Talk:Top, bottom and versatile/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger

See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages

Pre-merger pages:

Top (sex) (talk) Bottom (sex) (talk) Power top (talk) Switch (sexuality) (talk)

Top (BDSM) (talk) Bottom (BDSM) (talk) Dominant (BDSM) (talk) Submissive (BDSM) (talk) Topping from the bottom (talk)

Done merging all of the above. The Dom/sub stuff needs significant editing for flow / integration. Also see todo list below. If ya want it fixed, fix it yourself - this is Wikipedia after all. Anyway, that's about it for me for now at least; got other stuff to do. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

TODO

• Cleanup & meta
  • Fix double redirects
  • Clean multiple redirects to previous source pages on other pages
  • Clean up & merge translated versions; link properly to (currently split) translations
  • Add link to Top and bottom in sex and BDSM to relevant pages, categories, etc
  • Edit redirects to point to specific sections if relevant (e.g. Bottom (BDSM) -> Top and bottom in sex and BDSM#Bottom_2)
  • Find any other articles that should be merged into this one
• Writing
  • Expand the overlap section
  • Expand the contrasts section
  • Expand top and bottom in sex to include discussion of physical-sensation preferences vs psychological / role preferences (e.g. for gay or bisexual men who want to [psychologically] bottom but don't enjoy the sensation of prostate stimulation etc)
  • Expand to discuss relationship w/ "gender roles" in homosexual relationships
  • Expand to discuss top and bottom in "situational" homosexuality, e.g. jail ("punk" vs ??)
  • Expand to address possible legal or social sexual identity differences of top vs bottom, e.g. only bottom being perceived as "gay", topping being more acceptable for "straight" men, top being acceptable for ancient Greek males in pederastic relationships, etc
  • Expand to discuss top/bottom as a sexual identity or facet thereof
  • Add better compare-and-contrast of Top/bottom vs Dom/sub in BDSM
• Editing
  • Make gender neutral where appropriate
  • Make sexuality neutral or inclusive where appropriate, e.g. gay men -> gay or bisexual (or pegging-friendly straight)
  • Clean up this article for redundancies
  • Distribute content / link better with articles on Domination and submission (BDSM) and BDSM.
  • Make picture & sidebar layout prettier; it's kinda ugly right now

Discussion

Where can I read the discussion regarding the merger? Who decided to merge these subjects? The article title should be an umbrella word to describe everything within it. For example Human Sexuality or Sexual Positions. I would prefer to see the topics you've merged seperated into seperate articles. (or unmerged)Pdelongchamp 02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I did. Nobody responded to my pre-merger suggestions, so I just did it. I don't mind a change in title, but what would you suggest? I can't think of any cleaner way to phrase it. If you take a look at the pre-merger articles you'll see they're all stubs; the point of merging them was to have a good compare-and-contrast article because clearly there are very strong connections between the various terms, and it does better as a single article. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This merger is highly contra productive! The Spanish, Italian, Dutch and German articles clearly show that at least Switch, Top (BDSM) and Bottom (BDSM) are relevant single lemmata. A closer look at the user's edit-history clearly proofs, that he doesn't seem to have edited any BDSM related articles before.

The argument about this being an "good compare-and-contrast article" is nonsense. I would like to see what would happen if merged capitalism&communism into an "compare-and-contrast article" deleting the original ones only because nobody answered to my merger ideas. Its really strange that there was allegedly no response to the pre-merger suggestions, nevertheless even the smallest amount of thoughtfulness should have prevented this. The intention to merge homosexual and BDSM topics in order to "compare-and-contrast" them while deleting the source article is at least original research if not POV.

The BDSM topics should be unmerged as soon as possible. --Nemissimo 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To the first: The articles Top (BDSM), Bottom (BDSM), and Switch are currently, and were previously, very redundant. As such, they would work better as a combined article that explains the various terms rather than a bunch of stubs.

To the second: The terms 'top' and 'bottom' are used both in BDSM and more generally in sex (not specifically homosexual), and are frequently confused. Thus, an article that attempts to a term in one context would be incomplete without giving a contrast to the other. This is not the case with capitalism and communism - they do not use overlapping terms, and the individual articles are by no means stubs.

Given all that, and that the preexisting articles were stubs, I made them into a combined article.

