I've had this thought and question in my head for years, but now I'm wanting to hear opinions from all of my gays out there in TV land:
Let's say, when in regards to sex, that you distinctly prefer one sexual position in the bedroom-- i.e. bottoming versus topping. But then you meet someone, like the man of your dreams, who happens to also prefer the sexual role that you do...what do you do?
In the world of gay sex, we actually have the most amount of options available to the human race as anyone: we can be submissive, we can be assertive. We can be the receptive role or the subjector. The masculine or the feminine. However: don't most gay men have a preference? Isn't it true that one act "gets us off" more so than others?
I live in West Hollywood. It is often said of Los Angeles that we live in a city swimming with bottoms. In some instances, I believe this to be true. Underneath all the sunkissed, glistened muscle that predominates this metropolis, there are a lot of "nelly" bottoms running around. There are also a lot of masculine, ripped, machismo bottoms. As a versatile man, my options for getting leid certainly increase within the City of Angels if I take on the more dominate, "top daddy" role as I like to call it. Yet, I remain perplexed as to why this is the situation and stigma specifically attached to LA. It's no question of a doubt that the G spot is in the rectum, so obviously one can understand why men enjoy its stimulation. Meanwhile, the tip and crown of the penis provide just as much sensation for me as something inserted inside me, so I have an often difficult time distinguishing between which one feels better and which role I particularly prefer. I tend to gravitate towards men who are also versatile because I am turned on by serving in both roles and love men that can take on both the submissive and dominate roles.
So, in my way of thinking, I can't understand why more gay men aren't versatile. As the sex-obsessed beings that we can often be, one would think being "open" to all possibilities when it comes to anal sex would just increase our likeliness of getting it, correct? Which brings me back to my original thought: if the man of your dreams walks through the door, are you going to turn him away because he only likes to bottom? Or top?
In the end what I am realizing is the reason why so many of my gay friends who are currently in relationships have open ones: maybe there is just no way for gay men to be completely sexually fulfilled. Maybe the man of your dreams does exist, but the men who are able to fulfill all of your sexual needs are outside of your relationship? And if we do decide to be in open relationships, is there any underlining emotion or connection to those that we are hooking up with to fill a sexual need? Is it unreasonable to think that someone that can sexually stimulate us might also provide us with a connection deeper than a thrusting penis? Maybe the truth in relationships is you can love someone with all your heart and love everything about them, but still mightn't be entirely sexually fulfilled. This idea opens up a whole new Pandora's box of questions, mostly this one: is anyone in a relationship actually 100% sexually satisfied?
I've concluded that I'm just going to keep cooking, booking, being myself and am going to go back to doing what I did before: not thinking about what everyone else does in the bedroom.
