Some thoughts on the endless hetero fascination with female "fluidity".

[Chovexani]

This latest spate of "hurrr lesbians r hawt!" articles/threads masquerading as legitimate discussions of sexual fluidity? Really, y'all, I'm going to have to call bullshit on them. This is what I like to call Cinemax Sociology at work, nothing more, nothing less.

As a real life, actual bisexual woman who has actively identified that way since age 16, I'm a lot less interested in the issue of fluidity (which, to me is a no brainer--but maybe because I'm a militant bisexual slut), and far more interested in what drives people's assumptions about sexual orientation and attraction.

I want to see a discussion on why, when women leave a male partner for a female one, this is considered proof of the fluidity of women's sexuality, but when a man leaves a female partner for a male one, he was clearly a raging homo all along and HOW DARE HE TRICK THAT POOR WOMAN, with male fluidity never entering the equation. Or female fixedness entering it.

I want to see a discussion on why "hurrrr lesbians r hawt", yet "lesbian" is used as a weapon to keep women who dare to speak their minds or enter traditionally male domains (sports, business, politics, etc) in line. Why is it "hurrrr lesbians r hawt" never applies to butch lesbians, poor lesbians, lesbians of color, conventionally unattractive lesbians? Why are the Portia de Rossi lesbians celebrated while the Rosie O'Donnell lesbians are vilified, and the Wanda Sykes lesbians are just plain invisible?

I want to see discussions on why male bisexuality is almost never talked about, except to declare with certainty that it doesn't exist, or when it's used to scare the shit out of straight women about HIV/AIDS and STIs. Male bis are non-existent, but still manage to spread the plague. Amazing, innit? Somebody give those boys a medal. Why are female bisexuals considered the Mega Millions jackpot for hetero men, but--outside of fanfiction writers, My Chemical Romance fangirls, and those of us who frequent a certain anime con in San Francisco--male bisexuals are not considered the same for hetero women?

I want to see a discussion on why these discussions are always framed as, "why are women leaving their men for women?" I want to know why, even in a discussion on women's sexuality, Teh Peen is front and center. Why is it that people in 2009 still have to ask lesbian couples what we "do" in bed, but when someone says "gay" everyone's mind immediately leaps to visions that suspiciously resemble a certain YouTube video? (I'm not linking it because it's already stuck in my head again just thinking about it. Samwell. You know the one.)

I want to see a discussion on why our entire popular culture seems to be predicated on Pleasing teh Peen, yet male sexuality and attraction is defined so much by What SHOULD NOT Please Teh Peen Under Any Circumstances. Why is it that expressions of male same gender attraction have to be policed quite literally to death?

Thing is, these discussions--the ones I want to see--will never happen outside our own little lavender corner of the world. Because to truly answer those questions means confronting the sexism, homophobia, and heterosexism that frames virtually every discussion on sexuality that happens in hetero media. And God knows we could never have that, could we?

[moez]

1. I agree with everything you said.....

blah blah... "hurrr lesbians r hawt!" blah blah...

[Chovexani]

21. Yeah, you might be in the wrong place.

I think this level of discussion might be more your speed: www.maxim.com

[moez]

32. Thanks for the tip!

....yeah, that'll do the trick...

[LostinVA]

33. Get a life and quit being offensive

[bluedawg12]

29. Ooh "that's" nasty. Now the picture falls into place. The wrong place.

[Berry Cool]

2. Sadly, it has always been "more OK" in our society for women to violate sexual convention

than it has been for men.

Especially if het men think it's a turn-on.

That applies to everything, from lesbianism to just plain women wearing pants vs. men wearing skirts.

[Chovexani]

19. I would say *only* if het men think it's a turn-on

Pretty blonde sorority girls have that permission in a way Traditional Women!* in sweats and hipster glasses don't. And that permission to cross dress is only extended as far as the boundaries of what is considered still feminine. It's okay to wear pants and maybe even ties, as long as you're still recognizably feminine by het men's standards. The minute you do this, or any gender transgressing behavior, in a way that does not advertise the fact that you're sexually available to men, out come the Patriarchy Gestapo to haul you off for re-education. That's the exact point that "hurrr lesbians r hawt!" turns into "eww, dyke."


