Homoflexible and Heteroflexible- opinions?

[Esiris]

So on the Kinsey scale- people who are Homoflexible rate at about a 5 and Heteroflexible rate at about a 1- "incidental" stuff where they like things outside of their homosexuality/heterosexuality.

But as terms- how do you like them?  

[Shilberu Erikku]

It's a lot simpler to use those terms sweatdrop  

[kittycross]

I can't say that I'm down with the "flexible"
literally it amounts to homoflexible- you bend for that like your self, heteroflexible- you bend for that which isn't like you.

I mean, haven't we had enough of the Ben Dover -type homophobic jokes?

I don't see what is wrong with the scientific homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and asexual.
A person is attracted to one, the other, both or neither. It really does cover everything.

The incessant introduction of not sexual matters creating "new" types of '-sexuals' really doesn't help spread understanding that the inherent nature of a person's sexuality is inherent. A lifestyle is a choice an orientation isn't.

We could make up all kind of new terms for how "gay" or "straight" someone might be willing to behave if they had a gun to their head or it would save the life of an innocent child and their puppy, but that dosen't change that they are either homo-, hetero-, bi- or asexual.

We could say that I am homoheterosexually-amicable because I can have female straight friends but that get pretty tedious, pointless and confusing for anyone who is not familiar with the nomenclature that I'm using to make up new words.  

[Esiris]

kittycross

I can't say that I'm down with the "flexible"
literally it amounts to homoflexible- you bend for that like your self, heteroflexible- you bend for that which isn't like you.

The terms aren't based on their etymology- they're a portmanteau, so that doesn't make much sense to me.

Quote:

I don't see what is wrong with the scientific homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and asexual.
A person is attracted to one, the other, both or neither. It really does cover everything.

It doesn't- for a start it leaves out people who are attracted to people like me. confused

Quote:

The incessant introduction of not sexual matters creating "new" types of '-sexuals' really doesn't help spread understanding that the inherent nature of a person's sexuality is inherent. A lifestyle is a choice an orientation isn't.

So when people have no choice in being attracted to a specific person who doesn't fit their dominate form of attraction they should have to shoehorn themselves into the term Bi?
Isn't that just as bad as people expecting bisexuals to "grow out of it" or when people tell asexuals that they just haven't met the right person etc?

Quote:

We could make up all kind of new terms for how "gay" or "straight" someone might be willing to behave if they had a gun to their head or it would save the life of an innocent child and their puppy, but that dosen't change that they are either homo-, hetero-, bi- or asexual.

My spouse Annette identifies as hetero- they like their opposite gender very much. I'm their exception to the rule- so you think it's ok to deny how Annette feels because they don't fit into your selected list? What about the people who are pansexual?  

[lgtenos]

I've honestly never heard of these terms.  

[Meeatu]

Esiris

kittycross

I don't see what is wrong with the scientific homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and asexual.
A person is attracted to one, the other, both or neither. It really does cover everything.

It doesn't- for a start it leaves out people who are attracted to people like me. confused

One addition is clearly needed in order to include inclination toward transgender, hermaphroditic or physically asexual beings. And that's only keeping it to the realm of humans. Perhaps 'Extrasexual', humerous as the term may be.

But the issue of the remaining argument is simply of semantics.

Let us begin by maintaining that the given suffix is indeed -sexuality, and as such (by definition) words pertaining to a sexual preference for one gender but a romantic/emotional preference for another are of a different category, and exist (as rock does outside of mountains) entirely separate and exterior to sexuality.

Esiris, your spouse still fit's neatly within the category of heterosexual.
The terms meaning does not extend outside of an orientation, and an orientation does not extend outside of either an inclination, or an identity:

A gay man may still sleep with women, even on a regular basis.
This does not make him straight or bisexual

The only things that define sexuality (and you may choose one of the two, depending on preference - Myself, I'm undecided.) are general preference: based upon the gender to which MOST of the subjects sexual attraction fixates, or identity: the sexuality to which the subject feels they belong or chooses to identify with.

As such, in the case of myself:
I am only physically attracted to men, and for the most part, only emotionally/romantically attracted to men also. I am however engaged and very much in love with a woman with whom I also have a sexual relationship.
This makes me (in terms of general preference) bisexual.
I do however feel that I identify more with homosexuality (less to the community, and more to the idea) and thus, in this regard, I am gay.

As such, I, myself could be regarded as gay or bi.
But in terms of sexuality, there is no need to create a separate term for one who is generally attracted to men, but has a female fiance, etc.  

[kittycross]

Esiris

kittycross

I can't say that I'm down with the "flexible"
literally it amounts to homoflexible- you bend for that like your self, heteroflexible- you bend for that which isn't like you.

The terms aren't based on their etymology- they're a portmanteau, so that doesn't make much sense to me.

Complicating the social and political and social dynamics by cobbling together words willy-nilly regardless of their individual meanings with compound misunderstandings and discrimination.

Esiris

Quote:

I don't see what is wrong with the scientific homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and asexual.
A person is attracted to one, the other, both or neither. It really does cover everything.

It doesn't- for a start it leaves out people who are attracted to people like me. confused

Quote:

The incessant introduction of not sexual matters creating "new" types of '-sexuals' really doesn't help spread understanding that the inherent nature of a person's sexuality is inherent. A lifestyle is a choice an orientation isn't.

So when people have no choice in being attracted to a specific person who doesn't fit their dominate form of attraction they should have to shoehorn themselves into the term Bi?
Isn't that just as bad as people expecting bisexuals to "grow out of it" or when people tell asexuals that they just haven't met the right person etc?

Quote:

We could make up all kind of new terms for how "gay" or "straight" someone might be willing to behave if they had a gun to their head or it would save the life of an innocent child and their puppy, but that dosen't change that they are either homo-, hetero-, bi- or asexual.

My spouse Annette identifies as hetero- they like their opposite gender very much. I'm their exception to the rule- so you think it's ok to deny how Annette feels because they don't fit into your selected list? What about the people who are pansexual?

No, there is no shoehorn expected and it's not like expecting someone to 'grow out of' who they really are.
There are places for you and your spouse. She's still of a heterosexual nature, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't love you nor does that invalidate any of your feelings
I think Meeatu explained very well and also makes a very valid point about gender mosaics. I feel really bad about not including that and I'm sorry if I offended any one or made them feel excluded.
Technically, I suppose if they were interested in non-gender mosaics, that would make them hetero-sexual, even if it was to both male and female, but it gets dicey.


The prefix "pan" means all, and can be equated with "omni." Pan- and omni- sexual are really not good words - they make for some interesting implications, like animals, children, cacti, etc. It means all, but that's not what people want it to mean.

To me, it's the person that matters. I've always been more attracted to women. Men were something of an acquired taste and I can't say that I've known any gender mosaics. Transgender people I consider the gender the gender they themselves are, not what chromosomes have. Against all likelihood I am happily married to a man to whom I am sexually, emotionally and spiritually attracted. I consider myself bisexual, even though I have a heterosexual marriage and I will have any other partner.  

[Atrum_Anima]

kittycross

I don't see what is wrong with the scientific homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and asexual.
A person is attracted to one, the other, both or neither. It really does cover everything.

No, it doesn't. Sexuality isn't quantifiable. In other words, one word will never be able to describe one's sexuality. For example, although I identify as homosexual, there are certain aspects of the opposite sex that I find sexually attractive to an extent. However, I'm not nearly close enough to being fully attracted to a woman to be bisexual. You can also load certain 'fetishes' into the giant sexuality pile, which the four -sexual's listed above don't cover.

Don't get me wrong, though. I see your point. The more terms there are for sexuality, the harder it becomes to find what bests describes you and then be able to describe this to other people. It can be tedious.  

[kittycross]

Atrum_Anima

kittycross

I don't see what is wrong with the scientific homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and asexual.
A person is attracted to one, the other, both or neither. It really does cover everything.

No, it doesn't. Sexuality isn't quantifiable. In other words, one word will never be able to describe one's sexuality. For example, although I identify as homosexual, there are certain aspects of the opposite sex that I find sexually attractive to an extent. However, I'm not nearly close enough to being fully attracted to a woman to be bisexual. You can also load certain 'fetishes' into the giant sexuality pile, which the four -sexual's listed above don't cover.

Don't get me wrong, though. I see your point. The more terms there are for sexuality, the harder it becomes to find what bests describes you and then be able to describe this to other people. It can be tedious.

Sexuality is qualifiable. Giving it a label, be it gay, straight, bi-romanti- omni, awesome, pandemograghic-homgenously-inclined, chartreuse, or "not very"- That is a qualification, not a quantification.
Fetishes are a qualification are not inherent to someone's sexual nature.
A sexual fetish is only one kind of fetish.
To quantify would to to ascribe a quantity to, as in to say a person has a sexuality of 5 or the 2d12.

One word is never enough to express an entire being yet words and concepts like educated, tall, international, progressive etc. exist to describe an aspect of an individual.
To reduce people to a single adjective, whether ethnic, sexual orientation, class or creed, is demeaning.

It's not just tedious. It's counter productive to finding legislative equality, as well as scientific and linguistic sense.

I think it's also a burden on young people just entering puberty and discovering sexuality and suddenly finding they need to fill out a psyco-social-emotional resume about what their lifetime goals toward intercourse, group sex, philosophical gender alignment and so forth before they are even given a chance to find out who they are and what makes them happy. Instead they need to find the label that fits their self-image, or the image they think is most acceptable to their peers. The more emphasis that is put on divisive labeling, less free they will be.  

[BSPBleach]

as far as im concerned, all these words are silly. you are who are, and like who you like. no word alone ever quite covers, so why use all these confusing words i've never heard of? just makes things complicated.  

[Shanna66]

kittycross

I can't say that I'm down with the "flexible"
literally it amounts to homoflexible- you bend for that like your self, heteroflexible- you bend for that which isn't like you.

I mean, haven't we had enough of the Ben Dover -type homophobic jokes?

I don't see what is wrong with the scientific homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and asexual.
A person is attracted to one, the other, both or neither. It really does cover everything.

The incessant introduction of not sexual matters creating "new" types of '-sexuals' really doesn't help spread understanding that the inherent nature of a person's sexuality is inherent. A lifestyle is a choice an orientation isn't.

We could make up all kind of new terms for how "gay" or "straight" someone might be willing to behave if they had a gun to their head or it would save the life of an innocent child and their puppy, but that dosen't change that they are either homo-, hetero-, bi- or asexual.

We could say that I am homoheterosexually-amicable because I can have female straight friends but that get pretty tedious, pointless and confusing for anyone who is not familiar with the nomenclature that I'm using to make up new words.

im with you on this issue, im really getitng sick of seeing a new sexuality term three times a day. gay, straight, bi, and pan seem enough to me, and personally i think that we can put pan and bi into the same group since they are so similar

i should just start calling myself dontcaresexual. if i like you i like you and if i dont i dont  

[PeachPunk]

I think those people should just categorize themselves as bisexual. Homoflexable, heteroflexable, and all these other sub-orientations of bisexuality confuse me.  

[Kelai_Caberin]

Why does it matter? Like who you like when you like them, that's what I go by. Why do you need to validate your sexuality with a specific lable? I get your desire to not be generalized and fit in somewhere, but this is silly.  

[caleighxo]

Kelai_Caberin

Why does it matter? Like who you like when you like them, that's what I go by. Why do you need to validate your sexuality with a specific lable? I get your desire to not be generalized and fit in somewhere, but this is silly.

I agree!  

[Taeryyn]

The terms don't really appeal to me, but that doesn't mean they are without value. Sometimes, you just feel like a word...fits. Language is wonderful; I love that we have the option of using or creating new terms if the existing ones don't quite do the job. There might be some people who don't feel that "bisexual" really describes them, but want something more simple than "gay, but not quite entirely".

I would estimate that I'm a Kinsey 4 or 5, but I identify as queer, or gay. "Bisexual" just never...felt right for me personally, even though it's technically more accurate.