Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    At one time the term xxxxfriend, lover, mate, etc gave a very accurate
    frame of reference for how I relate to another person. These days
    they don't. SO seems to be a term that people have converged on
    after a long period of time to indicate major importance in life
    but not necessarily married. It is an androgynous term that satisfies
    hetero as well as homosexual meaningful relationships. As long as
    gays/lesbians can not marry, as long as people choose to live together
    and not marry I think we need a term to describe the level of committment.
                                                                  
    And SO is as good as any other.
    
    Denny

>        Is it just me, or do other people out in notesland hate the
>    term "SO"?  
    
   Nope, it's not just you. I can't stand it either. I'm not sure why,
really, I guess it just sounds cold. I much prefer "sweet baboo" :-).

Jenna

    I think it has to do with the politicization of the English language
    that started in the late '60's or early '70's.  I can remember an
    admonishment I received at the time (given quite tongue in cheek) that
    the name for the cover over those holes in the street used for access
    to underground cabling, and sewer facilities should not be "Manhole
    Cover" because that was a sexist term.  The proper name is now
    "Personhole Cover".  Seriously, this has all been brought about by
    representatives of the feminist movement.  The theory is, I think, that
    certain terms have a sexist connotation, like referring to the human
    race as "mankind" as though women don't exist.  These sort of changes
    have validity, and do much to raise the consciousness of people to the
    feminist cause.  However, in their zeal to remove sexist appellations
    from the English language, the result has been to stultify and
    dehumanize the language somewhat.  So, people who wish to not offend
    feminists have adopted sex neutral terms like "Significant Other". 
    
    Yes, I agree with you.  I think using terms like SO are carrying
    the torch just a little too far. 
                                      
    
    Mike

    I don't mind SO.  In fact, it is very useful when a relationship
    is somewhere between boyfriend-girlfriend-fiancees-husband-wife,
    but you either can't pinpoint where, or don't wish to pinpoint where,
    or it would be too long-drawn-out-and-tedious to pinpoint where,
    or it is unnecessary for the audience with which you are speaking
    to know where.  It's nice, short, general, and all-purpose...
    
    I don't think it's insulting because it is impersonal, I believe
    it serves its purpose quite well.
    
    -Jody
    

         I think that Denny's explaination in .1 is probably the main
    reason for the term's creation.  I also don't see how the term SO
    is a sign of the decline of humanism.  In fact I think that it is
    a term that promotes humanism.  Where you may not be able to relate
    a man talking about his boyfriend, you might be able to relate to
    him talking about his SO.
    
         The term SO allows people to share information about their
    relationships without alluding to the nature of the relationship.
    There probably more similarities than differences when you compare
    homosexual relationships, marriages, and a hetrosexual living
    together.  People often get hung up on the nature of the relationship
    and the differences between other's relationships and theirs.  The
    term SO allows you to talk about the relationship without kicking
    in the other person's preconcieved notions about the type of
    relationship that you and your SO share.
    
    ASP

    
    	RE:-.1
    
    	It bothers me more when people use the term "SO" when they really
    mean boyfriend/girlfriend/lover/whatever.  I realize that some people
    want to be discreet or vague on purpose in some situations.
    
    	For example: If I am talking to a person who happens to be gay
    and doesn't want anyone to know, he would probably use "SO" instead
    of boyfriend or lover.  It wouldn't bother me if he used boyfriend
    or lover when talking about a man, as much as it would bother me
    if he used "SO."
    	
    	This can be an awkward situation when someone assumes the gender
    to be the opposite of the person in question (a hetero relationship)
    if it is, in fact, a homosexual relationship.  For example
    
    	Me: "What are your plans for the weekend?"
    
    	Male: "I'm going to visit my parents in Maine with my SO."
    
    	Me: "Oh, has she ever been to see your parents' house?"
    
    	Male: "No, *he* hasn't."
    
    	Me (very embarrased)
    
    	By concealing people's identities, the term "SO" closes more
    doors in society rather than keeping them open.
    
    	gca/
    
    

    
    
    I feel that the term SO covers all bases.  I would rather NOT refer
    to my SO as my LOVER (because we share so many more things), nor
    my MATE, for we are not living together.  If I know you well enough,
    I'll be more than happy to tell you HIS name.
    
    Cheryl

    	Suppose it really depends on what you personally define SO to
    	mean.  The phrase "Significant Other" is trite, overused, and 
    	totally impersonal.  I've many significant people in my life.  
    	However, I've a cyclist friend who is my Shaven One, a punker 
    	who's my Spiked One, and a lover personally referred to as the 
    	Spectacular One.
    
