weird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world · 1 day agoThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.socialimagemessage-square31linkfedilinkarrow-up1581arrow-down111
arrow-up1570arrow-down1imageThe duality of mansub.wetshaving.socialweird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world · 1 day agomessage-square31linkfedilink
minus-squarejjjalljs@ttrpg.networklinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 day agoHuh. I guess no one says “monosexual”
minus-squaremoodylinkfedilinkarrow-up4·23 hours agoYou don’t need the mono- if there’s only one. It’s just sexual.
minus-squareZwiebel@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·17 hours agoNo that is ambigous, it could also mean the opposite of asexual (aka allosexual)
minus-squareSeptimaeus@infosec.publinkfedilinkarrow-up1·7 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-up1·19 hours 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-up1·17 hours 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.