"Heteroflexible"?

[NoH8]

NoH8: i am sure Altered didn't mean to be so harsh on you, as I am sure you didn't mean to be harsh on her. i hope you read my post directly above yours. I hate speaking for others but it was my take on the whole thing, so if i am wrong please let me know.

Hi Nick, naturally I believe in the 0-7 Kinsey type scale of human sexuality. I don't know why you'd think that I wouldn't. I am concerned with deception, exploitation, cruelty, vanity and pride. I am totally pro-sex, but I feel Jon is coming from a source of truth when he talks about emotional honesty and openness and love between same sex people - Platonic or otherwise.

As for the term Heteroflexible, I don't much care for it, it's like another term for Str8. At least it introduces some ambiguity but I'm suspicious of bi-sexuals copping out by sheltering under the big Hetero umbrella.

 

[B_Nicodemous]

Fair enough. And I ge that, especially with the ones who do (ad i have met them as i have said) But for those who are like Altered and others, who don't mean deception, and who feel this better describes them, well, if they were to be completely hinest and descriptive (as i recomended two posts of mine back) then wuldn't that be OK? For altered at least it is not a no love thing (well not beyond one nighters. I was thinking of when she had some regular FB) so much as a nothing beyond the platonic.

Cuz if i had to include platonic love in my orientaion, then i would be forced to call my self somewhat bi, which I feel would be a gross misrepresntation of who i am.

Oh and I know you believe in the scale, my question was more rhetorical then anything else, and was mostly there for others. I never eally liked the 0-7 as i think there are far more shades, so without getting ridonkulous and going 0-100 I chose 0-10. I guess 0-7 works if you include decimals and such, but I was feeling lazy, lol!

Yes Altered was harsh in her assesment of you. No doubt about it. You and others had been equally harsh in your dismissal of her feelings and thoughts (at first at least). I saw it as she became the unwanted apologist for her position, and we all know how touchy those positions are when they are about our sexuality.

Persoanlly I dislike the whole Str8 moniker as I do feel it is stupid, uneeded, and deceptive. That one does take open advantage of all the benefits of a heteroworld, and form limited experience the ones i have dealt with who haveidentified as such are more prone to be the ones who cuz heartache to people with no sense of remorse.

Not so against heteroflexible or homoflexible, provided that those who identify as such our outspoken about it as any bi or gay person who is out of the closet, and takes the time to clarify what it means, to them at least, to be such.

That's why I said that Altered should have said "I a heteroflexible. If you don't know what that means let me explain; it means, for me, that I consider myself staight, and emotional I am, but sexually I am bi. My feelings for you won't go beyond a platonic sisterhood love. If you still want to play, we can, but i wanted you to know so that you don't get hurt if you arelooking for more." Ok i have expanded that from my original what she should have said, lol! But it feels more acurate this way. Then when tat persn meets another heteroflexible, who hopefully is honest (and if they want people to accept the term, then they will have to do the lions share of the work to educate) then that gay or bi person will know what they are getting into. And they can expalin it to others and within a geberation or less, BOOM! we all know wha it means.

Of course i don't particularlly get why one doesn't just say "I am mostly straight with some bi tendencies. Some as in sex. Don't expect more than that," but then that is just me. I can see where, if hetero and homoflexible became staples it would just be easier in the uncumbersome language dept, at least once everyone knows what it is.:smile:

One quick q for you: hwo about people who are bi but are living with one sex or another? If they are with a woman (because that is who they happen to fall for) are they expected to tell everyone they meet that they are bi? I can see the honesty thing if directly asked, but most people would most likely assume they are straight. Now to flip that: what if they happen to be with a guy (cause again that is who they happen to fall for) do they tell evey gay they meet they are bi? Is that what Counrtyguy63 is expected to do? Cuz if most people who know him now met him once he was with AlphaMale they might well assume he was gay, unless they questioned further. Would he be lying to them if he didn't clairify their (at this point) unasked and maybe even unformulated question? Would you say he is being deceptive?

No of course not. No more than if he was with a woman would he be beng deceptive. We can surmise that he would tell people if they asked flat out. If they didn't he wouldn't feel the need.

Likewise Altered (and others) feel they are in the same boat. Providing they are willing to state exactly what heteroflexible means when asked, then is it any different then the above senarios?

Now if they don't explain, well, then I can't do anything about that. If they are outright deceptive and whatnot. Bu that's not Altered.

