Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Defending monosexuals (was: YAEPT: uu/ii )

From:GBBS GBBS <gbbs_1@...>
Date:Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 21:10
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:

--- 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 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 >> ================================== >> >> ================================== >> Frustra fit per plura quod potest >> fieri per pauciora. >> [William of Ockham] >>
-- Sent from Gmail for mobile | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email