Bottom shaming

OhChicken

Was watching that amazing scene between Colton Haynes and Billy Eichner on American Horror Story and was perusing comments on social media afterwards. One thing that bothered me were folks being surprised (almost disappointed) that Colton's character was a bottom in the scene as if that was a flaw. There were ongoing discussions about the character being a bottom was counteracting his masculine persona.
I see this a lot, that it is considered slightly to be "less of a man" to be a btm or sub whereas tops are not critised at all. Does anyone else see this much on the scene? A perception that to be known as a bottom is something to be ashamed of?

baby and crumble

It's because bottoming is seen as feminine and feminine behaviour in general is not as valued as masculine. Goes for the straight world too.

OhChicken

Thanks Baby and Crumble. I didn't consider the feminine connotations. It's pity that gay men cannot accept that they are still men if they assume certain positions in the sack. Not that there is anything wrong with having a "feminine side" either of course.
Similiar to all the "straight" acting profile on dating sites I guess.

baby and crumble

baby and crumble wrote: »

....feminine behaviour in general is not as valued as masculine. Goes for the straight world too.

That’s simply not true.

JupiterKid

Plenty of “butch” masculine guys like to bottom. Most gay men are versatile anyway. Have you ever heard of the term “power bottom?” :cool:

baby and crumble

JayZeus wrote: »

That’s simply not true.

Oh really? Tell me why care work is undervalued? Traditionally done by women.

Tell me why people interested in beauty etc are classed as shallow?

Tell me why the classic derogatory terms for weakness are things like “don’t be a pussy”, “you throw like a girl”, “don’t be such a girl about it”. People are told to “man up”.

Tell me why I, as a masculine woman get taken far more seriously in meetings than my more feminine (and often better informed) colleagues?

Tell me why I do not get targeted on the street for verbal abuse etc like my feminine friends are?

Femininity is generally undervalued. Not by everyone, obviously, but it is.

SterlingArcher

baby and crumble wrote: »

Oh really? Tell me why care work is undervalued? Traditionally done by women.

Tell me why people interested in beauty etc are classed as shallow

Tell me why Bin men are undervalued. almost 99% men. nothing feminine about them. Same with mac Donalds workers. Some jobs just don't get valued.

Personal trainers. Men who go the gym alot and are big into themselves are also considered shallow. Being feminine does not factor into it. You could apply it to any sector based solely around looks.

Snotty

JayZeus wrote: »

That’s simply not true.

There is a difference between something not being true and you not wanting something to be true

baby and crumble

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Tell me why Bin men are undervalued. almost 99% men. nothing feminine about them. Same with mac Donalds workers. Some jobs just don't get valued.

Agreed. I'm simply saying that care work is systemically undervalued because it is seen as "Women work". Other types are also undervalued for other reasons. It's not an exclusive thing that only 1 type of work can be undervalued and only for one reason.

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Personal trainers. Men who go the gym alot and are big into themselves are also considered shallow. Being feminine does not factor into it. You could apply it to any sector based solely around looks.

Again, my point above stands. I'm not for one moment saying women are the only undervalued people in the world. Your argument doesn't really hold up there.

Stoner

baby and crumble wrote:

Agreed. I'm simply saying that care work is systemically undervalued because it is seen as "Women work". Other types are also undervalued for other reasons. It's not an exclusive thing that only 1 type of work can be undervalued and only for one reason.

Take child care, women working in creches etc are undervalued and underpaid imo. Unless they are qualified teachers,

SterlingArcher

baby and crumble wrote: »

Agreed. I'm simply saying that care work is systemically undervalued because it is seen as "Women work". Other types are also undervalued for other reasons. It's not an exclusive thing that only 1 type of work can be undervalued and only for one reason.



Again, my point above stands. I'm not for one moment saying women are the only undervalued people in the world. Your argument doesn't really hold up there.

I disagree you see it was your argument and bad that didn't hold up. How?


You said people in the beauty industry are considered shallow like this somehow tied to your point on femininity being undervalued ?? . I merely pointed out the bad example . femininity has nothing to do with an occupation in beauty being perceived as shallow.

