I don't think suggesting there's erotic tension in that moment, or those moments, misses his point (you mean the point in the comic, right, not the point in one of his interviews?) -- it morphs it into a slightly different point which is equally valid. (I would also not characterize slash as interpretation in a "purely" sexual light; it's not that I as a slash fan don't see the nonsexual interpretation, because of course I do! I just find the slashy version either way more convincing in a literary sense, or just more entertaining.)
I'm sure when Jenkins kept insisting that it wasn't homoerotic, it wasn't because he was homophobic; he probably did hear a lot more, "Eww, Chameleon's gay!" comments than "Whoa, interesting development!" or "Batman:Catwoman :: Spider-Man:Chameleon y/n?" Plus, comics writers as a group seem to have a serious problem either grasping or accepting the whole "death of the author" concept, so I'm sure there was a "but that's NOT what I wrote!" factor there. But at the same time ... he would have to be in deep, deep denial not to know how what he was writing could be interpreted, and it comes off as a bit insecure.
Not half as insecure as all the "Spider-Man is gay!" jokes in BND, mind you. Man, I never thought there'd be subtext in Spider-Man I wouldn't want to see.