Versatility: a turn-on or a turn-off?

[sleazyskank]

I usually bottom. But if the mood strikes, and there's a hot dripping hole winking at me, sure, I'll plow and breed it, preferably with a hard cock plowing my hole at the same time.

[Guest WelshBBCigarFuck]

I like to consider myself versatile in that I adapt.

From my teens to early 20’s I tended to attract tops so I bottomed,

From mid 20’s to early 30’s my looks changed and I tended to attract both tops and bottoms so was equally happy fucking as I was getting fucked.

Since my mid 30’s I seem to mostly attract bottoms, which is fine as I am more than happy to breed a guy’s arse, however I do sometimes really get the urge to have a guy pounding my arse into oblivion - it’s been about 10 years since I had a load up my arse.

My position basically varies with the guys I play with, if they want to get fucked then I’ll fuck, if they wanted to fuck me then I would bend over and take it - it all depends on the situation.

[piggyash2019]

I don't mind vers people I'm versebotto myself but prefer bottoming over topping anyday 

[ConversionPerv]

When I was younger, I thought of myself as top/ somewhat versatile (even though my penis is quite small). But as the years passed, I've discovered that, not only am I more comfortable/ suited to the bottom role in intercourse with a man, but that my sexual response to males is female in nature. I'm not femme, a CD or trans. But I respond to men the way a woman would i.e. I'm excited by being submissive and being mounted by a dominant male. The more aggressive and penetrative/ insertive his energy is, the more excited I am by being receptive and open. The notion of sexual dimorphism really resonates with me.

 

So, while I can be (and have been) fucked and bred by versatile men, I'm not interested in a relationship with one. If he has the occasional need to be mounted and fucked, he would have to look outside the relationship to have his needs met. I'm only interested in total tops who are hypermasculine in their sexual drives and behavior.

[Lockedsub]

For me it is turn-off, in case the Vers wants me to be the top, which is something so ridiculous I can't even imagine it, let alone actually doing it. I bottom only with my silly dicklet caged 24/7. That's how I was designed and I feel that going against it would be a cardinal crime against Father Nature and huge disrespect to all real Tops/Doms, who were born to penatrate an breed. 

On the other hand, Verses, who are at the moment in their breeding mode are more than welcome to use my boi-pussy for their pleasure. For they as well might have fine top-like cocks and that's all that matter to me. 

To summ it up, the "category" a man falls in, doesn't matter really. Technics, means and actions he intents to use/perform on me are crucial. 

[Bottomhole]

Turn-Off for me, maybe it's my prejudice but more chance of him having something, plus I wouldnt want to think of him only being half fulfilled.

[bisexualguy1978]

As a versatile, I can't say it turns me off or on, to be honest. I think you need to stick to the role you agree to (spoken or unspoken). If you're fucking a bottom don’t ask him to top, or the other way around. Just be respectful towards each other in that sense.

I don’t fully agree that a versatile can not be a full top or full bottom. At least not to my experience. I had long periods where I played only the bottom role and same for top. Lately, I’m more into versatile guys as it gives another dimension to sex for me (more playroom), but next week that might change.🤷‍♂️ 

Someone told me in the past I can’t be ‘full’ top as I wouldn’t be a good fucker if I knew how to bottom. This always confused me. If you want a good hard fuck, sure I’m in for it. If you want a top that can be considerate, I can also be in. Just adapt to the situation i say.

I do understand however that there are versatile who do not (want to) adapt to the situation. Seen it happen enough times, so I do understand it when bottom/top feel the way they do about versatile being a turn-off.

[Sharpshooter13]

Neither, but a plus if we’re going to date. I’m verse so the best part of being verse is not having to worry about compatibility if I fall for someone. They just better understand that I can be all top or all bottom for them but that I still want to do the other role. 

[Guest FinalDL2021]

On 8/6/2011 at 10:14 AM, eurotopnyc said:

Curious about how others feel about this. I know that for many guys versatility is a turn-on, and it certainly makes for more variety of configurations. However, for whatever reason, versatility is a turn-off for me. I'm really turned on by total bottoms, and when I chat with someone online I always find myself making sure that both of us expect a situation with purely opposite roles. I don't even care if the bottom boy gets hard or cum, as long as he totally and unambiguously loves getting fucked and I see that in his face with every stroke. I'm not into pain or sadism or anything like that - I just want hungry slut bottoms who love cock and dare show it.

Which brings me to my question: Am I atypical in feeling this way? Are you more turned on by versatility or by contrasts? Interested in hearing from both sides.