Janitors are undervalued, gardeners. What makes your example of a higer female ratio occupation any more exceptional than the higher male ratio ones I just listed off the top of my head. The fact is. it does not.

Washing dishes would be considered womans work in an ironic joke.I guarantee you the majority of restaurants in dublin have men washing the dishes. Guess what. Having a man doing it won't make it any less undervalued.

baby and crumble

SterlingArcher wrote: »

I disagree you see it was your argument and bad that didn't hold up. How?

What?

SterlingArcher wrote: »

You said people in the beauty industry are considered shallow like this somehow tied to your point on femininity being undervalued ?? . I merely pointed out the bad example . femininity has nothing to do with an occupation in beauty being perceived as shallow.

I never said the industry- I said women in general who are into makeup etc are seen as vain and shallow. Makeup is seen as a female interest, and so if you look at men who are into makeup and beauty they are often seen as "less than".

Women who work out and get particularly strong are lauded for their achievements. Men who take time to cleanse, tone and moisturise will, a lot of the time, be laughed at. How on earth can you say that gender/feminine devaluing hasn't anything to do with that?

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Janitors are undervalued, gardeners. What makes your example of a higer female ratio occupation any more exceptional than the higher male ratio ones I just listed off the top of my head. The fact is. it does not.

I still don't understand why you are bringing these issues into the argument. I never once said that ONLY women or female dominated professions are undervalued. From a societal perspective there are many reasons an occupation or activity is undervalued. In your example janitors and gardeners may be undervalued because of an assumption that their occupation means they are less educated, and therefore not as valuable as a doctor or architect, who has had to undergo many many years of training etc. That's very different to an occupation being undervalued because it is intrinsically seen as a womans job, regardless of who is doing it.

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Washing dishes would be considered womans work in an ironic joke.I guarantee you the majority of restaurants in dublin have men washing the dishes. Guess what. Having a man doing it won't make it any less undervalued.

Again, this argument is a fallacy. We all know there are lots of occupations that are undervalued- some would say they aren't in some instances because from an economic argument, do people washing dishes bringing in as much revenue for the restaurant than the chefs? I go to a restaurant to eat because of the quality of the food. Not the quality of the dishwashing. So perhaps from that perspective these values on occupations are valid.

Now, if we move on the valuing intrinsic qualities of a person (by gender stereotypes) it's a whole other ball game. You haven't answered any of my questions earlier in the thread as to why I, as a masculine presenting woman, am taken more seriously- nearly without fail- by others in a room than my feminine (be that male or female) peers? Feminine =/= woman; lots of men are devalued in certain aspects of their lives because they are viewed as feminine, or because they do certain things that traditionally are done by women.

Like bottoming.

OhChicken

JupiterKid wrote: »

Plenty of “butch” masculine guys like to bottom. Most gay men are versatile anyway. Have you ever heard of the term “power bottom?” :cool:

I thought the term "power bottom" referred to someone who could take a long and rough pounding and love that rather than be a particularly masculine man.

Goodshape

OhChicken wrote: »

I thought the term "power bottom" referred to someone who could take a long and rough pounding and love that rather than be a particularly masculine man.

It'd be more of a bottom who takes control of the situation. Not necessarily masculine, but more dominant.

Totally agree that the roots of bottom shaming are in not wanting to be seen as 'feminine'. A shame, imo. Really like guys who are comfortable and confident enough with themselves not to give a ****, and femininity has some wonderful qualities in both men and women.

L1011

The "100% TOP!!!" guys are often the most insecure about their sexuality and identity that you're going to find. Clearly some gay guys are only going to enjoy topping but they're not going to be that paranoid about it.

I don't think there's much bottom shaming outside that group. Precisely who they intend to have sex with I dunno....

I imagine the same guys, if into women in any way, would be quite nastily misogynistic too.

daithi84

We live in a super hyped masculine world where its all about the perfect bodies and going to the gym and getting the 6 pack. Its extremely visible in the gay community. Bottom shaming has existed long before this though which i put down to general gay shaming or gay mens insecurity in themselves. The bottom was always the gay role while the top was the masculine role and even if he did top was not as gay as the bottom. Load of rubbish but its a mentality thing, usually gay people who aren't comfortable with their own sexuality or are obsessed with their masculinity. Even in Islamic countries where men are shagging each other before they marry a woman, they are shamed if they are the bottom but its perfectly fine to be the top as you are not then considered gay, even though you are still having sex with a man.

