Questions about sexuality

I'm curious, and I need to ask these questions. I understand the "No Sex Threads Policy" here at DU, but I don't know another way to get around this.

A lot of people have come down on some posters about calling Jeff Gannon gay.

Ok, he's not gay, but would you say that about his clients?

I understand he refers to himself as a "top".

Am I safe to assume that the "bottoms" are men who get pleasure/satisfaction only from them being penetrated? And if said men are not gay, would that make them bisexual?

Also, is it safe to assume that the "bottoms" don't want to penetrate other men, but women instead?

lives as heterosexuals or they are bisexual. As for the bottom thing... don't know much about that... I've never understood only wanting to be one or the other.

I've talked to bisexual men who like oral, but I've never had a conversation about penetration.

Wouldn't they all be considered gay?

Just because a man services another man does not automatically make him "gay".

That's what I gathered from all the dust ups in GD.

If two men engage in anal or oral sex, no matter who receives and who does the act, they're gay. Flame away (no pun intended).

"experiments" with another guy when he is in his 20s and never engages in another same-sex act again his whole life, is he gay?

Or taken the other direction, if a guy lives a hetero life and has a realtionship with a man when he is in his 40's, was he gay all along?

to being gay or bisexual... somehow men seem to be able to separate certain sexual acts as not "really" sex... like Clinton and Monica kind of.

Wow... that's cool... Federal Benefits.... here I come!! :bounce:

A onesie or twosie wouldn't seem to count... habitual enjoyment of the same sex would seem to be necessary before one could be counted as falling into whatever category.

fun. Plenty of gay prostitutes out there that service the opposite sex, men and women.

(And it wasn't a onesie, twosie thing either ;))

Acting is acting... whether you're a prostitute, a porn star, or any other kind of actor.

On the other thing... are you talking about stuff before you had fully realized you were gay? I would think that would be discounted as well... experimentation and all. I've experimented with women but don't consider myself bisexual.

To answer your question... Both before and, uh... maybe you could call it a "relapse?" :shrug: I met a wonderful man in Germany about 13 years ago with whom I spent six wonderful months... and I loved him... and I told him I was gay... and in the end, I broke his heart. I thought at the time that I might be bisexual, but I was wrong. Have always been monogamous though.

Even if the guy is a "top" isn't he still having sex with a man?

In fact, Jon Stewart even made a very tongue in cheek comment on this very topic that night he talked about Gannon. He said "Hey, it's not gay if you're the GUY!"

And it got big laughs.

also, if a top only... some would assume that they might tend to be more bisexual than a bottom only. But I've known gay men who one would stereotype as a "bottom" who are purely tops, and purely gay. :shrug:

A bisexual man is never to be referred to as "gay"? Would that be some kind of insult? If so, how would his male partner feel about that?
I always looked at it like the old algebra rule where the circles overlap. You got one circle of purely homosexual men, another circle of purely heterosexual men, and the part where they overlap, where we would put the bisexual men in.
That means they would still be part of the gay circle. Shit, it also means they are also in the straight circle.
Who the hell knows? I don't know why I'm spending so much time dwelling over it.

right one. I wouldn't want someone labeling me as "bisexual" because I am not bisexual. But I wouldn't consider it an insult anymore than it would be insulting to consider me straight.

As for the circle thing... there are a lot of bisexuals whose "circle" is a straight one, there are also bisexuals who consider themselves part of the gay community. So, I guess you thought just enough about it. :)

If Gannon claims that having sex with men doesn't make him gay, then it's probably better to call him what whatever he identifies as.

However, willingly having sex with a same sex person - repeatedly and on a regular basis - is certainly something that is reasonable to define as "gay."

I know a guy that has a boyfriend of YEARS who hides this relationship and is nasty to his poor bf and insists he's straight. I refuse to buy his bullshit because it stems from self-loathing.

I think it mere common decency to accept how people identify themselves. Until, and this is key, proven otherwise.