I did NOT delete any content from the original articles, as you imply; it was all added into the merged article, and the stubs made to be redirects. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 09:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems extremely obvious to me that Top/Dominant and bottom/submissive should have their own separate articles, and I'm going to be working on them as separate articles along with the slave (bdsm) article, consensus appears to agree with me, any objections leave them here. Restepc (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; There shouldn't have been a merger of these articles, but rather the individual terms should have each received their own short articles, to allow readers of the larger articles ( BDSM for example) to find information on each term as they come up. In fact, there's enough of a difference between Top and Dominant, and bottom and submissive to warrent articles of their own, as a top and bottom will have very different significance to the gay community, than it will to the BDSM community, and the motivations behind a bottom and a submissive, and a top and a dominant are often very distinct. Many dominants don't top, many tops don't dominate; to lump them together would be like scooping up a pile of sand, and declaring it to be all one type of rock.Stephannn (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconding the non-merge. I think it's a good idea for "top/bottom/switch" to be in a single article, but Dom/sub should definitely be in a seperate article. I think it's probably ok to have a little bit about top/bottom in the bdsm context, merely as a descriptor of generalized sexual activity; especially since the terms as used in the BDSM community largely come *from* their original usage in the gay male community, then adopted into the gay leather community, and etc. I definitely prefer the new lede and structure as of now. Genderhack (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-merger-specific discussion

• I changed 'switch' to 'versatile', since I believe that is a much more common term. I have often heard someone called versatile, but never called a switch. -BrianGa
  • I have commonly heard both (SF Bay Area, CA, US). Changed to be "switch or versatile". Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• I typically have heard switch as the most commonly used term, both in Texas and the LA area.Stephannn (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

LGBT & BDSM

I noticed that this page is part of the LGBT portal. I do not understand why, as I am part of te LGBT community and the majority of people I know are as well, and the majority of the people I know in the community would not want it linked to BDSM. However I am also a member of the BDSM community, including this as part of a Human Sexuality portal makes sense, but the primary theme of this article does not explore the aspect of a Top/Dominant in a LGBT relationship but in general human relationships of any gender and orientation, perhaps this would be better left off and a separate article created for LGBT Dominance? I am not meaning to step on any toes or egos here, far from it, I just wish to help with the 'wiki guides' and consistency/continuity in articles. Just an idea that might create some clarity and help those looking for specific information easier. Der.Gray 00:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to see it expanded to cover more LGBT top/bottom issues. (See TODO list above.) E.g., the idea of "who wears the pants" in a homosexual relationship should be addressed. It's on the LGBT portal because some of its pre-merger pages, namely those about top and bottom in sex. The BDSM part isn't LGBT related, but since this is an omnibus compare/contrast article, that's just part of the deal. It's better than having a lot of short & fragmented ones. I don't think that having a separate article for LGBT specific Top/bottom or D/s discussion would be more helpful than just expanding this one. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the exact opposite: I'm a submissive, but I don't want to be associated with homosexuality. In all other respects, however, I agree. I don't think its focus is specific enough to warrant the LGBT topic template. Blast ^{[improve me]} 22.06.07 0328 (UTC)

Does its focus need to be *specific* to LGBT or BDSM to merit tagging? It seems to be that so long as it addresses both fairly & substantively, it's worth the tag. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 07:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been part of the BDSM community of one of the largest cities in the US for many years and the community has a very strong hetero element - very probably over half. This has held true in many other cities from what I have heard from others. Is it possible to see more definition of the BDSM elements from the POV of both preferences? There is much more than penetration/reception to dominance and submission. Kimslv 19:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is addressed as is - the BDSM part of the article is fairly sexuality-neutral. But if you disagree, well, this is Wikipedia. Edit it yourself. ;) Improvements are always welcome. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 04:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Pornography?

What are the specific guidelines on depictions of graphic sexual acts on Wikipedia? Apartdata 16:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that any images are acceptable if they serve a valid illustrative purpose and are the most informative images available for that particular article. WP is not censored, so whether it is "graphic" or not is irrelevant; c.f. most articles on sexuality, which have valid needs for illustrative images. If you have a suggestion for something more appropriate for this article, please let us know. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I also question the use of the photographs on this page. As it is currently used, it risks Wikipedia's reputation as a well-edited source of encyclopedic information. People who don't know the term Top and Bottom should at least have an opportunity to read the summary before being shown an unneeded, cluttered-looking, photographic example. Diagrams are far more neutral and scientifically disinterested, since they wouldn't make it look like the porn industry was editing this article.

Are the portraits needed or the people in them relevent? Sigmund Freud is notable, but he doesn't get a portrait every time he shows up in an article. I don't mean to troll but this page honestly looks like fancruft written by porn junkies. -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.193.168 (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Topping from the bottom

..."is usually considered poor practice amongst lifestyle BDSM devotees". Why? I'm not into BDSM myself so am probably missing something, but if the people in the relationship like it that way, why is it any business of other "devotees"? 86.136.248.0 00:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of anything being considered "poor practice" among BDSM devotees except if you violate the basic ethical standards of safety and consent. Other than that, I think it's about exploring sensation and pleasing your partner, not about adhering to any rule book about what people can or cannot do in bed. I mean it's not a religion or anything that tells people how to live their lives. So unless someone has proof that there is consensus on this issue from "BDSM devotees" (and who qualifies as one of those is also highly debatable), I'm going to take it out.Rglong 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiya; as a BDSM enthusiast who incorporates D/s in my daily life, I can suggest that Topping from the bottom actually does violate the basic ethical standards of consent. When I engage in activities with a bottom, I do so with the understanding that she is choosing to adopt a certain role; much like if I am to go practice batting with a friend. If my friend tells me they want to throw the ball and I hit it, and then immediately picks up the bat, I never consented to this activity. Topping from the bottom is rarely a conscious act; it's usually something that the bottom does unintentionally and unknowingly. It disrupts our activities, and can be the cause of termination of our activities. I hope this sheds some light on that; I have to say, the word 'devotee' doesn't seem to fit, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephannn (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Daddy

The disambiguation page Daddy points here and says this term is a synonym for "top" in BDSM. But the term is not mentioned on this page, and some additional explanation is needed.

On that same disambig page you also find a link to age disparity in relationships, which is most commonly what is being referred to when women and gay men call their partner a "daddy" - usually it's because the guy is older than his partner. In fact, that redirect appears first, as it should. The lesser known use of the word "daddy" just as a cute slang name to call whoever is topping you at the time doesn't need much mention, because the disambig page already explains exactly what it is: it's sometimes another name for "top".Rglong 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Phalocentric societies

Not sure how to go about this, but I think some mention of historical attitudes toward sex should be focused on here. For instance, the ancient Greeks essentially had a bisexual popular culture, and divided their society into "men who penetrate", and "everyone else who gets penetrated". So women, young boys/submissive men, and slaves were all seen as inferior "bottoms" and the macho men who dominated everyone else were the superior "tops". (of course they didn't use those exact words but I'm sure there were Greek equivalents).

This happened and still happens in other cultures and subcultures as well. Some men believe they aren't gay unless they are penetrated anally or orally, even if they are being "serviced" by another man. To quote Soldier's Girl, "the freak getting the blowjob isn't a freak; the freak on his knees giving the blowjob is the freak". (that's not an exact quote, but it's damn close). In this context the character in question claims to be heterosexual, but really he divides society up in terms of penetrator and penetratee.

Also the same things go on in prison subcultures, where heterosexual men will take on a "bitch", and whatnot. Social heirarchy and authority begins to be based on whether you are giving it or receiving it.

These concepts of who is penetrating and who is getting penetrating have much wider implications for culture beyond just two people having sex with each other.Rglong 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though I wouldn't be one to write it. ;) One comment to add though - it's interesting to note which partner is considered the 'bottom' or 'submissive' in oral sex. Is it the person performing the action (because they are the penetratee) or the person who's the physically more passive? Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 09:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs help

So many unverified claims. Who are these alleged experts in BDSM, and who represents the "minority views" that appear on this page? What is there a degree in BDSM from a major university or something that qualifies somebody as no longer just an amateur? And who is conducting these opinion polls of members of the BDSM community? These statements feel like commentary or opinion, not encyclopedic at all.

