Kinsey scale adapted to top/bottom

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

A poll on this topic might yield interesting results, but what I'd really like to know is members' educated guesses on the distribution of not just gay men but all men who have sex with men. Here's the adapted scale:

0 Exclusively bottom
1 Predominantly bottom, only incidentally top
2 Predominantly bottom, but more than incidentally top
3 Equally bottom and top; versatile
4 Predominantly top, but more than incidentally bottom
5 Predominantly top, only incidentally bottom
6 Exclusively top

As a 5 partnered with a 1, I consider the ideal threesome partner to be a 3, with 2 and 4 also fine. But they are damned hard to find. Anecdotal evidence, my own and as reported by friends, suggests that this distribution is anything but a standard Bell Curve. Seems more like 1 is the most frequently encountered orientation, followed by 5; 0 and 6 seem like the next most common, followed by 2 and 4, with 3 the rarest. That is, at every level bottoms outnumber tops-- and this is especially true when you factor in all the bi married guys. This distribution, based only on personal experience and hearsay, would seem to parallel what is known about the real Kinsey scale in which true bisexuality is more rare than strong leanings in one or the other direction. (Especially for males.) I welcome comments from anyone about your perception of the distribution of tops/bottoms; a quick Google search came up empty but there might be research out there.

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

The fact that bi guys are "tops" of necessity in their sex with women (unless both partners are into strapons) might make them more inclined to be bottoms with men. But overall the effect does seem to be that there are more guys wanting to get fucked than there are tops to fuck them.

 

[B_thickjohnny]

Right now, in my current relationship it's been me 2, him 5 though he would be a 6 if I didn't beg forcing me into a 1.

 

[At.your.cervix]

Although I can't help you with an entry into your poll, as I don't qualify, This would be really interesting if it was correlated with Kinsey's homosexual/heterosexual scaling to see if any patterns emerge. God, I'm such a nerd. . .

 

[latinluva]

Since it only involves man on man....I am a total ZERO! Oh, that didn't sound good. But it sure feels good.

 

[hunkydory]

I'd say I'm a 6

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

Since it only involves man on man....I am a total ZERO! Oh, that didn't sound good.

Your profile says 50/50 gay/straight. Does this mean that your sole interest in men is bottoming, but you like to fuck girls?

But it sure feels good.

So it's mainly about pure sensation? That's what I seem to hear from bi guys who are total bottoms with men.

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

I'd say I'm a 6

Do you find yourself in higher demand as a top than you think you might be as a bottom? I'm trying to get impressions of the supply/demand situation out there, not just guys' individual leanings. Have you encountered many truly versatile guys or do they seem to cluster at the ends, as with the gay/straight Kinsey scale?

 

[D_Circumcisus Skinless]

the demand is for real Men (genuine Tops, for Women and Men) at least thats what I've been told by chics and dudes want!!!!!!

 

[jordan7034]

I'm a 5. Basically, if the cock is bigger than mine, I'd like to get fucked by it.

 

[swimmersox]

Well, first off, I'm probably not representative, because I'm basically bi -- in that all of my emotional attachments (i.e., romantic longing, tenderness, etc.) have been with women, but I am physically attracted to both genders, and have played around with men a fair bit (though never had a serious MM relationship).

That said, as to the top/bottom question, I'd guess I'm about a 4 or a 5 -- that is, predominantly though not exclusively a top. In my mind, it's related to the fact that I'm generally attracted to guys who are either similarly lean like me or even better, smaller (in frame/build). Larger, very dominant/beefy/muscular guys don't do much for me, most of the time.
However, on the, um, flip side, because of my lean/thin, borderline 'twinkish' body and semi-boyish face, I find often that I seem to attract the dominant, "Alpha" guys -- rather than the, er, 'bois' who turn me on the most.
Fortunately, this general pattern isn't so prevalent that I can't ever find a match. Far from it. But it is a recurring pattern.
And partly because I do seem to attract the Alpha tops, I do every so often succumb (as it were) and go ahead and bottom. I find the 'submissive role' a little weird and not a huge turnon. But it isn't a turnoff, either -- and the purely physical sensations of bottoming are, for me, sufficiently pleasant that I don't really mind, sometimes.
But give me a smooth, thin, submissive (or even a little fem) twink type, and I'm really in heaven.
[Also, in case you're wondering, when it comes to women, I generally like strong, take-charge types -- no, not dominatrix types or anything, but a woman who's physically strong/in shape and knows what she wants. The dainty-flower, fluttery type rarely attracts me.]
Don't know if any of the above is helpful. Just one (a)typical guy's perspective.