I'm a case in point. I identify as a gay man. I worked long and hard in order to that. I do occassionally have sex with women (almost always lesbian identified women). But I don't consider myself bisexual. I take this to mean that sexuality is rarely that easy to caterogize. We have to reduce things down to simple yes/no, gay/straight answers in order to get along in this world. But it's rarely that simple.

That said, it does sound like that guy you know has a major problem. Unfortunately, self-loathing is all too prevalent when it comes to being a faggot or a dyke (even worse for transgendered people). Children live wkat they learn and learn what they live. So it's possible that being a lying asshole is the only thing he knows or that makes the situation livable.

But maybe he lucked out. Sounds like he has you for a better example. Which, if he is self-loathing, is exactly what he needs...

Khash.

but you're right on the bottom being penetrated. It could also be that the person is the submissive partner. As far as who the bottom penetrates, that would depend on if they are bi or gay.

Some bottoms can be very dominant-they are called "power bottoms."

They are called "pushy bottoms" and usually get what they deserve very quickly -i.e. no sex.

Now topping fom the bottom is a whore of a different colour....

Khash.

I think that's been shown time and time again

one could be attracted to a woman or one could be attracted to a man

I'm gay and I'm not attracted to every man I see and I'm sure it's the same for most straight people as well

the whole labeling thing is so stupid and outdated

I've known guys who have called themselves tops who enjoyed getting penatrated and bottoms who enjoyed doing the penatration

in fact, I don't think that I've ever met anyone who was exclusively top or bottom

and there's the debate about the whole "gay for pay" thing in prostitution and porn

guys who self-identify as straight get paid to have sex with other men

I'm attracted to every man I see?????

And, as for your feeling that "labels" are stupid and outdated, I beg to differ. This thread is proof of that.

I said that I don't think that every straight person is attracted to everyone they see

and labels are stupid and outdated

do you disagree that sexuality isn't fluid--if someone is "gay" or "straight" that they'll be "gay" or "straight" for life?

.
Uuuummmmm, I have a question about your question . . . Who is saying that Gannon/Guckert is not homosexual? Who? Was it Gannon/Guckert, himself? If so, then I'd seriously question the veracity of the statement. Or was it somebody else? Again, I'd question their competence to make such a speculation.

In short, the only person who would know whether Gannon/Guckert is gay or not is his shrink. And, this guy badly needs a shrink too.

And who the hell cares if Gannon/Guckert denies he is gay; after all, he supposedly was performing homosexual acts for quite some time upon others and vice versa.

The gist and grit of the matter is not whether he is gay. After all, who's pushing whose "moral values" upon whom? Gay is not bad. Gay is not "immoral." Gay is acceptable normal psychological behavior.

What's really at issue is hypocrisy.

Yes, hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of it all is that Gannon/Guckert was portraying himself as gay but was also bashing the hell out of all that is homosexual to appease whom? Himself? (even more twisted!) or the rightwing bastards for whom he was dancing and spewing his hatred? (and that's more twisted hypocrisy!).

---

edited to correct verb grammar.

and don't consider themselves straight at all. Sex for some, in that business, is just a job, not an identity. Gannon was a PROSTITUTE. To me it doesn't matter whether he was gay or straight... HOWEVER, his hypocrisy in his anti-gay agenda IS of concern... since he has "sold" himself as gay and has "most likely" slept with men.

does not necessarily make one gay... any more than a heterosexual act (and I've had them...) makes one straight.

but it think a repeated pattern...
BTW, I love your handle!

Nice ta meet ya. :hi:

and she happens to be a lesbian with a grown son.

She had the son when she was married.

She finally built up enough nerve to leave the marriage, as she wasn't being truthful with herself and her family.

She's much, much happier now.

Homosexuals get married. Homosexuals have children. Homosexuals get divorced. Homosexuals get legal custody and physical custody of their biological or adopted children. Homosexuals raise their children.

