Some damned well-thought-out comments to that previous post, and from some writers I truly admire.
As I wrap up my third exclusively m-m story (and, boy, let me tell you . . . it grinds my gears something fierce when authors cop out and throw a woman in at the end), I can't help but be aware of other characteristics of this niche genre. Based on what I've read thus far -- and I plan on reading much more -- there are distinct "tonal" differences between m-f and m-m romances.
When a hetero couple is on center stage, exploration and exposition of characters' emotions and blatant evocation of emotion in the reader seem more the rule than the exception. Character development is often internal and wedded to profound feeling. Authorial voice and prose style reflect this submersion. The drama of the heart rules.
However, when a gay male couple is the primary pairing, the author is more likely to distance her/himself from its emotional component, which is often, as a result, underplayed. In fact, strong emotion comes across as something shameful, an affliction to be avoided at all costs. Authorial voice is flip, wry, or even businesslike. World-building and plot/action take precedence over the soul-searching intricacies of bonding. Sex becomes either an eagerly anticipated theme-park destination (the impression I have of Manna Francis's stories) or an inconvenient detour (the impression I have of Ginn Hale's). I'm wild about both, by the way.
Maybe I'm exaggerating these distinctions between m-f and m-m fiction, but I have noticed them. And, depending on how skilled the author is, I honestly have no preference for one approach or sensibility over the other. I'm just wondering what other readers and writers think. I'm particularly curious if women who write m-m fiction find themselves "masculinizing" their styles when they fashion a romance between two men.