“men exploring their sexuality threatens the patriarchy and heteronormativity and women exploring their sexuality doesn’t” 23:19 is so poorly articulated it pains me. For centuries even the idea of feminine sexual pleasure has threatened patriarchal structures. The reason that women can seemingly elide the stigma that men face in sexual exploration (and what should have been said) is that patriarchy regards women as objects of sexual desire rather than autonomous sexual beings. In the patriarchal view, lesbian sex is a contradiction in terms. It’s true that men generally face far greater scrutiny and punishment from society for engaging in homosexuality, but only because women aren’t taken seriously as sexual beings. To imply that women benefit in this particular context and fail to acknowledge that it comes at the expense of their human dignity… ugh It must be said that actually any woman (straight or gay) asserting, expressing, or exploring her sexuality poses a threat to the patriarchy. But to dig a bit deeper into this interesting moment in the conversation, I can’t help but worry that to the extent that “heteroflexibility” works around men’s internalized homophobia, to the extent that it allows men to retain some semblance of patriarchal masculinity, it also betrays the greater queer community. If it’s a label that allows men to explore queerness without identifying as Queer it may alleviate some personal suffering but it also works to uphold or even reinvent the patriarchy. Queer marginalization and oppression takes many forms across history and across different societies. One form is the distinction and privileging of those who periodically engage in queer behaviors over a class of people who are somehow more permanently marked as queer. My question to anyone who identifies as heteroflexible is: can you call yourself “Queer” with your full chest? and if not what are gaining by distancing yourself from queerness? If someone called you queer, would you take offense? Finding the courage to embrace your own queerness unconditionally is a service to all queer people everywhere.
to clarify my last point slightly: I don’t wish to impose any label on anyone, rather I want to point out that we can all sometimes mistake comfort for authenticity and making compromises with existing power structures can feel very comfortable and natural. I also want to point out that all of the ways you work to include or exclude yourself in various categories have tangible political consequences for others. Lastly I suppose I want to argue the political value of umbrella terminology like “Queer” and challenge the value or purpose of inventing ever-finer, ever-more-nuanced distinctions.
I would like to ask, does the same thing apply to women when they identify as heteroflexible? That it allows them to retain their idea of patriarchal femininity and betraying the queer community? That it also doesn’t uphold or reinvent the patriarchy? Plus, heteroflexible and homoflexible fall under the bi+ umbrella, so I think it really depends on the person using these labels. I don’t like the idea that if men use the term heteroflexible are always doing so, just to distance themselves from queerness. In fact, there’s a comment here from a man who said he used it as a safe label to transition himself into calling himself bisexual and embracing it. It’s a lot more nuanced than just that. I’ve found myself going back and forth using bisexual and heteroflexible quite a lot and unless there is potential harm on the person’s end, I don’t see any issue with people (men included) using it. Also, I know that wording of his seemed poorly articulated, but I don’t think he was trying to say that men’s sexuality is a threat to the patriarchy, while women’s are 100% not (I totally disagree with that, btw). I think he’s trying to articulate in the way that men’s sexuality is seen as a threat that is unique to them, if you catch my drift.
I dont want to invalidate anyones feelings here, but if you are heteroflexible or homoflexible, you are also bisexual. Remember that bisexuality is a very broad orientation. Basically someone who has potential to feel attraction for the same gender and/or different gender at any moment can be considered bisexual. However, there are multiple sexual labels that fit in as sub categories of bisexuality - heteroflexible, homoflexible, bicurious, homosexual biromantic, heterosexual biromantic, and so on. If heteroflexible was a separate category from bisexual, we would be dealing with a hundred different labels. But people dont think this way. When they hear bisexual they think of someone who is attracted in the same way to men as to women, but that is rarely the case.
I definitely think we can get too obsessed with labels in the queer community (myself included). I love the reclaiming of the label "queer" for just that reason. Also I tried Vizzy due to these episodes and I actually really like it! I am not normally a seltzer drinker (White Claws are nasty imo) but I really like Vizzy!
I feel like this conversation could have benefitted from the inclusion of how aromanticism and asexuality theorises the split attraction model. Where romantic and sexual attraction are sperate. It also useful for allosexual people to make sense of their sexuality.