However I HAVE encountered the belief that BDSM can compensate for people's anxiety in their daily lives, in other words that overworked or always-in-charge people benefit psychologically from being the bottom (the weight of the world is taken off their shoulders for a short time, bringing relief), or that normally timid people get to feel self-esteem and worth by being the top (wow, someone's actually listening to me for a change!).

So not everything here is garbage, some needs to be deleted, but other claims just need to be backed up by evidence.Rglong 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutly right, this field of topics needs much more sources and references in order to check the related articles. For a start I suggest:

• Person, Ethel S. / Terestman, Nettie / Myers, Wayne A. / Goldberg, Eugene L. / Salvadori, Carol: Gender differences in sexual behaviors and fantasies in a college population, 1989, erschienen in: Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Bd. 15, Nr. 3, 1989, P. 187–198
• Breslow, Norman: SM Research Report, v1.1, 1999
• Janus, Samuel S. / Janus, Cynthia L., 1993 The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, Wiley, New York
• Thomas S. Weinberg: S&M – Studies in Dominance and Submission (Ed.), Prometheus Books, New York, 1995 ISBN 0-8797-5-978-X
• Robert Bienvenu, The Development of Sadomasochism as a Cultural Style in the Twentieth-Century United States, 2003, Online PDF under Sadomasochism as a Cultural Style
• Charles Moser, in Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality 1988, (7;1, P.43-56)
• Gloria G. Brame, BDSM/Fetish Sex:Overview and Study, online gloria-brame.com

Regards --Nemissimo 21:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Added. Also, please note that the formatting is : and :* not * and ** for prettiness. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 09:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of complicating an already messy situation, we should keep in mind that we're discussing a heterogeneous population. Some or many in the sadomasochochism communities don't meet the DSMs Criterion B (clinically significant distress or impairment). It could be argued that this criterion would be met only by the less well-adjusted of those with the medical condition. As a result, we'd expect three dissimilar populations; the well-adjusted with a medical condition, the less well-adjusted with a medical condition, and those who enjoy sadomasochism without a medical condition. Those studying one group might get different results than those studying another group, and still be right - just as long as they are clear about the limited applicability of their results.

For this article at least, perhaps we can hope that since all three groups might frequent the same events, they might use the same terminology. Hope, however, is neither a scientific nor encyclopedic method. BitterGrey (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I'm a bit concerned at the extent of ambiguity on this page. Odd disconnects, like listing "BDSM practitioners," then following it with the phrase "and some opposite-sex couples." Because opposite sex couples don't practice BDSM? I did a little bit of trying to clarify that, and I may have edged into overprecision (if so, my apologies, but I found some of the original language very confusing).

The bit I haven't figured out how to address cleanly though, is this disconnect between "Tops and Bottoms in sex" and "Tops and Bottoms in BDSM." It seems like there should be a better way to differentiate the two, without seeming to imply that BDSM is inherently nonsexual. I wonder... if you're going to combine all these topics into a single post anyway, does it make sense to just handle tops as a section (with subcategories: gay community, BDSM, history, etc.), then another section on bottoms (same subcategories)... ? Kelsied 09:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is probably the best way to go about it - have definitions for each in the order: general, then culture-specific variants. I'm not sure if there are any sex-but-not-bdsm definitions; all I can think of offhand has BDSM adding on to or more specifying the default case. I like the edits so far; I'll try a pass at moving it further along in the same vein. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 10:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

No intro, too many lists, no in-line references, and boatloads of orignal research. This article is in very rough form.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Split it now

The vast majority of gays and lesbians has nothing to do with BDSM - nor do they want to be seen or mentioned in a contect of bondage, spanking or electrostimulation. If there are no objections I will split this article in Top, bottom, versatile for the roles in gay sex and Top and bottom (BDSM).--Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Zazaban (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's really not. If there is confusion clear it up with better writing. Dozens of articles were merged here as causing more problems and being bloated with original research. Recently one of your creations, Versatile, was spared deletion. I suggest pouring your energy into bringing that article up to an acceptable level. -- Banjeboi 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

pictures

I fail to see how any of the pictures really add to this article at all. The picture of paul bunyan flagging says *nothing* about top/bottom (although he's apparently flagging as a fisting top, this isn't mentioned); in fact i don't really see why flagging should be a significant portion of this article aside from a brief mention that right denote bottom and left denotes top. Secondly, i don't see how the picture of carol queen relates to the article; is she a well known top/bottom/switch and vocal about her identification as such? She may be cool as hell, but i don't really think her picture belongs here. Even the picture of the BDSM couple, although it is the most relevant of any of the pictures, seems to me to demonstrate more of a Dom/sub relation than a top/bottom one. Genderhack (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

