weird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world · 2 days agoThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.socialimagemessage-square31linkfedilinkarrow-up1589arrow-down111
arrow-up1578arrow-down1imageThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.socialweird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world · 2 days agomessage-square31linkfedilink
minus-squarejjjalljs@ttrpg.networklinkfedilinkarrow-up5·2 days agoHuh. I guess no one says “monosexual”
minus-squaremoody@lemmings.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·2 days agoYou don’t need the mono- if there’s only one. It’s just sexual.
minus-squareZwiebel@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 day agoNo that is ambigous, it could also mean the opposite of asexual (aka allosexual)
minus-squareSeptimaeus@infosec.publinkfedilinkarrow-up1·22 hours 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-squarejjjalljs@ttrpg.networklinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 day agoSometimes you do. Like monologue. Monogamy. Hm but I guess the root isn’t a whole word in those cases.
minus-squarespankinspinach@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 day 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.