Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 (USS@Tek, v1.1) based on 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site teklds.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!hplabs!tektronix!teklds!hankb
From: hankb@teklds.UUCP (Hank Buurman)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: "SO" is no good (new? topic)
Message-ID: <1852@teklds.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Mar-86 11:57:02 EST
Article-I.D.: teklds.1852
Posted: Wed Mar 26 11:57:02 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 04:40:45 EST
References: <267@parcvax.Xerox.COM>
Reply-To: hankb@teklds.UUCP (Hank Buurman)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 72
Keywords: words definitions

In article <267@parcvax.Xerox.COM> lui@parcvax.Xerox.COM (Ken Lui) writes:
>Word-Of-The-Day: ossuary
>
>
>[Pardom me if this topic has been discussed already.  I'm new to the net.]
>
>I don't know about you folks, but I just can't bring myself to use a term
>coined by the government (census bureau?) when referring to the woman I
>love.  "Significant Other" and "Spouse Equivalent" make me choke.  "SO" is a
>petroleum bi-product, for Yafa's sake!
>
>But what word is better?  I would be comfortable with "lover" if people
>didn't always hang such a heavy sexual connotation on it.  What do I mean
>"people" ... even \I/ mistake "lover" to mean only "sex partner" sometimes
>(if someone tells me they are going to meet their lover for lunch, the first
>image that pops into my mind is a little daytime frolic!)

Personally, I find "lover" very non-offensive if it accurately describes
the relationship. I don't think there IS any term that isn't loaded
sexually if you are co-habitating with someone. For instance my lesbian
friends refer to their lovers as "room-mates", which is accepted, but
understood, by us breeders (no flames please). I've always despised
"spouse", don't know why tho. If you are an adult, I don't think
the general population is going to castigate you or anyone else if      
lover/roomie/SO=sex partner. Jeez, I hope we're beyond all that garbage.

>Of course, "girlfriend" and "boyfriend" are too juvenile.  "Beau" and
>"belle" are too French for my taste.  Besides, I favor a word that is
>neutral with respect to gender.  SO has that advantage.
>
>In fact, SO has a lot of advantages: neutral gender, widely understood,
>vague enough to be accurate.  But it is such an UGLY term.  I'm talking
>esthetics here.

I don't understand the need for "gender neutral". As mentioned above,
I'm hetero (mostly (-:) and proud of it. But if I was something other,
I'd still be proud of it. Yeh, you get dumped on by a lot of pinheads
if you declare yourself homo/bi/les. But who gives a shit about pinheads
and assholes. The people who MATTER aren't going to judge you on the
basis of your sex life any more than they would judge you by the color
of your eyes/hair/skin.

>I'd use "old lady" and "old man" if it weren't for the fact that she
>despises those terms.  I think they are appropriately irreverential.
>
>Currently, I favor "mate".  It's neutral for gender, and it describes the
>relationship well enough. Unfortunately, many people consider "mate"
>to mean "spouse".  And, of course, if we ever went to Australia
>we would be terribly confused.

If you want to avoid sexual connotations, "mate" doesn't cut it friend.

>describe the relationship that "SO" is commonly used for, and be
>esthetically pleasing.
>
Maybe I should just get married and use "spouse", eh?

Use whatever is comfortable to the two of you whatever it is, Honey/Asshole/
Sweetie/Lady/Sextoy, whatever (Lady, with a capital L is my favorite), and
don't worry what others read into it, except the one you love.

>Perry A. Caro
>Caro.pa@Xerox.COM
>(from the terminal of lui@parcvax.xerox.com)

                                         Shalom
                                           Hank Buurman
                                     ihnp4!tektronix!tekla!hankb

    "who's gonna pay attention to your dreams
     who's gonna plug their ears when you scream" the Cars
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~