I've been in great gay relationships both as a dominant top and as a submissive bottom... but now I've got an amazing boyfriend who may be the one. We have great sex, we switch roles, but I'm aware that in the past he enjoyed getting fucked rough by older guys and being physically dominated. With me, he can get really bossy and bitchy and in bed he's hesitant to get fucked. But he has told me more than once that the hottest sex he had before me involved a guy taking control in situations like that and fucking the hell out of him despite his protests.
I am very open minded and perceptive when it comes to sex and relationships. I have reluctantly accepted the idea that roles are fluid and that the bedroom and the public life can be separate. But knowing the psychology and psychology of so many gays I've come across in the Castro, Chelsea, WeHo, Berlin and London... I am afraid that there may be truth to the fact that ultimately a vast majority of gays are bottoms who long to be dominated.
Being an inherently a "nice guy" myself, I wonder whether my boyfriend can ever be happy with me. Should I invest in him?
My response after the jump...
Sounds to me like you're already pretty invested in this guy—he's your boyfriend, you're thinking he could be "the one" (or close enough to round up to one), and you've been with him long enough to 1. start allowing each other to see your bitchy sides (surely you've had your moments) and 2. identify potentially problematic sexual issues.
If this is your only issue—he hesitates when you wanna fuck him and you're wondering if that's your cue to take charge and fuck the hell out of him anyway, a la some of the hot, older, take-control tops in his past—then I definitely think you should continue to invest in him.
And here's what else you need to do: threaten him, sexy-style. The next time you're out having a drink—it's important that you do this when sex isn't imminent—playfully inform the boyfriend that you're not gonna take no for an answer anymore. When you want his ass, you're going to take it. Knowing what we know about him, O, it's safe to say that he'll think that's horny. Then the next time you want it and he doesn't want to give it up, try and take it. The point isn't to rape him—rape is wrong—but to playfully push back and, perhaps, through his initial and, perhaps, insincere resistance.
Here's how it goes down: You're naked or near enough, you're rolling around, you wanna fuck him, he says no. Growl or whatever a take-control top would do and then tell the boyfriend that you're gonna fuck him anyway. Then after you've playfully wrestled him down and humped away at him for a few minutes—that's at him, O, not in him—check in with him and see if he feels any differently by telling him, again, that you are gonna fuck him. But here's the thing: you're not really telling him you're gonna fuck him, O, you're asking him if you can fuck him. And you only get to fuck him if he offers you his ass/his consent in the same playful, horny spirit that you "demanded" his ass/consent.
Remember, O: you're not really not taking "no" for an answer—because there's no part of "no" that you don't understand—you're just making sure that this particular "no" really meant, "No, honey, not up for it tonight," and not, "Make me, daddy." If he did mean "no"—if he continues to say, nope, not up for it, not tonight, I had chili for lunch, etc.—you will, of course, stop and do something else. Because you know him well enough that you can tell his no-means-no "no" from his no-means-maybe-if-you-push-my-buttons "no."
Please note: this advice is specific to O, to O's circumstances, to O's boyfriend, and to O's boyfriend's sexual interests/history/needs/turns-ons, etc.