"Flex Sex" -- Say What?

Okay, now it's getting a little ridiculous. We've had bisexuality and so-called sexual fluidity, then post-gays, non-gays, and retro gays, but the level of discussion has recently (and hopefully temporarily) descended to something called "Flexsexuality" -- that's right -- which was featured for all of a few minutes a couple of weeks ago on Fox's The Morning Show with Mike (Jerrick) and Juliet (Huddy/pictured). They had this young woman who was attracted to women but was afraid if she acted on this attraction she might lose her fiance, who sat there in the audience looking -- well -- dumb. As his fiancee was a little out of his league to begin with, he probably didn't care if she wanted to get it on with a gal now and then -- especially if she brought the gal home with her and they had a threesome. He didn't seem bright enough to realize that maybe his girlfriend could be -- gasp! -- a lesbian, and frankly no one on the program seemed bright enough to get it either. Instead they were talking mostly about "Flex Sex" -- another way of saying bisexuality and sexual fluidity and all the trendy, fashionable mostly horse shit that passes for serious discussion of homosexuality these days.

Let me make it clear to those who are "questioning" their sexuality. If you think you're attracted to your own sex, you're probably gay. Face it. It's okay to be gay!

One of the professional guests on the show was Dr. Robert Epstein, a geeky guy who insisted he was straight. [I will say at this point that, like sissies, most geeks are not gay and most gays are not geeks.] This makes him an expert on "flex sexuality?" Yeah, right. The male host went out of his way to make it clear to everybody that he never had, never would, couldn't possibly ever be attracted to a guy, but he didn't bother me half as much as one of the guests. That was this silly guy named "HM,"* who was described by the female host as a "flexsexual." HM told how he was attracted to men but would never, ever -- gosh -- date a guy, for crying out loud. He had no yucky, fag-like romantic feelings for men (no, he didn't say "yucky" or "fag-like" but he might as well have.) Googling him, I came across a chef of the same name who has written an ebook about food and sex -- could this be the same guy? Maybe he hoped for a little publicity on The Morning Show, while going out of his way to disassociate himself from the, like, gay community. [If this chef/author is a different person entirely, and not a "flexsexual," my apologies.)

Let me make it clear that I consider a geniunely bisexual -- pardon me, flexsexual -- person to be someone who makes no distinction -- whether it comes to sexual or romantic feelings -- between men and women, whom they find completely interchangeable, and he or she can fall in love with either sex and is equally attracted to both. I seriously doubt if very many of the people who call themselves bisexual fall into this category, however. I've never met one and I've met a lot of people, including bisexuals of varying ages. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who fell into this category given the vast variety of human sexuality and experience. But who knows?

So what are we to make of poor HM? Is he straight? Hardly. Perhaps he suffers from that old bugaboo, internalized homophobia. Perhaps he feels more like a stud because he tells everyone that he prefers to screw women. You might ask why would someone so ashamed of his homoerotic longings admit to being attracted to men on a television program? Because in his mind his attraction to men does not make him gay (i.e. -- a fag.) If his straight friends hassle him he can show off the girlfriend, or say his gay experiences were inconsequential, shrug it off in some manner. (Although he probably couldn't shrug off a bunch of fag-bashers.) And of course he can tell his friends he only said he was into Flex Sex to get on the show. Why everyone knows what a fuckin' stud he is! [NOTE: Remember I'm not saying that HM is gay, bi, flexsexual or anything else; it's HM himself who says on TV that he finds men attractive.]

There are many bi-identified men who feel the same way HM does. Women are for real relationships; men are just for sex. And they actually expect us to believe that this attitude has nothing to do with the fact that they live in a world that is still very homophobic and not at all heterophobic in any realistic fashion, where men who sleep with women are studs and men who sleep (exclusively) with men are fags. Sure. They whine about "biphobia" and readily, all-too-conveniently overlook their own homophobia. Pathetic!

I do not relate to these dumb wannabee macho guys-in-denial. We are not on the same page or the same planet. I don't want any of them telling me "Gee, guy we're going through this together, y'know" because we are definitely not going through it together. Like all the Jim McGreevey's of the world, they are hiding behind their wives, girlfriends, and children, being very selective in who they confess their "bisexuality" to, and not having to deal with many of the things that Out and Proud Gay Men and Women have to deal with in a society that -- let's face it -- still pretty much detests us. These guys who fuck men on the side but have their wives and children to prove their so-called "manhood" to themselves and everyone else are essentially perceived as being straight by the world at large -- and don't they know it!

Now I don't know if this is true for HM, but this kind of mentality can be found on many a gay dating site. Y'know, the "married bi's" who are looking for men to have sex -- or commit adultery -- with. On one site I heard from so many of these jerks I had to update my profile and tell them not to bother me.

There are some bi-identified individuals who are in same-sex relationships, have a strong connection to the gay community, and don't get all hysterical if someone says or thinks that they're gay -- they don't consider it an insult. I have no problem with bisexuals of that stripe.

But the other kind -- assuming any sensible person would even label them "bisexual" -- I have no use for at all.

And I have less use for shows like The Morning Show, which is clearly not the place to have a serious discussion about sexuality (any kind) or much of anything else. At least the producers were so uninterested in "flexsexuality" that they spent only a few minutes out of the show discussing it, and each of four guests had only a minute or two, if that, to speak. Guest lists on shows like this seem cobbled together from here and there with little regard for whether or not the guest actually has anything of intelligence or importance to say. I mean, HM, a flexsexual chef? What exactly is this guy an expert on? Cooking, maybe?

Talk about scraping the bottom of the crock pot!

UPDATE: * I was contacted by email by the real "HM" -- or at least someone with the same name who does not appear to be a chef or author -- who has apparently thought better of his participation on this program or is afraid people will think he was the guest. I have replaced his real name with fake initials to spare him further embarrassment. Let me make it clear that this piece is a review of "The Morning Show," and I am perfectly within my rights to critically comment on the show and on everyone who appeared on it, as well as the comments they made. If my comments and review are negative that is still my right. "HM" declared himself to be a flexsexual and talked about his attraction to men. He apparently used his real name. It is now part of the public record. I would suggest in the future that HM and everyone else think twice about what programs they go on, which issues they get involved in, and how they are going to be perceived by the public. I am hardly responsible if someone chooses to make public pronouncements that they later regret.