    	It's nobody's business (other than the people involved) who
    	I'm specifically referring to at any given moment!
    
    						Carla
    

    
    	Re: .0,.6,.8, etc.
    
    	No, you ain't alone; S.O. is yet another cutesy, preppie, elitist
    	term dumped on us by the same two-bit radical crowd that has
    	been working overtime butchering our great English language
    	for the last twenty years, not only in social situations as
    	has already been discussed, but also in the workplace, the Church,
    	and the state.  What a joke.
    
    	A shame that honesty, power, and beauty in our language have
    	been ruthlessly diluted by hypocrisy, vacillation, and bland,
    	neutered pablum at the hands of militant fuss-budgets who in
    	their infinite wisdom, know what is best for the poor, befuddled
    	masses...
    
    	I cannot imagine where such ethereal terminology is ever preferable
    	to straightforward honest English, despite the disclaimers and
    	justifications previously noted.
    
    					Sincerely Outraged,
    
    					Dave

    re:10..................Well said!
    
    Who are persons that are so upset by the term "manhole"? "mankind"?
    etc. and why are they so upset? I honestly don't believe for one
    minute that the authors of these words sat down and said, "I'm gonna
    really piss of the women and call this a manhole". It's been called
    a manhole because it's large enough for an average man to fit through.
    The navy calls it's openings "manways" because they are large enough
    for an average man to fit through. I also assume that in part for
    the past 200 years only men were allowed to serve onboard ships.
    
    It seems so trite and insignificant to worry about something so
    stupid when energy could be better spent trying to improve the real
    problems of the world. 
    
    As to "SO", big deal if it makes someone feel special to say "my
    SO" rather than "my whatever". Another trivial, meaningless expending
    of energy on a matter of insignificance. Who really Cares???? I
    think the more that's made of it, the more the radicals use it as
    a torture tool for those it upsets.
    
    Ken

    Let's hope SO is indeed a passing linguistic fad. I seem to remember
    the term POSSLQ, meaning ``Person of the Opposite Sex Sharing Living
    Quarters.'' Does anyone hear or use this term anymore?
    
    Also, what is the standard feminist response to the universal
    genderization of nouns in Romance languages, such as French and
    Spanish? Do they insist that La, Le, Los, Las, and El should be
    dropped from those languages because it is somehow ``implicitly
    sexist''?
    
    Should I, as a man, insist that no flower be called a ``Lady Slipper''?
    What about the term ``female intuition''? Or ``Woman's World''
    magazine? Language should be used for communication, not for advancing
    a particular political agenda. The only exceptions, I'd think, would
    be words and terms that are designed to express racism or sexism.
    I don't need to give examples.
    
    -- PK
                                  

    	So you guys fell for that stuff about "personholes" (etc.)?  It
    	was a joke!  Even worse, most of it was at the expense of
    	feminists.
    
    	Almost all of the "person- " words were written to make fun
    	of feminism.  When I ran camera in a big television studio
    	in the mid-70's (during the end of my college days and as a
    	graduate student,) I wanted more than anything to be called
    	a "camera operator" (because I knew for sure that I wasn't
    	a "cameraman" and my co-workers knew it, too.)
    
    	As a way of razzing me, they insisted upon calling me a
    	"cameraPERSON" (even though they knew I hated the term.)
    	It was a way to tease me.
    
    	While it's true that *some* of the "person" words came from
    	feminists, I can assure you that there are very few (if any!)
    	radicals who care in the least what "manholes" are called.  Why
    	difference could it possibly make to them (even if they worked
    	around manholes every day?)

    RE: .11
    
    Actually, I like the word "womanhole".
    
    Sounds obscene to me. :-)
    
      Alan

    
    re .10
    
    Did you eat too much jalapeno stew for breakfast...?
    
    re .14
    
    You do, huh..? I sommehow think its not going to catch on...

    Her are some others
    
    Insignificant other- someone you don't give a crap about
    
    Subsignificant other- someone you don't like
    
    Exsignificant other- old beau
    
    One-night-standsignificant other- a one nighter
    
    Rumplestilsignificant other- a pain in the butt
    
    You can put a br or m in front of other if these words are referring
    to a certain member of your family.:')
    
    I hate all of the little cutsie terms used these days.  Say what
    you mean and mean what you say.
    
