I agree 100%
And I know that I'm supposed to be the advice columnist on the site, but I thought it'd be good to get your opinion on this. As gay asian person, i frequently find myself *shock* self-identifying as a bottom. However, when I say bottom I mean "non-penetrating," rather than "fuckee" as most people probably take it as. I'm just not a big fan of having stuff go up my butt. I think my prostate is broken and past warranty. But the larger issue is that the way that we conceptualize sex is sex qua penetration. Oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, it's all penetrative (with a phallus). But... dry humping, handjobs, fisting, fingering... none of those are "sex." Why? Phallocentrism.
A friend of mine recently gave me his definition of sex, and I liked it pretty well: "Physical contact with the intent to orgasm." While I think that may still be a bit narrow, it does broaden the scope of what's considered "sex" to include all those things you listed. I don't think all "sex" necessarily ends in orgasm (and really, I don't even think it's necessarily the objective all the time), but it certainly is a pretty common goal.
You're right, fannie, that so much of sex is focused on penetration, and I agree that that's not a broad enough definition. There's TONS of other stuff to do that doesn't involve penises at ALL.... and I think when we start involving that other stuff, sex goes from a sort of biological imperative to an erotic, psychologically stimulating, FUN experience. That's not to say that good-ol'-fashioned fucking isn't fun or exciting or stimulating, just that it's not quite the same as when other stuff is involved.
There are two issues to address in the first half of your comment. First, racial stereotyping: I think the stereotypes of Asian men being bottoms and black men being tops come directly from the feminine/masculine dichotomy. Asian men tend - statistically and biologically - to be smaller of stature and less hairy than other races... and therefore somehow more "feminine." Black men tend to be larger and more muscular, and hence more "masculine." Of course, the only truth to those stereotypes is what is defined into existence by culture. There's no biological dictum that says gay Asian men like it up the butt (you being the case in point) or that black gay men like to fuck ass any more than any other gay men.
The second point is more subtle: What exactly IS a "bottom"? Certainly, by most standards, a bottom is a guy who likes his ass pounded. But we can generalize that to "non-penetrator" just as easily: the bottom is the "submissive," "receptive" (not necessarily anally), "feminine" partner. I think that definition is just as detrimental as the stricter "takes-it-up-the-butt" definition, because it says more definitely "feminine = passive." It still says that there are two types of queer men (or at least two ends of a spectrum): tops and bottoms.
I like all the answers here, but I still think that there's a psychological element at play that more or less ENFORCES bottom/top behaviors/labels, especially as they pertain to racialized groups. Can gaysian bottoms turn around and change their identity and behavior just like that? I'm not so sure.
so... instead of the labels 'top' and 'bottom'... what would you call people who take it up the butt versus people who give it?
I'd prefer to not have to label a person for that particular sexual behavior: Instead of calling myself a top (as a label), I'd rather say, "I like TO top" (as a verb). Maybe the distinction isn't too clear, but I think when we use labels, we're putting artificial social constraints on people, whereas when we describe behaviors, it's much less prescriptive.
While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of what you're saying here, I don't necessarily think we're placing or enforcing social constraints by labelling ourselves as tops or bottoms.
Linguistically, humans are going to try to get across what they have to say in the easiest way possible; our brains and our tongues are lazy. For a more thorough review of this, look into why we say "irreplaceable" and "illogical" instead of "inreplaceable" and "inlogical".
As English-speaking Americans we noun verbs and verb nouns all the time. Take a look at Google, for instance. It's not only a proper noun and the name or an organization, but we've also verbed it and you can google something all day long if you like. Likewise, it would be easy to make a case for the idea of being on top or on bottom preceding the idea of to top or to bottom, and hence "to top" and "to bottom" being verbed forms of that original noun idea.
Have you thought perhaps the facts that 1) "I'm a top" is much easier (Remember: we're all lazy speakers at heart.) to say than "I like to top" and 2) the idea of being on bottom predates the idea of bottoming could be part of the persistance of this in our lingo?
We've begun to get into another of my passions: linguistics! And for the most part, Shane, I agree with your linguistic arguments, but I do think we're still enforcing constraints by labeling ourselves.
Yes, humans are lazy, and there is certainly a natural tendency to verb nouns and to noun verbs (as that phrase illustrates). And yes, there is no doubt an etymological connection between the idea of "being on top/bottom" to the identity labels "top" and "bottom." My point, though, is that those identity labels are EXCLUSIVE of other behaviors. To identify oneself as a "top" implies much more than "I like to stick my dick in guys' asses." It has the broader connotation that "I am the dominant partner in my sexual encounters; I am the penetrator; I am the masculine; I am the MAN; I don't get fucked; etc." The converse is true for bottoms.
There is a subtle but important difference between this NOUN form of top (which has these exclusivist connotations), and the verb form "TO top". To say, "I like to top" doesn't imply anything constrictive about your gender or sexual identity, and it's not a contradiction to say "I like to top AND I like to bottom," whereas "I'm a top and bottom" is an oxymoron.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic, and I don't really expect the labels to disappear, but I think it's important to recognize what the labels imply, even if we are going to continue using them. We, as users of the words, have the power to morph their meaning into something more respectful and less restrictive than their current meanings. So, as much as I love to fuck, I'm not a top or a bottom, but I love to DO both!
Forgive me, but "I'm a top and bottom" reminds me of an infamous Geri Blank quotation: "I like the pole and the hole."
In the end I find I need to side with you on this, although it is fun playing devil's advocate. And I do agree with the statement that I'm neither a top nor a bottom, as I enjoy both too much.
Thanks for the comments, Shane et al... this is what blogging is all about!
Commenting by HaloScan
