Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social Subject: Re: new disabbreviation for SO Message-ID: <1326@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 20:36:01 EST Article-I.D.: watcgl.1326 Posted: Wed Feb 20 20:36:01 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 20:30:41 EST References: <1613@ittvax.UUCP> <90@unc.UUCP> <602@wlcrjs.UUCP> Reply-To: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 25 Xref: watmath net.singles:5913 net.social:472 In article <602@wlcrjs.UUCP> lazeldes@wlcrjs.UUCP (Leah A Zeldes) writes: >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. First, this is what I mean by "lover" when I use it in private with friends who know what I mean. It stands a large chance of being misinterpreted in public though - I've heard it used in contexts where its primary meaning was sexual. >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. I'm uncomfortable with "gentleman" and "lady", as with "boy" and "girl", because they may carry connotations that I really don't want to convey. >What business is it of anyone else's what the relationship is? What if I want to tell them, without being misunderstood?