The bottom shaming of the actor in the sex scene could also be put down to just people's preference as they have imagined themselves with him and wanted him to be the top as it fulfilled their fantasy. But there is also a wider bottom shaming trend in society in general.

cgcsb

Can't say I've ever come across bottom shaming in the real world. Bottoms are my favourite, love 'em. Who does the shaming exactly?

daithi84

cgcsb wrote: »

Can't say I've ever come across bottom shaming in the real world. Bottoms are my favourite, love 'em. Who does the shaming exactly?

In general outside the gay sphere its not shaming a person specifically its more shaming the act itself.

Ten of Swords

I think bottoms marginally outnumber tops in the real world, at least that's been my experience anyway.

Whatever negative connotations some people may associate with bottoming it's seems to be just bravado (I've never encountered anyone dead against it due to it being 'effeminate', some simply weren't into it for their own reasons but that's not the same). There doesn't seem to be a lingering stigma as far as I can see.

cgcsb

Agreed, I've never heard of anyone being 'bottom shamed'

JupiterKid

I'm versatile but prefer to bottom. And I've never seen myself as any less of a man because if it. I prefer the sensation of being on the receiving end.

Anyway, if you look (and admit it, a lot of you do! ) at gay porn, especially those made with muscular hairy guys, most of the guys who bottom during sex are very masculine, and seem to enjoy it very much. And then lots of these guys switch over from top to bottom and vice versa anyway.

I think bottom shaming is there alright but it's really over-exaggerated.

J_E

JayZeus wrote: »

That’s simply not true.

Then why are there guys who are only into 'masc' encounters and insist on being top only? There are definitely connotations that being a bottom is a 'feminine' weak behaviour. Misogyny is extremely pervasive in those circles of the gay community.

L1011

J_E wrote: »

Then why are there guys who are only into 'masc' encounters and insist on being top only? There are definitely connotations that being a bottom is a 'feminine' weak behaviour. Misogyny is extremely pervasive in those circles of the gay community.

Some people don't enjoy bottoming. However the more desperate a profile is at emphasising "masc" etc the more insecure the person is basically.

cgcsb

J_E wrote: »

Then why are there guys who are only into 'masc' encounters and insist on being top only? There are definitely connotations that being a bottom is a 'feminine' weak behaviour. Misogyny is extremely pervasive in those circles of the gay community.

what does insisting that your bottom partner be 'masc' have to do with bottom shaming?

lawred2

baby and crumble wrote: »

It's because bottoming is seen as feminine and feminine behaviour in general is not as valued as masculine. Goes for the straight world too.

I'll have to admit ignorance here but 'bottoming'?

OhChicken

lawred2 wrote: »

I'll have to admit ignorance here but 'bottoming'?

You're not a member of the club I assume?

Bottoming is the act of being the receptive partner during anal intercourse. I.E. You are getting are one getting f--ked.

lawred2

OhChicken wrote: »

You're not a member of the club I assume?

Bottoming is the act of being the receptive partner during anal intercourse. I.E. You are getting are one getting f--ked.

ah right

so in this context - bottom shaming means what exactly?

because when I saw the thread title I presumed it was something about insulting someone's arse

OhChicken

Read the thread honey.

lawred2

I'll leave it there so.

Ten of Swords

LOL

OhChicken, don't ever change!!!

Heebie

lawred2 wrote:

so in this context - bottom shaming means what exactly?

Bottom shaming is the set of implications that guys who take it up the bum are "dirty" and/or " less manly" than guys who top. There may be more in the list.
...and it's crapola!

MarriedButBi

It is probably similar to the reservations straight guys would have about asking their female partner to finger / rim / use a strap-on on them? i.e. that engaging in such behaviour somehow makes them less of a man. Or worse, it makes them gay and/or less of a man because of that.

