@weird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world • 2 months agoThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.socialimagemessage-square31arrow-up1614
arrow-up1614imageThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.social@weird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world • 2 months agomessage-square31
minus-square@moody@lemmings.worldlinkfedilink4•2 months agoYou don’t need the mono- if there’s only one. It’s just sexual.
minus-square@Zwiebel@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglish3•2 months agoNo that is ambigous, it could also mean the opposite of asexual (aka allosexual)
minus-square@Septimaeus@infosec.publinkfedilink1•2 months 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•2 months 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•2 months 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.