Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wlcrjs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!wlcrjs!lazeldes
From: lazeldes@wlcrjs.UUCP (Leah A Zeldes)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social
Subject: Re: new disabbreviation for SO
Message-ID: <602@wlcrjs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 02:06:36 EST
Article-I.D.: wlcrjs.602
Posted: Wed Feb 20 02:06:36 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 08:20:26 EST
References: <1613@ittvax.UUCP> <pucc-h.1729> <90@unc.UUCP>
Reply-To: lazeldes@wlcrjs.UUCP (Leah A Zeldes)
Organization: chi-net, Public Access UN*X, Chicago IL
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.singles:5905 net.social:471
Summary: 

In article <90@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes:
>What is wrong with using plain English?  Instead of some crytic,
>psuedo-intellectual, lower-middle-class euphemism, just say "lover."
>The word "lover" accurately implies that the relationship is romantic,
>without necessarily implying that the relationship has been sexually
>consummated.

I may have missed part of this discussion, but I wonder what is wrong
with "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" or, if those don't seem adult enough,
"gentleman friend" and "lady friend"?  These seem like simple, sedate
terms.

"Lover" really does have connotations that make introductions awkward.

Actually, before we solved this problem by making it appropriate to use
"fiance(e),"  my gentleman friend and I just introduced each other
by our names, occasionally prefaced by "This is my friend ------."
It seemed to work fine.

What business is it of anyone else's what the relationship is?

-- 

					Leah A Zeldes
					...ihnp4!wlcrjs!lazeldes