Talk:Top, bottom and versatile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Versatile (sex) article still exists[edit]

It seems to me that this article should be titled back to just Top and bottom, as Versatile still has an article. Either that, or the Versatile (sex) article should be merged with this one. Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Note. Okay, since Versatile (sex) got redirected here to this article, I transferred the sourced material that got lost with that redirect here as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

A picture or two would greatly help to illustrate these concepts. If not of real people, then a drawering of some sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.179.78.213 (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Does that look good? CTJF83 21:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Could it be a bit less... explicit? Stick figures would be OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.28.60 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
stick figures would not demonstrate the action properly. this image is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligentguy89 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

US Bias[edit]

This is still hugely biased toward American English usage. In the UK, a top is a T-shirt and a bottom is another word for your arse. Active and passive are much more common, where they are used at all. Nuttyskin (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • If you're a girl in America, top & bottom are, in fact, the tshirt and skirt/pants/shorts/panties/whatever. BUT... you can't be a girl. Because the authors of this article live in a male-only, 100% homosexual world, where straight men or girls of any variety whatsoever simply don't exist. How unusual, eh? 68.183.124.21 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2013‎ (UTC)
Nuttyskin, this article is about certain sexual positions and activities. If it were about T-shirts and did not discuss the UK aspect of that, if the UK aspect contrasted the American aspect, then this article would be biased with regard to country vs. another country. If you mean it's biased because it does not discuss active and passive and how they equate to top and bottom in the UK, then I must point out that this article is titled Top, bottom and versatile. Unless there is a term or phrase that describes this concept without giving more weight to the American terms or the British terms, we have to use one or the other as the title because those are the names that primarily show up for this topic. This is where WP:Verifiability and WP:Due weight apply. There is no problem with mentioning in this article, however, active and passive and how they are the UK equivalent of top and bottom. Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Most tops perform oral[edit]

A lot of tops who like to penetrate the anus of the bottom, also like to perform oral to the penis of the bottom as foreplay. The term top refers more to anal sex and not a lot to oral sex activities because many tops will also be penetrated in their mouth by the bottom during a sexual encounter before they start having anal sex.

Oral top means that they like to give and receive oral, but they only like to penetrate the anus of the bottom and don't like to be penetrated in the anus.

Um what?[edit]

In the versatility section: "Most men who have sex with men do not fit the gay stereotypes. They are not usually effeminate nor openly gay." Although this is sourced, it's incredibly biased and would be impossible to prove, did they survey every man ever who has had sex with another man? Obviously they didn't even survey most, especially since it mentions people who aren't openly gay being versatile, if they're not openly gay how on Earth could they find that out? Especially since it then goes on to say most gay men are versatile in the porn industry, obviously men in the porn industry are openly gay so that leads to a contradiction. Personally I don't care if it's sourced, it's incredibly biased and unprovable. Even if you surveyed 1,000 gay men that wouldn't be enough to accurately prove anything especially since most men willing to do the survey would obviously be openly gay, these sentences seems more fit for the Gay stereotype page than it does here.

I deleted the aforementioned sentences because the citations supporting those sentences are from 1979 (You know back when most people didn't come out.) It's a new day and age and those sentences are more stereotypes nowadays than anything true. If you can find a citation from the new millenium supporting that versatile men tend not to be effeminate and are usually not open about their sexuality, fine re-add it, but as of now that sentence if anything isn't of any modern worth especially since more gays are more open nowadays. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oral[edit]

I think this use of recieve is quite muddy. A blowjob is usually performed by the peson sucking the dick, which I think makes them more the active partner in the relationship. It's the dick being sucked that recieves the blowjob. 80.202.23.194 (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't single out which part you are talking about. Can you be a bit more specific? Thanks Jenova20 (email) 11:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is this crap written EXCLUSIVELY about gay men?![edit]

Jeez, ppl, this is wikiPEDIA, not wikidiary. Not everything mirrors your own world. Top/bottom/versatile dynamics are a measure of dominance and just flat-out synonymous with the dominant/submissive/switch classifications heavily used in bdsm & considered highly applicable to any relationship, anywhere, including ones devoid of any sexual or fetishistic elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.124.21 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. This article is not exclusively about gay men. As can be seen, it discusses the terms' existence among couples of other sexualities, including BDSM. As for why it is predominantly about gay men, that is because, if you research these terms with regard to sexuality, they are predominantly discussed with regard to gay men or men who have sex with men in general. Wikipedia goes by WP:Verifiability when it comes to adding/sourcing aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, "IP" is right. Top, bottom and versatile are common among heterosexual couples. Gay men are a minority, but this article doesn't make it seem that way. Seriously, the first source is "Gay Men and Anal Eroticism", a book written by a gay man for gay men....are you seriously saying that this source is not biased!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.64.156 (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm biased, but I'm going to guess the term is a minority among straight people and more common among gay people. That would be why the first source and the article may be written with a gay slant. You're welcome and encouraged to add all relevant "straight" sources and information you can find to balance it out! CTF83! 11:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
IP is not right about bias in this case (neither of them). Do research on the terms top, bottom and versatile (with regard to sexuality, that is), and you will see that these terms are predominantly discussed with regard to gay men or men who have sex with men in general, as shown on regular Google and on Google Books. So that the first source is "a book written by a gay man for gay men" hardly makes a difference in this case. This article gives WP:Due weight to what the preponderance of sources state, while not excluding people of other sexual orientations. There is nothing we can do about what the preponderance of sources state on this topic; per the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects and "equal validity" policies, we will not be giving false balance to the other sexual orientations. Flyer22 (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Serial comma in title[edit]

During my edits, I noticed that this article title is in dire need of a serial comma. Do you all mind if I added it throughout the article and moved the article to the new title? I know it's a small change, and I considered just doing it, but I wanted to make sure everyone was okay with it first. This shouldn't be a big deal, and I can do it really quickly. Are you all fine with that? ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 14:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note I do not care about any serial comma moves. Also note that Nøkkenbuer should take my talk page off his WP:Watchlist and stop following me to articles via discussions on my talk page. As various editors know, there are editors that I do not mind following me, and then there are editors that I do mind following me. Any denials of following me don't fool me, and I don't care about the why(s) if the following annoys me. Neither does WP:Hounding. When I ignore editors and they continually seek to interact with me in some way, it is never a good thing. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I do have you on my watchlist, since you seem hostile to me for some reason, and I'd like to make sure I'm not spoken about. You still have me on your watchlist, don't you? I did find this article through your talk page, and I noticed what I thought was a problem, so I came here to voice it. But fine, I'll stay away from any talk page I find through your talk page, even if there's a problem I notice on it. I'll still do cleanup as I always do, though. I see you're still not speaking to me directly, though, as if that'll solve anything. I really wish you'd be mature about all this. I have no interest in interacting with you, since you refuse to act responsibly. Now could you please not bring up irrelevant and off-topic things on article talk pages? If you don't like my proposal, then simply say you don't. Refer to me in the second- and third-person, too, since that's your bent. I don't mind.
In any case, I take it you oppose to my proposal. I'll await other responses. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 15:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)