+1 Unless the OP intends to address "gay panic", the answers at the other question about platonic friends all apply. Your answer addresses the real issue behind the question. Not showing their friendship, but making sure everyone knows "they're not gay". Does it make any difference to the story if it is mutually platonic, unrequited, or friends with benefits? HOW does it change the story? Why is it important to let everyone know this detail, is it the normal assumption of the storyworld? Will both characters be explaining this to their parents who keep hoping for wedding bells?

"Well, what's wrong if it had been gay?" Nothing, but nevertheless it wasn't. People don't like it when false things are said about them. A gay man wouldn't be comfortable with a female friend being called his girlfriend either.

@wetcircuit I think it DOES make a difference to the story if there is erotic attraction or not; and it makes a difference in reader expectations, which an author has an explicit agenda and responsibility to manage. If the reader is given to expect these guys will end up lovers, they may be disappointed when it doesn't happen, and their dissatisfaction with the ending is as much of a problem for the author as a deus ex machina or illogical ending. Most writers here hope to sell a story, not write only for themselves. This question is about managing reader expectations, for a satisfying ending.

@Amadeus I don't think wetcircuit is saying it doesn't matter, but asking why OP thinks this might be an issue to begin with. As you've said, same sex Philia and same sex Eros are very distinct, and the average reader will not jump immediately from 'these guys are buddies' to 'these guys are boning.' The average reader doesn't mistake Kirk and Spock's Philia as Eros. But shippers are always going to ship, whether it has sound footing in canon or not. You can't stop it, nor should you want to.

@wetcircuit When a character's political decisions (up to and including starting a war) are affected by someone they sleep with, or are sexually attracted to, it's seen in one way. It is usually described as "being ruled by lust", "not thinking with one's brains". When political decisions are affected by someone the relationship with whom is rather one of philia, it's seen differently. That is not a matter of "gay panic", but of presenting correctly who the characters are, and the nature of their relationship with each other.

And if they kill a King because a ghost told them, it's called Hamlet, if witches it's called MacBeth… I don't see what this has to do with your question, or why you think everyone imagines your characters are gay. None of this is in your novel according to you. You've provided no examples where the reader is getting the wrong impression from what you wrote, or how your "philia" is being misinterpreted as lust. It's still a duplicate of the Platonic post, sorry. You keep saying what people perceive, but where are you getting this data? If YOU see gay everywhere, that is just you (and fanfic).

@sudowoodo They are different, but the way your post is worded makes it sound like the only reason a person would be uncomfortable with being mistaken for gay is internalized homophobia. If that was not your intention, fair enough, though you might want to be more clear about that.

Well, what's wrong if it had been gay? It’s so subtly homophobic, but significant nonetheless. Having a personal or religious conviction that a particular type of relationship is out of bounds doesn't necessarily constitute a phobia. A nun may bristle at comments about a relationship with a man constituting "more than friendship", but that doesn't make her heterophobic.

@RoyTinker: There is a difference between rejecting something out of hand and being offended by it. If your hypothetical nun gets offended at such a suggestion, when the person making it does not know that she's a nun, then she's being unreasonable in my book. There is no way of knowing a person's sexual orientation by looking, and trying to guess is a great way to run into stereotypes. It is entirely reasonable to expect a certain amount of tolerance and understanding from civilized adults.

Quick correction, it's slashers who want to see boys kiss, not shippers :)

@Kevin If your hypothetical nun gets offended at such a suggestion, when the person making it does not know that she's a nun, then she's being unreasonable in my book. I won't argue with that. But my point is that even if she's being unreasonable, she's not necessarily being heterophobic. That's quite a charge to level against someone based on a single reaction to a comment. And the charge would be even more tenuous if the person knew she was a nun to begin with.

@RoyTinker The definition of homophobia is "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people." I don't think examples of heterophobia contribute anything meaningful, since we as a society are not conditioned to be uncomfortable with heterosexuality the way we are with homosexuality, therefore there is no internalised dislike or prejudice that causes the discomfort.

@FrancineDeGroodTaylor I'm sure slashers want to see a lot more than just kissing! But I said that was the perception of shippers, not what they are :) And I'm sure some shippers are slashers, too.

@sudowoodo Discussions around homophobia have reached such an emotional, fevered pitch that I think dispassionate, common-sense thinking is needed. Outside examples and comparisons help to frame discussions in a way that allows and encourages that kind of thinking.

@RoyTinker Unfortunately common sense is not all that objective. Your common sense is different to mine, for example. These things don't exist in a vacuum, so specific context is needed to understand specific issues. But since it's getting off topic I'm happy to agree to disagree.