Heteroflexible vs bi

Whats the criteria in people minds for being heteroflexible versus bi? Does it simple come down to the ratio of opposite versus same sex experiences?

This is a good question. Thanks for asking it.

Mashie

Heteroflexible can be thought of as "slightly bi".

It means you are attracted to and have sex mostly with the opposite sex (heterosexual), but if a good homosexual opportunity comes your way, you will partake in occasional homosexual sex.

For example, I am heteroflexible. 98% of my sex is with my husband, but there are two women I have sex with a couple of times a year.

If someone wanted to call me bisexual, that would be fine with me.

The difference between bisexual and heteroflexible is primarily one of frequency and your overall preference for your sex partner to be the opposite sex in heteroflexibillity.

I originally thought heteroflexible meant if you were having group sex (MFM?) you would be OK with incidental touching but no overt sexual contact with the same sex. More appropriately, this would be "not homophobic".

I originally thought heteroflexible meant if you were having group sex (MFM?) you would be OK with incidental touching but no overt sexual contact with the same sex. More appropriately, this would be "not homophobic".

My husband is NOT homophobic, but he will not have sex in a combination with any other men.

What you posted is NOT how heteroflexible is defined.

You can look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroflexibility

Heteroflexibility is a form of a sexual orientation or situational sexual behavior characterized by minimal homosexual activity in an otherwise primarily heterosexual orientation, which may or may not distinguish it from bisexuality. It has been characterized as "mostly straight".[1] Although sometimes equated with bi-curiosity to describe a broad continuum of sexual orientation between heterosexuality and bisexuality,[2] other authors distinguish heteroflexibility as lacking the "wish to experiment with ... sexuality" implied by the bi-curious label.[3] The corresponding situation in which homosexual activity predominates has also been described, termed homoflexibility.[4]

Would it complicate even more asking is it actual real physical experience(s) youve had or what appeals to you ?

I like the term "heterflexible". For me it implies just being kind and accepting of others. I just see myself as a sexual person and I would probably be comfortable with male or female if I felt safe and respected. I have never had any adult sexual experiences with a woman but I have talked to a few here on Zity that certainly made me think about the possibility; the thought is intriguing.

I like the term "heterflexible". For me it implies just being kind and accepting of others. I just see myself as a sexual person and I would probably be comfortable with male or female if I felt safe and respected. I have never had any adult sexual experiences with a woman but I have talked to a few here on Zity that certainly made me think about the possibility; the thought is intriguing.

No, it isn't about kindness and being accepting. The correct meaning is actually that a person is sexually attracted mainly to the opposite sex but recognises that they have some bisexual inclinations. From what you say, you possibly do fall into that category.

I'm straight, which means I have sexual leanings towards women only. The fact I can be kind and accept that non-straight people have the equal right to be the way they are does not make me heteroflexible myself.

IMO a person who is bi is bi all the time; whereas, one who is heteroflexible is straight until something happens to switch them into being bi for a time.

It does not matter what a word means to you.

It only matters what the dictionary says a word means.

Look it up. You will see what is means.

If everyone used a word based on what it means to them, language and communication would fall apart.

I take exception to being told it does not matter what a word means to me. English is a living language in which new words, definitions and grammars are being created. I like to think that we, here, are all part of that process.

I take exception to being told it does not matter what a word means to me. English is a living language in which new words, definitions and grammars are being created. ...

The point is that any word must have a consistent meaning to avoid misunderstandings. Without that basic rule, it is impossible for Person A and Person B to communicate effectively and be sure of what each other said.

You might say that languages develop, and indeed they do. But any definition given to a word must have gained acceptance by enough people otherwise that definition cannot be regarded as valid. If I go by the dictionary definition of a word but you as an individual make up your own meaning that not shared by other people generally, then there is no common understanding of what was actually said.

I consider myself heteroflexible, not so much bisexual. Although I usually tell people I'm bi. (If the question comes up)

I'm sexually attracted to man and romantically to woman.

However, having said that, I don't have much hands-on experience. It's mostly in my mind and thoughts, as I don't have a sex partner.

@DrZ - In what I first wrote, I didn't think my interpretation of bi and heterofexible was really different from dictionary meanings -

"Heteroflexibility is a form of a sexual orientation or situational sexual behavior characterized by minimal homosexual activity in an otherwise primarily heterosexual orientation, which may or may not distinguish it from bisexuality. It has been characterized as "mostly straight". "

As for my second post about English being a living language.... I agree with you, in the extreme...

