexual orientation and this whole insertive receptive word game, imagine trying to play this word game in Africa, or in the other parts of the world where HIV (yes, we know, as in VIRUS which leads to A.I.D.S...talk about word games! HIV virus is redundant MISS/MS/MR get your terminology right or I will question the rest of your article) As if the virus knows or cares which gendered mucous membrane it enters, can we all agree the virus IS INSERTED into its victims, or will we debate whether it passively invades its victims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, I confess, I'm suffering a kind of PTSD from a lifetime of being labeled, of witnessing men and women dealing with sexism, missionary position is "normal", of being witness to the beginning of the A.I.D.S. epidemic. How DARE we continue to assign different values to this disease based on "gay, straight, bi, sexual orientation"). Closets? There are CHILDREN who have committed suicide in closets trying to escape the toxic poison of this LABEL ME GAME.
There's nothing in this story that every gay man and most lesbians don't already know. Who are these "scientists" and why are they discussing our sex lives as if we're some rare species of insect? Who funded this research, the Center for Figuring Out Really Obvious Things? Is this article a joke?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article belongs in a gay men's magazine, not in Scientific American. Aside from statistics, it lacks any scientific value but is heavy on conjecture. This is not the forum forum for it. What WOULD be valuable would be an article which correlates homosexual/lesbian tendencies to specific neural networks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ notslic ... "Perverted?" By whose standards? Your God? We should keep our invisible friends out of this discussion unless they have something constructive to add. And your other post: ...closet "homo"? What are you, like in the 8th grade?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad that they did, in fact recognize for the general population that many of us homos are neither "tops" nor "bottoms" (nor "versatile")--we simply don't get into anal sex at all. I had always heard that we comprised about 20% of the gay male population, hardly a "small minority". But then again, how can you measure sexual behavior when people rarely "do the same thing" in bed from one time to the next, let alone one partner to the next. I've always thought that the notion that you have to have "penile insertion into anus" in gay male sex at all is a very heterocentric paradigm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut ultimately, what does it matter? Many, many heterosexual couples practice anal sex, so it's not exactly a "gay" phenomenon. But the real question is, why are people such busybodies that they are spending time trying to imagine other people in bed together??
On a different topic: yes, sex evolved for reproduction. However, that doesn't mean homosexuality serves no evolutionary purpose. Tribes that had a higher number of adults to children generally would fare better (more food gathered, more protection, etc). Having a percentage in your extended family who are not reproducing is better for the adult/child ratio than having EVERY member reproduce and be focused on raising their own offspring instead of the good of the whole tribe. Plenty of studies show at least SOME genetic component in gay male sexuality; I believe that having "gay uncles" in a tribal setting is beneficial for the children in terms of resources, and thus the genetic fact that approximately 4-6% of the population is so inclined keeps an optimal number of "nonreproducing" males to enhance the 94% who are.
