Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site astrovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!princeton!astrovax!rat
From: rat@astrovax.UUCP (Stephen J. Ratcliff)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social
Subject: Re: new disabbreviation for SO
Message-ID: <553@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 21:16:10 EST
Article-I.D.: astrovax.553
Posted: Thu Feb 21 21:16:10 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 01:34:15 EST
References: <1613@ittvax.UUCP> <pucc-h.1729> <90@unc.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 39
Xref: linus net.singles:4920 net.social:451

[ Who? Who? WHO is Mr. Blue? ]

> >It has been remarked in other articles (and also off the net) 
> >that people have
> >numerous "significant others" in their lives at the same time, and quite
> >possibly none of these is an SO in the sense that term is usually used.
> >Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have SO stand for "Special One".
> 
> That would be slightly better.  However, many individuals are special
> to us in various ways at various times in our lives.
> I prefer scrapping "SO" completely.  I am sick of acronyms.
> 
> 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.
> 

If I recall correctly, the use of SO in this newsgroup began because the
euphemism "significant other" was so common in the articles that it
seemed safe and economical to abbreviate it.  "Significant Other" was
a useful generic term applied to persons of a wide variety of relationships,
from legal mate to lover to bosum buddy.  It, as well as MOTAS = member
of the Appropriate sex, was and is used to descibe people in social
situations for which the finer details of the relationship (for an SO)
or the actual sex of the person (for an MOTAS) are unimportant (or perhaps
embarrassing!).  In this sense they are both useful.

To redefine the meaning of "SO", then, seems like putting the cart
before the horse.  However, if the connotation of "SO" has indeed narrowed
to "special one" or "sex object" or "lover", at least to some readers, 
then posters of articles should consider either being more explicit, or
finding another generic term.  For a time, "SO" and "MOTAS" served
us quite well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Ratcliff				Princeton University, Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!rat