JackTaylorFan

My take on this is a little different.

Been trying a dating site specifically for transwomen and transamorous men (or "admirers") of late. But to be honest, I've always struggled with the idea of using sites like this, because they are designed in a lot of cases for clandestine, once-off sexual encounters - not relationships.

But this most recent site, at least on the face of it, tries to keep the seediness and sexual charged energy down to a minimum. So, I am willing to put myself out there.

Anyways, one of the questions the profile section asks of you on this site is as follows: Are you a "Top or Bottom?" So as a woman, trans or otherwise, I have some objections to being asked this; it's not something a woman usually wants to be asked, ever.

Needless to say, I find this question a little bit offensive, and very much intrusive - but as I am doing all I can to seek a relationship (including putting myself in these uncomfortable scenarios), I answer, even if between gritted teeth.

Now, seeing as I would like be considered the female in any aspect of a relationship with a man, I reluctantly divulge that I am indeed what you refer to as a "bottom". Problem is (and here's when I remember why I hate these trans-orientated dating sites so - even the less seedy ones), a large portion of transamorous men (A.K.A. chasers) are bottoms, and well, it's a real turn off, not to mention makes me and them entirely incompatible.

And, yes, I know it might offend some here, but I do see it as an effeminate thing for a guy to be a bottom. Not that being a bottom in itself a bad thing, but when it comes to the kind of highly fetishized world of transwomen and their "admirers" it's too weird for me.

cgcsb

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

My take on this is a little different.

Been trying a dating site specifically for transwomen and transamorous men (or "admirers") of late. But to be honest, I've always struggled with the idea of using sites like this, because they are designed in a lot of cases for clandestine, once-off sexual encounters - not relationships.

But this most recent site, at least on the face of it, tries to keep the seediness and sexual charged energy down to a minimum. So, I am willing to put myself out there.

Anyways, one of the questions the profile section asks of you on this site is as follows: Are you a "Top or Bottom?" So as a woman, trans or otherwise, I have some objections to being asked this; it's not something a woman usually wants to be asked, ever.

Needless to say, I find this question a little bit offensive, and very much intrusive - but as I am doing all I can to seek a relationship (including putting myself in these uncomfortable scenarios), I answer, even if between gritted teeth.

Now, seeing as I would like be considered the female in any aspect of a relationship with a man, I reluctantly divulge that I am indeed what you refer to as a "bottom". Problem is (and here's when I remember why I hate these trans-orientated dating sites so - even the less seedy ones), a large portion of transamorous men (A.K.A. chasers) are bottoms, and well, it's a real turn off, not to mention makes me and them entirely incompatible.

And, yes, I know it might offend some here, but I do see it as an effeminate thing for a guy to be a bottom. Not that being a bottom in itself a bad thing, but when it comes to the kind of highly fetishized world of transwomen and their "admirers" it's too weird for me.

If bottoming makes you feel more feminine, that's fine. Gay guys don't feel that way in general. I'm attracted to and enjoy penetrating other men, I don't view said men as feminine, and they don't view themselves as such. Your experience of issues is EXTREMELY niche.

Goodshape

cgcsb wrote: »

Your experience of issues is EXTREMELY niche.

Ah, I think there's plenty of cross-over, and even if it is niche it's no less relevant to the topic or less interesting.

JackTaylorFan wrote:

Needless to say, I find this question a little bit offensive, and very much intrusive

I can see how you might alright. It is, though, a hook-up/dating site so I suppose the question is as relevant there as it is on any other (Grindr, etc.).

And isn't there also that separation between gender identity and.. well, everything else really. Sex, sexual orientation, sexual preferences, and so forth. A trans woman who does enjoy penetrating is surely no less of a woman because of it. It's not the genitals or the bedroom antics that make the gender.


Whether being penetrated is a strictly feminine thing... I suppose we usually, collectively, associate being penetrated with being submissive, and being submissive with being feminine – so that's pretty clear cut. The more pressing issue is whether being feminine makes you any less male (it doesn't) or is in any way shameful (it isn't).

