• Flexisexuals...

    1282140276
    Futa_deep_fisting [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 74
    • Joined: 29 Jun 2010

    i dont find it ludicrous at all as tbh it fits me better than bi-sexual does and i like the sound of it better

    1282142452
    OperationFilth [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 519
    • Joined: 12 Oct 2008

    I was part of the 'alt.' croud at school - we legitimately didn't fit in elsewhere but did with each other - stuff the labels, we were who we were and if that meant we had a label so be it. *Shrug*.

    Quite a few of us had some variation of non-binary sexuality (i.e. not homo, not hetero) - and yes, there was and still is a bit of the whole "bi is cool" thing - but it had a strange dynamic as I recall; in that being faux-bi was cool, being legitimately so still got you grief...And you got it no matter faux/legit from the 'trendies' anyway...

    I don't think I'm that keen on the term "flexisexual" as it seems a bit... flakey? Flip-floppy? It just puts me in mind of yet another media buzzword, like metrosexual men etc, that will linger for a few years and then be sniggered at.

    I tend to refer to myself as bisexual for ease of understanding and clarity's sake... In reality I prefer "pansexual", as bi indicates "2 genders" and my attraction isn't limited to binary genders - so TS/TG/CD can all be attractive to me and if I were single, I wouldn't rule anyone out. (Seriously, Buck Angel... that is ALL I need to say on the matter... hotness.)

    1282143139
    Muz333 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 696
    • Joined: 18 Apr 2010

    *suddenly feels young being a teen* :p

    1282144157
    Vampyrewillow [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 416
    • Joined: 26 Jan 2009

    I Was in the alternative crowd, i just started dressing how i wanted to and listening to what i wanted to and then made friends with people with the same hobbie and interests as me, there was about 3 bisexual people in our group but all of us were open to people being who they want, i think thats why being bi is popular on the alternative scene because we are generally more accepting of people.

    even though i was mainly in the alternative scene my two best friends were relatively "normal" and they were both gay and a lesbian, so much so we were named the agy the goth and the lesbian, in a jokey way by our friends etc.

    i went to one of the schools with the worst reputations in liverpool and while some people were extremely close minded and aggressive, i found alot of people to be accepting of people of all circumstances!

    i don't really like the term flexisexual =/ i think i am straight but i find women attractive, but i dont think i would want to be sexual or be in a relationship with a woman!

    VW x

    (btw i've been up all night and am very tired so if i make no sense that explains it!)

    1282145041
    telemachus [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 314
    • Joined: 10 May 2010

    flexisexual implies some sort of gymnastic component is required. Pansexual is a much more appealing term

    In fact, a quick non-brand-specific internet search reveals very few flexisexual results (save a quick urban dictionary result) whereas pansexuality (or omnisexuality) yields far more.

    1282145420
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6178
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    telemachus wrote:

    flexisexual implies some sort of gymnastic component is required. Pansexual is a much more appealing term

    In fact, a quick non-brand-specific internet search reveals very few flexisexual results (save a quick urban dictionary result) whereas pansexuality (or omnisexuality) yields far more.

    Pan sexuals implies some form of frying or poaching then.

    I do think pansexual is a much better term too, not that I'm too bothered by the other, although I can't get Pan the god out of my head when I hear it... Which then makes me think beastiality.

    1282146179
    Doug [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 528
    • Joined: 4 Jun 2010

    cant they just be called people like everyone else?

    1282146660
    telemachus [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 314
    • Joined: 10 May 2010

    It does make me think of Pan's People. Disturbingly.

    1282148923
    Artel [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major
    • Posts: 77
    • Joined: 12 Sep 2009

    Flexisexuals. Hmm. People who don't want to put a particular tag on their sexuality and demonstrate this by ......creating another tag to describe their sexuality.

    Odd concept!

    1282149090
    Artel [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major
    • Posts: 77
    • Joined: 12 Sep 2009

    Perhaps the best thing to do is shun the prefixes altogether and instead of being hetero, homo, bi or anything else, we could all just be described as sexual?

    1282149588
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 3406
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    Artel wrote:

    Flexisexuals. Hmm. People who don't want to put a particular tag on their sexuality and demonstrate this by ......creating another tag to describe their sexuality.

    Odd concept!

    Labels aren't always created by the people who are labelled by them :)

    I'm not sure on my opinion - I think labels can be useful if you can succintly describe a situation with one word....how often is that actually possible though? Especially in terms of sexuality - labels are just insufficient so I don't see why we need one.