I love this podcast SO SO much. It's so informative. Honestly, this was a great conversation because as a queer late bloomer, I am kind of sad by the fact that there are labels and divisions within the community. I feel like as someone who identifies as bi/pan I shouldn't be treated any differently by anyone in the community. Like, there's enough people in the world who are unkind to queer people, so I feel like why would you create divisions in the community based on what people identify as? I get people feel how they feel based on past experiences, but basically what I'm saying is, as someone who is attracted to girls too, it makes me sad that I could miss out on dating a girl who identifies as fully lesbian because as bi/pan I'm not "lesbian enough," if that makes sense. I am someone who is genuinely attracted to the heart and soul of a person, whether male or female, and of course if he/she/they/them are hot too, then...HELLO! LOL (BTW, I LOVE your little interview sidebars! They are such a fantastic touch to the episode!)
Creating division within our own community is absolute silly business! Sadly, some people do think this way. Everyone is subject to their own experience of course and it’s totally okay to have preferences, which is why we have these conversations. Thank you so much for your kind words 💕
I consider myself homoflexible because the few guys I'm into tend to be guys in an unconventional way, i.e. femboys or male aligned non-binary people, but I'm into women as a general rule.
I'm not sure I'd agree. I'd offer that heteroflexibility is more opportunistic, meaning "If I find myself in that position then it's ok." Whereas a person can be bisexual but not Bi romantic, meaning: "I feel sexually attracted to different genders and that's apart of how I identify myself."
I'm of the position that heterosexuality and heteroflexibility are distinct sexualities, with the latter being queer. It appears the queer sexual spectrum will continue to erode heterosexism and monosexism , where heterosexuality is not a stable and clear cut experience of sexuality. It is flexible in its sexuality to retain it's hold ss a person. The goal is for heteroflexibility to own its queer reality.. to get closeted queers to come out as queer through the language of heteroflexibility.. The myth of heterosexuality: it's stable and no flexible sexuality is permitted, even among queer people who can pass as straight but some might not pass as straight. Being heteroflexible could be an experience of non-passing as "straight". Again, being straight and straight-flexible are distinct realities, with latter groups having to relearn their lack of straightness. Rejecting Heteroflexibility means we're going to gatekeep folks who do not have normative attractions and are queer. This reproduces the heterosexual matrix, where being qieer is not based on their attractions.
I'm only hetero flexible because of a lack of opportunities to be in a relationship with another woman. I live in the South and i literally don't know ANY gay or bi people. When you cannot explore your proclivities it's hard to distill your label because it's a fluid thing. In theory I'm probably homoflexible but just "don't know it".
The south needs more queers but we’re also afraid to move there due to safety sadly. It’s a shame because the south has so many beautiful landscapes! Sending love 💕
@@QueerCollective Metro Atlanta is great (my hometown) and Charlotte NC is a purple, very gay/liberal friendly place, but there's also a lot of conservative, threatened people. I'm doing my social part for the gat agenda by having raised my daughter properly. She's "95% gay" lol. I just asked my 6 year old son who mentioned getting married if he wanted to marry a boy or girl, and he simply answered it. I try to normalize it so he doesn't ever know it's not "normal'.
Love that! Sounds like you’re being a great mom and providing your kids with the knowledge and acceptance we all wish for. Wish more kids had this, especially in the south
don’t know if i understand the material difference between identifying this way or as “bi-curious?” and also i think creating this new term doesn’t really quite challenge what he’s saying it does? if men are penalized for being curious or gay, then why is there a term that sort of disguises their sexual exploration in a way that’s less challenging? wouldn’t we want to be challenging the heteronormative status like he’s saying? not sure im understanding it all
Personally, I think it’s more so to help them feel comfortable with said exploration. It is true that far more women feel comfortable identifying as bisexual than men and I think that has to do with the societal standards we constructed. If a man is bisexual he is often categorized as gay. The sad reality is that gay men are often ridiculed in society because they’re not manly enough or masculine enough and the societal standard of what it means to be a man is highly toxic. If this can be used as a tool to explore and get more comfortable with sexuality or even explore bisexuality then why not
Is it odd that, in my head, I'm thinking of the term heteroflexible as describing "when-in-Rome bisexuality"? I jest. Words are just a way of conceptualizing feeling. If it feels right, it feels right.
