So if a woman's most intimate emotional relationships are with women and she is also capable of being sexual with them, why would she continue to call herself heterosexual? What could she possibly get(or give) to men that she can't get(or give) to her female "friends"?
Would a man call himself heterosexual if his most intimate emotional realtionships were with men and he was also capable of being sexual with them? I doubt it.
Further I've noticed that women think nothing of expressing their disgust and adversion over the sexual and physical qualities of men without feeling that their heterosexuality should be questioned. The same cannot be said for men. In fact it seems like men consider valuing women -- at the very least their physical selves and most often their mental qualities as well -- an essential, vital aspect to male heterosexuality. Whereas women do not feel the same-- considering how often I see "X aspect of men's bodies is sooooo gross", "men are pigs and dogs" and "men are emotionaly stunted" bandied about among women who identify as heterosexual.
This leads me to believe that heterosexuality is expressed differently among women and men. For men heterosexuality is based on *valuing* women... from the very basic, her sexual self, to the more complex, her emotional self. And certainly valuing women above men. Women's bodies are "sculpted by god", men's bodies are "flawed and ugly"... Women are emotionally superior, possessing qualities of compassion, careing and refinement,whereas men are emotionally inferior beasts. In fact any expression in a man that he might value other men over women leads others to question his heterosexuality(and thus his masculinity).
For women heterosexuality is not based on valuing men above themselves. In fact it seems there is no real reason for women to want men at all, according to their own statements. They find men's bodies disgusting and their emotional beings stunted and warped. Yet they still get *something* from men... what is it?