If you're referring to this article:

https://thegaystraighttalker.medium.com/the-fluidity-of-sexuality-9dea0090d430

My criticism of you was because, on its face, you APPEARED to be suggesting that everyone should question their sexuality and be open to experimenting even with people to whom they have no attraction. That may be your experience, and I admire your willingness to publicly share your experiences in that area of your life. But many of us -- homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual alike -- are confident in who we desire from a very early age...and making condescending comments such as telling me I'm not some "golden gay" are quite insulting, because deriding somebody for their sexual orientation per se is conceptually antithetical to the concept of sexual sovereignty. Sexuality is fluid for many people (that's where we agree), but that doesn't mean it's fluid for everyone.

Also, you later clarified that omnisexuality was NOT actually what you were mandating for everyone...yet, you still made room to suggest that it's perfectly okay for anybody to have their sexual orientation questioned by complete strangers based on the fact that sexual fluidity exists for many people. Did I misunderstand this? Am I reading too much into your words, and we actually agree on more (in the realm of sex-positivity) than not?

I'd also like to point out that I haven't unfollowed you, because, despite the points upon which we seem to disagree, your core intent still seems to be sexual freedom for our community as a whole. And that's what really counts. If you've lost other followers since having written that piece, I can't comment on the "why" without diving into your full portfolio of writings if I was going to even attempt to speculate. So, to that end, why can't we all accept that many people are indeed sexually fluid, but some are not...and, either way, people should be encouraged to explore sex in ways that are healthy and consensual, as long as one isn't taking advantage of another person? In whatever way one's sexuality applies to (and manifests itself in) the individua?