My take from this conversation is that bi-curious is having an interest in sexual and/or romantic experiences with multiple genders/sexes, while heteroflexible is more so not limiting yourself from experiences (primarily sexual) due to there being someone there who is the same gender/sex as you. The distinction here would be the level of interest in such experiences. However, heteroflexible can be a bridge to bisexuality but it doesn't have to be.
I also called myself a bisexual/pansexual lesbian!!! 👌🌈Felt great to hear someone else using the crossover of Labels.word are per definition always exclusionary, and fail at encompassing the entirety of the reality they aim to describe. So mushing together several words get actually closer - in my opinion - to depicting the actuality of fluid, complex social dynamics. For me "lesbian" is not merely a term to describe my sexual/romantic attraction, but also a gender expression. I habe Heard many older lesbians talk About the Concept "lesbian" like this and relate. I never quite felt like i fit the box of "a good enough woman", but i definitly feel like i am a good enough lesbian. It fits me. It comes from a strong identification with the political dimension of lesbians, a radical queer feminism, it comes from culture and community and a sense of belonging, it comes from the fact that i certainly feel sexually attracted to (cis)men, but i am reluctant to dating straight men again for various reasons. The evil tentacles of patriarchy sadly reach into the most private corners of life, and make dating cishet men relatively unattractive. Due to the *thousands of years of patriarchal, genderbased oppression* there is something inherently unequal for me in relationships with cishet men. both internalized behavioral patterns i hold, and the same for the men i dated, which just came out, even if we both were selfaware and worked on equality. that is why cishet women enjoy watching gay men movies/porn, cause there is an equality regarding power present, that is missing in heterosexual relationships, embedded in a society reeking of sexualized violence, genderbased oppression and rigid gender roles. besides that: the queer experience is something that i´d need a close partner to "get", which is - not impossible to be the case with a cishet dude, but so much less likely.
I’m shocked that y’all never talk about the violences that coming from straight flexible community towards the LGBTQ+ community Especially trans community
I'm a bit confused by the idea that men exploring their sexuality is a threat to the patriarchy. For instance, a straight man exploring his heterosexuality is not a threat to the patriarchy. It seem to be more of a threat to the matriarchy. My question is, why is male sexuality seen as a "threat" at all? Why can't it be something good, encouraged, and praised? Both the Patriarchy and the Matriarchy should embrace and praise male sexuality whether it's hetero or not.
We completely agree! Maceo is more so speaking to the societal standards, which are highly patriarchal and homophobic and how men are held to the standard of having to be hetero and masculine, strong, emotionless, etc. And how our western society rewards that so it's difficult for men to want to explore outside of it.
@@Pinkywinkykinky Agreed. Identities help people understand their experiences and give themselves confidence and validity in who they are, no matter how detailed and/or specific they
I understand and if someone feels the need for that more power to them. But is that identity for you or everyone else? Like why does it matter outside of whomever you're looking to date?
It's not weird to anyone that LGBT community was needed because of society trying to force people to be what they considered the right identity i.e. Male, Female, Gay, Straight etc. and now there's so much energy put into labeling everyone. I'm a man I identify as lesbian now how fast do you think it'll be before someone throws a fit?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Heteroflexible in my experience was a gate way for me to get comfortable and to move into my true self as a bisexual.
Sometimes those transition labels can be super helpful on our journey & sometimes the label is just the destination 💗
“men exploring their sexuality threatens the patriarchy and heteronormativity and women exploring their sexuality doesn’t” 23:19 is so poorly articulated it pains me. For centuries even the idea of feminine sexual pleasure has threatened patriarchal structures. The reason that women can seemingly elide the stigma that men face in sexual exploration (and what should have been said) is that patriarchy regards women as objects of sexual desire rather than autonomous sexual beings. In the patriarchal view, lesbian sex is a contradiction in terms. It’s true that men generally face far greater scrutiny and punishment from society for engaging in homosexuality, but only because women aren’t taken seriously as sexual beings.