Homosexuals are no different than are heterosexuals. Sexual orientation is a natural, normal psychological occurrence.

As a family law attorney, I've represented many homosexuals in family law matters. Trust me, there is no set pattern or guidelines for homosexuals nor is there for heterosexuals. No homosexual that I've every represented or opposed has had a "G" (gay) on their chest or forehead nor upon the chest or forehead of their children. Most blend into a crowd.

---

she was not attracted to her husband. she was attracted to women.

she was trying to appease her family by marrying him.

rightwing homosexual-bashers all while performing homosexual acts.

And now since his homosexual acts have come to light, his "gayness" whether true or not is being bashed by the "moral values" crowd.

How many layers of hypocrisy and self-hate does this guy possess? As I said whether he's gay or not, he needs a shrink. And fast too.

you make so much sense, just like her!!!!!

Are you guys one brain??? :D

maybe after I move a bit closer... :D

Just my opinion and experience, of course. Tops and bottoms are both queer. Some guys like both, they are called "versatiles." They are queer too. Believe it or not, I've met more bisexuals who are exclusively bottoms or are "vers" than I have exclusively top ones. As I see it, if you have a pattern of homosexual behavior, you are queer (i.e., gay or bisexual) regardless what you say. That's about it. It's really very complicated. Thanks for the question. I wish more people had your backbone.

you explained a lot.

As I mentioned, there was quite a bit of contention in GD about calling Gannon "gay".

with really no definitive answers, but that's sex!

I've come across some like you say. When with a woman they like to be strong and definitely the 'top'; but then when they're with another man they like to let him take over and be the bottom.

Being bi certainly doesn't mean wanting to be the dominant one in all cases.

1)Ever heard the phrase "gay for pay"? Sex workers are often working for the money. Their own personal sexuality never comes into the equation.

2)as to being a bottom: yes they get pleasure from being penetrated. Few people however only get pleasure from one sex act. If someone identifies as a bottom(as opposed to top or switch) they prefer being on the receiving end of action. It's not safe to assume that they want to penetrate women. They may choose not to penetrate anybody or they can choose either gender. It's personal and variable.

3) Whether a man who pays for sex with another man is also questionable. These men may identify as straight(and even lead double lives) or bi, or gay. How you choose to identify, is a choice.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

No one can question your sexuality!!!!! :D

*gasp*

:D

Some would say his relentless penetration of every thread is "top." But then, he's asking to be penetrated repeatedly by all our virile bank cards.


To add something more intelligent to the discourse than that if I can :D : For a long time, in a lot of places, there's been more homophobic hate of the bottom than of the top, because of a feeling that he is taking the "role" of the "woman" and is therefore less "masculine." Some people still believe that the top is less likely to be necessarily "really gay" than the bottom. (Ridiculous!) There's a tendency on the part of straights to want to define gay relationships in these terms, which seems very heterosexist (and, in a complicated way, misogynist) to me.

It's anecdotal evidence, but the majority of gay men I've known well enough that we'd talk about this stuff, were actually "switches" or "versatile" if they did intercourse at all (which not all do); they might have a preference for one or the other but were certainly capable of doing/enjoying either.

Heterosexuals trying to define homosexual relationships in ways they can understand. Good post.

For some reason a lot of people think that to be gay you have to like anal sex. And I know plenty of gays who don't, or who engage in it just once in a while.

wow... I guess we can't discuss gay topics in the lounge now?

watch how quickly everyone scurries away :P

and lo and behold... you were right... the conversation died right down...

I firmly believe in the "gay for pay" scenario. Not that I'm a porn afficianado but HBO just had this series on about the porn industry. One whole episode was dedicated to performers in porn who are "gay for pay." As a lesbian I admittedly don't know much about the whole top, bottom sideways argument. However, based on conversations I've had with straight male friends, they all have said, if threatened with death, they'd top before they'd bottom. So from reading all of Jeff's escort reviews and descriptions, he seems to consistently top so it could be surmised that he may be "gay for pay." On the other hand, he could be gay or bisexual...