Obviously i like both of you and hope that maybe you two can apologise for the hurt feelings on both sides, and move on. You two are awesome people and it kills me to think of two such people potentially being on the outs over something like this thread.:frown1:

 

[AlteredEgo]

Nicodemus, I'm sorry you're suffering, but I do not see that I owe any apology to NoH8. Anything he wrote about people who identify as heteroflexible automatically applies to me, because I am one of those people. It's not like he wrote, ". . . all of them, except for AlteredEgo. She's a peach. . ." I will not excuse his bad behavior just because he is your friend. That is not how I roll.

What did he say, using language that applied his opinions generally to all heteroflexibles?

. . .It's a sign of immaturity if you can't integrate your emotional life with your sex life. . .you've got some work to do before you can fully satisfy that other person in your life. (Even though you may have all the satisfaction you need for yourself!)

So provided you prominently display the label "Caveat Emptor" you can carry on regardless. . .I've met a few guys like you, and it hurts too much, so I have to keep my distance.

Then here, he goes on to talk specifically about me as an individual, in response to telling him that my mixed-gender marriage in monogamous.

We're still talking about someone who enjoys heterosexual privileges such a marriage while taking advantage of the affections of disposable same sex partners. I know, "All care, no responsibility", there are no innocent victims etc etc.

Your level of emotional maturity is not in question, you have demonstrated that quite clearly.

Unless he can explain how that is not offensive, fuck that guy.

I must have misunderstood, or at least given you the wrong impression. I thought this thread was about the idea of someone who preferred uncommitted casual sex with same gender partners but who would only consider an emotional relationship with an opposite gender partner.

I believe we are more or less on the same page here. We are talking about people who have committed, emotionally rich sexual relationships with the opposite gender, but have only noncommittal, casual sexual relationships, or non-sexual friendships with those of the same gender.

As the thread has evolved, it seems that you thought that the topic is about what you do, as an individual, and what I and others think about that as an option. Sorry I didn't mean to give the impression that I wish to discuss your behaviour. I don't know you so I have no opinion on that. It makes no difference to me if you are monogamous or not.

The problem is you use language that wraps up all people who identify this way into one blanket, and then you say some very offensive things. It would be akin to me talking about the way I believe people should conduct themselves while insisting that it is really problematic that all gay men mince and prance and hold out their pinkies. That would be an incredible display of ignorance on my part, and anyone who felt strongly about it would have a lot to say to me about it. If you are going to talk about the way heteroflexible people behave, and if what you describe does not describe me, expect me to tell you about it.

I did wish to say that people who can not be emotionally involved with people they have sex with are at risk of hurting others if there is not sufficient sharing or communication of their intentions in common. I do think that with more maturity one can form meaningful attachments with friends, sex partners and lovers.

I am glad that you have clarified; this is NOT what you said before. This here says, if people are not careful, people might get hurt. What you said before was people who do not integrate sex and emotion are not emotionally mature, should tell people, "Let the buyer beware," and if they do so, I give them my permission to continue refusing to equate sex with emotional attachment. What you are saying now is so reasonable I cannot imagine anyone disagreeing. What you said before was a slap in the face to anyone who does not equate sex with emotional bonding.

I still feel suspicious of heterosexuals and bi-sexuals who flirt with or have sex with same sex contacts without any interest in the person. It seems to me that such an attitude is like having one's cake and eating it too.

Your experiences would make anyone feel that way. I disagree with you, but you are at least as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

I resent that you criticised me for expressing the hurt that such people have caused me in the past. You have no right.

I have no right? Then it is equally true that you have no right to criticize me for expressing my outrage at your mountain of bigoted insults! Further, I did not criticize you for expressing the hurt people have caused you in the past; I criticized you for for projecting the actions of others and your feelings about those actions onto people who had nothing to do with what happened to you. There is a big, big difference. You didn't just share your bad experiences, you preached to the heteroflexibles reading the thread about how immature they are, how callus and cavalier about the feelings of others, how selfish and unable to satisfy the people in their lies they are. Shame on you for talking down to us that way. After all, I don't feel any emotional attachment to waitstaff at restaurants, but that doesn't mean I mistreat or abuse them.

Lastly, you seem to wonder why I keep using myself as an example. My experience is the only experience I am qualified to discuss in great detail.