Thanks to ALL the commentators, even snotlick, I mean notslic, as we all need to interact with this science, yes, real scientific, no holds barred, get in there and study anything and everything, even our sexuality. If science can study the neural networks of the G-spot AND the neural networks of the GOD spot in our brains, what self-labeled roles have to do with donut holes can qualify, in my humble opinion. I just reread the article to make sure that a gay scientist was not accidently implying that bisexual men might tend to be in denial of their homosexual behaviors, thus somehow being less aware of their role in the transmission of HIV to their female partners (and their unborn children). But the goal of the research quoted, (yes, SCIENTIFIC research, all ye who think this deserves to be in a gay magazine, as it does; as well as any other magazine that aims to inform us all), makes it clear that the researchers are investigating any and all factors that might allow for further risks to the spread of disease, a noble goal of science. As for conjecture... which is defined as an unproven scientific theorum, and whose synonyms (of the noun) include theory, postulation, inference, and extrapolation and (of the verb) include infer, believe, THINK, (emphasis mine) and hypothesize... I'd say that the editors of Scientific American have done well by including Jesse Bering among their diverse and informative (if not fearless) contributors... take THAT all you nay sayers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe last time I got tested, I was talking to the guy testing me. We got on the topic of roles and he said the biggest risk he sees is in "versatile/tops"... people who are a top maybe 90% of the time, but then once in awhile they bottom. He said they perceive themselves at lower risk since they don't bottom as much (and in terms of unprotected sex, bottoming is riskier than topping), and so when they DO bottom, they are less likely to do it safely. Then, once they get infected, because they are mostly tops, they are more prolific at spreading what they got. I thought it was an interesting point. 100% tops are less likely than vers/tops to get infected... and 100% bottoms are more likely than vers/tops to use protection when they bottom, and as 100% bottoms they are not as likely to give an infection to others. I imagine extending this to vers/bottoms, we could say they are probably lower risk than vers/tops, but higher risk than total bottoms or total tops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotslic... incurable and benign was a curious phrase to use. Its not a tumour. In fact medical and scientific establishment moved to a neutral position that considered homosexuals to be well-adjusted and in the normal range of the overall human condition. Most now consider homosexual attraction to be innate and immutable (not necessarily immutable behaviourally speaking).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso not sure about your need to justify yourself. I dont make assumptions about and your sex life but you seem to make plenty about others. If can manage to not think about the sex life of your own parents or your own grown-up children or any adult you meet or work with, then surely it is possible not to dwell on what some gay guys do. Afterall, you probably already work with gay people but are not aware of it and their sex lives do not impinge on you.
I thought the article was light on data but the finger length study was interesting. More evidence of some biological factor that interplays with human sexuality.
“incurable and benign” was a curious phrase to use. It’s not a tumour. In fact medical and scientific establishment moved to a neutral position that considered homosexuals to be well-adjusted and in the normal range of the overall human condition. Most now consider homosexual attraction to be innate and immutable (not necessarily immutable behaviourally speaking).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso not sure about your need to justify yourself. I don’t make assumptions about and your sex life but you seem to make plenty about others. If can manage to not think about the sex life of your own parents or your own grown-up children or any adult you meet or work with, then surely it is possible not to dwell on what some gay guys do. Afterall, you probably already work with gay people but are not aware of it and their sex lives do not impinge on you.
I thought the article was light on data but the finger length study was interesting. More evidence of some biological factor that interplays with human sexuality.
An interesting introduction to these topics. One thing struck an off chord with me though: "For a small minority, the distinction doesn’t even apply, since some gay men lack any interest in anal sex and instead prefer different sexual activities." Did any of these studies (or others) back up the assertion that only a tiny minority of gay men eschew anal intercourse? That doesn't match my anecdotal observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrdiac's comment is a bit condescending. I know lots of young guys who have preferences one way or another regarding anal play. To suggest queers today are more "evolved" is silly. Of course cultural shifts have impacts on identity and sense of self but now, as then, there are many ways to self-identify, let alone to experience pleasure. The key is supporting self-determination, no matter whether we're talking about 70s "throwbacks" or the hipsters of today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy must gay sex be explained? Where are the studies that deconstruct lesbian sex? Furthermore, where are the studies that explain straight sex? Sexual appetite and arousal would seem to be pretty much the same in most normal functioning people, so why try finding an "excuse" for same-gender sex?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough this article was neutral why can't science leave gays and lesbians ALONE???
Have there been any scientific studies of "Heterosexual" Male Sex preferences? I'm pretty sure its a lot more diverse than assumed by the mainstream. There are MSW who like being penetrated anally by their female partners, there are MSW who're into infantilism, plushophilia, zoophilia, all sorts of weird stuff and homosexuals won't have to be mentioned at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotslic wants to do a guy so bad. lol Your next piece should be about the tendency for men with strong anti-gay feelings to have repressed homosexual urges. Studies have shown and then reaffirmed this. Sit a guy who mouths off about gays in front of gay porn and they'll usually get a semi.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for sex being about the continuation of the species, that's just flatly wrong and requires a great deal of willful ignorance. Sex is a huge part of human communication and bonding. That is a fact. Humans do NOT come in just two sexes, as intersex people are born each and every day. That is also a fact--and one that is making a great deal of headlines right now.
