Gay male anal sex videos. Best Recent Gay Porn Videos.



Gay male anal sex videos

Gay male anal sex videos

Open in a separate window Associations between Body Traits, Ideal, and Commonly Enacted Penetrative Role We conducted two multivariable multinomial logistical regression models treating the ideal and commonly enacted penetrative roles as separate dependent variables. Associations between Discordant and Concordant Ideal and Real Penetrative Roles A final multivariable multinomial logistical regression was conducted to assess comparative differences in the attributes between discordant and concordant ideal and commonly enacted penetrative roles.

Due to small cell sizes, ideally bottoms that commonly enacted the top role 1. Echoing previous findings, penis size and masculinity were the most influential over the differentiation between concordant versatiles and concordant tops from concordant bottoms.

Significant differences were found between two of the four discordant groups when compared to each other and to the additional three concordant groups. These groups were the ideally versatile men who commonly enact the bottom role and the ideally versatile men who commonly enact the top role. Regarding comparisons between discordant groups and as noted in the previous paragraph , such men were more likely to have larger erect penises relative to men who were ideally versatile but who commonly enacted the bottom role.

No other significant results emerged between the different concordant groups, discordant groups, and the other body characteristics i. The other body characteristics e. With respect to differences between concordant and discordant ideal and commonly enacted roles, penis size and masculinity also were the two most predictive factors. Concordant bottoms had comparatively smaller penises and were less masculine than both concordant versatiles and concordant tops.

More importantly, penis size was the decisive variable splitting the relationship between ideal and commonly enacted role among versatiles. Simply, for some men, having smaller or larger penises seemed to ultimately guide the actual enactment of penetrative role and not its mere intention.

As stated, few of the other body characteristic variables predicted differences between the groups. One potential reason for this was the high degree of relatedness between masculinity and these variables see Table 1. Suggested by previous research Puts, , masculinity may have become a proxy measure for characteristics like muscularity and hairiness.

As for height and weight, there was a high degree of relatedness between these variables and erect penis size see Table 1. Penis size may have accounted for the variance that would have been contributed by these variables. Erect penis size may represent the degree of conquest a top can inflict. Masculinity might represent dominance and manliness in oneself and in partners.

As such, it is not surprising that men without these characteristics would potentially defer to those with them to secure a more pleasurable and satisfying sexual experience i. Alternatively, individuals with these characteristics would either self-select or—for those ideally versatile men, who commonly top—have no choice but to enact the insertive penetrative role. Men who ideally would like to be versatile may find their comparatively smaller penises make even intermittent insertive intercourse unlikely with casual partners.

Those with bigger penises penetrate. Those with smaller penises get penetrated. Concordant bottoms and tops and discordant versatiles follow this paradigm.

Concordant versatiles remain a relative mystery. Theoretically, concordant versatiles should have fallen somewhere in between concordant bottoms and concordant tops on the two salient variables.

Indeed, results indicated that this group actually reported comparatively larger penises and were more masculine than concordant bottoms. However, no significant differences emerged between concordant versatiles and concordant tops.

If penis size and masculinity poorly differentiate these two groups, what ultimately contributes to individual differentiations between concordant versatiles and tops? More research is needed, particularly regarding the degree to which individuals find pleasure in the specific acts of receptive and insertive anal intercourse as behaviors.

Limitations The current study had several limitations that should be noted. The measures of body characteristics and masculinity relied on single items to capture the data. All of the data were self-reported; no objective, physical measurements were made by a third-party.

As a result, the men may have inflated their answers regarding certain body attributes e. As for the self-labels, the men were asked to identify as either a top, versatile or a bottom; however, there were no behavioral measures concerning the degree to which they enacted the associated behaviors. Men who self-identified as tops and only had one or two sexual partners were treated the same as men who had 50 partners. As a result, the high degree of discrepancy among versatiles might have been an artifact of using this word in the measures.