*a running gag on No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency, the main character Precious uses this as a more positive term whenever someone calls her fat.

[readmoreoften]

41. I would qualify that as ONLY if het men aren't threatened or can enjoy it.

If het men are threatened, you're as black and blue as a gay man. Mind you, this is also an American perspective. Lesbians of color in South Africa are routinely raped/gang raped as punishment for "acting like men."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. men are important, their sexuality is important, women are not.

their betrayal of gender norms and expectations is far bigger a betrayal than that of women. masculinity is something women can aspire to, where femininity is something men have to lower themselves to do.

basically, the fall of women is less threatening than the fall of men

[Schema Thing]

5. I think that just about sums it up

although then again I think "it couldn't really be that simple and base, could it?"



but yeah, I suspect it could.

[bluedawg12]

9. Until the woman's ascention to "masculine" power is seen as real then it's threatening.

[Chovexani]

13. Sexism is the root of all evil

Of course, we know that already, sadly. :(

Everything's all about the peen in this world.

[populistdriven]

4. this thread pleases my epeen

Did you see this book review on msnbc

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30353377/

The book examines the myth of female virginity

[Zuiderelle]

6. Really well written!

:applause:

[Prophet 451]

7. "militant bisexual slut"

Bravo! As both a big fan of sexually open women and a bisexual (former) slut myself, I have to applaud that line.

I had to look up the names you mentioned (I'm a Brit, only Portia de Rossi is well known here from her time in Ally McBeal) but I would think that part of the double-standard here is because of our society's enforcement of stereotypes of beauty which are, mostly, male constructed. Sexual non-conformity is tolerated in females who appeal to the male standard (and, even more so, the tabloid standard) of beauty but less so in those who don't. For example, Portia de Rossi still gets a lot of coverage but Clea Duvall (who I personally think is hot as hell) doesn't. There's also the fact that most women either don't (or don't admit to) finding male bisexuals titilating.

Finally, is mass media. Now, mass media tends toward unambiguous so bisexuals generally are neglected ( TV Tropes: No Bisexuals page ). Every character is assumed to be either gay or straight with no ambiguity. The character of Willow on Buffy went from 100% hetero to 100% gay as soon as she fell for a woman (frustrating because Joss Whedon knows better than that). The only character I can think of who's been consistently played as bisexual (although never named as such) was Ivanova from Babylon 5. Sci-fi tends to be a little better about this due to a setting which lets them play with societal rules. Why yes, I am a sci-fi geek.

As for why same-gender attraction in males is policed so throughly, my guess (granted, it's a guess) is that it's an evolutionary trait which is now useless but hangs on by societal inertia.

Not sure how much of that made sense since I've just woken up and haven't taken my meds yet but there's a few thoughts.

[Chovexani]

14. Oh good lord do not get me started on Joss.

I will be here ranting for days. Hell, I've written screeds about this on LJ for years. I generally love him as a storyteller, but to say he's got a really troubling track record with that is an understatement, no one's ever allowed to be bisexual in the Buffyverse even if that's clearly what they are by any reasonable measure. He pulled the "experimenting" card in a particularly egregious fashion in the Buffy Season 8 comics, and I was so offended I stopped buying them.

You're right about sci-fi being generally more open to this sort of thing, though. There's Torchwood, of course (*waves Jack/Ianto flag*), a show where everyone's bi and dudes make out on a regular basis. Even Trek, with its somewhat questionable record on LGBT issues has had its moments, like that DS9 episode where Dax's wife from a previous host showed up.

(And, I see what you did there! Trying to get me sucked into that black hole called TV Tropes! I'm not falling for it this time! :D)

[Prophet 451]

36. Blast, you caught me!

I've lost more hours on TV Tropes than I can remember. One of those sites where I look up and realise dawn is breaking.