Even without the great deal of research indicating that homosexuality is a biological trait, often bundled with others, it takes a great deal of ignorance to rationalize a "there are boys and there are girls and they should have sex only with each other because we only have sex to reproduce" "argument."
This article is why I don't read Scientific American much any more. Where is the empirical evidence? Where is the science? Instead we get a fluff piece with old meaningless studies written at an 8th grade level. The only thing this article had to offer was giving me a heads up to avoid the author's upcoming book. Very disappointing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@dimondrlc: "Where is the empirical evidence? Where is the science"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUm, hey dummy, are you not aware that correlational studies are empirical? Do you expect researchers who study this topic to use experimental methods where they randomly assign some men to be tops and others bottoms? What would be your "scientific" approach to study these questions? Please enlighten us.
Is it just me, or is it hilarious that someone calling himself "achilles22" would be a homophobe, considering Achilles' sexually submissive role in his relationship with Patroclus (Symposium §180)? Not to mention his cross-dressing stint on Skyros as a teenager? Maybe that's only funny if you actually, y'know, read and care enough about Classical Greek sources to know what it means when you choose your username.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, this article is not so surprising—it's news that vers boys exist and that tops have issues about their sexuality? maybe if you're not gay, it is—but the outrage in the comments is astonishing.
yea... not really sure I learned anything with this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnotslic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to be confusing sexuality with biology, the one is not the other and the one cannot be explained by the other solely, which is the point. Humans didn't evolve TO reproduce, we've evolved BECAUSE of reproduction and a host of other factors. Don't confuse the two. Thats like suggesting all range of organisms, their dispositions and social characteristics are entirely determined by their genes. That my friend, simply doesn't make sense.
Nothing homophobic about being disgusted with urination play, I hope. I mean there is a reason these people are not allowed to donate blood. It is simply a health issue resulting from a very unhealthy lifestyle. The anus and rectum were not designed to be a receptacle for the penis. Apparently, nature designed them to expel feces from the body. The anus has a thin cellular lining, tears easily when penetrated, and becomes a superhighway for infections into the blood stream. Sorry if science is so offensive to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmen, Mrs. Campbell....that is an observation proved with real science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAchilles...we are allies on this thread, but for very different reasons. Yours are biblical and mine are (sort of) scientific. But thanks for adding some science to your arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, we may have the same viewpoints, but just for clarification, the bible is not a science book and I wouldn't rely on it for scientific enlightenment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery good Achilles, now I go to bed. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@notslic: Riddle me this, dope: Do you wipe your wife's vaginal slime off your penis before inserting it into her mouth? Or does she find that erotic, tasting herself? No, seriously. I don't know these things about you straight people?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@achilles: "There is a reason these people are not allowed to donate blood." Who are 'these people' and what the hell are you talking about? I would dare say there aren't many gay men who practice golden showers (urination play, you moron) or at least there are just as many kinky straight guys who do so. Anal sex too. As for unhealthy lifestyles, hatred is certainly up there and you're about as sick as they come.
Oh boy, here come the evangeicals!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if the anus was not met to be a receptacle for the penis, how do you account for the fact that they fit quite well together?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@MrsPatrickCampbell: How does it feel to be so insignificant that nobody even responds to your lame attempts at crude humor? Go on, tell us more about assmeat. *hilarious* dude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat headline...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour argument is specious. What is more annoying is your handle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is actually an interesting article, but the data points are far too limited for validity. I look forward to something similar, but with better data.
I tend to follow more sociological articles in SciAm, so this one seemed right up my alley. Acknowledgment of personal identification can be a very enlightening process for anyone, especially someone who is or was fearful of persecution from their peers. The idea that "Non-gay-identified MSM" take more risks makes perfect sense when combined with self-loathing and non-acceptance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am disappointed that you could not maintain a more consistent basis for your article. Switching from personal identification and its impact on social tendencies to finger length? You are correct that there should be far more investigation into the societal tendencies of gay males, and sexuality in general. Perhaps we can find a way to encourage this sort of study by maintaining intelligent discussion, but it's not likely to come from a poorly constructed collection of study results.
Homosexuality has an evolutionary advantage to the species as homosexual members of a group tend to help with rearing progeny, protecting the group, providing food etc. This is observed with elephants, sea gulls and humans as well as other species. Human females with homosexual brothers are likely to have and successfully raise more children. This is a statistical pattern not a predictive one. If there was no evolutionary advantage to homosexuality it would be less prevalent than it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, even if there was no evolutionary advantage humans may prefer to live in societies that encouraged acceptance of diversity. Economic research shows cities with higher levels of openly homosexual people in the population also have higher levels of creative businesses, higher productivity and income levels.
There is something odd about the article. Apparently identity was confirmed by behaviour but then is it just a description of an individuals usual behaviour? "I normally 'top' you might say". But straights don't have to declare there identity in the same way arrange a sexual liaison. Gay men are well advised to negotiate there preference with a prospective pick-up and its sensible to agree at least at first on what you want. What then follows tends to be ritualistic practice for the partners as each plays their role out.... as indeed do straights, often influenced by pornographic images and videos whether for penetrative sex, only for 'foreplay' ....heavy petting as the straights used to call it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo identity is either embedded in a social practice, (a role?) or the product of the practice.
I believe this is a great start and with some data but not enough to make any causal relationships or inferences. I don't understand this fascination and discrimination with homosexuals, they have been around since Ancient Egypt (nothing new). Why do we make this a phenomenon? I personally don't hold with this orientation but I don't get the ability to tell people how to live since we have past the dark age...I think. Science was made to give insight but research is done to prove a theory or question is right and is legit. Science is not based on opinion but data and facts. So what it is in here, don't like it don't click that pretty blue underlined link and read the article and like magic... wow it doesn't bother you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut YOU responded, Miss c. harvey!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll ADAPTIVE human behavior can be traced back to our human acute stress response spectrum: "freeze" (hypervigilance), "flight," "fight," "fear" (tonic immobilization), and "faint" (flaccid immobility). [Bracha, CNS Spectr. 2004;9(9):679-685].
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese represent INNATE tendencies and present in our attempts at ADAPTATION to all human relationships.
Governed by these deeply built in rules, tension is created when society and culture expects us to BE other than INNATE, frustrating our physiological needs.
This incomplete research has uncovered a spectrum of sexual conduct which matches "freeze, fight, flight" (using the old parlance).
I suspect the research has easily come up with a valid understanding of a maligned topic: Male homosexuality and the safe sex message. These messages are mistakingly directed to those with top-like behavior, the aggressor, who may now be labelled as "overcompensators:" those who "fight" and do the opposite of their schemas; knowing that they are more likely to distribute their sexual fluids to women and therefore to newborns, adds additional subterfuge to their sex-lives from childhood.
It'd more effective to direct safe sex messages to those who self label as the submissive party, who are more likely to plead for a commitment from their partners - just as we'd not known, but discovered through similar research about women in straight relationships.
Learning where one fits on a common sexuality spectrum, takes more mental time and energy than most like to admit, or acknowledge in others.
I only hope that some who've responded to this article are not involved in the sciences, especially the social sciences and services, and do not interact outside of their own in-group, lest their lives fall apart from class contamination.
@hellblade, you need to know that labels only harm those people who equate taste in movies, food, cars, etc. with gender and sexuality roles; and other DISTORTIONS of reality. I am sorry that life has not worked out in your favor, but this is because we don't live in a very accepting world with a "relaxed stance."
Such naive sources of opinion need to read a nice, nice book about how fair and impartial everybody is, how there is no such thing as race and everybody has wanted to be the same adventurous and brave types since the 60s and 70s.
P.S. No such book exists in non-fiction, even Hugh Hefner and Donald Trump can't candy this one over with Kinsey reports and tittie bars.
