>>3983076
Anon, did I destroy this thread or subvert it? No? Oh wait, I was defending my affection from guys like >>3983038 who insist that my love for boys is purely sexual.
>It's absolutely transparent that the number one reason why anybody would be so vocal about something as incredibly obvious as NOT ALL BOYS ARE GAY is because they feel that being called gay would be an insult, and repeating their mantra makes them feel safer.
Because in my case, and in the cases of boys who have intimate friendships - imposed sexuality ruins that friendship. It puts a barrier or wall between that love because now those boys must prove their heterosexuality or masculinity when they didn't need to prior to homosexuality being a question. This is why being shamed as "in the closet" by BOTH anons in this thread and homophobic Conservatives ruins boy-boy relationships. And you're only contributing to that decline of friendship.