To imply that women benefit in this particular context and fail to acknowledge that it comes at the expense of their human dignity… ugh
It must be said that actually any woman (straight or gay) asserting, expressing, or exploring her sexuality poses a threat to the patriarchy.
But to dig a bit deeper into this interesting moment in the conversation, I can’t help but worry that to the extent that “heteroflexibility” works around men’s internalized homophobia, to the extent that it allows men to retain some semblance of patriarchal masculinity, it also betrays the greater queer community. If it’s a label that allows men to explore queerness without identifying as Queer it may alleviate some personal suffering but it also works to uphold or even reinvent the patriarchy.
Queer marginalization and oppression takes many forms across history and across different societies. One form is the distinction and privileging of those who periodically engage in queer behaviors over a class of people who are somehow more permanently marked as queer.
My question to anyone who identifies as heteroflexible is: can you call yourself “Queer” with your full chest? and if not what are gaining by distancing yourself from queerness? If someone called you queer, would you take offense? Finding the courage to embrace your own queerness unconditionally is a service to all queer people everywhere.
to clarify my last point slightly: I don’t wish to impose any label on anyone, rather I want to point out that we can all sometimes mistake comfort for authenticity and making compromises with existing power structures can feel very comfortable and natural. I also want to point out that all of the ways you work to include or exclude yourself in various categories have tangible political consequences for others. Lastly I suppose I want to argue the political value of umbrella terminology like “Queer” and challenge the value or purpose of inventing ever-finer, ever-more-nuanced distinctions.
Very well said. I agree.
I would like to ask, does the same thing apply to women when they identify as heteroflexible? That it allows them to retain their idea of patriarchal femininity and betraying the queer community? That it also doesn’t uphold or reinvent the patriarchy?
Plus, heteroflexible and homoflexible fall under the bi+ umbrella, so I think it really depends on the person using these labels. I don’t like the idea that if men use the term heteroflexible are always doing so, just to distance themselves from queerness. In fact, there’s a comment here from a man who said he used it as a safe label to transition himself into calling himself bisexual and embracing it. It’s a lot more nuanced than just that. I’ve found myself going back and forth using bisexual and heteroflexible quite a lot and unless there is potential harm on the person’s end, I don’t see any issue with people (men included) using it.
Also, I know that wording of his seemed poorly articulated, but I don’t think he was trying to say that men’s sexuality is a threat to the patriarchy, while women’s are 100% not (I totally disagree with that, btw). I think he’s trying to articulate in the way that men’s sexuality is seen as a threat that is unique to them, if you catch my drift.
I dont want to invalidate anyones feelings here, but if you are heteroflexible or homoflexible, you are also bisexual. Remember that bisexuality is a very broad orientation. Basically someone who has potential to feel attraction for the same gender and/or different gender at any moment can be considered bisexual. However, there are multiple sexual labels that fit in as sub categories of bisexuality - heteroflexible, homoflexible, bicurious, homosexual biromantic, heterosexual biromantic, and so on. If heteroflexible was a separate category from bisexual, we would be dealing with a hundred different labels.
But people dont think this way. When they hear bisexual they think of someone who is attracted in the same way to men as to women, but that is rarely the case.
I definitely think we can get too obsessed with labels in the queer community (myself included). I love the reclaiming of the label "queer" for just that reason.
Also I tried Vizzy due to these episodes and I actually really like it! I am not normally a seltzer drinker (White Claws are nasty imo) but I really like Vizzy!
We totally agree and appreciate the perspective. It’s why we have these conversations. Also, glad you like Vizzy! 💕
I feel like this conversation could have benefitted from the inclusion of how aromanticism and asexuality theorises the split attraction model. Where romantic and sexual attraction are sperate. It also useful for allosexual people to make sense of their sexuality.
@@lynettegeldenhuys7954 ou thank you for sharing we’ll look into this. Do you know of any good resources?
