>No, a twink romance is not gay aristotle. What you refer to as "gay" is simply a shadow on the wall, a construct but not knowledge. It is not a form, it is not a truth. It is something we observe in this world but a mere illusion.
>plato you are wrong. From observation a twink romance is indeed not a truth. I may even stop to use your own logic systems and argue that having a twink boyfriend is not the same as a tomboy girlfriend. You may see them as both illusions but on closer observation of observing their differences we can categorize the twink as still having male traits unlike that of the tomboy.
>"Stop, please do explain more aristotlle, why the tomboy is acceptable but the twink is different", said parmenides
>Yes, the tomboy exhibits the same physical appearance of the twink but on analysis of the posterior we see slight differences between these two, interpreted closer we can't categorize the twink and tomboy as the same if their posterior is different around the lower part of their bodies
>You are too physical and not metaphysical aristotle, a twink is feminine and masculine balanced out much like the tomboy is such, yes their posteriors are different but the bussy of a twink is comparable to that of the tomboy, therefore our logic balances out
>Metaphysically from my reality twink love is not gay and my reality is my truth therefore in my view it is not gay