They illustrate but we are always looking to improve every aspect of an article. Flagging is all about top and bottoms/BDSM but this article has gone through a lot of version so likely a brief mention would help. Queen is a noted sexologist writing, lecturing and teaching on these issues for decades. The BDSM couple indeed is an aspect of what culturally is considered top and bottom. Are you familiar with Wikicommons? Maybe you could search to see if there are better images that may help. -- Banjeboi 20:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The new word for deletion is merger

User:Benjiboi has created a new way of merging, i.e. deletion. Congratulations, I'm fed up with this kindergarden and say fairwell. --Meister und Margarita (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

American bias

No mention is made here of the fact that these terms are almost exclusively restricted to American usage. The corresponding terms in British English are active and passive (or dominant and submissive in BDSM), and I see no need to change.

I personally hate both terms top and bottom with something approaching a passion, if only because of their pre-existent uses: a top is a T-shirt and a bottom is what you sit on. Nuttyskin (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has gone through some major changes but top and bottom are indeed used in Europe and Australia and elsewhere, likely because gay porn quickly translates across cultures. Active and passive certainly should be included as well and their use clearly explained, feel free to do so but know that there is a bit of a tussle presently which should ease a bit over the next week or so. -- Banjeboi 20:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested split

An editor has suggested that the BDSM material in this article be moved to a separate article. (That editor then proceeded to decimate said material, but that's another story.) I oppose this split. The usage in BDSM is closely related to the usage in sex in general. We already have separate articles for Top (BDSM), Bottom (BDSM), and Switch (BDSM). The summary of them fits well in this article. --Alynna (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As there are already five !!!! articles on tops, bottoms, switches, submissives and sadomasochists in BDSM, there is no need to explain the same things all over here. This is Top, bottom and versatile in the sex field. BDSM is a completely different story and 99.9% of all guys and girls bottoming and topping aren't interested in BDSM at all. If they are - 0,01% - they can easily find their way to BSDM by looking up at "see also". I will clean up all tis stuff again unless there is an argument against cleaning up.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether people interested in being involved in sex vs. BDSM can find the articles. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. First of all, a substantial portion of BDSM is sex. Second of all, the terms "top" and "bottom" are probably used more often to describe BDSM than to describe "regular" gay male sex, let alone any other sex. The reason they should be in the same article is that the definitions are substantially related. --Alynna (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You are dreaming. Everywhere in the whole world gay men are describing themselves as "top", "versatile top", "versatile", "versatile bottom" and "bottom". Google gives you 151.000.000 hits for "top gay", but only 8.670.000 hits for "top BDSM". And only 1.770.000 for "bottom BDSM", but 44.200.000 for "bottom gay". "versatile top" has 15.400.000 hits and "versatile bottom" 5.870.000 hits - both terms are used exclusivly by gay men. You try to promote an agenda here, and I don't intend to accept it. If you do not accept cleanup here, I will start merging the BDSM articles.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The terms are about roughly the same thing whether it's in BDSM or gay sex - they're both sex positions/roles. Which is why the should be in the same main article. Also, search results don't establish whether or not two topics should be in the same article or not. The search results are also not accurate - a quick look at top gay -wikipedia shows that most of them aren't about the article subject, and bottom bondage -wikipedia gives 5 million (vastly more than "bottom BDSM"). And before you merge articles, make sure there's consensus to do so. Mairi (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Versatile (sex) article still exists

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

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)

Far too explicit - wikipedia is for people of all ages. (Then there'll be the stuff about discrimination and why the pic needs to be so graphic) 88.111.151.183 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

stick figures would not demonstrate the action properly. this image is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligentguy89 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

US Bias

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

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?

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

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 ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is this crap written EXCLUSIVELY about gay men?!

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)

Bias? This whole page reads like gay porno. Imagine if some one normal wrote a similar page... 88.111.151.183 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)