I love this podcast SO SO much. It's so informative. Honestly, this was a great conversation because as a queer late bloomer, I am kind of sad by the fact that there are labels and divisions within the community. I feel like as someone who identifies as bi/pan I shouldn't be treated any differently by anyone in the community. Like, there's enough people in the world who are unkind to queer people, so I feel like why would you create divisions in the community based on what people identify as? I get people feel how they feel based on past experiences, but basically what I'm saying is, as someone who is attracted to girls too, it makes me sad that I could miss out on dating a girl who identifies as fully lesbian because as bi/pan I'm not "lesbian enough," if that makes sense. I am someone who is genuinely attracted to the heart and soul of a person, whether male or female, and of course if he/she/they/them are hot too, then...HELLO! LOL (BTW, I LOVE your little interview sidebars! They are such a fantastic touch to the episode!)
Creating division within our own community is absolute silly business! Sadly, some people do think this way. Everyone is subject to their own experience of course and it’s totally okay to have preferences, which is why we have these conversations. Thank you so much for your kind words 💕
@@QueerCollective agree completely. ♥️🏳️🌈🙌🏽
I consider myself homoflexible because the few guys I'm into tend to be guys in an unconventional way, i.e. femboys or male aligned non-binary people, but I'm into women as a general rule.
So fair! I love the term homoflexible haha
Heteroflexibles/homoflexibles wouldn't necessarily date the person, other than sex, whereas bisexuals are usually romantically attracted as well
Yes that seems to be more so the definition!
@@QueerCollective I'm attracted to females but I have sexual experiences with the same gender and I will never ever date my own gender
@@ntobekoluthuli1997 well, only time can tell if this will evolve to something more than just sex
@@artaquino6388 let's see about that 😊😊😊
I'm not sure I'd agree. I'd offer that heteroflexibility is more opportunistic, meaning "If I find myself in that position then it's ok." Whereas a person can be bisexual but not Bi romantic, meaning: "I feel sexually attracted to different genders and that's apart of how I identify myself."
I'm of the position that heterosexuality and heteroflexibility are distinct sexualities, with the latter being queer. It appears the queer sexual spectrum will continue to erode heterosexism and monosexism , where heterosexuality is not a stable and clear cut experience of sexuality. It is flexible in its sexuality to retain it's hold ss a person.
The goal is for heteroflexibility to own its queer reality.. to get closeted queers to come out as queer through the language of heteroflexibility..
The myth of heterosexuality: it's stable and no flexible sexuality is permitted, even among queer people who can pass as straight but some might not pass as straight. Being heteroflexible could be an experience of non-passing as "straight". Again, being straight and straight-flexible are distinct realities, with latter groups having to relearn their lack of straightness.
Rejecting Heteroflexibility means we're going to gatekeep folks who do not have normative attractions and are queer. This reproduces the heterosexual matrix, where being qieer is not based on their attractions.
An interesting perspective thank you for sharing
I'm only hetero flexible because of a lack of opportunities to be in a relationship with another woman. I live in the South and i literally don't know ANY gay or bi people. When you cannot explore your proclivities it's hard to distill your label because it's a fluid thing. In theory I'm probably homoflexible but just "don't know it".
The south needs more queers but we’re also afraid to move there due to safety sadly. It’s a shame because the south has so many beautiful landscapes! Sending love 💕
@@QueerCollective Metro Atlanta is great (my hometown) and Charlotte NC is a purple, very gay/liberal friendly place, but there's also a lot of conservative, threatened people. I'm doing my social part for the gat agenda by having raised my daughter properly. She's "95% gay" lol. I just asked my 6 year old son who mentioned getting married if he wanted to marry a boy or girl, and he simply answered it. I try to normalize it so he doesn't ever know it's not "normal'.
Love that! Sounds like you’re being a great mom and providing your kids with the knowledge and acceptance we all wish for. Wish more kids had this, especially in the south
don’t know if i understand the material difference between identifying this way or as “bi-curious?” and also i think creating this new term doesn’t really quite challenge what he’s saying it does? if men are penalized for being curious or gay, then why is there a term that sort of disguises their sexual exploration in a way that’s less challenging? wouldn’t we want to be challenging the heteronormative status like he’s saying? not sure im understanding it all
this feels sterilizing of a queer experience and politic
Personally, I think it’s more so to help them feel comfortable with said exploration. It is true that far more women feel comfortable identifying as bisexual than men and I think that has to do with the societal standards we constructed. If a man is bisexual he is often categorized as gay. The sad reality is that gay men are often ridiculed in society because they’re not manly enough or masculine enough and the societal standard of what it means to be a man is highly toxic. If this can be used as a tool to explore and get more comfortable with sexuality or even explore bisexuality then why not
Is it odd that, in my head, I'm thinking of the term heteroflexible as describing "when-in-Rome bisexuality"? I jest. Words are just a way of conceptualizing feeling. If it feels right, it feels right.
so 'heteroflexible/ homoflexible' is basically bi-curious in a different warper. That's what I'm getting from this.