 

[crescendo69]

I don't fall on that scale, though I used to be a 1. Maybe a negative number now.

 

[maxcok]

Nwnccpl - seeking definition of terminology here. What do you mean by 'top' vs. 'bottom'? Don't laugh. Are we talking anal penetration, or what? What about guys who rarely if ever fuck, but engage predominantly or exclusively in oral or other non-anal activities, frottage, mutual masturbation, etc. If it's a question of one partner being dominant, that doesn't always fit the stereotype either. I've known total 'tops' who were quite passive in personality, even in sexual aggression and sexual expression, or varying combinations of those. I've known quite a few pushy 'bottoms' with quite domineering personalities and/or aggressive sexually.

I don't think I can accurately weigh in on your survey without more clarification, though I also don't know if it's possible to categorize such a wide range of personality, behavioral and sexual proclivities. I am generally opposed to categories though, and find them limiting. I rarely fit in the little boxes you're supposed to check off on any kind of form. All that aside, in the most general sense, i.e. receptive vs. insertive, I would agree that there seem to be more 'bottoms'. Lucky for me. Then again, it just may be that they are more obvious, or let it be known because they want to do me. I dunno.

Since it only involves man on man....I am a total ZERO! Oh, that didn't sound good. But it sure feels good.

I love a man who knows what he wants.

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

Nwnccpl - seeking definition of terminology here. What do you mean by 'top' vs. 'bottom'? Don't laugh. Are we talking anal penetration, or what?

I was referring to fucking only, because all these other factors are so confusing. But it is an interesting point that the whole top/bottom model can apply to many other aspects of sexuality. You wrote:

I don't think I can accurately weigh in on your survey

Obviously I should have started the post with THIS IS NOT A SURVEY! "A poll on this topic might be interesting, but..." was not quite strong enough to get the focus on the kind of observations I was seeking. Self-reporting is interesting enough but what I am really trying to get at is people's perceptions of the distribution of top/bottom proclivities in the population of men who have sex with men.

All that aside, in the most general sense, i.e. receptive vs. insertive, I would agree that there seem to be more 'bottoms'. Lucky for me. Then again, it just may be that they are more obvious, or let it be known because they want to do me. I dunno.

Thanks. Having not been single in many years, my sole experience in the meat market has been as part of a couple open to playing together with others. Genuine versatility is hard (and good) to find. Since I'm way more into sucking dick than my partner is, a top as third can satisfy me that way. But a bottom as third usually does nothing for him, and most of the guys interested in playing with us are in that category.

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

Well, first off, I'm probably not representative, because I'm basically bi -- in that all of my emotional attachments (i.e., romantic longing, tenderness, etc.) have been with women, but I am physically attracted to both genders, and have played around with men a fair bit (though never had a serious MM relationship).

Au contraire, you're probably representative of men who have sex with men. I wonder about longterm casual fuck buddy relationships between guys whose primary emotional bonding is with women. A good premise for hot porn, but doesn't seem to exist much in reality. It would be safer all kinds of ways-- health, discretion, convenience-- than onetime online hookups.

That said, as to the top/bottom question, I'd guess I'm about a 4 or a 5 -- that is, predominantly though not exclusively a top. In my mind, it's related to the fact that I'm generally attracted to guys who are either similarly lean like me or even better, smaller (in frame/build). Larger, very dominant/beefy/muscular guys don't do much for me, most of the time.
However, on the, um, flip side, because of my lean/thin, borderline 'twinkish' body and semi-boyish face, I find often that I seem to attract the dominant, "Alpha" guys -- rather than the, er, 'bois' who turn me on the most.