 

[B_Nicodemous]

Altered, let me clairify that i was not asking for a you apologize equally thing here. I wasn't. You were a bit harsh in your wording of his projection of his experiences onto others. However it bieng harsh did not negate the truth of the statement. So I was thinking of an "I am sorry if I came off a bit harsh. That was not my intent. I stand by the sentiment of my statement though." Then you could have gone on to say that you felt belittled by him. I actually said that a few posts of mine back. The lion's share of the apology is his, for grouping ALL heteroflexibles under an assumption umbrella based on a few unfortunate, but very personal, experiences. I feel you have clarified your stance enough to have basically done what I suggested. Though it would have been kinder my way. :wink:

I know you have read my posts, so you know that I have no problems with the term heteroflexible, or the people in general. I have had some runins though with the exact kind of people NoH8 is describing, the ones who are not honest. The ones who don't tell you that there is no possible way for them to love you. The ones who on a forum like this will preach to the heavans that they are heteroflexible and how wonderful that description is and hpw perfect it is, and why can't people accept that, but then do nothing to claim it, or expalin the term in IRL, and enjoy that deniable plausibillty thing of "oh, I thought you knew..." or worse "well you didn't reallythink this was going anywhere did you?" and then go off to enjoy the mainstream hetero life while the gay or bi guy or gal is left reeling. In other words the ones who won't even acknowledge that they re heteroflexible.

As for NoH8 I hope he does apologize formally to you. Though if I say that I accept your clarifiction of your position an apology of sorts, then i would have to offer that option to him. He did clairfy it later, but since his stance was far more generalised, maybe an apology would be the best. i don't know.

And just becuase i like the two of you doesn't mean that that is the reason am maing the stance i am. I have argued vehemently with friends, taken sides, told friends off when thy were being stupid, or let them hash it out themselves.

Likewise I have done this exact thing i am doing here with complte strangers.

 

[HungThickProf]

Looking back over this thread and reading the responses, I have to say that I'm impressed and yet disappointed. But that's okay =) Nothing to get worked up over. I mean, most people don't see life the same way that I do, or Altered does. It always falls back to what's socially acceptable, and bisexuality/homosexuality aren't quite there yet where heteroflexible could even be considered acceptable. If someone is willing to say that they're "str8" without explanation (from time to time, I like to sleep with the same sex- no strings attached), then more than likely they're not going to explain heteroflexible, or even mention it to someone else. There's a reason why they haven't as of yet anyway.

It could be argued that "well, maybe they felt that straight and bi weren't the best description." Okay, not trying to be closed-minded, but who the fuck are we really trying to fool here? Nico said, a lot of bi people know don't fall into that 50/50 range. And it's the same for me, it's always more like 40/60 30/70, 20/80, and even 10/90. If these people can acknowledge bisexuality and come to terms with it, then why is it so hard?! Whether you claim to be bisexual or heteroflexible- you're still double-dipping. And if you tried to explain "heteroflexuality" to someone, they're going to take it all in and still see that you like to fuck both anyway, so who gives a shit?

In conclusion- if you plan on stating that you're heteroflexible and giving the explanation if you used that term to someone if they asked your sexual orientation, then by all means- go for it! If not, and you'd rather be viewed as straight, then please, continue to go with str8. Not to be a bitch, but the last thing we need is people making things more complicated than they have to be because they can't accept themselves with a sense of pride. "I don't date the same sex!" Well I don't like to date guys under 25, but we're still fucking who we don't date, so what the fuck does it matter?

P.S. None of this applies to AlteredEgo.

 

[badger2395]

I am genuinely curious about something and may have missed it. What real difference is there between "heteroflexible" (and "homoflexible" for that matter) and "bisexual"? By maintaining the heterosexual/homosexual duality it seems to leave out bisexuality.

 

[HungThickProf]

I am genuinely curious about something and may have missed it. What real difference is there between "heteroflexible" (and "homoflexible" for that matter) and "bisexual"? By maintaining the heterosexual/homosexual duality it seems to leave out bisexuality.

Exactly! I guess because it's argued that with bisexuality, it should be 50/50. You feel the same about both genders.

 

[badger2395]

Exactly! I guess because it's argued that with bisexuality, it should be 50/50. You feel the same about both genders.

But that's a misconception about bisexuality - it does not have to be 50/50. If that were true, bisexuals would be as rare as unicorns. Seems to me that at least some of this talk of "heteroflexible" is a way to engage in bi erasure. If I'm wrong, please explain it to me.

