Is It More Gay To Give It Or Receive It?

UsernameInUse · 05-06-2011 09:07PM

Dun wrote: »

So again, [not in the mood] not = [in the mood].

So you'd have to be in the mood to get it up, meaning you'd be more gay than receiving it, which is what you're disputing.

later12 · 05-06-2011 09:11PM

I have a gay friend whom I have known since college who claims he can tell whether his fellow homosexuals are tops or bottoms based on appearances and mannerisms. He is always picking out the top or the bottom amongst the gay couples we see, and educating me on spotting this. I'm less talented, since I have no gaydar, apparently.

Curiously, I (a straight man) am apparently a bottom. Curiouser again is the fact that lesbians also seem to follow this top/ bottom approach. It's always easier to spot the man amongst a couple of lesbians, I find.

Anyway, to answer your question OP, I would say the bottom is usually the more effeminate. Although that is only an amateur generalisation, and I think both are equally gay!

strobe · 05-06-2011 09:14PM

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Is It More Gay To Give It Or Receive It?

God I love After Hours.

Dun · 05-06-2011 09:14PM

UsernameInUse wrote: »

So you'd have to be in the mood to get it up, meaning you'd be more gay than receiving it, which is what you're disputing.

Nope, you said that being more sexually aroused (presuming someone's gay) means more gay. Which means that if you're not in the mood, hence not sexually aroused (and the person claims to be straight) you're less straight.

Anyway, this is all bloody nonsense. Gay = gay, straight = straight.

efb · 05-06-2011 09:15PM

Dun wrote: »

Nope, you said that being more sexually aroused (presuming someone's gay) means more gay. Which means that if you're not in the mood, hence not sexually aroused (and the person claims to be straight) you're less straight.

Anyway, this is all bloody nonsense. Gay = gay, straight = straight.

bisexual= greedy! :P

Temptamperu · 05-06-2011 09:16PM

Teh greeks and the romans thought gay sex ok as long as you where the giver not the taker.

efb · 05-06-2011 09:18PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top,_bottom_and_versatile

TouchingVirus · 05-06-2011 09:19PM

IBTL

later12 · 05-06-2011 09:20PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

Teh greeks and the romans thought gay sex ok as long as you where the giver not the taker.

Certainly the greeks didn't. The official version was inserting a sneaky finger, masturbation or intercrural sex (simulation). Anal sex was considered unpleasant and unattractive, and although it undoubtedly happened, it wasn't part of the traditional, mainstream system of Greek homosexual or pederastic behaviour (as has been in the news/ Norris)

TiGeR KiNgS · 05-06-2011 09:20PM

prison sec
the giver is never the receiver

QED

TouchingVirus · 05-06-2011 09:21PM

later10 wrote: »

It's always easier to spot the man amongst a couple of lesbians, I find.

Yeah, there are none

efb · 05-06-2011 09:22PM

being the giver and receiver at the same time can be jizztastic!

carlybabe1 · 05-06-2011 09:23PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Its gay when you're a chap who likes chaps and a chapesse who likes chapesses. If you like both, you're bi and if you're a chap who likes chapesses or vice versa it's straight. If you like neither you're asexual. If you find yourself "liking" yourself a lot, especially in a mirror, you're a wanker.

/sexuality lesson.

hahaha pmsl

In ancient times, the passive was always the younger,and switching of roles was frwoned upon, if i remember correctly