My take from this conversation is that bi-curious is having an interest in sexual and/or romantic experiences with multiple genders/sexes, while heteroflexible is more so not limiting yourself from experiences (primarily sexual) due to there being someone there who is the same gender/sex as you. The distinction here would be the level of interest in such experiences. However, heteroflexible can be a bridge to bisexuality but it doesn't have to be.
@@QueerCollective Thanks for clarifying that. I love your content btw.
Wish the Feeld socials happened on the weekend 😢
I also called myself a bisexual/pansexual lesbian!!! 👌🌈Felt great to hear someone else using the crossover of Labels.word are per definition always exclusionary, and fail at encompassing the entirety of the reality they aim to describe. So mushing together several words get actually closer - in my opinion - to depicting the actuality of fluid, complex social dynamics.
For me "lesbian" is not merely a term to describe my sexual/romantic attraction, but also a gender expression. I habe Heard many older lesbians talk About the Concept "lesbian" like this and relate. I never quite felt like i fit the box of "a good enough woman", but i definitly feel like i am a good enough lesbian. It fits me. It comes from a strong identification with the political dimension of lesbians, a radical queer feminism, it comes from culture and community and a sense of belonging, it comes from the fact that i certainly feel sexually attracted to (cis)men, but i am reluctant to dating straight men again for various reasons.
The evil tentacles of patriarchy sadly reach into the most private corners of life, and make dating cishet men relatively unattractive. Due to the *thousands of years of patriarchal, genderbased oppression* there is something inherently unequal for me in relationships with cishet men. both internalized behavioral patterns i hold, and the same for the men i dated, which just came out, even if we both were selfaware and worked on equality. that is why cishet women enjoy watching gay men movies/porn, cause there is an equality regarding power present, that is missing in heterosexual relationships, embedded in a society reeking of sexualized violence, genderbased oppression and rigid gender roles.
besides that: the queer experience is something that i´d need a close partner to "get", which is - not impossible to be the case with a cishet dude, but so much less likely.
I’m shocked that y’all never talk about the violences that coming from straight flexible community towards the LGBTQ+ community Especially trans community
I'm a bit confused by the idea that men exploring their sexuality is a threat to the patriarchy. For instance, a straight man exploring his heterosexuality is not a threat to the patriarchy. It seem to be more of a threat to the matriarchy. My question is, why is male sexuality seen as a "threat" at all? Why can't it be something good, encouraged, and praised? Both the Patriarchy and the Matriarchy should embrace and praise male sexuality whether it's hetero or not.
We completely agree! Maceo is more so speaking to the societal standards, which are highly patriarchal and homophobic and how men are held to the standard of having to be hetero and masculine, strong, emotionless, etc. And how our western society rewards that so it's difficult for men to want to explore outside of it.
Maybe the self identity of lesbian and bisexual would be called lesboflexible instead of homoflexible?
Ooouuuu intriguing!
Gawd y'all label Nazis are annoying weirdo shit
they're just trying to help people with identity's, man
@@Pinkywinkykinky Agreed. Identities help people understand their experiences and give themselves confidence and validity in who they are, no matter how detailed and/or specific they
I understand and if someone feels the need for that more power to them. But is that identity for you or everyone else? Like why does it matter outside of whomever you're looking to date?
It's not weird to anyone that LGBT community was needed because of society trying to force people to be what they considered the right identity i.e. Male, Female, Gay, Straight etc. and now there's so much energy put into labeling everyone. I'm a man I identify as lesbian now how fast do you think it'll be before someone throws a fit?
@@SeldomSeen3 I'm pretty sure they answer your question in this video dawg