With the coming broader acceptance of gays, we will continue to see the divorce between the equation of gay with feminine. The prolonged attachment to the stereotype is a sociological and political holdover from the past. It obviously represents a change that some cannot see and others will not allow.
I disagree completely. Being feminine is a normal trait that happens all across the board - in both gay AND straight men - which gay men are simply free to express without being ostracized (or should be, if the gay community wasn't so femmefphobic). Same with masculine women. Human behavior varies greatly and while the mainstream acceptance of gay people may lead to us being more and more heterocentrist, it can't kill femininity simply because for many guys it's as inborn as being gay is.
The issue in equality is the equality and not some set of oaths that one takes to like or advocate for this or that persona, lifestyle, or whatever. Not wanting to be feminine is NOT homophobic. Not cherishing the feminine is NOT sexist or homophobic or even negative, and more importantly, it cannot be extended fairly by others to argue that a masculine person is inherently anti-feminine because he does not adopt feminine expressions in his own being.
True, but nobody has ever advocated that everyone should adopt feminine expressions in his own being. I am not touching the "cherishing", because that's also your creation and nobody else's. However, I do think that considering femininity to be "wrong" and bad for the image of the whole gay community IS homophobic. It goes into "men should act like men" territory, which is where religious hate groups dwell. You are free to be as masculine as you want, or to prefer masculine men. But I am free to call you out when you start telling us how it's normal and ok to be against femininity in gay culture. It's not. Femininity in gay culture is simply freedom from gender stereotypes. And freedom from heteronormativity IS something to be cherished. You don't have to adopt any feminine qualities - I know I rarely do - but you SHOULD "cherish" the fact that you are part of the select few who have the freedom to do so if they so wish.
If that logic is taken and applied to other possible expressions of gay men, then dislike of leather, asphyxiation, scat, trash talk, gossip, domesticity, gay parenting, menage a tois, gay churches, drag queens, fashion consciousness, etc., must be valued and admired by all gay men. That isn't true of the gay men on JUB, and it isn't true of gay men at large. We may well fight to the death to defend any man's right to be or participate in any of these behaviors, but that is vastly different from arguing that we ourselves want those aspects in our lives, or even that we want to have them in our circles.
Um, there you go again into hate group territory, with the "slippery slope" "what if" scenarios (IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE, PEDOPHILES AND PEOPLE WHO LOVE DOGS WILL BE NEXT!!!!!). First of all, those are subcultures like punks or emos or whatever. Not an "expression" of being gay, but sub
cultures of gay
culture. Being gay does not marry you to gay culture. You don't get a membership, you don't owe dues and you don't have to participate in it. There is a difference between the gay community and gay culture. And second - you keep talking about some phantom oppressor who is trying to get you to do something you don't want to do and adopt traits and behaviors that are not natural to you. No such person has posted in this topic.
I think of Lex's job with music as a parallel. He is professionally and passionately knowledgeable about rock music, among other genres. His life is centered on it. I've met Lex in person, respect him, and am happy for him, yet I abhor most rock music and would be miserable if I had to work with it or even listen to it daily. Does that make me a guy who hates something within myself that is a secret rocker? Does it mean that I dislike Lex because of his love of rock? Does this mean that I don't think rock music and its fans should not exist? No, no, and no.
No, because you can't compare being gay to personal tastes in music. Actually, you can't compare being gay to most ANYTHING, so you should stop trying. Being gay has big psychological dimensions both while growing up and in your day-to-day life. It is a prism through which you view the world, whether it is a big part of your life, or something you consider entirely minor about you. And it colors things in your existence that you aren't even aware it does. You can like and dislike anything you want. But there are ALWAYS reasons as to why you like or dislike something. You didn't throw a coin and chose whether to like or dislike something. A pathway of experiences and perceptions led you to liking or disliking it. It applies to tastes in music, it applies to preference in food, and it applies to your sexuality and how you perceive other people's. And it just so happens that your perceptions about homosexuality and gay people are based on - wait for it! - you being gay. I don't know why this is even something we are arguing about.
This Scarlet Letter application of homophobe onto anyone who doesn't extol every expression of every homosexual permutation is, contrary to its purported purpose, an actual attack on gay diversity, and an attempt to silence contrasting views by marginalizing common-but-politically-undesirable views within the gay populace.
I wish people would make a difference between internalized homophobia (a passive psychological factor) and being a homophobe (an active conscious behavior). Being a homophobe is an incredibly rare thing for a gay man. It implies CONSCIOUSLY hating YOURSELF as well as all other gay people. Other than some tragic religious nuts, I wouldn't say it's a problem in the gay community. INTERNALIZED homophobia is NOT regular homophobia. It just shares a name with it, but it is an entirely different issue that manifests differently. Being told that you suffer from internalized homophobia - something MOST gay men suffer from and ALL gay men HAVE suffered from in one point of their life or another - is NOT to be branded as a homophobe. Nothing short of "I hate gay people, they are deviants and don't deserve equal rights" can make you a homophobe.
Also, your constant use of your own words like "cherish", "extol" and such, implying that somebody is advocating glorification of Every Gay Stereotype Ever, is bothering me. It is not my thesis. Those are your words and you are responsible for them.
To the point about affectations, to be or feel feminine is just exactly that, without cliches or other hackneyed behaviors that are evinced to signal stereotypical homosexuality to the onlooker. That can be anything from dressing to speech tone to physical mannerisms. But, an affectation is the adoption of a trope, basically, and is quickly recognized by its notoriety, such as adopting the persona of a black diva and ending every sentence with "gurl!" or changing one's speech to intentionally lisp, or presenting one's hand to be kissed instead of a handshake. Being feminine in a mentality; presenting affectation is an intentional creation of a persona, just like any professional performer does.
Belonging to a group that shares manners and attitude is as old as humanity itself. To rail against that is to rail against human nature. Straights don't do it. Why should we? It's not like there is only ONE type of behavior available to gay people. There are gay sports bars, gay hunting groups, etc. Yes, the "gay" fields of fashion, interior design etc. are more dominant, but so what? Do you think all straight people are happy with the most dominant fields in heteronormative culture? No, but they don't go around demanding to not be called straight anymore because they hate the stereotypes that come with it.
I will not be one to sit down and be quiet to such attempts at political intimidation, redefinition from without, and accusations of being somehow less than equal as a gay man among gay men. My actions and politics support diversity, are openly gay, and not confusable with those who oppose gay equal rights.
This endless attempt to (supposedly) perfect every other gay man's views on every possible aspect of gay politics is a tiresome campaign that more accurately reflects a drive to homogeneity among gays instead of diversity.
And yet another problem that is in your head and as such - purely your responsibility. I have addressed the points that I have made and you've responded to, but I won't answer to your responses to points nobody made.
Gay is an identifier, like black or tall or blonde. Your gender is still male or female. Basically I'm not sure why you brought it up. 
