Re: Defending monosexuals (was: YAEPT: uu/ii )
|From:||Eugene Oh <un.doing@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, May 31, 2008, 15:03|
Haha! I found the "controversy" section rather amusing. It sounded on first
reading as though gays and lesbians were worrying about whether the term
would unfairly prejudice people against heterosexuals, among others.
"The proportion of people who fit into the category depends on how one uses
the word. If the term is used to mean exclusively monosexual in behavior,
then according to Alfred Kinsey's controversial studies, 67% of men and
87-90% of women are monosexual. If the term is used to describe emotional
response, the proportion is lower for men, 58%."
I wonder if this has something to do with the stereotypically different
demarcations between men and women of where the boundary between friendlily
(?) affectionate behaviour and sexually-charged behaviour lies.
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> Cute. Also, 8k Ghits. :)
> ("Monosexual" has twice that plus its own Wikipedia entry. @
I toldja I wasn't making
> it up. :))
> On 5/31/08, firstname.lastname@example.org <li_sasxsek@...> wrote:
> >> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
> >> ISTR there was a period when "ambisexual" was in contention.
> >> Different language but better syllable count. But still one too many,
> >> I guess.
> > Or maybe "ambisextrous" as a possibility.
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
> Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>