@weird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world • 29 days agoThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.socialimagemessage-square31arrow-up1614
arrow-up1614imageThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.social@weird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world • 29 days agomessage-square31
minus-square@moody@lemmings.worldlinkfedilink4•29 days agoYou don’t need the mono- if there’s only one. It’s just sexual.
minus-square@Zwiebel@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglish3•28 days agoNo that is ambigous, it could also mean the opposite of asexual (aka allosexual)
minus-square@Septimaeus@infosec.publinkfedilink1•28 days agoAnd the ambiguity fits bisexuality better anyway. It’s useful too. You can use it to cut the knot on the bi-vs-pan debate, for example, or avoid silly arguments about gender distribution of partners, or say “nunya,” etc.
minus-square@jjjalljs@ttrpg.networklinkfedilink1•29 days agoSometimes you do. Like monologue. Monogamy. Hm but I guess the root isn’t a whole word in those cases.
minus-square@spankinspinach@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilink1•28 days ago“No mono” doesn’t have the same ring to it. Unless you’re indicating that you don’t have mono, in which case, it’s… informative?
Huh. I guess no one says “monosexual”
You don’t need the mono- if there’s only one. It’s just sexual.
No that is ambigous, it could also mean the opposite of asexual (aka allosexual)
And the ambiguity fits bisexuality better anyway. It’s useful too. You can use it to cut the knot on the bi-vs-pan debate, for example, or avoid silly arguments about gender distribution of partners, or say “nunya,” etc.
Sometimes you do. Like monologue. Monogamy. Hm but I guess the root isn’t a whole word in those cases.
“No mono” doesn’t have the same ring to it. Unless you’re indicating that you don’t have mono, in which case, it’s… informative?
mononucleosis.