I haven't read the Buffy Season 8 comics (largely because they get little distribution here) but I gather that Buffy had or is having a same-gender relationship. It's doubly annoying because Joss has written bisexual characters properly in some of the books he's done for Marvel. Hell, I'm still pissed he killed off Tara (Geez, that season was heavy going) and still can't stand Kennedy as a character (it seems to be universal that if you loved Tara, you hate Kennedy and vice versa). I'm still ambiguous about Torchwood. That's not because of teh show itself but because I don't like the new Doctor Who (the new series has radically changed teh character of teh Doctor) that it spun off from.

I think sci-fi can get away with it mainly because the genre encourages playing with social conventions and also because it's regarded as somewhat of a ghetto in fiction so the self-appointed censors don't pay as much attention. JMS gets credit for having a bisexual main character (which was really gutsy at the time). Trek seems to just ignore the existance of gay and bi characters entirely (Dax being teh exception and there was an in-story reason for that) but printed SF does even better.

Oh, and in the mainstream, Johnny Depp (mmm, Johnny Depp...) has confirmed that he was playing Jack Sparrow as bisexual.

[bluedawg12]

8. "Between Ellen and Jill, he came, bearing his masculinity,like a gun."

That was the trailer to a 60's movie called The Fox, about two women who were "just deluded into thinking they were lovers," when they were really waiting for Keir Dullea and his "gun."

Of course the "butcher" of the two dies, when a tree falls on her ( as portrayed by Hollwood) dour, butchy self. :eyes: BTW this was adapted from a DH Lawrence Novella. Another worshipper of his own dingleberry.

Harr, Harr, Harr.

This sh*t is not promoted by real live gay women, it's usually str8 male fantasy. :eyes:



>>Jill Banford and Ellen March struggle to support themselves by raising chickens on an isolated farm in rural Canada. Dependent Jill tends to household chores and finances while the self-sufficient Ellen deals with heavier work, such as chopping wood, repairing fences, and stalking the fox that keeps raiding their coops, although she is hesitant about killing it. Jill seems content with their secluded existence, but the frustrated Ellen is less enchanted by the solitude.

In the dead of winter, merchant seaman Paul Grenfel arrives in search of his grandfather, the now-deceased former owner of the farm. With nowhere else to go while on leave, he persuades the women to allow him to stay with them in exchange for helping with the work. Tension among the three slowly escalates when his attentions to Ellen arouse Jill's resentment and jealousy.

Eventually Paul tracks and kills the fox. Just before his departure, he makes love to Ellen and asks her to leave with him, but she confesses she would feel guilty about abandoning Jill. After Paul returns to his ship, the women resume their regular routine. Paul returns unexpectedly while the two are chopping down a dying oak. He offers to complete the job and warns Jill to move away from the tree's potential path as it falls, but she refuses to listen and is killed when it crashes on her. Ellen sells the farm and she and Paul set off to start a new life together.

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times called the film "a quiet, powerful masterpiece" and added, "Do not go to see The Fox because of its subject matter, and do not stay away for that reason. The scenes which disturbed Chicago's reactionary censors are filmed with quiet taste and an intuitive knowledge of human nature. And they are only a small part of a wholly natural film. Indeed, it is the natural ease of the film that is so appealing . . . The delicately constructed atmosphere of cold and snow, of early sunsets and chill lingering in the corners, establishes the tone . . . Miss Dennis has a difficult role . . . could have become ridiculous, but manages it well. Dullea is also stronger than he has been in other recent performances

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_(1967_film)<<

[Lerkfish]

10. good post, if I could inject a little humor

on the series "Mad about you", Helen Hun'ts character asks Paul Rhyser why men like lesbian scenes so much.

"because she's there... and she's there....and I agree with both of them"

(sorry for the humor, but here's my serious response....)

I believe that males are brought up under a strict rule of public shaming for anything remotely effeminate (or at least were when I was young...I"m 50 now). For example, I'm hetero male but a graphic artist. I was therefore relentlessly ridiculed as being gay because I could draw. (probably this is why I empathize with gay issues so much). I know there is pressure on lesbians as well, but with men, its CONSTANT (or was) on ALL men regardless of orientation.

So, my theory on why bisexual men are not viewed as fluid but as rigidly gay but lying, is a sort of philosophical "virginity" -- that once you have a gay experience, you can never honestly return to a hetero experience. You've broken the "code" and must be publicly shamed.

at any rate, that's my theory.

but good post, and very thought provoking...