The author's idea about the amorality of science is erroneous. Some applications of physics may be amoral; social sciences cannot be, by definition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat for SA to publish some robust scientific research that debunks the bigotry and superstition around male to male sex. In my lifetime I had witnessed in lcoal New Zealand gay society the growing masculinizing of the role of the bottom - and the often (surprisingly maybe) articulated preference of tops to have sex with masculine bottoms rather than any feminised ideal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionary, exactly, we are controlling the world's population, and there are gays because people naturally fall in love. When you have two different genders, although the majority will fall in love with the opposite sex, there will be those who fall in love with the same sex, and it's a beautiful thing :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood article. As a bottom, ( and yes, I truly enjoy/prefer this position ) the more this topic ( and other gay topics ) the better for gays as well as "straights".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must say I was shocked to find that the topic of gay male sex roles was considered worthy of study or even mention in Scientific American. All they had to do was call me and I could have told them everything they needed to know about the issue and a lot more then they found out which was mostly nothing. All I learned is that Dolmance is a homophobe! who should quit dropping acid. It's not a recreational drug!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI got news for you this top and bottom stuff remains in the bedroom but sense the need to have it explored is out there now (and I am cracking up) I am gay, and we do what we do in the bedroom because we feel comfortable doing it whether it be top/bottom/versatile or upside down. There truly is no dominance in the sex (there are other sex games for that) notice I said games. Let me also let you in on a secret (not) but some of us can take the pain of a penis in out butts and some can't that comes with practice for some of us and when all is said and done flip it, flop it, rub it up and down we (gay) folks are human too. No science necesary !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames Pearson
"Homophobic" is not a scientific measurement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a political term used to shame and emasculate men who haven't fully accepted the gay/progressive assumption that the gay identity, such as it is, is a positive phenomenon.
By making any number of "issues" with homosexuality or gay culture a blanket "phobia" gays push a man's "you're a coward" button. It's a manipulative, politically loaded term.
It could mean "I don't want to be associated with something effeminate" or "I'm not sure this is who I want to be" or "I am religiously opposed to this" or "I'm philosophically uncertain about this" or "I don't want to socialize with gays because I don't find their collective behavior appealing" or "I don't think this is the best way of life" or "anal sex is kinda gross."
Self-loathing is also highly relative and politically loaded.
If you're going to talk about science, talk about science. If you're going to be a gay movement Apparatchik, your work belongs in The Advocate.
A friend of mine who I knew in the early 90s, Don Belton, was gay-murdered on Christmas day by an Iraq war vet. Don was stabbed with a knife several times in the back, and then in the front. The murderer is proffering a "Gay Panic" defense saying that Don had sexually assaulted him twice and refused to show remorse for doing so. This, of course, is a lie. Don was 53 and the murderer is a 24 year old Marine. Victims of sexual assault don't often come back for a second round... There are many holes in the murder's story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we can say, without controversy, that the murderer was homophobic. He feared his own homosexual desire, enough so that he murdered the man he had sex with - viciously.
Is calling the man who murdered Don Belton 'homophobic' a way to emasculate that man? I think that's a strange way to view it. I think many would say that the murder was in-fact an outcome of a pathological kind of masculinity.
Don Belton was a friend to many, a great writer and renown scholar of masculinity himself. Is the man who murdered Don Belton a coward? I definitely think that he is. Everyone who was touched by Don knows that his murderer is a coward.
Should the murderer be ashamed? Yes he should. There is collective agreement from the community about this.
Homophobia killed Don Belton. You, Jack, are responding to the definition of homophobia. Let's say homophobia means what you say it means: "I don't want to be associated with something effeminate" or "I'm not sure this is who I want to be" or "I am religiously opposed to this" or "I'm philosophically uncertain about this" or "I don't want to socialize with gays because I don't find their collective behavior appealing" or "I don't think this is the best way of life" or "anal sex is kinda gross."
Did Don Belton deserve to die because some asshole didn't "want to be associated with something effeminate", or was "philosophically uncertain"? The answer is emphatically: No.
