Talk:Top, bottom, and versatile

Serial comma in title

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

[Hiding and ignoring the personal dispute] I don't want to get into dogma about the Oxford comma, but I think this is a case where it would be useful, to make it immediately clear that this article is about three things, not two: {top} vs. {bottom and versatile}. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Renaming/reframing article to 'Gay Sexual Roles/Positions'

Wondering if it'd be useful to reframe this article to address sexual roles/positions, rather than specifically focussing on the top/bottom dichotomy. I note that the article makes reference to 'sides', although only briefly. Yet fairly recent studies have shown that less than half (37.2%) of sex between gay couples was reported to involve anal (Rosenberger, 2011).

Let's not do away with the top/bottom/versatile categories, since they have been useful frames of reference for many (Ravenhill, 2017). I'm suggesting instead that the article be given a new title referring more neutrally to sexual positions, with discussion of the top/bottom/side categories, and a further 'side' category and acknowledgement that much of gay sex is actually 'side-sex' too.

193.190.253.145 (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)EmptyJelloFace

References

Following "Be Bold" I renamed the page to "Gay sex positions." Thisisnotatest (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The top, bottom, verse analogy isn't universal

Anal sex isn't synonymous with being gay and there hasn't been too much stress on it on the article and also to only poll some US cities wasn't fair when gay men are all over the world and different societies have different attitudes and behavior ranging from India to African countries, China, South America etc 197.186.17.93 (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

In response to your comment, I have added the {{globalize}} template to this page. Thisisnotatest (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The use of "gay" instead of "MSM"

The title of the article is incorrect. Most men who have sex with men (MSM) do not describe themselves or their (sexual) relationships as "gay" (see here; also The Guardian: "The proportion of people with same-sex experience is higher than the proportion who identify as gay and bisexual"). MSM range from 5%-20% worldwide, while 4% of men are "mostly heterosexual", 0.5% of men are "evenly bisexual", 0.5% of men are "mostly homosexual", and 2% of men are "completely homosexual".
A better title might be "Sex roles in sex between men".
Same goes for the use of the adjective "gay" within the article, for the same reason. --2804:2FB0:431:FB00:3CB1:94C2:1DEE:58B (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I know!!! 65.190.5.19 (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! But it seems that around here they prefer to label all M/M erotica as gay. --2804:2FB0:40A:E800:416B:F587:8875:FC51 (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Picture of sex between women

In addition to continuing to insist on the use of the adjective "gay" for sex between men, an image of sex between women has now also been placed in the article. What's the point of this? --2804:2FB0:418:2300:74B5:E8DE:A990:3377 (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2024

Gay sex roles → Sex roles in sex between men – as someone mentioned Ernne (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• it is been 7 days so the discussion is closed why the title was not changed? --Ernne (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Relisted because gender-related topics can be contentious. – robertsky (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - the roles observed and described in the article are not exclusive to men, so to the rename the article would not be accurate. In fact it looks like this article is largely a duplicate with the article Top, bottom, switch and should probably be merged and the one article can explain the nuances of some people using the terms in a purely sexual act and some in that of BDSM. Or moved back to the original title that it looks like someone WP:BOLDly renamed from Top, bottom and versatile without discussion and was a more universal title than the current one. So either we should merge it with the article I mentioned, or I propose we move it back to the title this article used to have before the move. Raladic (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What about "same-sex sex roles"? --MikutoH ^talk! 00:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That wouldn’t be accurate either, the original title that the article used to have - Top, bottom, versatile was the most accurate.

The roles described are not exclusive to same sex individuals. Some heterosexual individuals also use those terms to refer to their sexual positions.

Per my oppose comment above, I really think this article should be merged with Top, bottom, switch as there is large overlaps in the content of both the current article and that one. Raladic (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I proposed the move after reading this by other user on the same talk page,

"The title of the article is incorrect. Most men who have sex with men (MSM) do not describe themselves or their (sexual) relationships as "gay" (see here; also The Guardian: "The proportion of people with same-sex experience is higher than the proportion who identify as gay and bisexual"). MSM range from 5%-20% worldwide, while 4% of men are "mostly heterosexual", 0.5% of men are "evenly bisexual", 0.5% of men are "mostly homosexual", and 2% of men are "completely homosexual". A better title might be "Sex roles in sex between men". Same goes for the use of the adjective "gay" within the article, for the same reason"

There are bisexual men too so the title is not inclusive --Ernne (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)