My review was too long. Here it is.

Many reviews of Tea and Sympathy remark on the dated nature of certain
story elements, perhaps reading into the film more than is conveyed.
The character of Tom Lee is effeminate, but even as aware as the viewer
may be of the strict film code of the 1950s, he is not necessarily a
homosexual. Although issues of homosexuality had to be skirted in
classic films, due to the prevailing mores of the time, there is
nothing in the film to indicate that Tom's sexual preference is men. In
fact, there are several scenes that indicate he is in love with the
character of Laura (Deborah Kerr), platonic love or not as the case may
be. Viewers who infer that Tom is homosexual are making this assumption
based on his effeminate, sensitive mannerisms, as his peers at school
did. This brings us to the core theme of the film, which is not
homosexuality, but the nature of gender roles and social conformity and
our attitudes towards such.

It is apt that such an incisive study of conformity could be brought to
the screen in such a notoriously tight-laced era. Viewers who comment
on the allegedly "dated" material are overlooking the timeliness, and
urgency, of learned masculine and feminine behaviors in our society.
Growing up as a young male, I can remember being ridiculed and singled
out for effeminate behavior long before I knew about my sexual
orientation -- or even what sex was. The perception people have, to
this day, is that if a male behaves in a sensitive, or feminine manner,
he must be gay, even if he is too young to have any knowledge about his
sexual preferences. I would not doubt that Tom's schoolmates in Tea and
Sympathy were afraid of him because they feared him a homosexual. On
this level, the film has subtle commentary on homophobia -- and handles
it beautifully, the constraints of the time notwithstanding.

The way the film contrasts Tom's aloof, sensitive, introspective nature
against the rowdy, rough-and-tumble guys of the school, who are
seemingly out to prove how masculine they can be, is instructive. The
overt masculinity is demonstrated as an affectation taken on by men who
are insecure with their own emotions. Bill Reynolds, Laura's husband,
turns away from her in emotional moments. He believes he must turn away
from emotions to be masculine. This creates an emotional barrier
between the two characters, and they are unable to work towards
understanding each other. Although the character of Bill Reynolds was
written as a homosexual in the play, this is not stated in the film due
to the code. However, the character still works, because of the
examination of his essential need to appear "masculine," even if that
means abandoning his humanity towards the feelings of his wife and Tom.
Several times he tells his wife, "You are being too emotional," and
that represents his inability, or unwillingness, to communicate on a
human level. It's a great performance, and there are instances you feel
Bill will turn to his wife and finally confide his hidden emotions, but
he does not.

The most timely aspect of the film is the way it presents the nature of
gender roles. Masculine traits in characters, such as bragging about
sexual escapades with strangers, dislike of emotions, rejection of art
and classical music and poetry, are rewarded as signs of being a
"regular guy," whereas the opposite is presented as something to fear.
There is an essential injustice in the fact that the finer instincts of
human nature are considered off limits for healthy masculine behavior.
In short, men are not supposed to care about emotions, or anything
remotely introspective. It does not help that Tom is a loner, and likes
to be off by himself reading poertry and listening to beautiful music.
To his peers, he is branded a homosexual, a "sisterboy." However, being
inclined to artistic aspects of life, and the way one walks and talks,
have nothing to do with sexual preference. They are stereotyped
mannerisms, however, and associated with homosexuality, whether real or
imagined.

The issue of conformity to gender roles is as urgent as ever, even
within gay culture. Gay men who display perceived feminine interests,
behaviors, or mannerisms are often ridiculed by their more masculine
counterparts. Even within gay culture, to be male and feminine is
stigmatized. There is an illuminating scene in the film when Tom's
father finds out that his son was out all night with a woman. Although
the incident lead to his son being expelled from the school, there is
an attitude of approval on his father's part and a sense that "boys
will be boys" prevails in his tone. Again, we are shown that immoral
behavior is acceptable for males. It is a sign of "masculine"
development. However, such honorable activities as sewing and reading
poetry are shown to be objectionable.

The story mostly concerns the love that exists between Laura and Tom,
who enjoy a platonic companionship and need for each others' affection.
Laura, who is being neglected on an emotional level by her husband, and
Tom, who is scorned by his peers and father for his effeminate manner,
both seek solace and love in the other. Laura stands up for Tom, to his
father and to her husband, at the cost of her own marriage. Laura
wishes to pursue Tom on a romantic level, and this seems to be mirrored
by Tom who by all appearances is smitten with her, however a sexual
relationship is resisted. This is a relationship that exists in the
realm of pure love -- the kind that Golden Age Hollywood films
demonstrated so beautifully. It is the kind of representation of love
that keeps me returning to classic films. In our "enlightened" era,
love seems to be something much cheaper. Here it is about two people
who actually care about each other.

Tea and Sympathy is a film so far ahead of its time that it still
inspires misunderstanding. It is a great film that manages to convey
many ideas in spite of being confined to a subtle, perhaps censored,
approach. The film is, however, not about a young homosexual male, but
a young man who is perceived to be homosexual in the 1950s, because of
perceived feminine mannerisms and interests. The film is a commentary
on many things, but most importantly, the unjust nature of dated gender
expectations. Those expectations are dated -- not the film which
explores them.