Kudos to a very thoughtful and insightful analysis. Lots of guys say they think about sex all the time but I admire those who really think about it.
My partner and I are both 5'10/145 so can wear each others' clothes. Same with first major b/f; OTOH both were blond/blue to my dark coloring. So there's both opposite-attraction and same-attraction interacting.

Fortunately, this general pattern isn't so prevalent that I can't ever find a match. Far from it. But it is a recurring pattern.
And partly because I do seem to attract the Alpha tops, I do every so often succumb (as it were) and go ahead and bottom. I find the 'submissive role' a little weird and not a huge turnon. But it isn't a turnoff, either -- and the purely physical sensations of bottoming are, for me, sufficiently pleasant that I don't really mind, sometimes.

For me getting fucked is much more intimate and I have to feel a personal connection; kinda the way most women seem to be about it. Fucking, it's like a universal sexual energy is pouring through me into my partner and can be impersonal. Getting fucked, all that energy is pouring through one person and I have to feel trust.

But give me a smooth, thin, submissive (or even a little fem) twink type, and I'm really in heaven.

[Also, in case you're wondering, when it comes to women, I generally like strong, take-charge types -- no, not dominatrix types or anything, but a woman who's physically strong/in shape and knows what she wants. The dainty-flower, fluttery type rarely attracts me.]

Don't know if any of the above is helpful. Just one (a)typical guy's perspective.[/QUOTE]

You have an androgynous theme here. Sounds like heaven for you is a porn set full of girly boys fucking boyish girls. With you in there fucking them all.

 

[ahornyman30]

3 here but in my current relationship im bottoming more and more he tends to be a 2

 

[glowfish]

There's a study from the Archives of Sexual Behavior looking at the association between penis size and likelihood of being a top/bottom:

SpringerLink - Journal Article

Men with below average penises were significantly more likely to identify as “bottoms” (anal receptive) and men with above average penises were significantly more likely to identify as “tops” (anal insertive). Finally, men with below average penises fared significantly worse than other men on three measures of psychosocial adjustment.

 

[swimmersox]

NWNCCPL,
Thanks for your as-ever very interresting comments -- in this instance (see above) regarding aspects of my post on this subject.
I'm a little tired at the moment, so not quite, um, up to writing a response that, er, rises to your high level of thinking on all this.
For now, though, I'll just note that I'm especially struck by your comment that bottoming, for you at least, is much more emotionally laden than topping, and thus that you (like many women, as you note) sometimes feel reluctant doing it when you DON'T feel such a connection. That is extremely interesting, and I had not thus far thought of it that way. But I very much do think you are onto something with that perspective. Come to think about it, the dynamic you observe on this may be the reason why I tend to feel a little odd (not bad, just odd) when I'm bottoming. I'm not sure I'll ever be in a position to test your theory on myself, but were I to be in a deep emotional relationship with a man (vs. a casual hookup), I might indeed feel very different about the experience.
Oh, and also, I must say I love your closing observation that my personal constellation of attractions does have an 'androgenous' dimension to it. Again, I hadn't really thought of it that way, but I think you are right. If nothing else, your description of a 'porn scene' likely to get me horned up ('girly' men with strong women) is indeed spot on. (Yum!)
So, thanks for much to contemplate ...
Cheers All.

 

[joey baloney]

I would judge myself a 2 on the OP's scale.

I enjoy versatile sex with transexuals and bottom sex with men. Most of my sexual experience is with women. It's only within the last 10 yrs that I broadened my experience with TS and guys.

 

[maxcok]

Since I'm way more into sucking dick than my partner is, a top as third can satisfy me that way. But a bottom as third usually does nothing for him, and most of the guys interested in playing with us are in that category.

Is this your subtle way of coming on to me? :wink:

Genuine versatility is hard (and good) to find.

I'm sooo tempted to quote Mae West here.