We did not distinguish between men in relationships and men who were single. Relationship status, development, or expectations may play some influence over anal penetrative role Moskowitz et al. In other words, there may be a number of unmeasured variables that future researchers might want to include to increase the robustness of such models e.

Future Directions This study was the first to use body attributes to explain differences among tops, versatiles, and bottoms. It only was the second to assess the alignment between ideal and commonly enacted anal penetrative role among men engaging in same-sex sexual encounters.

With such a paucity of research, little is known regarding the reasons for differentiation in roles among gay and bisexual men, which leaves myriad directions for future research. It is still unclear why some men are concordant versatiles rather than concordant tops. No substantial differences were found between these groups in this study.

What makes some men tend towards receptive anal intercourse and become versatile, while others unilaterally reject it and become tops? There may be key variables missing from our study that might account for these variations. Future studies might assess differences in perceived physiological discomfort i. More fundamentally, future research should account for what contributes to the formation of any orientation as ideal. Are penetrative role orientations inevitable, as a result of aspects such as penis size?

Are they potentially linked to androgen levels, susceptible to variations in hormones like testosterone? There is some evidence in our study to suggest this.

Thus, the biology behind the differences in masculinity self-reported by the men e. Endocrinological measures might benefit any future investigations into top, versatile, or bottom orientations. Finally, explicit partner selection was not incorporated into the analyses of this study. The men sampled only reported self-characteristics and not characteristics they sought in a partner.

Future studies might assess whether bottoms engaging in anal intercourse ideally want partners with big penises or who are comparatively more masculine than themselves; if versatiles are looking for partners who are comparatively similar; and if tops want partners who have comparatively smaller penises and are less masculine. In short, sexual partner attraction might be a function of expected penetrative role. As indicated, too little is known regarding male anal intercourse penetrative role.

Significantly more research is warranted into the reasons for male adoption of the top, bottom, or versatile self-label. Given the extreme degree to which bottoms and tops seem to assume their identity and follow through with behavior, such orientations may be more inevitable than chosen.

For in the final analysis, understanding such roles even may offer insight into the origins of gay male sexual orientation itself. Acknowledgments Special thanks to J.

Butch, femme, or straight-acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Male gender roles and sexuality: Looking for a tall, dark, macho man…Sexual-role behavior variations in Latino gay and bisexual men.

The long and short of it: Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. The association between penis size and sexual health among men who have sex with men. Sexual behavior among HIV-positive men who have sex with men: Journal of Sex Research. Anal intercourse and power in sex between men.

Knussmann R, Sperwien A. Relations between anthropometric chracterstics and androgen hormone levels in healthy young men. Annals of Human Biology.

Tops, bottoms, and versatiles. Narcissism, self-evaluations, and partner preferences among men who have sex with men. Personality and Individual Differences.

Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior. Sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity: Evidence from home videos. A-Z of gay sex. Other Way Press; The evolution of human sexuality.

Oxford University Press; Veall M, Zimmerman K. Pseudo-R2 measures for some common limited dependent variable models. Journal of Economic Surveys. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality. Wei C, Raymond HF.

Video by theme:

Anal sex



Gay male anal sex videos

Open in a separate window Associations between Body Traits, Ideal, and Commonly Enacted Penetrative Role We conducted two multivariable multinomial logistical regression models treating the ideal and commonly enacted penetrative roles as separate dependent variables. Associations between Discordant and Concordant Ideal and Real Penetrative Roles A final multivariable multinomial logistical regression was conducted to assess comparative differences in the attributes between discordant and concordant ideal and commonly enacted penetrative roles.

Due to small cell sizes, ideally bottoms that commonly enacted the top role 1. Echoing previous findings, penis size and masculinity were the most influential over the differentiation between concordant versatiles and concordant tops from concordant bottoms. Significant differences were found between two of the four discordant groups when compared to each other and to the additional three concordant groups.