:shrug:

I, too, believe "gay for pay" exists, but generally not in the environment Gannon was prostituting himself. There are certainly straight men who "hustle" for some money - they're generally called "trade".

I think Gannon entered a different world altogether when he became a high-priced gay escort. He wasn't trying to buy a meal and let some guy blow him. He created a whole identity and persona as a tough-guy marine top. Also, some of his "reviews" indicated he liked to kiss, which is a strong indicator that one's not dealing with "trade".

The guy's queer.

YUP!

I went to respond, and found this thread here.

Alas, PBS has a very good documentary on right now about slavery.


This subject will have to wait until tomorrow :D

Or maybe it's a quarantine zone?

Honey that is a pushy bottom if ever I've seen one!

Them heals have more helium in 'em than the Goodyear blimp!

No one knows what Gannon's sexual orientation is. We only know that he is a prostitute who serves men. If he were a top or a bottom, it wouldn't be an indication of his sexual orientation. There are straight as well as bisexual males who prostitute themselves to men for purely financial reasons.

Tops are men who enjoy penetrating
Bottoms are men who enjoy being penetrated.
A gay male bottom would not enjoy penetrating a woman.
While this term is used in the queer male community (and female too, but it is way more complicated and not the issue here so I won't go into it) it equally applies to heterosexual men.

Heterosexual males who only penetrate are tops.
Heterosexual men who enjoy being penetrated by women (and there are many) are bottoms.

Like myself and every other gay man I know, many gay men switch positions, and are not exclusively tops or bottoms.

Many gay men are neither tops nor bottoms exclusively, some don't mentally organize their relationships in that fashion. Very few dykes are tops/bottoms exclusively except for stone butches/femmes and that often has zero to do with the 'dominant/submissive' or the hierarchical play often associated with top/bottom sex.

>Ok, he's not gay, but would you say that about his clients?

There's no way to tell without knowing more about them Some may have been gay, some bisexual, others straight but trying something new. I think, out of simple common decency, you should assume people are what they say they are. Until proven otherwise.

Tops and bottoms: even more difficult to explain. You can look at it has having to do with penetration. That's an easy answer and not always true. It's often used that way.

Based on the evidence I've seen the terms came from the SM community. The top is in control of the scene (running the fuck so to speak), the bottom is not in control. Or is that merely appearance? What about the phrase "topping from the botttom"? Or the generally acknowledged idea that the bottom is ultimately in control of everything that takes place? So top and bottom is about power (as the words imply) and yet not in an obvious way.

Back to the penetration idea. I'm primarily a bottom. And yet, I have penetrated men in circumstances where it was very clear that he was the top and I was the bottom.

I do find your last statement a little insulting. To put it bluntly, I like to get fucked by guys. I also like to get fucked by certain women. (Every girl should be given a strap on! But I jest and I disgress.) Penetration is not the be all and end all of sex. It's fun - from both ends, but not necessary. I've had very satisfying relationships with other males and females where there was no penetration.

So there is no easy answer. I think the definition varies with each person - because it's a *style* of behaviour rather than something set in concrete. Difficult to define totally, much like butch/femme, but you know it when you see it.

So, basically, I have said I can not answer any of your questions.
I think maybe they are the wrong questions At least in trying to get a handle on this case, in general they are very good questions. For much better answers about top/bottom I'd reccomend anything by Susie Bright or Pat Califia . Jack Morin wrote a wonderful book about sexual desire and how we think about it. And if you want to find out more about butch/femme check out Joan Nestle.

Khash.

(What is this bullshit about no sex threads? I can see this is the wrong place to advertise for a sexual partner or post your latest porn story. But we shouldn't speak openly and, when necessary, explicitly about sex? What could be more political?)

but according to Jon Stewart "everyone knows it's not gay if you're the guy"

:evilgrin: