Re: Defending monosexuals
>Then "buysexual" would be a customer. What would we replace "mono" with? (: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"? ;)
- 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@...>
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 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.
> 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
>> ?? 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!
>>> 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
>> 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