    Adx

    1282150782
    Tupperwareheart [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 199
    • Joined: 2 Jun 2010

    telemachus wrote:

    It does make me think of Pan's People. Disturbingly.

    Makes me think of Pan's Labyrinth..

    Like a lot of people here, if it comes down to box ticking i'll tick 'bi' because that's the closest thing to me. I've only ever considered myself sexual, rather than any actual label.. Mainly because i've grown up with a family not very tolerant of homosexuality, and then suddenly saying you're bisexual means you must be doing it for attention, a girl cant win! At the end of the day, i think the best way to put it is I'm attracted to a person for who they are and not what they keep in their underwear.

    1282150887
    Artel [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major
    • Posts: 77
    • Joined: 12 Sep 2009

    Alicia D'amore wrote:

    Artel wrote:

    Flexisexuals. Hmm. People who don't want to put a particular tag on their sexuality and demonstrate this by ......creating another tag to describe their sexuality.

    Odd concept!

    Labels aren't always created by the people who are labelled by them :)

    I'm not sure on my opinion - I think labels can be useful if you can succintly describe a situation with one word....how often is that actually possible though? Especially in terms of sexuality - labels are just insufficient so I don't see why we need one.

    Adx

    Very true, and sometimes they are :) This one has a Cosmo sub-editor feel about it.

    1282152136
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 3406
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    Artel wrote:

    Very true, and sometimes they are :) This one has a Cosmo sub-editor feel about it.

    Likely!

    *Seeths at the mention of that magazine*

    Adx

    1282160387
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6178
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    headsouth wrote:

    "Hey, I didn't know you were bi! I am too..."

    "Actually I'm not. I'm flex"

    "Really Erm... what's that??"

    "I mean a Flexisexual"

    "Ha, now you've really lost me!"

    "Well, it's really interesting actually, you see ........"

    Yep, that's one really useful label to pin on yourself.

    Alternatively...

    "Hey, I didn't know you were bi! I am too..."

    "I'm not really, I just fuck people that look pretty to me"

    "Oh right, I see! That's cool! Am I pretty to you?"

    It also reminds me of Ricky's 'Flanimals'...

    Labels can and are very useful, I'm sure you'll agree, I just don't think Ad meant those labels...

    "nd one sounds a good chat up line.

    1282160733
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 3406
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    It also reminds me of Ricky's 'Flanimals'...

    Labels can and are very useful, I'm sure you'll agree, I just don't think Ad meant those labels...

    "nd one sounds a good chat up line.

    Yes I didn't mean those labels - is why I stressed that labels are rarely used sufficiently especially in terms of sexuality *sighs*

    Also - did you here about Gervais getting sued over Flanimals? *Snigger*

    Adx

    1282161201
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6178
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    Alicia D'amore wrote:


    It also reminds me of Ricky's 'Flanimals'...

    Labels can and are very useful, I'm sure you'll agree, I just don't think Ad meant those labels...

    "nd one sounds a good chat up line.

    Yes I didn't mean those labels - is why I stressed that labels are rarely used sufficiently especially in terms of sexuality *sighs*

    Also - did you here about Gervais getting sued over Flanimals? *Snigger*

    Adx

    I did indeed HEAR about it.

    1282161946
    telemachus [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 314
    • Joined: 10 May 2010

    WandA wrote:

    Alicia D'amore wrote:


    It also reminds me of Ricky's 'Flanimals'...

    Labels can and are very useful, I'm sure you'll agree, I just don't think Ad meant those labels...

    "nd one sounds a good chat up line.

    Yes I didn't mean those labels - is why I stressed that labels are rarely used sufficiently especially in terms of sexuality *sighs*

    Also - did you here about Gervais getting sued over Flanimals? *Snigger*

    Adx

    I did indeed HEAR about it.

    hahahaha!!!

    This exchange seems oddly familiar

    1282162377
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6178
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    telemachus wrote:

    hahahaha!!!

    This exchange seems oddly familiar

    Full stops Tele, full stops... Haha!

    I only point out Ad's mistakes, I can do that.

    1282162847
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 3406
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    WandA wrote:

    telemachus wrote:

    hahahaha!!!

    This exchange seems oddly familiar

    Full stops Tele, full stops... Haha!

    I only point out Ad's mistakes, I can do that.

    Hear.

    Sorry. I've been having troubles with here and hear lately - not entirely sure why...also with true and yes.

    Adx

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.