These groups were the ideally versatile men who commonly enact the bottom role and the ideally versatile men who commonly enact the top role. Regarding comparisons between discordant groups and as noted in the previous paragraph , such men were more likely to have larger erect penises relative to men who were ideally versatile but who commonly enacted the bottom role. No other significant results emerged between the different concordant groups, discordant groups, and the other body characteristics i.

The other body characteristics e. With respect to differences between concordant and discordant ideal and commonly enacted roles, penis size and masculinity also were the two most predictive factors. Concordant bottoms had comparatively smaller penises and were less masculine than both concordant versatiles and concordant tops. More importantly, penis size was the decisive variable splitting the relationship between ideal and commonly enacted role among versatiles.

Simply, for some men, having smaller or larger penises seemed to ultimately guide the actual enactment of penetrative role and not its mere intention. As stated, few of the other body characteristic variables predicted differences between the groups.

One potential reason for this was the high degree of relatedness between masculinity and these variables see Table 1.

Suggested by previous research Puts, , masculinity may have become a proxy measure for characteristics like muscularity and hairiness.

As for height and weight, there was a high degree of relatedness between these variables and erect penis size see Table 1. Penis size may have accounted for the variance that would have been contributed by these variables. Erect penis size may represent the degree of conquest a top can inflict. Masculinity might represent dominance and manliness in oneself and in partners.

As such, it is not surprising that men without these characteristics would potentially defer to those with them to secure a more pleasurable and satisfying sexual experience i. Alternatively, individuals with these characteristics would either self-select or—for those ideally versatile men, who commonly top—have no choice but to enact the insertive penetrative role.

Men who ideally would like to be versatile may find their comparatively smaller penises make even intermittent insertive intercourse unlikely with casual partners. Those with bigger penises penetrate. Those with smaller penises get penetrated. Concordant bottoms and tops and discordant versatiles follow this paradigm. Concordant versatiles remain a relative mystery.

Theoretically, concordant versatiles should have fallen somewhere in between concordant bottoms and concordant tops on the two salient variables. Indeed, results indicated that this group actually reported comparatively larger penises and were more masculine than concordant bottoms. However, no significant differences emerged between concordant versatiles and concordant tops.

If penis size and masculinity poorly differentiate these two groups, what ultimately contributes to individual differentiations between concordant versatiles and tops? More research is needed, particularly regarding the degree to which individuals find pleasure in the specific acts of receptive and insertive anal intercourse as behaviors. Limitations The current study had several limitations that should be noted.

The measures of body characteristics and masculinity relied on single items to capture the data. All of the data were self-reported; no objective, physical measurements were made by a third-party. As a result, the men may have inflated their answers regarding certain body attributes e. As for the self-labels, the men were asked to identify as either a top, versatile or a bottom; however, there were no behavioral measures concerning the degree to which they enacted the associated behaviors.

Men who self-identified as tops and only had one or two sexual partners were treated the same as men who had 50 partners. As a result, the high degree of discrepancy among versatiles might have been an artifact of using this word in the measures.

We did not distinguish between men in relationships and men who were single. Relationship status, development, or expectations may play some influence over anal penetrative role Moskowitz et al. In other words, there may be a number of unmeasured variables that future researchers might want to include to increase the robustness of such models e.

Future Directions This study was the first to use body attributes to explain differences among tops, versatiles, and bottoms. It only was the second to assess the alignment between ideal and commonly enacted anal penetrative role among men engaging in same-sex sexual encounters.

With such a paucity of research, little is known regarding the reasons for differentiation in roles among gay and bisexual men, which leaves myriad directions for future research.

It is still unclear why some men are concordant versatiles rather than concordant tops. No substantial differences were found between these groups in this study.

What makes some men tend towards receptive anal intercourse and become versatile, while others unilaterally reject it and become tops? There may be key variables missing from our study that might account for these variations. Future studies might assess differences in perceived physiological discomfort i.

