Rethinking sexual orientation

I read an article some time ago that challenged some of the usual concepts of sexual orientation. After careful observation of some escapades at an unnamed party on an unnamed date at an undisclosed location, I came to realize that it may be quite accurate.

In some sense this theory fits with the formal Klein scale, but nobody uses the Klein scale because it is awkward and complicated. It certainly doesn't fit with the Kinsey continuum or the popular labels.
The idea is basically this:

Human beings have three different types of primary sexual orientation, the Physical (the desire for sex per se), the Romantic (the emotional bonds of a sexual relationship), and the Platonic (the emotional bonds of a non-sexual friendship). Each of these is considered more or less independent.

Hence I'd probably be biphysical, slightly homoromantic, and biplatonic. This would of course be encapsulated in the usual label of "bisexual."

But I could be immensely heteroplatonic and still be "bisexual," or I could be even more biromantic than I am. I might not even have to be biphysical. The usual label doesn't say enough.

Furthermore, the theory goes that most "heterosexuals" are actually biphysical, heteroromantic, and homoplatonic.

Hence straight guys will fool around with each other all the time, but they're "not gay." There's no homoromantic, just homophysical.
And notice how most of the close friends of straight males tend to be male?

And so then the traditionally "homosexual" person is moderately homophysical, homoromantic, and heteroplatonic.

And of course it also explains the confusion between different definitions of "gay" versus "straight." Are you talking about the physical or the romantic?

And it also explains why the most homophobic are also often the most "homosexual." If you're intensely homophysical but heteroromantic, the tension within you becomes an envy or hatred for those who lack or have resolved this tension.

As for the party, I made the comparison because the most strongly "straight" in terms of relationships were often the ones cracking the most vividly homosexual jokes, (as a release of biphysical energy?) and of course there was a notable imbalance towards males in the composition of this "straight" man's friendship group. It fit perfectly.

It certainly convinced me that the usual system is more harmful than helpful. Its categorizations are too artificial and divisive. It's worth knowing for yourself who you're attracted to and like to associate with, but it doesn't make sense to draw the line so harshly. Like I said, the Klein scale does this too, but it's too hard to work with. This new three-point scale may be the best compromise.

Think about it. Does this new system change the way you think of yourself?