Face it: a lot of guys go by the super homophobic rule of âas long as the balls donât touch,â so youâre much better off finding two guys that are as comfortable with one anotherâs body as they are with their joint egos.
It started a long heated debate in the comments section, which we’ve abridged here for easier reading:
Johnny: Not wanting to rub my balls against another manâs balls makes me âsuper homophobicâ?
Rolando: Iâm thinking Max was attempting to condemn the homophobic presumption that a man being in any way intimate with or around other men is âtotally gayâ and to be avoided at all costs, even if it would net you a hot sexual encounter. He was condemning that belief and the âhetero dudesâ that share it, not every hetero dude…
Elizabeth: …Just because a man is honestly not interested in a sexual encounter with another man does not make him narrow minded. It just means he knows what he wants. I mean, do you believe someone who chooses that they have no desire to participate in watersports or BDSM or anal sex is narrow minded? I personally believe that sexual preferences are okayâŚ there are certain acts that I will never try, because I know that even if it might feel good, itâs not something I am comfortable doing. I think that I am being true to myself, and the same goes for Johnny. If he knows he has no desire to be with another man in any way, not because it makes him âgayâ but because he has no desire for thatâŚ it just means he knows what he wants and respects his own boundaries.
Daniel: âAs long as the balls donât touchâ is homophobic and I will explain why: to revile the idea of ones balls touching another guyâs (especially in a sexual context) is not disliking the act benignly (âtasteâ, âpreferenceâ or otherwise), it is disliking it because it creates the possibility and most importantly the PERCEPTION the guy might like it, or might have secretly wanted it. It cannot be the act in and of itself that is objectionable, because physical touching is just that, just touching. Ball touching, lips touching, etc. are meaningless physical occurrences. But we give those physical acts meanings, connotations, suggestions. And when one determines an act like balls touching is unacceptable, you have to ask yourself âwhat is the meaning of the act that I find unacceptable?â And in this case, that answer has to do with a pervasive homophobia that stigmatizes physical touching between men. It is NOT about knowing what you want. Because if you were so secure about knowing what you want, how could your balls touching another guysâ balls derail that? It doesnât. And the objection otherwise is homophobic.
Elizabeth: …It is possible to not enjoy sexual acts because of the people involved, without it being because of the meaning. Just because a man does not want to sexually interact with another man does not mean he is homophobic. It MIGHT mean that he isâŚ or it could mean that he realizes he does not want to sexually interact with a person he is not remotely attracted to. Itâs like saying that if a man does not want his balls touched by a girl who he is not attracted to, he must be homosexual, or else there is something wrong with him. Obviously-that is not true in every situation. Why would the reverse gender maxim be true?…
Rolando: The only problem with [Elizabeth's] reasoning is that, even if the two men were to never touch, theyâd still be joined in a sexual act together. Theyâd be having sex with the same woman. The âballs touchingâ âissueâ isnât about who is or isnât involved, itâs about perception. Specifically the perception of being non-heterosexual.
Elizabeth: …I am sure that for some men, it is about the perception as being seen as homosexual. But I am also sure that for some men, it is honestly about a lack of desire to sexually touch another man. Really, my issue with these comments is the fact that people on here continually make sweeping generalizations about all hetero- men who have no desire to have their dirty bits fondled by another man (or his dirty bits). Generalizations and stereotypes are not ALWAYS true. Often, they arenât even true most of the time, and itâs not fair to make those kinds of statements.
Johnny: …Letâs get something damn straight: the more boners there are in a particular sexual interaction, the closer that interaction is to being gay on the straight-to-gay spectrum. Not comfortable with that? Will you at least settle for âhomoerotic?â Anything wrong with that? Of course not! Iâve done it myself. I look back on that instance and say, âdamnâŚ that was kinda gay.â I donât care. That doesnât bother me. But letâs call a spade a spade. Whatâs with all the âthereâs nothing gay about two men with boners rubbing their balls togetherâ bullshit? Sounds like some of you arenât as comfortable with homosexuality as youâd like to think.
Daniel: …I am saying that when a man is in a sexual context with another man, to attempt to create this kind of âscrotal prohibitionâ speaks to a deep homophobia where even an accidental graze could create a psychological panic. The prohibition says this: âAT ALL COSTS, I DO NOT WANT TO BE THOUGHT OF AS HAVING ANY SEXUAL DESIRES FOR ANOTHER MAN.â The fact that there is such a âno balls touching ruleâ to even discuss speaks to its male homophobia and crisis of masculinity. If we make the inverse case with MFF thresomes … has anyone ever heard of the âno titsâ touching rule between women? Of course not. Why? Because touching tits doesnât create such an upheaval to the *individual* or social meanings of heterosexuality and femininity.
So what do YOU think?
Can’t see the poll? Click here to take it.