Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!jeanette
From: jeanette@randvax.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: "SO" is no good (new? topic)
Message-ID: <169@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Mar-86 08:57:29 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.169
Posted: Thu Mar 27 08:57:29 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Mar-86 03:21:23 EST
References: <267@parcvax.Xerox.COM>
Reply-To: jeanette@rand-unix.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan)
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 36
Keywords: words definitions

>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!
>
>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.
>
>Currently, I favor "mate".  It's neutral for gender, and it describes the
>relationship well enough. Unfortunately, many people consider "mate"
>
But "mate" sounds too much like you're up to something, so to speak 8*}  .
>
>Maybe I should just get married and use "spouse", eh?
>
"Spouse" sounds like a vegetable.

How about "Hey you" or "That person over there"  8*}   ?


-- 

    ****   ****
   ****** ******
  *      *      *
 *       *       *
 *               *
  *  jeannette  *
   *           *
    *         *
     **     **
      *** ***
       *****
	***
	 *