Defending monosexuals

Eugene Oh 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-".
Yes, it is nifty.
[snip]
> 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.
I'm not sure, in fact, whether 'amphoterosexual' ever got launched. But
if it had, it would surely have got shortened to 'ampho'   :)
....................................

Mark J. Reed wrote:
 > ISTR there was a period when "ambisexual" was in contention.

Was it? That would've added to the existing potential ambiguity.
According to my dictionary 'ambisexual' means: "(esp. of sexual
characteristics, e.g. pubic hair) common to both sexes." Maybe we should
leave it at that.

'Bisexual' is potentially ambiguously (i.e. either 'hermaphrodite' or
'attracted to members of both sexes') - but I guess context practically
always makes the meaning clear. AFAIK the abbreviation _bi_ is used only
with the second meaning.

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

Aw, I thought I was seeing an example of your creative genius. Another
illusion shattered    ;)

But 'monosexual' is a fairly obvious word to use in contrast to bisexual
(in either of its meanings), so I guess it may well have occurred
before. Indeed, before Eugene drew attention to it, I thought nothing of
it. he meaning was clear and the formation quite normal.

Now had you written 'trisexual' - that would've been rather odd. Some
strange conworld I guess     :)

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]

Reply