The mag and author are more than a little biased, imho.
However, the evidence is that the research was done reasonably objectively.
The hypothesis is that homosexuality has become such a non-issue in Britain that many sportsmen feel quite comfortable expressing their platonic affection for one another.
Many cultures have a whole range of platonic, heterosexual affection expressions that are kosher without those engaging in such being considered gay.
It is an error to assume that our culture is 100% normative and the last word on any and everything--particularly when culture plays such a huge role in what is considered 'normal' vs 'abnormal.'
And, family norms can override cultural norms to a significant degree, too. I know of a manager of a car service dept of a major brand where the manager/father was seen to kiss his ~35 year old son on the lips as he said goodbye from a shared lunch time. Both are conclusively and wholesale heterosexual.
As my housemate has written extensively about--LACK of fatherly PHYSICAL AFFECTION with a son will INCREASE the percentage of sons that that group of fathers produce who become homosexuals. Said more simply: Fathers who deprive their sons of abundant, lavish healthy physical affection--as a group--produce more sons who become homosexuals.
We are all human. We are ALL DESIGNED TO NEED a lot of healthy platonic affection for maximum immune system functioning; maximum CONNECTION with those we love; maximum emotional and mental health.
A LACK of healthy male physical affection correlates with a host of negative things. It doesn't matter what percentage of the men in said culture demonstrate such an aversion to healthy platonic physical affection. The negative correlates are still there and facts.
In terms of the article referenced in the OP, time will tell how much of a sea change the observed behaviors become and endure over time.
The research indicates that such blokes really are heterosexual in that they have no physical arousal with their male friends and exclusively engage in sex with women.
That may not fit your biases or your assumptions. However, it does appear to be the truth.
Satan and the oligarchy have succeeded in screwing up men, masculinity, affection, sexuality etc. etc. etc. wholesale in our era. It contributes to and correlates with wholesale destruction of the family as well as damaging the physical, mental, emotional, relational health of the men involved in our western cultures.
Even The Bible exhorts men to greet one another with a HOLY kiss. Don't recall a sermon on that verse! LOL. So, evidently, God has a different perspective on the topic than most of the comments on this thread.
OK. Go ahead. I'll take my lashes as quietly as I can.
BTW, even the gays are likely desperate for CONNECTION in an emotional sense--with another person, heart, mind etc. A screwed up sexuality is one desperate grasp to relieve that unmet need for CONNECTION.
Dr Brene Brown (search youtube) has a lot to say about connection, vulnerability, courage, etc. A half a dozen of her youtube videos ought to be must see's for every individual in western culture, imho--particularly men. She has a lot to say about courage, creativity, success and the destructive forces and habits that hinder them. She also has a great take-off on The Man in the Arena speech of--I think it was FDR. She also speaks from 250,000 actual, true data points from her extensive interviews on such topics with many thousands of individuals.
not merely avoidant and averse to platonic male affection, they are also likely afflicted with an AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT style wholesale--and in all their significant relationships. Emotional intimacy of any significant kind with males or females likely causes them to break out in a cold sweat and run silently screaming inside in terror over their panic over feeling a loss of CONTROL, independence, etc.
Tough tacos. That IS a dysfunctional kind of attachment from early in their childhood. It does not correlate with satisfying, enduringly fulfilling, overwhelmingly positive marriages, work relationships, relationships with children and co-workers. It correlates much more with the opposite.
And, such folks typically get married to someone with an insecure attachment style. That sort of person is very actively and overtly desperate for connection to the point of leaving the other person feeling that the insecurely attached partner is 'clingy,' 'smothering,' etc. etc. etc.
And the dance goes on. Ballance is possible. It's work to get there with either or both attachment styles, however.
Is your housemate also your husband, like that queer State Senator from Massachusetts?
This is the equivalent of push polling: designed to normalize deviancy.
C.S. Lewis covered this in The Four Loves: It has actually become necessary in our time to rebut the theory that every firm and serious friendship is really homosexual
...
Kisses, tears and embraces are not in themselves evidence of homosexuality. The implications would be, if nothing else, too comic. Hrothgar embracing Beowulf, Johnson embracing Boswell (a pretty flagrantly heterosexual couple) and all those hairy old toughs of centurions in Tacitus, clinging to one another and begging for last kisses when the legion was broken up… all pansies? If you can believe that you can believe anything
The difference, of course, is that the examples cited were from warrior societies, where one often saw one's closest associates hacked to bits before one's eyes. This tends to create strong bonding.
Hipster squishes wearing plaid onesies while sipping hot chocolate, and asking Mommy to stay up late so they can discuss Obamacare, not so much.
Incidentally, I've watched several of Brene Brown's YouTubes.
They're intriguing, in a pop-psych, Sunday-Newspaper-Supplement kind of way. But if you think they are higher learning you're...I'll let G.K. Chesterton's Flambeau describe it for me:
"Don't you know what psychology means?" asked Flambeau with friendly surprise. "Psychology means being off your chump."
You wrote Satan. I read Salon.