I don't think there's anything to gain by denying the validity of homophobia as a concept. It describes what it's talking about quite well.
http://justicefordonbelton.com/
This article seems very vague. Gay male relationships are layered and complex, just like "straight" relationship. Seeking narrow labels seems of limited usefulness. I see very little data or background methodology in this article. There are some interesting observations but that is about it. I wouldn't take this article as advice for anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a male who for nearly 20 years has dealt with nearly 50,000 males and has answered over half million phone calls in my work as a massage provider and escort to gay interested men .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have come across a huge range of information about the subject that no researcher has ever touched because in a one-to- one basis more information is gained in the real world than any researcher would gain through research and there are many surprises that I have uncovered , for example--- many men are turned on by homosexual activities but are completely turned off by the male nude images in photographs , movies etc , there is a huge amount of men in the population who are neither attracted to males or females and are only attracted to transsexuals and they can spent a fortune in a lifetime meeting transsexual who only provide services for money , these men who are attracted to transsexuals are more turned off by males than most heterosexual men would be usually be .There are many men who are attracted to male sex but only like looking at female photography , DVD's and females in general and many don't have any concepts to what a good looking male is or a bad looking male is , as the male image has no attraction to them and only the male sexual act between males is an attraction to them
Then on the opposite side there are gay males who are really male haters in general and they have very limited concepts of the males that would appeal to them and they are have very particular concepts on who they like and who they dislike in males and often are looking for males around their own age which look similar to themselves , this category of male often looks for very male characteristics in their male of choice and they are turned-off by any thing that appears feminine yet their own personalities have a very feminine side under the exterior as they often have a very close relationships with their mother ,aunty ,sister or other females and prefer female company except for sex purposes .
I have also noticed that men who start out being completely top often turn to being completely bottom in there later years.
Some men are only attracted to penis size and go through life being obsessed with the subject and nothing else has any interest to them when they are looking for a sexual encounter and then there are males who are totally obsessed with anal attractions and they don't care if it is male or female .
Good to see someone clearly noting "since some gay men lack any interest in anal sex and instead prefer different sexual activities". There is actually a very large percentage of folks that fall into this category (though you'd never know that from reading most press on the subject of gays).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing ever seems to work for me. The 2nd and 4th fingers on both my hands are just about even, even though I am gay and not versatile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was raised to talk amiably about all sorts of things, especially ideas or the arts or literature. But not at all about intimate, personal life. No one talked about sex or their sexual activity or made sexual remarks about other people. I am still this way. I can know someone for years and share all sorts of things but show no interest whatsoever in their sex aspects, and I never share mine. I have always known gay people, and had some gay friends, but I never sought out gay people, and many of my most intimate and erotic and relaxed relationships have been with straight men with two types of personalities; one like mine, upbeat, funny, go with the flow, take your pouches and move on, but also dominant, unlike me. Or very intensely romantic, a little bit needy but not much, very serious, sweet, erotic. The reason mainly with straight people? Because that's always been most of the people I know, I was attractive and fun, and they initiated the physical intimacy, not me. I have always been genuinely surprised when a guy wants top be intimate with me. And pleased, of course. In one case I even educated a straight guy (in bed) about how to please a woman sexually and emotionally.
The point: in at least some cases culture and social background dominate over sexual preference. I have always preferred giving up sex to giving up my social background, not because my social background is hostile to gayness, in fact it is quite accepting. I have always put my intellectual and cultural interest above any sex interests. Sex has happened to me strictly by accident. Now that I am old I find the thought of sex to be more inconvenient than desirable, even though I might feel a strong attraction to someone. It used to be, take it or leave, great when it happened. Now it is leave it rather than take it, I have better things to do, lol. So you can see, I am not very versatile in any sense of the word. But my fingers are even.
BUT I am the youngest of 4 brothers and that's supposed to increase the chance of being gay. So something works. But it also makes me easily amused by life and people and especially myself. I just cannot take sex seriously, even though I would be serious to avoid hurting the feelings of serious people. Of course I would be serious if I were heterosexual and had kids. That I would have considered a dutiful and rewarding commitment.