While checking my email this morning, I saw something – a forum post – that made me frown and ask the cat, “What the fuck?” It also kinda amazed me that in a time where sexuality labels are severely being hated on, bi guys are, apparently, not content with labeling themselves as top, bottom, or versatile.
Now guys are saying they’re top/vers or bottom/vers. It took me a moment to (a) remember where and when I saw this distinction before and (b) what it possibly meant… because I hadn’t had my first cup of Folger’s yet. The gist of it is that “Greg,” a bisexual man, is a top – but he’d situationally be a bottom, kinda like those folks who say they’re socially bisexual or bisexual with the right person.
And I wondered if this trip is really necessary and if saying that you’re versatile would be enough to, say, open negotiations so that the specific details can be put onto the table. Some time ago, I wrote about how we tend to draw a lot of lines in the sand re sex and sexuality and that some of the lines we draw are superfluous and maybe even a tad bit too nit-picky and by doing so, we make this a lot more difficult and confusing than it has to be.
Yes: It is important that when we come to terms with the fact that we are bisexual, we must then figure out how we are, you know, what we wanna do, how we wanna do it, and even who we wanna do it with. At some point, we decide if being a top, bottom, or versatile gets the bulldog fed for us… but once we decide, eh, we then kinda/sorta assume that we can’t change things up conditionally or situationally. Indeed, we decide top/bottom/versatile based on what we’re most likely to do “in the majority of times,” let’s say and for lack of a better way to say this.
But if your a bottom who would, occasionally top a guy – let’s say four out of ten times just for the sake of this part of the discussion – wouldn’t it be simpler to adopt the versatile label instead of always having to launch into very detailed conversations to explain why you’re a bottom who also likes to top?
I guess not, since a lot of guys are beginning to make this delineating distinction, drawing one more line in the sandy landscape and a landscape that’s littered with lines. I’m not saying guys who use this distinction are wrong to do so but I’m the guy who’ll ask if this trip is really necessary and wonder if the KISS principle should always been applied first so that bisexuality is less confusing.
At the end of any day, the labels are just reference points because a guy is gonna do whatever he feels like doing, even if it’s something he wouldn’t “normally” do. It is assumed that because of what the labels mean, two tops couldn’t possibly have sex with each other any more than two bottoms could; like things repel, opposites attract – just like that science experiment with magnets. According to the hype, tops don’t suck cock but they do… depending. The hype also says that bottoms don’t fuck but they do, too… depending.
I even mentioned to my protege this morning that a lot of bi guys tend to stereotype themselves and lock themselves in cages of their own design by assuming that once a top, always a top and pretty much dissing the thought that a situation could come up where they don’t want to be a top. I pointed out to him that we get consumed with what we want to do and not so much thought given to what can be done and that some kind of inherent inflexibility can make all of this… interesting.
For instance, I was negotiating with a declared bottom a while ago (read this as a lot of years ago) and I liked his attitude re sucking dick and I said to him that I’d be good with that as long as I got to blow him – you know, you do what you like to do and we happen to like doing the same thing so… – and he kinda freaked out and started explaining to me what it is bottoms do and don’t do (and like I needed it explained, which I didn’t). So he said no deal and I respected his decision… but he turned around a day or two later and said that the deal was acceptable but wasn’t initially acceptable because the guys he usually dealt with were never interested in giving him head.
There’s a danger in overcomplicating the whole top/bottom/versatile thing and opportunities to please and be pleased are often missed so I’m kinda waiting to see how this top/vers and bottom/vers thing works out for the guys who identify in this way. Maybe it’s just another way we self-justify our sexuality or just another way to add yet another layer of complexity to something that’s already seen as being horribly complex.
Does this make it easier to have sex… or harder? Labels should only identify, not isolate or restrict… but what do I know?