Last week, our Wise Guy Max wrote the following line about female-male-male threeways:
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.
uummm, walter, I am not homophobic, I am just not gay, and I feel the need to make sure that nobody, even people on the internet will ever question that=homophobic. You don’t just have to be scared of gays, you just have to be scared of being considered gay. which clearly you are. also, really? any same sex contact ever makes you gay? You do know how many people “play doctor” or what have you as kids, maybe with people of the same gender, maybe the other, right?
call me old fashioned but i am of the opinion that there are no “bi-sexuals” if you are male and have sex only with women, you are heterosexual, and if you are male and have sex with men, or men and women, you are gay. dont get me wrong. i have no problem with people expressing their sexual selves in any way that they are comfortable with. gay or straight is fine with me. but as a straight man,, i can tell you that at no time in my past present or future will i be in a situation where i will be touching, or be touched by another man’s genitals. i am not homophobic, i am just not gay.
William, we’re saying that having a rule that balls should not touch in an MMF three-way is intrinsically homophobic, not the act itself.
I would consider myself to be straigt and I had a MMF threesome a few years ago. It was the greatest sexual experience of my life! There was no direct bi-sexual contact but the other guy and I did dp the female and my penis was in her vagina while his penis was in her ass. We was on top, she was in the middle and I was on the bottom. I couldn’t really move but the other male could. I have to say that feeling his penis moving in and out through the layer of skin between the female’s ass and vagina was mind blowing.
Not sure what that does to the balls touching = homophobic thoughts. For me, I don’t really care what it makes me, I would love to feel it again!
I agree with everything Wendell said, the rule itself comes from a homophobic perception. Sex is supposed to be fun and when it becomes all about who’s balls might touch who’s it looses the basic point of sex. Mabey if your uncomfortable with casual contact during a three-way you shouldn’t have one or should not pleasure the women together, thats my opinion.
As the say goes, what ever floats your boat…
My god… while this extended discourse is good, I think it has lost focus.
The no-ball-touching rule comes from a homophobic *perception*. End of story. Basically what Dave W posted above and what Daniel’s been trying to convey all along.
I agree wholeheartedly with Daniel in the post as well as Tony’s comment above, and–guess what?–they have absolutely no contradictory elements to either of them whatsoever.
I think people plain missed the point and got way too complicated in their thinking–trust me, I’m good at getting way too complicated in my thinking! 🙂
So girls, I think this means that the best FMM threesome you could possibly have will be with two truly bisexual men, who won’t be all fussy and stupidly “am I gay?” about what needs to be a pretty uninhibited encounter to work in the first place.
Ha ha, so that’s why I objected so strenuously to that college prank!!
Dave W, if you dont like some guys balls in your mouth, it doesn’t make you a devil, you just have an issue.
I’ve distilled this debate down to the following. If a guy doesn’t want to have an FMM three-way because he identifies as straight, and is only interested in male-female sex, I understand. On the flip side, when people agree to have an FMM three-way, and stipulate that the guys will please the girl, and the girl will please the guys, but no guy-on-guy action, there is still going to be some “incidental” contact. Ya know, touching when they get into a certain position, or if she wants to have both of them in her mouth at the same time, etc. This contact is meaningless, and if someone has a problem with it, it’s because of an underlying issue, i.e. homophobia. It doesn’t make you the devil; you just have an issue.
Well stated, Molly.
In the fine but long-ago days when people dressed up for sex, the Marquis de Sade invited Voltaire to one of his orgies. Voltaire accepted and clearly had an enjoyable time. Accordingly, the Marquis invited him again only to have his invitation declined. M le Marquise asked why. “Once is curiosity; twice is perversion.”
True story. Make of it what you will.
I think the word “gay” is problematic here, because we’re applying it to both acts and people. I think the word is best left to describe people and not things and acts, because then we get into “that’s so gay” territory and it sounds like we’re using the word as an insult. Is the act of a man touching another man’s balls “gay”? Gay men usually touch each other’s balls, sure, but a man can get a testicular exam or inadvertently bump into another guy’s balls without removing 100% of his heterosexual desires. Even if two guys and a girl have sex together and the guys make out and touch each other’s cocks and all that good stuff, that doesn’t make them gay. They’re also having sex with a woman, and gay guys don’t do that. The FMM threesome, assuming that the guys touch each other sexually and don’t just focus 100% of their attentions on the lady, is a BISEXUAL act. But even if a guy tries a bisexual act, that doesn’t even make him bisexual. Maybe he tries it and realizes it’s not for him, or maybe he’s only attracted to 2 males in the whole world and aside from that he’s only into women. A person can participate in an act that gay men typically enjoy, like ball touching, but the only thing that determines whether that person is gay is what they’re fantasizing about late at night.
Having enjoyed both FMM and FFM with my spouse, We found nothing about it as gay. we both enjoyed the experience a lot and still can openly talk about it to this day. I think it is all about how you look at the situation. if yo go into it knowing that there will be contact and not worry about it. That just adds to the fun and pleasure. People get so hung up about the different aspects about sex, instead of just enjoying it for all that it is, Fun. We still enjoy sex and have been together for 25 years and look forward to many more years of enjoying sex.
Just have fun and enjoy yourself, but be careful.