Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!fortune!brower
From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Newsgroups: net.social
Subject: Re: An SO is . . ..
Message-ID: <4904@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 20:56:37 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.4904
Posted: Mon Jan 21 20:56:37 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 04:42:56 EST
References: <1339@cca.UUCP>
Reply-To: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower)
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 20
Summary: 

In article <1339@cca.UUCP> diego@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) writes:
>While it gives a definite neutrality to
>expression, I personally find it lacks warmth (both SO and significant
>other).
>
>When you think about the words themselves, it seems that they are
>actually an avoidance.  Don't get me wrong(ly).  Also feel that
>"boyfriend" and "girlfriend" emphasize immaturity and cast a diminishing
>sense on the relationship.  An usually, we're not quite ready to discuss
>or introduce a person as a lover (although, in its broadest sense, it is
>probably the most accurate).

Actually, sometimes I use the term "SO" or "significant other" to be a
useful dodge when speaking to someone that I do not know very well.  Of
course, I use boyfriend and/or lover for those whom I do know and have
some amount of trust in.  After all, there are still lots of gays being
killed by intolerent a**holes, and I don't want to be just a statistic.
-- 
Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower