From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Two issues with this one:

  • " can be claimed temporarily when they are in a same-sex relationship but not when they are out of it." - sounds like someone's opinion to me. I proposed removing the "but not when they are out of it."
  • " has a tendency to be a label more often put onto people then self-claimed because of people's fear to be anything but straight." - grammatical issues aside ("than" not "then", and "fear OF BEING anything but straight") this is certainly not a neutral point of view. I say we lose this bit.

Does anyone have any opinions on this before I make changes? CLW 07:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even sure this article is noteworthy enough for inclusion: heteroflexible only turns up 900 hits[1] on a google test (many of which are references of this very article) compared with 15 million for 'bisexual'[2]. It might be worth considering putting this article up for VfD, or simply merging it's contents with Bisexuality. Axon (talk|contribs) 19:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Just my own two cents as someone who identifies as heteroflexible -- it's a form of bisexuality but it's different from the normal definition. I find that I'm turned on by the idea of sex with other men, but not by the overwhelming majority of actual men. I'm not really comfortable with identifying as bi because I simply don't think it's specific enough. The article should reference bisexuality, but shouldn't be made part of it. Haikupoet 05:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be left alone. I saw it mentioned on a national talk show today and Wikipedia isn't about what is popular. It is about providing information when people need to know something. The more obscure that information, the more important that it be included here.

Unsigned comment by Hansarde who does not give the name of the "national talk show" CLW 06:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would just replace this article with a redirect to Bisexuality. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Further to the AfD discussion after which this article was kept, I've made the changes I proposed initially. CLW 17:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


This article was nominated for deletion. The result was merge with either bisexual or bicurious. Editors should feel free to debate which would be more appropriate and perform the merge and redirect. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heteroflexible · Katefan0(scribble) 19:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Merging this article with bisexual doesn't recognize how an individual identifies. This is a merky area, like what to call a MTF who doesn't have bottom surgery and is with a woman. There isn't a word to define them, but they don't want to be called lesbians if they identify as male gender. People have the right to decide what to call themselves. It would be helpful to discuss the idea of fluidity in sexual orientation, for some people. This article is not well written, so it needs a little help. -- User:
This is nothing but a neologism for "bisexual".[3] (anyone claiming otherwise, please provide a verified citation from a reliable source). Accordingly, redirect article to Bisexuality (not bisexual, which is a disambiguation page). -- BBlackmoor (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Mm, I have to say I agree with the anonymous user above dispite hir wacky spelling. Heteroflexible is really not the same as bisexual, in the same way that lesbians who have sex with men don't identify as hetero- or bi-sexual, and men on the down low don't identify as gay. They may seem to be synonymous, but they aren't. And our anonymous friend raises a good point: we can't simply lump everyone together into convenient categories because all too frequently they don't fit. I see no problem with having separate articles on these topics (and bisexuality already has enough problems without throwing heteroflexible into the mix). Exploding Boy 17:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The time for that discussion has passed. This article was nominated for deletion, and the result was to merge with either bisexuality or bi-curious. We need to choose which it will be redirected to, not rehash the same arguments over and over. BBlackmoor (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. If enough people still object, then there's clearly a problem. For one reason or another I wasn't aware of the original discussion, and I think some valid points have been presented. We shouldn't go ahead with an inappropriate move just because "a decision has been made." Exploding Boy 19:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
If any change waits until all possible objections have been overcome, nothing will ever change. Endless rehash of the same arguments over and over benefits no one, Wikipedia least of all. If the AfD was valid and the decision was made according to Wikipedia procedures, then the proper thing to do is to honor that decision. Now, if it wasn't valid or it wasn't conducted according to Wikipedia policy, that is another matter. Is that the case? BBlackmoor (talk) 2014-09-22 20:57
Was wrongly signed using [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY2}}]] {{CURRENTTIME}}.--Patrick 14:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it's arguable. First, the number of votes were rather few and second, I don't see many votes from editors who've identified themselves as interested in LGBT issues. I'm not saying we should argue everything endlessly to prevent anything getting done, just that sometimes we can look at things again. Exploding Boy 19:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Neither one is a suitable merge. AFD or no AFD, the incontrovertible fact is that neither merge can be justified on grounds of accuracy, since they describe three distinctly different and irreconcilable things. Put me down as another who will not participate in any discussion that boils down to "which of these two completely inappropriate merges should we pretend isn't completely inappropriate?" If you're left with an untenable choice, well, as unfortunate as it is, "no change due to no consensus" happens around here sometimes. Bearcat 03:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, we see the problem with Wikipedia -- no editorial oversight. The AFD (in which I was not involved) was valid and had a clear result, but abiding by the rules is just too much for some poeople, and Wikipedia's policies make it nigh impossible for the rest of us to get anything done when some individual decides to obstruct consensus and get their own way. This is why reasonable people don't participate in Wikpedia for very long, and why Wikipedia articles ultimately can't be trusted to be factual. It's a damned shame: Wikipedia could be one of the greatest achievements of mankind, if only there was some editorial oversight. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-30 T 05:37:15 Z
This term is common parlance where I live, but I can't see the article expanding much beyond where it is now and I think it would make sense to merge it with bi-curious. It doesn't fit in bisexual because it doesn't refer to someone who is bisexual in orientation, but it seems to me to be very close to bi-curious in meaning. -- AdelaMae 05:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am merging and redirecting this article now...[edit]

I have investigated this article's AFD, and it was quite conclusive: 14 votes to merge (split about half and half between bisexual and bi-curious) and 1 to delete. There were no votes at all to keep the article as is. The debate was left open for two weeks, much longer than the standard five days. It has been a couple of months since then and I think it has been quite clearly demonstrated by this talk page discussion that a merge to bisexual would be inappropriate, so I am merging and redirecting this article to bi-curious, where it is already mentioned. If new verifiable information about a major difference between "heteroflexible" and "bi-curious" were to surface, or if people were to come forth with examples of the term "heteroflexible" being specifically used in the news media and so on, I think that would be grounds for re-opening the debate on this topic. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Heteroflexible vs. Bi-curious vs. Bisexual[edit]

I guess this is just an opinion, but I think the difference between heteroflexible and bi-curious could be that a heteroflexible is a person who fits into some definition of straight(either exclusively or primarily attracted to the opposite sex), possibly a totally straight person who is just simply willing to do stuff with the same sex, but isn't actually curious about being with the same sex. For an example, a person who is dared to kiss one of the same sex in a truth or dare game, or a woman who makes out with another woman just to get attention from or turn on a guy(s),bf,or husband, or one who is willing to do stuff with the same sex in a porno movie for money. Whereas, a person who is bi-curious is actually curious about being with the same sex, unlike a purely heteroflexible person who is simply willing to do stuff with the same sex, but has no real curiousity about being with the same sex. It could also be said that at least some who are bi-curious could be considered heteroflexible in the sense that their willing to do stuff with the same sex. Since, some bi-curious people may not be willing or yet willing to do stuff with the same sex in reality. Some who could be considered heteroflexible, since their willing to do stuff with the same sex could also be considered bi-curious.

Heteroflexible is someone who is straight but knows the difference between having fun and sexual attraction. Heteroflexible is the jackpot for gay guys - no commitment, but plenty of sex. horseboy 19:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Terms like Heteroflexible, mostly straight, and mostly gay, Homoflexible are just other terms for being bisexual. If the person was really hetero or gay/homosexual/lesbian they would not be having any sort of attractions outside of their opposite sex/gender attractions-for straight people, or same gender attractions-for gay men/lesbians.

I've read essays by bisexual people who say how terms like Heteroflexible and Homoflexible are just terms that people who are really bisexual use to avoid using the term bisexual and all of the stigma and biphobia that comes with identifying as bisexual.

Yes some men who are closeted or on the down low do call themselves "straight" but this does not mean that they really are heterosexual or straight. If these men were really hetero/straight and not bisexual or gay and closeted and on the DL they wouldn't be having sex with men at all.

I agree that the article should be merged with bisexuality as Heteroflexible is just another term for being bisexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not bisexuality to some people (which is the point), as some people define bisexuality differently. Others believe that no one is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, and thus a heterosexual or homosexual person defines themselves as heterosexual or homosexual (gay or lesbian specifically) due to what they are predominantly sexually attracted to; this, of course, leaves those same people to either feel that everyone is bisexual in a sense, that no one is bisexual because no one is equally sexually attracted to both sexes (going on the belief that bisexuality should be defined by equality)...or that not every instance of sexual interaction/attraction with/to both sexes should be considered bisexuality. Situational sexual behavior, for example, is quite often not considered true bisexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Heteroflexible is just another term for being bisexual. The article should be merged in with bisexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Refer to what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

People who are in denial and claiming that "Heterofleibility" is somehow different than being bisexual don't understand human sexuality. If you're sexually attracted to men and women (even Transmen and Transwomen) then you're bisexual. You can delude yourself into thinking that you're "mostly straight" or "heteroflexible" but you're only kidding yourself and in denial about being bisexual.

You, too, refer to what I stated above. Plenty of people who understand sexuality don't define bisexuality in the same way; for those people, it's not about denial. It's about a different definition of bisexuality (as in 50/50). The Bisexuality article touches on different definitions. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's nice Flyer22 but even if someone's not 50/50 in their sexual or romantic attractions to both genders, or identifies as "heteroflexible" they're still bisexual. (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not if that person doesn't consider such to be bisexual. Like I stated, people (including researchers) define bisexuality differently, which then extends to how heterosexuality or homosexuality may be defined. While no one would say that a man who only dates/has sex with other men, but identifies as heterosexual, is truly heterosexual, there is more leeway in how bisexuality is defined. I've already made clear that there is the belief that no one is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, and, that if anyone is, the majority of people can be sexually attracted to both sexes and thus a person who defines themselves as heterosexual or homosexual usually does so because of what they are predominantly sexually attracted to. For example, I've encountered a lot of gay and lesbian individuals who identify as gay or lesbian because they have a strong sexual preference for the same sex and minor sexual attraction to the opposite sex. If sexual attraction can be described in percentages, should a person who is 99.9 % or even 90% homosexual identify as bisexual? A lot of people would answer "no" to that, because the person will show almost, and most often, no romantic/sexual interest in the opposite sex. Flyer22 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

HeteroflexibleHeteroflexibility — compliance with Manual of Style preference for noun-form article names. Requested target is currently a redirect to situational sexual behavior, with no additional edit history. Serpent's Choice (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. Uncontroverslal move IMO, simple MOS compliance issue, uncomplicated proposed solution, homework done. Good catch. Andrewa (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Mhiji (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Heteroflexibility is not in common use. (840 results in Google compared to 23,000 for heteroflexible.) We're not choosing between two reasonably good words, so applying WP:NOUN doesn't make sense. Further, heteroflexible is a noun as well as an adjective, according to at least one dictionary. The current name is consistent with these examples: metrosexual (another new word), intersex, and transgender. --Pnm (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Interesting argument... the examples you give are only relevant in the light of the claim that heteroflexible is a noun. Evidence? No change of vote, not yet anyway. Andrewa (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
      • See the link I included above. --Pnm (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Is that really evidence? Of how many web dictionaries, you have found one that supports it? Not impressed. Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
          • While I'll agree that the one source attesting to the use of "heteroflexible" as a noun is rather weak evidence, it is also mostly irrelevant to the article title MOS. The difference between the nouns heteroflexibility and heteroflexible is a distinction of general versus specific instances. The situation here is similar to the one cited as an example by the policy. Our article is at swimming, because the gerund is the noun that represents the activity in general. On the other hand, swim can be used as a noun, but in doing so refers to an example rather than the activity as a whole ("I'd like to go for a swim."). With the article under discussion, heteroflexbility is the noun that refers to the gender identity in a general sense. Heteroflexible, to the extent that noun use is described at all, refers to an individual. I do agree that other articles are currently titled as this one is; this won't be the last move that should be requested. Serpent's Choice (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Heteroflexible being a noun is not the basis of my first argument: applying WP:NOUN doesn't make sense because we're not choosing between two reasonably good words.
(The Collins is the only dictionary I found that included the word. I wasn't shopping for a one that supported my argument.) --Pnm (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Aren't we choosing between two reasonably good words, though? It is certainly the case that a general Google search shows more uses of the adjective, which I suspect is strongly preferred in informal speech. A Google scholar search, on the other hand, returns virtually identical results for the two words. Indeed, even notwithstanding the MOS guidance, the page's cited sources use heteroflexibility whenever a noun usage is called for grammatically (and, to be fair, use heteroflexible when employed as an adjective -- but that's back to the MOS distinction). Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If scholarly sources consistently used heteroflexibility I'd support the move. I pulled up each source, before posting the first time, but none offered full text. Which ones were you able to look at? --Pnm (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Pnm. The arguments "for" the move, as of right now, have not convinced me that its an inappropriate title. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 01:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should this article be named Heteroflexible and homoflexible?[edit]

Homoflexible currently redirects here. Because of this, and because the article briefly touches on homoflexible, I am wondering if it should be retitled Heteroflexible and homoflexible. Doing this would allow for expansion of the homoflexible aspect. Otherwise, such an expansion would be seen as off-topic. Or is it best to just have "homoflexible" as its own article once there is significant material gathered on it for inclusion? Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Assuming there's more material in reliable sources, I suggest expanding it here. You can even add a section. If the content outgrows a section and meets the general notability guideline, it can be split into its own article. But whether or not there's enough content for another article, I oppose renaming this one. --Pnm (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Pnm. Would you oppose to bolding "homoflexibility" at first mention in the lead, since "homoflexible" redirects here? When two terms are covered in one article, under a title that favors one over the other, especially if one is a redirect, sometimes both terms are bolded in the lead (usually when just an alternative name) to signify that the article is addressing or covering both. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and bolded it. Also, back on the topic of renaming the article, it also made/makes sense that this article encompasses both terms when considering that information on both is currently not a lot. It makes more sense to have an article covering both instead of two separate stub articles. And thus a rename seemed/seems more appropriate if it's going to be covering both. But I'm okay with how it is for now. Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I doubt there's more to say about homoflexible. I don't have access to the source that mentions it, but as far as I know "homoflexible" is obscure, almost trivia: a non-notable neologism. The terms aren't not complementary – the point of heteroflexible is that it's a non-queer pseudo-bisexual identity. In the future I think the article could be renamed as you suggest if (1) there's actual encyclopedic coverage of homoflexible, not just a dicdef (2) multiple sources seem to support the idea of treating them together rather than separately. --Pnm (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It makes sense that such a term should be used, but from what I can tell, it is in fact still a neologism. I see no problem with the term redirecting here, but it would not be reasonable to rename the article. Atom (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Pnm, there is more to say about homoflexible, as the Sexual orientation, identity, behavior section of the Bisexuality article and the Lesbian#Sexuality and lesbians section of Lesbian article currently showcase, for examples. The problem is whether or not to include this type of information in this article unless it is specifically termed "homoflexible." The same goes for "heteroflexible." Both "heteroflexible" and "homoflexible" are neologisms describing pseudo-bisexual identities. A large article could definitely be made about this, but I'm wondering if the article title would have to exclude the terms "heteroflexible" and "homoflexible" in order to include information that does not use those specific terms to describe these behaviors. But then again, the first source currently used in this article does not say "heteroflexible," judging by the abstract. It says "Mostly straight." That appears to be the case for most sources in this article, judging by their titles or abstracts. My point is that there is a lot to say about "Mostly gay" people too. There is also the fact that we have a Situational sexual behavior article, and whether or not the information should just be expanded there instead. To me, these terms limit what can be included if we have to use sources specifically using these terms. There is much to say about these behaviors, with the exclusion of those terms describing them.
Atom, both are neologisms. And I'm not seeing how "it would not be reasonable to rename the article," given what I stated above. Also, I don't mind you following me to articles, just to address that now. It's always usually okay to get an outside editor's take. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we have similar articles on our respective watchlists. As Sexology and Sexuality is my primary area of editing, I have like 1000 articles that are primarily in that area. I wouldn't be surprised is most, if not all of those are on your watchlist too. Google scholar shows 77 hits for "heteroflexible" and only 7 for "homoflexible". So, both are relatively new, for sure. I have heard and used heteroflexible amongst my communities, but never the term homoflexible. That is anecdotal, and so only a guideline for me. But then, I was just offering an opinion based on my experience, not making a judgement. The only issue I have with a neologism on Wikipedia, is as soon as some non-sex positive editors smell the term, they submit a request to delete the article. Perhaps 77 scholarly articles is enought to defend against? Atom (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't use a watchlist (recently explained on my talk page in the Whitney Houston article section), but I understand what you mean. As for this article being a neologism, it already survived a deletion debate. There are some editors, however, who would feel that the specific term "heteroflexible" would have to be used in most sources within the article in order to have an article titled by that name, which is why I brought that aspect up just moments ago. And, yes, "heteroflexible" gets more results on Google Books and Google Scholar than "homoflexible," but which of the two terms is more notable is not my point. My original point was that "homoflexible" redirects here and this article briefly mentions it. My current point is what I recently stated above -- these behaviors are notable and have been well-documented, and are not usually termed "heteroflexible" and "homoflexible." As for "homoflexible" not being used as much, I conclude that it has to do with not wanting to make it seem as though gay people can change their sexual orientation if they truly wanted to -- that they could just give the opposite sex a chance, etc., etc., etc. Gay people have fought very hard to get across the point that they cannot change their sexual orientation. And people seem to always equate sexual acts and or attraction with sexual orientation, when, in fact, it does not have to be about sexual orientation at all. That is why the Situational sexual behavior article exists, and this one too. Many don't know about "bisexual lesbians," but they exist. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Any sources which discuss homoflexible? --Pnm (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Sources discuss it without using the term "homoflexible," as I stated/showed above. Just as this article's sources don't seem to generally use the wording "heteroflexible." The term "homoflexible" may not be notable, but the behavior it is describing is. Plenty of sources discuss "mostly gay" men or women, which is part of the reason why articles such as Men who have sex with men or Women who have sex with women even exist. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
If the sources don't use the term, the content probably belongs in Homosexuality or Bisexuality. "Men who have sex with men" is a notable term, and so is heteroflexible – see sources such as this article. --Pnm (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The content is already in the Bisexuality article, as I noted above. It's noted at certain points in the Homosexuality article as well (just not under the name "homoflexible")." Still, this type of behavior ("heteroflexible" and "homoflexible") deserves its own article, as these people do not identify as bisexual, and the terms "heteroflexible" and "homoflexible" are two sides of the same coin. That is why we have this article, Heteroflexible, is it not (to distinguish it from the bisexual identity)? As for sources, let me state again that from what I can see, this article's sources don't even use the term "heteroflexible" (not mostly). It mostly uses the wording "mostly straight" or something close to that. My current point is that this type of flexible behavior is notable, but these terms really are not that notable, and I don't see why these behaviors should not be covered in one article dedicated to them. If the sources have to go by the words "heteroflexible" and "homoflexible," that is limiting, as most sources describing these behaviors do not use those terms. However, I'll probably expand the Situational sexual behavior article one day with information regarding these behaviors. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm finally understanding – you're saying mostly straight or gay behavior is a topic which meets WP:N. I was about to suggest creating a new article Heterosexual–homosexual spectrum but noticed there's already Heterosexual–homosexual continuum. I support expanding that article with content about mostly straight/mostly gay, and narrowing the scope of this article to the term heteroflexible, which also meets WP:N. (Heterosexual–homosexual continuum might need renaming, regardless.) --Pnm (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I am saying. That, and which article should be used to cover them or if a new article should be created. I still wouldn't say the term heteroflexible should have its own article, per what I stated above, but at least we are mostly on the same page now. I'm just not sure if I'm going to be the one to expand this information. Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you reverted Twinsday.[4] on the title move. I was going to bring it up hours ago and then likely point the editor to this discussion, as soon as I saw it, but I became busy. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: I did bring up this article's latest move -- by -- SchuminWeb -- at the mover's talk page. See here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

male heteroflexibility[edit]

"male heteroflexibility may be related to the more commonly described metrosexuality" ....???!!! this statementt is nonesense... a metrosexual guy is a straight guy who...(read the metrosexuality article) --Nasturtiums (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge to BI[edit]

Not wanting to "modify" a "closed" discussion, which lead to "no censensus"... if this comes to vote again and I fail to drop in, please consider my vote a "MERGE". Having this as a separate article is completely ridiculous. NEVER has "bi" been defined as 50%-%50 interest in either sex, bi is about openness, not limits. Bi is the very essence of heteroflexibility AND homoflexibility, together. Bi is all, I have never read any article about anyone who is even near 50%-50%. There are many people constantly in need to use special terms to define themselves and set themselves apart from any others, this little habit has become an obsession in our society. If things continue this way, the alphabet will end up being too short to accommodate the ever lengthening LG acronym movement. Claiming this term, vs bi, has a positive connotation is a redundant distinction, bi already has a "positive connotation" Bis are not discriminated against in our society.--Tallard (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Tallard, I understand where you're coming from, but some people do claim that their bisexuality is 50/50. And there are also some researchers who believe that bisexuality should be defined as equal or near equal sexual attraction (if not 50/50, then close to it), usually because they don't believe that anyone is 100% heterosexual or homosexual. This is why the Gerulf Rieger, Meredith L. Chivers and J. Michael Bailey study Straight, Gay or Lying was so controversial, because they defined bisexuality as not having a significant sexual preference for one sex over the other. And I must state that I've certainly known a lot of lesbian-identified women who report minor sexual attraction to men, saying that they identify as lesbian because that sexual attraction to men is so minor and they would never want to be with a man romantically/sexually. Also, bisexual-identified people are discriminated against in a variety of ways. See the Biphobia article. Maybe they are discriminated to a lesser degree than gay men, but so are lesbians. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)