 

[B_Nicodemous]

I think, and this is just my opinion, that of you are a 50/50, 40/60, or 35/75 in either direction, then bisexual may very well be appropriate. Now this is assuming (for me at an rate) that the emotions go with it. If you are a 30/70, 20/80, or so (again in either dirsection), then maybe heteroflexible/homoflexible (which is a lot more inclusive than Str8 is cuz were the fuck is the gay equaivelent of that? lol Gai? :tongue Anything near the 90/10 slpit could be considered curious I guess.

I don't know, that's how it breaks down in my mind at least. Of course everyone should own up to and just plain own who they are and be uber hinest about it and let others the fuck alone in this regard, but now we are entering fantasy utopia land, which is so not were we live:tongue::wink:

 

[HungThickProf]

But that's a misconception about bisexuality - it does not have to be 50/50. If that were true, bisexuals would be as rare as unicorns. Seems to me that at least some of this talk of "heteroflexible" is a way to engage in bi erasure. If I'm wrong, please explain it to me.

Oh no! I'm with you, dude.

 

[spoon]

within the 'lgbtq community' there are always terms for how people see themselves. i do think heteroflexible is a term that works. one of the terms i like is 'pansexual'

pansexual: someone who is open to members of all sexual orientations or gender identities. loving a person for WHO they are and not what they are

 

[Gecko4lif]

pansexual: someone who is open to members of all sexual orientations or gender identities. loving a person for WHO they are and not what they are

My friend Zack is a pansexual.

 

[HungThickProf]

Pansexual is an awesome term! Even I guess it could be seen as bisexual, it's not about sex with pansexuals, just the basis of feelings towards someone. That's awesome!

 

[B_Nicodemous]

Oooo forgot about pansexuality! In my nico schema of things that would be the vast surrounding sexuality that all others float in or take a part of. Kinda like the astral plane in AD&D and D&D 3rd addition (yes I am a geek, so what of it :tongue

so there are those who are permanant residents of that all encompassing sexuality. Any variations are natural occurances as to what part(s) of the pansexuality super structure our personal reality happens to touch upon, or maybe what part of the pansexual bleeds into our individual sexual reality.:biggrin:

 

[NoH8]

I'm certainly in support of more visibility for bisexuals, and not less. I agree that it's a misconception that all bisexuals are 50/50 and I would hope that more people on the scale between 10/90 and 90/10 would be happy to claim bisexulaity with pride.

I also think the term bi-curious works, if it is used honestly. Pansexual is also a great term but in my experience these are possibly the unicorns of the sexual universe.

I'm not so keen on heteroflexible unless it is accompanied by a clear declaration. It seems like it's open to misrepresentation and could even be used tongue in cheek, when someone isn't ready to admit to bisexuality. However, if used honestly it's OK I guess.

I do have a question for those who would claim heteroflexible sexuality. Do you all mean the same thing? Does it inherently mean that the same sex contacts are unemotional and non-romantic in all cases? (even if frequent?) Or does it mean that the same sex contacts are rare or infrequent but still intense and emotional? (Would that imply a whole new term?)

A scenario: would jailhouse sex be heteroflexible? If so, under what circumstances?

Another scenario: Is a married man who frequently cruises for brief sexual encounters in public toilets/beats heteroflexible? If so, under what circumstances?

 

[NoH8]

NoH8: i am sure Altered didn't mean to be so harsh on you, as I am sure you didn't mean to be harsh on her. i hope you read my post directly above yours. I hate speaking for others but it was my take on the whole thing, so if i am wrong please let me know.

Hi Nick, you are too kind. Please don't apologize on behalf of others. My opinions haven't changed from the beginning of the thread to this point now.

My only regret was my use of the pronoun "you" when I really meant "one". But I didn't want to sound like the Queen of England! Since some people misinterpret the use of "you" to mean themselves as individuals, it is likely to result in a highly personalized response when in fact the intention was to discuss an idea rather than to slander or gossip about the behavior of an individual.

My statements earlier in the thread were meant to support those of Jon who has often spoken up in favour of emotional openness and honesty and intimacy with or without sex, in particular between males.

I still believe that psychological maturity entails NOT being blind to the depth of emotional possibilities in one's contacts with all people, especially friends, sex partners and lovers. That being said, I don't fall in love with women, though there are women that I love. Likewise I don't fall in love with every man I have sex with, but I am open to the possibility, just as there are men that I love that I do not and have not had sex with.

 

[D_GlennFeckless]

Pan, poly, hetero, homo, flexi, auto, a, aaauuugghhh!!!!!!!

I'll stick with "sexual", thank you very much.

 

[Serial Kisser]

I use this term all of the time! It definitely describes me.