When you said it, what reaction did you want from them? Literally the words "that's kinda gay" don't mean much if you're not telling us the intent behind them. That's where the homophobia is measured.
Actually some people are comfortable enough in their sexuality, and close enough to their male friends that tickling them doesn't mean they are gay. I always think it's funny when people call actions gay, they are generally not. The only thing that actually makes you gay is being attracted to members of the same sex, and not members of the opposite sex.
It wasn't thought, just said. I just say the first thing that pops into my head. I guess that makes it just an observation.
Would it be more or less appropriate if they had been tickling each other in the gym itself? Is it that they were tickling each other or was it that they were tickling in a place where it's acceptable to get nude?
I'd say a 2/10 tops, much closer to a 1/10... the scale is exponential, like the Richter Scale, just because a 10/10 is chaining a gay person to the back of a truck and dragging them miles on gravel until he dies.
Good question. I'd say less appropriate in the locker room. Naked dudes changes the dynamic of any place.
If there's a scale, you need a top of the scale and a bottom of the scale. That's a thing that actually happened, so yeah it kind of breaks the grading curve, but it's a 10/10.
Then I'd say a 1.2; you had a little internalized toxic masculinity that assumed any interpersonal touching between dudes was more than Zero Percent Gay, and you then said that out loud. A 0 on the scale is having neither the assumption nor the statement; a 1 would have been the assumption but not saying anything. As apparently the primary arbiter of gay shit in this thread, I deem you mostly not homophobic, but kind of a bit homophobic... but seriously, whatever.
Nah, that's like a 4. Again, exponential, so a 2 is 10x worse than a 1, a 3 is 10x worse than a 2, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale
