Originally posted by Draco69
No. That would be the master, dominater, etc. while the one who's passive would be the submissive, slave, etc.THIS is the correct definition. It has nothing to do with power, role-playing, personality or any sort of status whatsoever. It simply has to do with the most desirable sexual positions. Being top doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to act akin to a macho Marlon Brando. I've met some of the nelliest, outrageuosly, stereotypical gay men who just happened to prefer to be top. This is what the key element. Preference. And believe it or not, in a loving, consensual relationship, gay men actually SWITCH positions during sex which throws your arguement out the window.
I not exactly sure how I should comment on this....😬
No. It isn't. It simply has to do with the desired preference of a sexual position. What feels best for them. That's what sex is about.
You should. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about...
hate to tell you this because your obviously very young but the phrase top means more than you think 🙂
http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/top
Greeks on Penetration a view commonly held in Psychology today 🙂
I picked the greeks for a reason 😖hifty:
taken from seekwellness.com
When it was first published, Keuls's suggestion seemed to belong to the fringes of ancient studies; recently reissued, her book now nestles comfortably in the mainstream, a graphic indication of the direction the current has taken over the past ten years. Her title, The Reign of the Phallus, might stand as a summary of new thinking on ancient gender. Blended with Beauvoir's Other, Freud and Foucaut, the phallus has come to be seen as the key to a whole society, lying at the centre of a nexus of sex and power. 'Sex was phallic action,' claims Halperin, 'it revolved around who had the phallus, was defined by what was done with the phallus, and was polarised by the distribution of phallic pleasure.' Sex was a chronic, traumatic, political event.
Far from bringing people together sex kept them apart, dividing those penetrating from those penetrated, while at the same time erasing distinctions on either side of the phallic equation. Penetration, moreover, meant power. Those who had the phallus and used it were the dominant citizen males. Those who had been born without one or who had lost theirs somewhere along the way were the disenfranchised Other: women, slaves, foreigners and men who enjoyed getting shafted. Sex made everyone either active or passive, a plus or a minus; it was a zero-sum game.
It has been claimed that phallicism was not merely characteristic of sex in the ancient world (as it has been thought characteristic of sex today) but actually constituted a sexuality. In fact, there was no such thing as sexuality in antiquity, only 'a more generalised ethos of penetration and domination'. Phallicism thus presented historians with a real-life example to support Foucault's theory of radical discontinuity in the history of desire. The 'problem' of Greek homosexuality was a problem no more. So long as they were on the positive end of the penetrating penis, the Greeks did not care about the gender of the person on the other.