[bluedawg12]

12. A lot of women see "hot" man on man action the same way.

As Paul in "Mad about you" said..."and I agree with them both."

The pics I've seen from ads from magazines for male movies and adverts and such, these guys are anything but effeminate. They are buff, handsome, muscular young males.

There is a lot of internalized homophobia among str8 males, I agree with that.

I bet if the barriers were removed, like in ancient Greece, where same sex relationships were accepted, it would be more commonly expressed in our culture.

I found this to be very ironic and kind of humorous.

>>J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5. Links
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.<<

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluedawg12]

18. In what way is that nasty?

you lost me, dude. :)

[Chovexani]

20. PRO TIP

You may not want to say that in here.

That's sort of like declaring the superiority of veganism at a Texas BBQ.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

22. Bluedawg's a lesbian, and why is that nasty?

You might not like it, but it's not nasty. Are you sure you're in the right place?

[bluedawg12]

24. Hey! Str8 men appreciate hot "chick on chick" action. Apparently - a lot!

:rofl:

I admit, that the ads I have seen for gay men are very hot guys. They are young, very handsome and very muscular.

That does not make me str8 however, but, I can appreciate hot men together, as apparently str8 men can appreciate "hot chicks" together.

[Chovexani]

27. I really, REALLY want to link this guy to Gaying Up Sports

But I'm behaving myself today.

(For those that don't know, it's a Livejournal community dedicated solely to showing homoerotic photos of male athletes, usually baseball players.)

[bluedawg12]

30. This is where the truth comes out about "acceptance" of gays from some str8 males.

It's acceptable to objectify women and same sex fantasies of "hot chicks having sex" just fits into the scheme that the women are waiting for the "male" to arrive to complete the warm up act.

However, to turn the tables, and admit that there is something powerful in the imagery of gay men having erotic contact, with all of their (yes, idealized masculine, photogenic) aesthetic appeal, might bring it a little too close to home for some str8 men, and they react to being seen in the same objectified way.

If gay sex were truly acceptable to a person, on a live and let live basis, then, gay sex between males and females would be viewed the same consistent way.

Instead, we hear the har har dee har jokes about lesbian sex, while, describing male gay sex often ( not always) brings that eeew, response.

Not sure what is worse, objectifying gay women, or having a bias against gay men on that level?

I guess, in the final analysis, it objectifies both gay men and women.

Either way, I suspect, it's not really about sex as much as it is about power and it sure doesn't really seem like true acceptance, it's just another feed the privileged str8 peen notion.

It's dangerous too, because, unlike the fantasies some harbor about the wide acceptance of lesbians in our society, the truth is, most lesbians do not look like nubile 19 year old movie queens, and the one's that don't get scorn, hate and sometimes violence.

[LostinVA]

34. Sounding quite phobic there, sport

[Chovexani]

16. That's a good line.

I'll have to use it when I'm explaining slash to people. :D

Men do seem to be subject to a kind of "one drop rule" for sexuality in a way that women aren't. Once you've touched a peen that's not yours, you are--gasp--Gay for Life. If you've even THOUGHT about a peen that's not yours, you've pulled a Jimmy Carter ("sinning in my heart!"), and it's all over.

Hetero men seem to live in abject terror of that.

[DarkTirade]

23. ... so is there any particular place one goes to to touch peen that isn't yours?

:D

[bluedawg12]

25. !

:rofl:

I don't know for sure, but the ads I see on various gay blogs, sure look like there are some extremely handsome men out there who happen to be into men. I say--go for it!

[Chovexani]

26. I'm sworn to secrecy on that

Hag code, bro, you know that. ;)

[Lerkfish]

28. well, not all hetero men

for me, I was labeled at such a young age as a likely "homo", it had a bizarre effect. Because I knew they were simply wrong (I knew I wasn't gay), it made their whole public shaming ritual so stupid in my view that I simply was vaccinated, in a way, of worrying about that perception. Not sure how to explain that any better, but it made me to where I had no hangups (or at least not many) about gay people that I ran into later.

