Face it: a lot of guys go by the super homophobic rule of “as long as the balls don’t touch,” so you’re much better off finding two guys that are as comfortable with one another’s 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 man’s balls makes me “super homophobic”?
Rolando: I’m thinking Max was attempting to condemn the homophobic presumption that a man being in any way intimate with or around other men is “totally gay” and to be avoided at all costs, even if it would net you a hot sexual encounter. He was condemning that belief and the “hetero dudes” 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 okay… there are certain acts that I will never try, because I know that even if it might feel good, it’s 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 “gay” but because he has no desire for that… it just means he knows what he wants and respects his own boundaries.
Daniel: “As long as the balls don’t touch” is homophobic and I will explain why: to revile the idea of ones balls touching another guy’s (especially in a sexual context) is not disliking the act benignly (”taste”, “preference” 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 “what is the meaning of the act that I find unacceptable?” 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 guys’ balls derail that? It doesn’t. 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 is… or it could mean that he realizes he does not want to sexually interact with a person he is not remotely attracted to. It’s 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, they’d still be joined in a sexual act together. They’d be having sex with the same woman. The ‘balls touching’ “issue” isn’t about who is or isn’t involved, it’s 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 aren’t even true most of the time, and it’s not fair to make those kinds of statements.
Johnny: …Let’s 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 “homoerotic?” Anything wrong with that? Of course not! I’ve done it myself. I look back on that instance and say, “damn… that was kinda gay.” I don’t care. That doesn’t bother me. But let’s call a spade a spade. What’s with all the “there’s nothing gay about two men with boners rubbing their balls together” bullshit? Sounds like some of you aren’t as comfortable with homosexuality as you’d 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 “scrotal prohibition” speaks to a deep homophobia where even an accidental graze could create a psychological panic. The prohibition says this: “AT ALL COSTS, I DO NOT WANT TO BE THOUGHT OF AS HAVING ANY SEXUAL DESIRES FOR ANOTHER MAN.” The fact that there is such a “no balls touching rule” 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 “no tits” touching rule between women? Of course not. Why? Because touching tits doesn’t 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.