Originally Posted by thas
Using the word heteroflexible cleared a lot of things up for me; I'm a male who isn't generally attracted to other men romantically (well, unless 'bromance' counts) or sexually, yet it's not out of the realm of possibility that I might end up comfortably and happily involved with a male partner. Since your orientation towards polyamory seems analogous to my orientation towards bisexuality/homosexuality, you could use the word "monoflexible" with me and I'd quickly understand where you were coming from.
I apologize for this post being more about me than you, SparklePony, but this is the first time I've run into the word heteroflexible outside the classroom (I'm a college student) and I'm kinda excited by that.
I liked this post a lot. I can relate and my gay friend and I talk about this quite a bit; we;d be an awesome couple if I would just be physically attracted to him. We can connect on a deeper level than just friends but when I see a naked guy I am just plain confused why anyone would be attracted to that and happy that not all women share that point of view with me.
Labels can be frustrating and they have always been a relationship hurdle for me. I don't know why people can't just be happy with what they have and need to call it something very specific. However the world would be pretty hard to live in if we stopped labeling everything.
How about functionally polyamorous; you identify and agree with the polyamory but prefer to be monogomous yourself and accepting of your partner.