Of course, easy for me to say, I suppose. I knew they were factually wrong, so it did not hurt me so much. But I know if they were correct, and I knew that, it would have been very hurtful.

I would say that hetero men in gengeral are more afraid of being PERCEIVED as gay than actually being gay, if that makes any sense.

but hey, its all stupid what society does to try to make us feel bad about who we are.

[bluedawg12]

31. You hit on an important point. It is society's reaction to gays that is damaging

prejudice and hate are damaging to the human psyche.

It's the cultural reaction to being gay that is damaging, not being gay per se.

[bluedawg12]

11. This study looks at "fluidity" in gay youth, also another study show phobes are aroused

by gay male porn. I think there's a lot of self repression with males due to societal pressure.

>>J Sex Res. 2006 Feb;43(1):46-58.Links
Sexual identity development among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: consistency and change over time.Rosario M, Schrimshaw EW, Hunter J, Braun L.
Department of Psychology, The City University of New York, The City College and Graduate Center, NAC Building 7-120, Convent Avenue and 138th Street, New York, NY 10031, USA.

A longitudinal report of 156 gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths examined changes in sexual identity over time. Fifty-seven percent of the youths remained consistently self-identified as gay/lesbian, 18% transited from bisexual to gay/lesbian, and 15% consistently identified as bisexual over time. Although youths who consistently identified as gay/lesbian did not differ from other youths on time since experiencing sexual developmental milestones, they reported current sexual orientation and sexual behaviors that were more same-sex centered and they scored higher on aspects of the identity integration process (e.g., more certain, comfortable, and accepting of their same-sex sexuality, more involved in gay-related social activities, more possessing of positive attitudes toward homosexuality, and more comfortable with others knowing about their sexuality) than youths who transited to a gay/lesbian identity and youths who consistently identified as bisexual. Contrary to the hypothesis that females are more sexually fluid than males, female youths were less likely to change identities than male youths. The finding that youths who transited to a gay/lesbian identity differed from consistently gay/lesbian youths suggests that identity integration continues after the adoption of a gay/lesbian sexual identity.<<

[Jim Lane]

17. A straight male takes a stab at answering one of your questions

"Why are female bisexuals considered the Mega Millions jackpot for hetero men, but--outside of fanfiction writers, My Chemical Romance fangirls, and those of us who frequent a certain anime con in San Francisco--male bisexuals are not considered the same for hetero women?"

I've read that the single most common sexual fantasy for hetero men is the threesome with two women. (This doesn't happen to be tops on my list, but it's undeniably popular.) I'll hazard a guess that, among people who are completely hetero, the fantasy of a threesome with two members of the opposite sex is more common among men than among women.

This is part of the sexual allure that the bisexual female holds for straight men. It's a natural assumption that she'd be somewhat more open to the threesome than would a completely straight woman. I can tell you with confidence that, for many straight men, the woman says "I'm bisexual" but what they hear is "I'm open to a threesome." (I'm not saying this is a reasonable response. I'm just telling you it happens. Often.)

I'll hazard another guess: Among straight women, the fantasy of a threesome with two men is less common than its analog among straight men but is nevertheless more common than the culture feels comfortable with (and more than some of the women themselves feel comfortable with). It's the classic double standard, that a man who engages in multiple sexual encounters, including threesomes, is praised as a stud, while a woman who does so is condemned as a slut. I'll bet that the "jackpot" attitude toward bisexual men is more common than the culture admits.

[bluedawg12]

35. Maybe it comes down to difference in the way men and women perceive sex.

I have heard it said, that men tend to react with their uh...physiologic reaction, first and foremost and that determines whom they want to have sex with.

Where as for women, it tends to require more of a sense of comfort and security and that determines desire.

It may be that women want and need only one partner at a time ( male or female) and this is purely speculation on my part, but, I think sex is more tied to emotional closeness for women and underlying that is the drive for nesting and security.

I can't speak for men.

I do wonder how other women see it. :)

[BoneDaddy]

38. yes, but the women's point of view is seen, somehow, as superior

or the man's perspective "less than". Maybe they are just different. I know women who prefer multiple partners and men who want nothing more than a close relationship.

i think we need to get past alot of this labeling and just have a discussion.

