I see your point weekend_boy. You saw something that you thought was very pleasing to you, and you DECIDED to go for that. This is precisely the point I was trying to make. One way or the other, with or without any genuine soul-searching, you decided to go for a bottom role. For whatever your reason may have been, you decided that this was going to be what you wanted to do. And you even knew what type of man would best suit your fantasy. In other words, you have made a specific plan of what and with whom you were going to mess around with.

My top buddies and I really never made any plan or made any choices before the actual play took place. I bumped into a dude who said, 'fuck me', so, I fucked him. I am not sure that I would have bottomed for him if he had asked me to, though.

We simply assumed that a guy's role is to fill wet available holes for the mutual pleasure of the players involved, so, no additional planning or decision making of any sort was really needed for us to top.

Bottom shaming is now largely the thing of the past. The idea that a male decided/agreed to be penetrated by other guy(s) did not generally sit to well with a largely macho culture and many of its traits. So, the top guys assumed the roles of being 'real men' - they were fucking anyway, AND thought it opportune to deride the fellow bttm guys who were deemed to be less manly, passive, almost female recipients of an all-male sexual largesse.

Men tend to like hierarchical structures based on so called 'commonly known truths'. Saying, 'I do not like Joe, which makes him my inferior.', would not have really worked. Very few people would agree that anyone should be given the arbitrary power to promote or demote guys as he thought fit. Now, if you could 'objectively' claim that their behavior (i.e., being sexually receptive - just like females) made them inferior, well, that sounded like a plan. Shaming bottoms insured that such hierarchies would be perpetuated for a relatively long time.

KD

Quote |