I do not agree with the research. The truth is, one can assume which role the partners play by looking at them. However, in the gay relationship especially when both partners are masculine it can not be certain who is top or bottom by just looking at their faces. The misconception people have about gay relationships is the comparison of it to heterosexual relationship.

People miss the point and that is, gay relationships involves two males and not a male and female relationship like a heterosexual relationship. There is no female in the relationship and who ever is bottom in the relationship does not make them feminine or a woman, he still remains a man. In fact the most masculine men enjoy being bottom. Even the so called “straight guys” enjoy being bottom.

In conclusion, gay relationships is about two men and as a result one can not tell with certainty who is the bottom or top in the relationship. It can not be identified by the masculine or feminine behaviour because every male has a feminine side even among straight men. In fact some straight men are more feminine than gay men. Does that mean their gay or bottom? NO! The problem is the comparison of a homosexual relationship to a hero-sexual relationship, that is were the error is. The two are incomparable. In any event why should it matter who is top or bottom, we are men!!

When these relationships progress, however, the “masculine” guy starts to become very comfortable and a lot more assertive about his sexuality. This often leads him to abandon the fears that he has had about “losing” his masculinity when consenting to prolonged anal sex(to which he is the receiver).

So now which is the illusion; perhaps the outward bravado of masculinity itself?

But its sexy, its inviting and its mesmerizing to both gay men and women alike as it suggests “potency” , “proficiency” and “pleasure” in bed.

For this reason, it matters a lot more to masculine guys;whom this image of virility is imposed on -either by other gay men or themselves.

So this research is more superficial than it is enlightening; for it is based only on “appearances” and , as the old saying goes(altogether now)….”appearances can be deceiving”.

What goes on behind closed doors is more telling and, in this case, researchers may learn that the roles of “masculine” and “feminine” become blurred…..