weird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world · 1 month agoThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.socialimagemessage-square31linkfedilinkarrow-up1613arrow-down110
arrow-up1603arrow-down1imageThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.socialweird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world · 1 month agomessage-square31linkfedilink
minus-squaremoody@lemmings.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 month agoYou don’t need the mono- if there’s only one. It’s just sexual.
minus-squareZwiebel@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 month agoNo that is ambigous, it could also mean the opposite of asexual (aka allosexual)
minus-squareSeptimaeus@infosec.publinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 month 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 month agoSometimes you do. Like monologue. Monogamy. Hm but I guess the root isn’t a whole word in those cases.
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.