[bluedawg12]

39. No one in this thread has said it was superior.

You put the label on it, I am having a discussion.

[BoneDaddy]

37. Or maybe people simply do not place these topics in such

position of importance as you do. I think the simple answer is this. Everyone has a heirarchy of values, of what they find important in life. This is a very important topic for you so you place it high on the list. With a recession, war, day to day stress, families, illness etc, most people do not place the same value on this topic as you do.

I am a bisexual male in orientation, living in a monogymous heterosexual relationship with my wife and truthfully, I have never given a thought to some of your points. It isn't cause I don't care, it just does not top the list of where I place my awareness on a day to day basis. Other, more important things like my children, work, teaching martial arts, writing, take precedence.

I mean think about all of the "causes" out there that people involve themselves in. Typically, people are involved in them because the "cause" has something personal to do with them. Gays and lesbians put forth gay rights issues, animal lovers stand behind PETA, People of color gravitate towards ethnocentric causes, victims of sexual abuse champion sexual abuse issues and so on and so on.

If it not a problem for people, it is typically not a problem. I guess the answser is human nature.

[Effortless Challenge]

40. Point taken

I think this problem is deeply ingrained in our social perception as a result of the influences of Puritan Colonial America and their venture for an "ideal" utopian society.

The "hurrr lesbians r hawt!" views stem mostly from the fundamentally biased view of women. Basically, because they find women attractive, they are more likely to accept their sexuality than their male homosexual peers. However, this isn't to say that their behavior is in any way condonable, but it is comparitively better than the treatment of gay men. Even if the obstacle of sexuality is passed, the majority of these lesbian bashing/loving/lusting heterosexual men have the need to shine the situation in a different light just to make it socially acceptable in their minds. The route of ""hurrr lesbians r hawt!" is basically their way of coping with a subject which they don't completely understand. And this fact is reflected generally in the example of selective acceptance mentioned before using Rosie O'Donnell, Portia de Rossi, and Wanda Sykes.

"I want to see a discussion on why, when women leave a male partner for a female one, this is considered proof of the fluidity of women's sexuality, but when a man leaves a female partner for a male one, he was clearly a raging homo all along and HOW DARE HE TRICK THAT POOR WOMAN, with male fluidity never entering the equation. Or female fixedness entering it."

If you wish to argue about male and female differences, a few key factors must and will come into play. The greatest of which is the general mechanics of sexual intercourse. Though this isn't exactly the most tasteful topic, it is the root of most confusion for the a great portion of the heterosexual population. They can see how Part A and Part B work together, but two A's and two B's have them baffled.

Building off that, the male anatomy allows more... intrusive methods of intercourse, making the idea all the more distateful for the straight media.

"I want to see a discussion on why our entire popular culture seems to be predicated on Pleasing teh Peen, yet male sexuality and attraction is defined so much by What SHOULD NOT Please Teh Peen Under Any Circumstances. Why is it that expressions of male same gender attraction have to be policed quite literally to death?"

For thousands of years, women were made to stand behind their men and basically provide domsetic services. The mechanics of this relationship directly reflect the primally biased view point of almost every culture. Men were allowed polygamy and concubines while women were considered adulterous when they laid with another man.

Homophobia, the social taboo, and other views on the LGBT community in current society are basically caused by confusion. Nobody, not even those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transexual, really understands how it works and a good portion of them don't really want to know.

---

Yeah. Cool, my morning feels fulfilled.

[XemaSab]

42. Women are property

A woman is like your toothbrush.

If another guy uses your toothbrush, that's just nasty and wrong, but your toothbrush can sit in the cup next to your wife's toothbrush and there's nothing wrong with that.

A woman is like your underwear.

If another guy wears your underwear, that's just nasty and wrong, but your underwear can go in the same laundry load as your brother's underwear and there's nothing wrong with that.

Lesbian relationships are not a threat to a man's assertion of ownership over a woman.

(If you demand a cultural example, in the third season of "Lost" Jack gives a speech to the assorted Losties in which he claims that the Others are after "our" women. Oh, really, Jack? Is that so?)