They use code-words like "affectionate" to suggest that normal men are NOT affectionate, which is nonsense.
Through my Navy career, I spent probably 95% of my time with men, and not once did it occur to me that another man's bare hairy ass was attractive or sexual. But if a squadmate had a bad day in an airplane, where his life was in question, and he brought it back, you think I wouldn't hug him?
The gays and their protectors just dont want to acknowledge that THEY have the problem, not us. I just sat through that Penguin movie with a woman on Rush's recommendation, and enjoyed it. That does not mean that I am about to watch any movie where two pudding-packers try to teach me about Man-love. No thanks!
To use a Rush term, ditto.
I worked 17 years on the drilling rigs offshore. The only two things I had affection for was the helicopter that would take me back to town where the Norsk women were and one particularly fine Norwegian nurse (of the female variety) that worked on the rig with us. Yes, I have held a man that was busted up from an accident and in intense pain. Our masculinity was not in doubt on the drilling rigs.
IMO the biggest mistake we make is using their preferred term 'Gay', instead of the accurate term they hate to hear, 'Homo' or 'Homosexual'.
To do so allows their continued manipulation of the war of words (semantic revisionism)
I see absolutely NOTHING 'Gay' about a lifestyle that stats show leading in alcoholism, drug addiction, domestic violence, and a pronounced diminished life expectancy.