@DrZ - In what I first wrote, I didn't think my interpretation of bi and heterofexible was really different from dictionary meanings -

"Heteroflexibility is a form of a sexual orientation or situational sexual behavior characterized by minimal homosexual activity in an otherwise primarily heterosexual orientation, which may or may not distinguish it from bisexuality. It has been characterized as "mostly straight". "

This is what you said -

IMO a person who is bi is bi all the time; whereas, one who is heteroflexible is straight until something happens to switch them into being bi for a time.

Your definition of heteroflexibility was temporary bisexuality needing to be 'activated' by something, which isn't actually included in the dictionary meaning. You are therefore suggesting that it comes and goes.

It simply means that a person has some bisexual leanings but is mainly orientated towards the opposite sex. Being temporary or latent isn't part of the definition although I suppose there is a spectrum.

It does not matter what a word means to you.

It only matters what the dictionary says a word means.

An English language dictionary only reflects how a word is being used by groups of people. Dictionaries do not have force of law in English, they only describe how words are used during a particular time period. That is why definitions in dictionaries can change over time, because people start using words in different ways and meanings. And there is nothing compilers of English language dictionaries can do about it. They like to pretend to be authorities on how words should be defined and used, but mostly language develops on it own inner workings.

Once enough people start using a word in a different way, then that is that. All it takes is one person to start and see if it takes and sticks.

There are now so many new words and meanings in English than when I was young. The words we are talking about here are a good example. And their usage had to start somewhere in time with particular individuals. The question is, will they gain traction? And definitions of new words will be contentious, simply because they are new and therefore not known by most people.

Once enough people start using a word in a different way, then that is that. All it takes is one person to start and see if it takes and sticks.

That is EXACTLY why incorrect usage, as determined by the dictionary definitions MUST BE CRUSHED as rapidly as possible.

Language has always had rules and it has always been the more poorly educated, lowest common denominator of the people who fail to follow those rules who have caused language to change.

NEW WORDS are fine if there is a need to categorize something new. DON'T change an existing word because you don't know how to use it. The improper use of words by illiterate or uneducated people who are too lazy or just too plain stupid to use a dictionary must be stopped. I want the language to be refined by intelligent people, not massacred by dummies.

I take exception to being told it does not matter what a word means to me. English is a living language in which new words, definitions and grammars are being created. I like to think that we, here, are all part of that process.

Leave the alteration of language to the intelligentsia, not the pedestrian clods.

DO NOT bastardize an existing good word by changing its definition.

If you have to, invent a new word to mean something else and see it it catches on.

Leave the alteration of language to the intelligentsia, not the pedestrian clods.

.

Well, sadly or luckily, depending on one's inclination, that is not how languages evolve. It really is a question of big numbers here, democracy at work in a way ... the more people use a word in a particular way, the more that will become the accepted definition at that point in time, even if the word meant something else previously.

Surely even a cursory glance at the changing meanings of the word 'gay' can see how it works. Gay used to mean just that, gay, happy, merry etc. Then it also came to mean being of loose morals, easily seductable or such. Just look at a line from the lyrics of 'a Long Way to Tipperary' from only a century ago. And now it has the meaning of being homosexual as well. This happened because at some point in the past, gay men started calling themselves so as either code or as a sort of self depreciating joke. This against the accepted definition. And the meaning stuck.

Whatcha gonna do about it? Might as well howl at the moon as complain about how languages change.

Leave the alteration of language to the intelligentsia, not the pedestrian clods.

DO NOT bastardize an existing good word by changing its definition.

If you have to, invent a new word to mean something else and see it it catches on.

.

Well, sadly or luckily, depending on one's inclination, that is not how languages evolve. It really is a question of big numbers here, democracy at work in a way ... the more people use a word in a particular way, the more that will become the accepted definition at that point in time, even if the word meant something else previously.

Surely even a cursory glance at the changing meanings of the word 'gay' can see how it works. Gay used to mean just that, gay, happy, merry etc. Then it also came to mean being of loose morals, easily seductable or such. Just look at a line from the lyrics of 'a Long Way to Tipperary' from only a century ago. And now it has the meaning of being homosexual as well. This happened because at some point in the past, gay men started calling themselves so as either code or as a sort of self depreciating joke. This against the accepted definition. And the meaning stuck.

Whatcha gonna do about it? Might as well howl at the moon as complain about how languages change.

Sadly, without the input of energy, the entire damn universe evolves toward greater entropy---THAT'S MEANS DISORDER. That's thermodynamics and you can't fight it, but you can input a little energy and slow down the massacre of a language by the less intelligent people by crushing their incorrect use of terms. (I am using all my effort NOT to call them idiots because that offends some people--mostly idiots. 😁 😁 😁 ) Sorry, but I look to people more intelligent than I am for change, NOT the riffraff.

As far as GAY is concerned, the meaning of homosexual has been ADDED to the other definitions of gay because the homosexuals wanted a euphemism. The other classical definitions still remain. The same goes for LESBIANS. Homosexual women wanted a euphemism, too, so they created the term from Lesbos, the Greek island where women inhabitants called Lesbians expressed love for each other. At least they had a better origin for their word than male homosexuals being called "gay." It is interesting to note that "gay" is an adjective whereas "lesbian" or "Lesbian" depending on whether you are referring to a female homosexual or an inhabitant of the Greek island, is a noun.

JUST A NOTE to those who think I am being critical of homosexuals: I can say what I said because I occasionally partake in homosexual activity, so I am NOT BEING prejudiced or bigoted.

.Sadly, without the input of energy, the entire damn universe evolves toward greater entropy---THAT'S MEANS DISORDER. .

Evolving towards entropy means in fact that order will prevail. It may be the order of universal sameness, but that is a type of order as well.

The opposite of entropy is activity, and activity means random happenings, many many of them.

Evolving towards entropy means in fact that order will prevail. . . . .

NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

LOOK IT UP.

Disorder and randomness leads to "sameness" and uniformity.

Discreteness (separate and distinct) is order.

All mixed up, the same and uniform is the result of disorder.

.

The opposite of entropy is activity . . . .

NOT in any dictionary definition I ever saw

Evolving towards entropy means in fact that order will prevail.

It actually means the exact opposite - the gradual decay of order into disorder.

The point here is that if you have a breakdown of order - or entropy - in the meaning of words, you will also get breakdowns in communication. Consistency of meaning is important if we are to correctly understand and be understood.

To corrupt existing words to have a different meaning, sometimes the exact opposite of what they are originally supposed to mean, is bad practice and it's frustrating when listening to some people, especially the very young, who are often the worst perpetrators of this.

This is what you said -Your definition of heteroflexibility was temporary bisexuality needing to be 'activated' by something, which isn't actually included in the dictionary meaning. You are therefore suggesting that it comes and goes.

It simply means that a person has some bisexual leanings but is mainly orientated towards the opposite sex. Being temporary or latent isn't part of the definition although I suppose there is a spectrum.

Thanks DrZ - well said. The definition of some words, do allow for there to be a "spectrum", as well as latitude and nuance - that's the beauty of our language. I should have never said "I define heteroflexible to mean"; instead I should have said I consider myself heteroflexible and in my case it's something latent that needs to be activated by something.

it's frustrating when listening to some people, especially the very young, who are often the worst perpetrators of this.

This is what young people do: they change things, they cause things to evolve, they are more conductive to innovation in many kinds of activities and social interaction and that invariably involves language as well. Do they do this purposely? No, it just happens naturally because they have not learned all that much yet, they still have a lot of experiences and learning to go through. Does that piss older people off? Yup, it does and it always has. Young people have always pissed older people off throughout history. Partly because of the envy of youth and partly because young people go off the beaten path when it comes to social customs and mores and so many other activities, including the use of language.

The opposite of young people being conducive to change is stagnation, gentrification, societies set in their ways and unwilling to change and adapt. The classic example would be the Imperial China where Confucianism was the driving social philosophy. The crux of which was that the young should never attempt anything new or innovative but always look to their elders for inspiration on correct behavior. Meaning doing things exactly as they had been done before in previous generations. This social mentality and building stone of their society got them into an awful jam by the 19th century, when they were completely at a loss on how to react to new Western ideas and powers.

I like to think the group here is a little more enlightened than the public at large. I may be engaging in thinking with my rose colored glasses on this one, however. Feel free to prove me wrong.

When dealing with issues that might cause discomfort or confusion among the less enlightened, I think (again just me) that there is a bit of an onus on the more enlightened to help reduce confusion or discomfort. One way that this can be done is to adhere to generally accepted definitions as provided by the dictionary.

It may not always be fun to do this. It can feel somewhat confining. Or we may feel the denotation of a word doesn't match the connotation, and so we want to be creative (and/or willful) in how we use it. I think this is a bad idea.

When we were little, we learned what a cat was and what a dog was. I feel like my greyhounds are far more like cats than dogs. But I don't call them cats, they're dogs! For words where the precise definition isn't as clear, if you have to say "I feel like _____ means... " or "to me, ____ means..." then please for the sake of all of us, look it up. If your imagined definition doesn't line up with the dictionary definition, please fix your usage. Otherwise you're basically calling a dog a cat. And that's not helpful to anyone.

ls

If your imagined definition doesn't line up with the dictionary definition, please fix your usage. Otherwise you're basically calling a dog a cat. And that's not helpful to anyone.

@ellesse - Thanks. That's a very good way to illustrate the problem

@agracier said

This is what young people do: they change things, they cause things to evolve, they are more conductive to innovation in many kinds of activities and social interaction and that invariably involves language as well. Do they do this purposely? No, it just happens naturally because they have not learned all that much yet, they still have a lot of experiences and learning to go through. Does that piss older people off? Yup, it does and it always has. Young people have always pissed older people off throughout history. Partly because of the envy of youth and partly because young people go off the beaten path when it comes to social customs and mores and so many other activities, including the use of language.

No, they might not have much life experience, but they know enough about how to use the language and they know what the correct word for something is. But out of stupidity they simply refuse to use words correctly, and instead, choose to corrupt other words.

The opposite of young people being conducive to change is stagnation, gentrification, societies set in their ways and unwilling to change and adapt. The classic example would be the Imperial China where Confucianism was the driving social philosophy. The crux of which was that the young should never attempt anything new or innovative but always look to their elders for inspiration on correct behavior.

No one is saying the young mustn't attempt anything new and must rigidly adhere to all the ways of their elders. They can explore and they can evolve their social philosophy, but they don't need to mangle the language to do it. If they need a new word for something, they can invent it if they are as clever as they think they are. But it isn't clever to wilfully misuse a word, and as @ellesse said, start calling a dog a cat.

Leave the alteration of language to the intelligentsia not the pedestrian clods.

DO NOT bastardize an existing good word by changing its definition.

But are there not a greater number of "pedestrian clods" to start and implement the definition and usage changes over "intelligentsia". It is the greater usage and acceptance of the change that implements change. The numbers win out.

Regarding dictionary definitions - are all dictionary meanings accurate and reliable?

When I looked up heteroflexible

http://dictionary.com/ it said

adjective

(of a person)predominantlyheterosexual but notexclusively so

noun

such a person

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=heteroflexible

An inbetween between bisexual and straight. A person who is mainly straight but does sometimes find the same gender appealing. Most of them could imagine having a homosexual relationship, but they mainly have heterosexual relationships.

Couldn't someone find a definition that fits their idea if they just search enough?

@ellesse said

I like to think the group here is a little more enlightened than the public at large. . . .

When dealing with issues that might cause discomfort or confusion among the less enlightened, I think (again just me) that there is a bit of an onus on the more enlightened to help reduce confusion or discomfort. One way that this can be done is to adhere to generally accepted definitions as provided by the dictionary.

. . . . If your imagined definition doesn't line up with the dictionary definition, please fix your usage. Otherwise you're basically calling a dog a cat. And that's not helpful to anyone.

I liked your post very much but you are wrong on one point. The people here are NOT more enlightened than anyone else. Just read the posts.

I wholeheartedly agree that people definitely need to use the dictionary more often BEFORE they spew forth words and use them incorrectly.

============

@Missstress said

But are there not a greater number of "pedestrian clods" to start and implement the definition and usage changes over "intelligentsia". It is the greater usage and acceptance of the change that implements change. The numbers win out.

Regarding dictionary definitions - are all dictionary meanings accurate and reliable?

Couldn't someone find a definition that fits their idea if they just search enough?

Point by point:

UNFORTUNATELY THERE ARE A GREATER NUMBER OF UNINTELLIGENT PEDESTRIAN CLODS than intelligent people and the pedestrian clods must be stopped. They are ruining our language, society and our lives in general. The numbers SHOULD NOT win out. INTELLIGENCE SHOULD WIN OUT. The problem is, people have to be intelligent enough to recognize that and many to most people don't.

MANY dictionary definitions are HORRIBLE. They use the word in question in their definitions and they use newfangled adaptations instead of classical clear definitions. You can forget the pronunciations given in dictionaries these days. Most vowels are pronounced as a schwa instead of how the vowel is correctly pronounced. If you don't know what that is LOOK IT UP and your need to look it up only proves my point about intelligence.

A person could possibly find a definition that matches their BELIEF about what a word means because MANY DICTIONARIES, ESPECIALLY ONLINE DICTIONARIES ARE TERRIBLE.