JackTaylorFan

Goodshape wrote: »

Ah, I think there's plenty of cross-over, and even if it is niche it's no less relevant to the topic or less interesting.



I can see how you might alright. It is, though, a hook-up/dating site so I suppose the question is as relevant there as it is on any other (Grindr, etc.).

And isn't there also that separation between gender identity and.. well, everything else really. Sex, sexual orientation, sexual preferences, and so forth. A trans woman who does enjoy penetrating is surely no less of a woman because of it. It's not the genitals or the bedroom antics that make the gender.


Whether being penetrated is a strictly feminine thing... I suppose we usually, collectively, associate being penetrated with being submissive, and being submissive with being feminine – so that's pretty clear cut. The more pressing issue is whether being feminine makes you any less male (it doesn't) or is in any way shameful (it isn't).

Problem is, this site markets itself as something other than a hook-up site. But it's pretty apparent once you sign up, that what you get.

I take your point about roles in bedrooms not necessarily being defined by gender. But the vast majority of transwomen are what you would describe as the passive partner.

You see it a lot in pornography, where transwomen "top" - but it's not near as common in real life as that porn culture would suggest. Again, I am sure some do enjoy that role but not as many as that culture would have you believe.

Again, I have no issue with feminine males in general - I'm just not attracted to it. When a bottom guy on these sites approaches me and wants me to "top" him (for lack of a better phrase), I do feel nauseous.

JackTaylorFan

cgcsb wrote: »

If bottoming makes you feel more feminine, that's fine. Gay guys don't feel that way in general. I'm attracted to and enjoy penetrating other men, I don't view said men as feminine, and they don't view themselves as such. Your experience of issues is EXTREMELY niche.

It's not that bottoming makes me feel more feminine. It's more like I'm female so I desire that role in any scenario - including in the bedroom.

And my experience of "issues" is not as "NICHE" as you suggest. But I get it, you don't want to hear what I have to say - Cool!

Annasopra

cgcsb wrote: »

If bottoming makes you feel more feminine, that's fine. Gay guys don't feel that way in general. I'm attracted to and enjoy penetrating other men, I don't view said men as feminine, and they don't view themselves as such. Your experience of issues is EXTREMELY niche.

I'm not sure what your point here is really. "in general" means "some do some don't" and yeah so what if experiences are niche.

imme

"Shaming"

I find this language, "bottom-shaming", "kink-shaming" very American.
It's very pop-psychology like language imo.

Is it anything more than online chatter.
Is it an actual thing.

The reference you made OP was to a group of people online making judgement about whether a character would be a bottom.

It is difficult to understand the reasoning of a group of people that are unknown to anyone outside that group.

JackTaylorFan

imme wrote: »

"Shaming"

I find this language, "bottom-shaming", "kink-shaming" very American.
It's very pop-psychology like language imo.

Is it anything more than online chatter.
Is it an actual thing.
.

In a social construct kink-shaming is a real thing. It is a concept just like racism is a concept. These concepts are not tangible, but it does not invalidate the reasoning behind them.

In a sexually liberated society we are asked to accept that people have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies as long as it breaks no laws and involves only consenting adults. But when you apply this same thinking to a world where morality is relative, not universal, some behaviours will garner more judgement than others from a certain group or individual - and this is where shaming comes in.

For instance, if we take an extreme case, the whole adult diaper wearing thing. Psychology classifies it as paraphilic (or kink) behaviour. I happen to find it a gross fetish. And I could very well be accused of kink-shaming for saying that by someone more open-minded than myself. Am I going to become less grossed out by it ever? Not a chance. But to someone out there I am kink shaming. And I have to accept that.

In contrast: take a more acceptable sexual behaviour in society and imagine passing judgement on that: For instance, slut-shaming: it's less acceptable to shame people for this than it is shaming someone for having a gross fetish, but to say it doesn't happen would be a lie. The target of slut shaming is predominantly women, with a large proportion of those carrying out the shaming also women - and I would draw a parallel between bottom-shaming in the male gay community and woman-on-woman slut-shaming.

imme

pop psychology

I'm left with the opinion that this is a pop-psychology construct.
Thanks for your opinion however Jack\Taylor\fan