Ok this was a fun thread, and interesting, but now it is getting really sad watching three people i like arguing over it.
Here are my two cents. I identify as a gay male. I understand that, per the dictionary definition, that only means sexual attraction to men. But i think most people would say that sexuality isn't just who you want to fuck, but who you are emotionally attarcted to as well. So for me, I am emotionally attracted to other males as well as want to boink and be boinked by them. I have platonic love for women. I can appreciate there bodies the way I appriciate good art. A womens body is beautiful to me, and i love drawing them, but does it do anything for me sexually? No. Does the thought of kissing a women turn me on. No. Does it repel me? Of course not. There is just nothing sexually there. I do get turned on by the sound of people having sex. Not just two (or more) guys, but heterosex, and when I lived with a lesbian couple I was turned in hearing them go at it. Visually I LOVE seeing two guys, enjoy seeing a man and a women, and am disinterested in two women. Cani have very strong feelings of love for a woman. Of course. Is it romantic? Not in the least.
I think that some people do use these gray area terminologies to get the benefits of the more mainstream and socially accepted sexual identity. But for just as many it is an apt descriptor of who they are, no deceptiveness involved.
NoH8: I think you would agree that sexuality is a scale, where not every one is at a 10, a 5 or a 0. so for those people who are at say a 7 or a 3, wouldn't it be them being more true to themselves by expressing their sexualality in a way as described by, in this instance "heteroflexible"? I am sure there are people who are "homoflexible", people who identify as gay and lesbian but who enjoy the occasional physical relation with a member of the opposite sex (there is a thread currently about gay guys who like pussy, for example). Then there will be those "-flexibles" who may be the other way inclined, where they are predominately gay or straight but have no sexual interest in the opposite or same sex but can have a very romantic type bond with said sex. Their love a higher degree of platonic. Then there are those who are bi but are not an even 50/50 split, which are most of the bisexuals I have met. Who are we to tell them how they should describe themselves?
So I can totally see where Altered is coming from, even though it doesn't describe me. It describes her. It works for her. Before she was in a monagamous relationship, she had sex with men and some women, but though she could love the gals, it was a platonic buddy love, not the romantic love that she had for guys (and for one night stands we will say it was the potential platonic versus the potential romantic).
Altered: I get where you are coming from. i have a few friends who I would say are heteroflexible. However please keep in mind that there are those who are not as true as you are to yourself, and who do take adavantage of the social accetance found with being straight but will fuck around with members of the same sex. They see the gay or lesbian as a convienent release and manipulate the gay persons feelings to keep them from wandering, and thus leaving the "straight" person without a convienent fuck buddy. Then the poor gay person is left holding th emotionl bag. As NoH8 was. Since niether you nor I was there, we cannot draw conclusions as to if NoH8 was seeking out emotionally unavalible people or if he just had bad luck.
These people may even have feelings well above and beyond the platonic. They may very well be in love with the gay individual. They may be a 60/40 split bi person, but because they do not want the ramifications and loss of privilage that straights have, refuse to be true to themselves, They may even admit this. I should know. My Fb/FWB (who i formerly called My Guy) is this second type of person. By his own admittance. He doesn't see himself as gay or bi really. Everyone knows him as straight. He just doesn't know if he could live in a gay relationship. But he loves me. A dude. I do believe he loves me. I think he is a 60/40 or perhaps a 70/30 split. But it is also his choice to be deceptive as to who he is, to take the easy way out, then to give a realtionship with a man a real try. He has had 2 failed relationships with women in the past 10 years, and would rather have that, then be percieved as anything but straight to the populace at large. We are each others most effective FB's partly because of the romantic love there, but I have no illusions anymore that it will ever be anything more. I am keeping m eyes open for someone who can be that perfct match for me, and he knows it. That doesn't mean we can't have fun in the meantime. I am not mad at him, or begrugg him anything. it is what it is, though the realization of it hurt horridly at the time.
Dante: I get where you are coming from, with the do we need even more terms that can be pretty useless if people are not owning them. And I agree that if people should be honest about themselves always to everybody. So if asked you would describe yourself in your way, and Altered in hers, and NoH8 in his. Yours is a very descriptive way and leaves little room for misinterpretation. NoH8's is the same. Altered's has that same potential as more people come to understand what the phrase means. Of course the onus of getting them to understand falls squarely on the shoulders of Altered and other self identified hetero (and homo) flexibles. So if she says "I am heteroflexible" she should not say "or bisexual if that is easier to understand" but expalin what it means, like, "i am basically straight, but I can enjoy the right woman physically, form time to time." The only way that a new term is going to gain acceptance and understanding is if it is properly explained to people. And the only way that is going to happen is if the people who want to describe themselves thusly own the term unflinchingly ang unwaveringly in all circumstances.
Anyways that is my take.
opcorn:*
