Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Defending monosexuals

Expand Messages
  • John Vertical
    ... Okay, since this silly thred doesn t seem to be going away, I ll just say what I ve been thinking all along: upgrade to stereosexual to be able to use both
    Message 1 of 104 , Jun 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      >Then "buysexual" would be a customer. What would we replace "mono" with? (:
      >Eugene

      Okay, since this silly thred doesn't seem to be going away, I'll just say
      what I've been thinking all along: upgrade to stereosexual to be able to use
      both channels. Or should that be "all three"? ;)

      John Vertical
    • GBBS GBBS
      But bisexual and ambisexual imply that there are only two sexes to be attracted to: that s why pansexual is such a good word (whilst also being great for
      Message 104 of 104 , Jun 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        But "bisexual" and "ambisexual" imply that there are only two sexes to be attracted to: that's why "pansexual" is such a good word (whilst also being great for puns...).

        _____________________________
        Sent from my phone using flurry - Get free mobile email and news at: http://www.flurry.com

        --- Original Message ---
        Date: Sat May 31 04:34:24 PDT 2008
        From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>
        To: CONLANG@...
        Subject: Re: Defending monosexuals (was: YAEPT: uu/ii )
        ---

        ISTR there was a period when "ambisexual" was in contention.
        Different language but better syllable count. But still one too many,
        I guess.

        I wasn't coining, though. I'm sure I've seen the term "monosexual"
        used this way before...

        On 5/31/08, Eugene Oh <un.doing@...> wrote:
        > That email was more or less tongue-in-cheek. I thought it was quite a nifty (hence my categorising it as "funny") way of Mark's to encompass both homo- and heterosexuals with the word, punning on "bi-". In fact, I hadn't known that hermaphrodites were once called "bisexuals". No offence/ignorance meant -- apologies.
        > Of course, we also vaguely know why "bisexual" won out over "amphoterosexual" ultimately, given the number of syllables in each and the general laziness of humans.
        >
        > Eugene
        >
        > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 2:20 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
        >
        >> Eugene Oh wrote:
        >>
        >>> "Monosexuals" is a funny word!
        >>>
        >> I do not see why "monosexual" is any more or less funny than "bisexual". The latter was, when I was young, and adjective meaning 'having both male &
        >> female sex organs', i.e. hermaphrodite. Over the last half century the word
        >> has shifted to mean 'attracted sexually to both sexes.'
        >>
        >> On the analogy of homosexual & heterosexual one would've expected 'attracted sexually to both sexes' to be *amphoterosexual, but it ain't; and
        >> shifts in meaning happen all the time in living languages,
        >>
        >> The imaginative boundaries for that are
        >>> practically non-existent.
        >>>
        >> No more, meseems, that for 'bisexual' if one wants to be imaginative.
        >>
        >> Is a monosexual someone who...
        >>>
        >>> (a) Has only one sex as opposed to the rest of the world, which has two or
        >>> more?
        >>>
        >> ?? Surely most people in this world have only one sex, either male or female. Hermaphrodites, i.e. bisexuals in the older meaning, are a minority.
        >> Most of us on this list, I guess, are monosexual, i.e. have only one sex, as
        >> opposed to bisexual in the sense of 'having both male & female sex organs'.
        >>
        >> (b) Has sex once?
        >>>
        >> Yeah, yeah - kinda like a bisexual has sex only twice!
        >>
        >> [snip]
        >>
        >>> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
        >>>
        >>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Eugene Oh <un.doing@...> wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>> I found that a tad offensive... but maybe it's just me.
        >>>>>
        >>>> I'm sure Roger meant nothing by it, but yeah, one reads an implication that bisexuals are somehow more likely than monosexuals to carry viruses. Which is indeed an offensive assertion...
        >>>>
        >> Surely Mark's coinage of monosexual is quite logical in view of the contemporary meaning of 'bisexual'. It's also IMO very neat as it encompasses both heterosexual and homosexuals.
        >>
        >> FWIW my original remarks about bi and bii were simply making fun of the not
        >> uncommon pseudo-Latin plurals of _virus_, thus:
        >> bus ~ bi, on the analogy of virus ~ viri
        >> bus ~ bii, on the analogy of virus ~ virii
        >>
        >> --
        >> Ray
        >> ==================================
        >> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
        >> ==================================
        >> Frustra fit per plura quod potest
        >> fieri per pauciora.
        >> [William of Ockham]
        >>
        --
        Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

        Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>




        __________________________________________________________
        Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
        A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.