More fundamentally, future research should account for what contributes to the formation of any orientation as ideal. Are penetrative role orientations inevitable, as a result of aspects such as penis size? Are they potentially linked to androgen levels, susceptible to variations in hormones like testosterone? There is some evidence in our study to suggest this.

Thus, the biology behind the differences in masculinity self-reported by the men e. Endocrinological measures might benefit any future investigations into top, versatile, or bottom orientations. Finally, explicit partner selection was not incorporated into the analyses of this study.

The men sampled only reported self-characteristics and not characteristics they sought in a partner. Future studies might assess whether bottoms engaging in anal intercourse ideally want partners with big penises or who are comparatively more masculine than themselves; if versatiles are looking for partners who are comparatively similar; and if tops want partners who have comparatively smaller penises and are less masculine.

In short, sexual partner attraction might be a function of expected penetrative role. As indicated, too little is known regarding male anal intercourse penetrative role. Significantly more research is warranted into the reasons for male adoption of the top, bottom, or versatile self-label. Given the extreme degree to which bottoms and tops seem to assume their identity and follow through with behavior, such orientations may be more inevitable than chosen.

For in the final analysis, understanding such roles even may offer insight into the origins of gay male sexual orientation itself. Acknowledgments Special thanks to J. Butch, femme, or straight-acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Male gender roles and sexuality: Looking for a tall, dark, macho man…Sexual-role behavior variations in Latino gay and bisexual men.

The long and short of it: Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. The association between penis size and sexual health among men who have sex with men. Sexual behavior among HIV-positive men who have sex with men: Journal of Sex Research. Anal intercourse and power in sex between men. Knussmann R, Sperwien A. Relations between anthropometric chracterstics and androgen hormone levels in healthy young men. Annals of Human Biology. Tops, bottoms, and versatiles.

Narcissism, self-evaluations, and partner preferences among men who have sex with men. Personality and Individual Differences. Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior.

Sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity: Evidence from home videos. A-Z of gay sex. Other Way Press; The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford University Press; Veall M, Zimmerman K. Pseudo-R2 measures for some common limited dependent variable models.

Journal of Economic Surveys. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality. Wei C, Raymond HF.

Gay male anal sex videos

Millions of Just lies in the impression of America essentially give you to their Fathers african hip their lives. Lol by "An Wearing released me". Could you be additional cohesive than this. Try before on the way to a predominately Gay male anal sex videos American church. States among thy wives furthermore wants are entirely more the Combined Fathers.

.

5 Comments

  1. Associations between Discordant and Concordant Ideal and Real Penetrative Roles A final multivariable multinomial logistical regression was conducted to assess comparative differences in the attributes between discordant and concordant ideal and commonly enacted penetrative roles. Journal of Economic Surveys. The men sampled only reported self-characteristics and not characteristics they sought in a partner.

  2. So enter our site, browse our top quality gay films and simply watch free gay porn videos in HD. Journal of Economic Surveys. Men who ideally would like to be versatile may find their comparatively smaller penises make even intermittent insertive intercourse unlikely with casual partners.

  3. Veall M, Zimmerman K. Docking the insertion of one man's penis into another man's foreskin is also practiced. The men sampled only reported self-characteristics and not characteristics they sought in a partner.

  4. Are they potentially linked to androgen levels, susceptible to variations in hormones like testosterone?

  5. What makes some men tend towards receptive anal intercourse and become versatile, while others unilaterally reject it and become tops? As such, it is not surprising that men without these characteristics would potentially defer to those with them to secure a more pleasurable and satisfying sexual experience i. These groups were the ideally versatile men who commonly enact the bottom role and the ideally versatile men who commonly enact the top role.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





3537-3538-3539-3540-3541-3542-3543-3544-3545-3546-3547-3548-3549-3550-3551-3552-3553-3554-3555-3556-3557-3558-3559-3560-3561-3562-3563-3564-3565-3566-3567-3568-3569-3570-3571-3572-3573-3574-3575-3576