weird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world · 22 hours agoThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.socialimagemessage-square29fedilinkarrow-up1510arrow-down19
arrow-up1501arrow-down1imageThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.socialweird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world · 22 hours agomessage-square29fedilink
minus-squaremoody@lemmings.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·16 hours agoYou don’t need the mono- if there’s only one. It’s just sexual.
minus-squareZwiebel@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·11 hours agoNo that is ambigous, it could also mean the opposite of asexual (aka allosexual)
minus-squareSeptimaeus@infosec.publinkfedilinkarrow-up1·10 minutes 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-up1·12 hours 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.