I agree, I honestly relate to being a Vers/bttm yet find tops, and vers/tops, want a defined role, when we decide to meet up. 

[TightBott7]

I think it's fair to say that opposites attract.  So, being a committed sub-bottom, I'm better suited for a total  dom-top. This way be both know what to expect sexually and by our actions we reenforce each other's roles:  the top enhances my submissiveness and I enhance the top's dominance.  Versatility it's just not going to do it.

[NLbear]

I hesitate to hook up with guys who say they are totally vers because of bad experiences in the past. My cock is a thick 7" and it has happened that once we got together vers guys were more interested in my cock than in my ass and it has happened that the meet went nasty when it became clear I wasn't going to fuck them.

Vers tops are OK but I don't hook up with vers guys anymore.

[browsernmob]

Depends on my mood, but definitely make sure I know how it will go before  meeting up with  vers guys.

[Cumfilledbottomboi]

On 2/3/2021 at 7:03 PM, ConversionPerv said:

When I was younger, I thought of myself as top/ somewhat versatile (even though my penis is quite small). But as the years passed, I've discovered that, not only am I more comfortable/ suited to the bottom role in intercourse with a man, but that my sexual response to males is female in nature. I'm not femme, a CD or trans. But I respond to men the way a woman would i.e. I'm excited by being submissive and being mounted by a dominant male. The more aggressive and penetrative/ insertive his energy is, the more excited I am by being receptive and open. The notion of sexual dimorphism really resonates with me.

 

So, while I can be (and have been) fucked and bred by versatile men, I'm not interested in a relationship with one. If he has the occasional need to be mounted and fucked, he would have to look outside the relationship to have his needs met. I'm only interested in total tops who are hypermasculine in their sexual drives and behavior.

This is me to a T. Except I always knew I was a bottom.

[GoingEasy]

On 2/8/2021 at 9:58 AM, bisexualguy1978 said:

As a versatile, I can't say it turns me off or on, to be honest. I think you need to stick to the role you agree to (spoken or unspoken). If you're fucking a bottom don’t ask him to top, or the other way around. Just be respectful towards each other in that sense.

I don’t fully agree that a versatile can not be a full top or full bottom. At least not to my experience. I had long periods where I played only the bottom role and same for top. Lately, I’m more into versatile guys as it gives another dimension to sex for me (more playroom), but next week that might change.🤷‍♂️ 

Someone told me in the past I can’t be ‘full’ top as I wouldn’t be a good fucker if I knew how to bottom. This always confused me. If you want a good hard fuck, sure I’m in for it. If you want a top that can be considerate, I can also be in. Just adapt to the situation i say.

I do understand however that there are versatile who do not (want to) adapt to the situation. Seen it happen enough times, so I do understand it when bottom/top feel the way they do about versatile being a turn-off.

Ok, two issues:

1)  I agree and tend to be really genuinely versatile,  and spent years in  a relationship with a BF and was an obligate top and truly enjoyed it , and in my younger years ( 20's and early 30's) was in long term relationships where I only bottomed ( their choice).

I found that if I was only allowed to bottom, after a while I became anxious and restless, never knowing why. Maybe the (erudite) poster on this site Renoverse 82 came up with my answer  in one of his posts : " (He) view  gay sex as a competitive sport over an act of Domination and Submission". Maybe when I was in a long term relationship and forced to be  an obligate bottom I felt  suffocated? ( Who knows).

Versatility, and enjoying both topping and bottoming tends to be useful in certain  locations: Here in the PNW  ( and in Glasgow Scotland) at bathhouses and with fuckbuds many  prize versatility and we flipfuck with glee in the same session.  Other  places including Berlin and Montreal you are asked to  define your role ( active or passive) and I enjoy staying in my defined lane. Since I'm not on the sex apps ( work prohibits) I don't advertise  my role prior to the encounter so my versatility is usually not known beforehand, but if discussed  in advance many gay men are suspicious of that title.

2)   bisexualguy 1978  , i have a question for you:  Several years ago I  had a very satisfying boyfriend who was fun, smart, creative, adventurous  and we fucked like rabbits.   He had a deliciously  insatiable sexual appetite  and even out of bed we got along very well  ( most of my  boyfriend relationships usually ended due to boredom or one of us moving  away). He was bisexual and left me for a woman ( running into him /them  afterwards in town was a little odd). He said that he could only have an emotionally satisfying relationship with a woman . I see that you lean the same way.  Without being accusatory, I'm honestly wondering what a woman has romantically  , that we men don't? ( And truly, I'm not trying to be oppositional )  Can you help  me understand that a little bit?