                                               Insignficantly yours,
                                               Mike

    
    	Re: .15 -- It wasn't so much the stew that did it, but too much
    		of those crushed red pepper flakes I used to season
    		it, not to mention this steam bath heat here
    		in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts...A little
    		hotter out where you are Mr. Holt?
    
    	Re: .16 -- Pretty good, pretty good...           
    
    		How about Allsignificant Others - whatever this afternoon's
    		fashionable exaltation and kow-towing worship of whatever
    		"victimized" group in "society"...
    
    		Or, Dukakisignificant Other - a contractor, state college
    		president, or ranking MDC police official
    
    
    					Dave

	It sounds like one of those Calif. cutesey trite abominations
	to the language like "HaveANiceDay". Does anybody use SO in
	conversations - I have yet to to hear it - must sound
	ridiculous.  Also can you have more than one SO at a time?
	If so, then there must be an MSO (Most SO) and LSO (Least SO),
	I'll Byte.

	It is about time to form an Anti-SO League and stamp out this
	most serious threat to the language.

    I hear people using SO in conversations all the time.
    
    Bonnie

    
    RE:.19
    
    	Bonnie, I'm sorry to hear that.
    
    	The question is, do you encourage its use too? :^}
    
    
    	GCA/
    
    

    re .21
    
    well, I have to confess ....that I do...especially for people
    who are coupled but not married...
    
    sigh
    
    Bonnie

    
    Why does Cal get blamed for every trendy new phrase, ennyway?

    I find "lover" dehumanizing.
    
    SO is convenient... when things go sour, just hang a B on the end!!

         I never was one to follow trends.  While I see the various
    "in" terms go by (old lady, main squeeze, better half, lover, SO)
    I still refer to her as my favorite human.
    
                                    Greg

    I refer to my wife as my wife
    I used to refer to my girlfriend as my girlfriend
    My wife refers to me as her husband
    My girlfriends used to refer to me as her boyfriend
    
    I guess SO is convenient to represent everyone involved.  It would
    have been nice if it didn't have a mondo yuppie me-generation
    connotation to it.  That's what makes people (including me) not want 
    to use it.  
    
                  Mike
                              

    I've read through the replies, and although some have hit on what
    I think the reason for SO is, I would like to add my .02 cents worth...
    
    I'm currently dating a man who doesn't know quite what to call
    me...he's afraid to say "girlfriend" so he uses "friend" when he
    introduces me to people.  (Good 'ol "commitment-phobic" that he
    is)...
    
    I think for a lot of people using a term like SO gives them a little
    leeway into what/how they define their relationships.  For some,
    SO is a very important person, for others, it's just w way to get
    around that fear of being misunderstood....no one really knows what
    an SO is, so the confusion only gets more muddled.  I for one HATE
    the term, and refer to people as they are in my life...friends,
    boyfriends, lovers, etc.
    
    Jill
    

I suppose I can see people's points regarding SO, about it being 
ridiculous and not specific enough.  Ridiculing "SO" is understandable 
to me, but I think that the intention behind "SO" is really honorable! 
The intention is to use language that welcomes as many people as 
possible.  I think that's a great goal.

So, if you think SO is silly.  Fine, I understand your argument.  
However, would you be willing to find some other alternative to SO 
that welcomes as many people as possible?  What will you put on your 
party invitations?  Will you say...maybe..."feel free to bring a 
guest" so that gay people, single people, and non-married couples will 
feel comfortable and welcome?

Is there a way to honor the intention to "include" without using SO?

Also, people are coming around to using specific language when the 
person's sex is known and using non-sexist language when we don't know 
the sex of the person we are talking about.  So "Sally Jones" would be 
a congresswoman; "Bill Jones" would be a congressman; and a 
hypothetical person would be a congressperson.

Also, the English language is great because there are so many words to 
chose from.  I _never_ use the word "mankind" any more because I've 
got "human beings," "people," "homo sapiens," or "folks," depending on 
the context I am in.  It has become habit for me to talk about the 
"person" when I don't know the person's sex.  Besides, it saves me 
from the embarrassment of talking about "him" and then having a "her" 
walk in the room.  



						--Ger

Maybe I've just had a sheltered upbringing or maybe I'm just Englih, but I've
never seen the phrase SO outside of a notes conference: its been two years
since a note was last posted here, is the term still in use ?

This is my first note in MENNOTES: I was looking for an SO definition, as
I couldn't believe it was what I guessed at first ("Sex Object") !

MARK

(p.s. I say `partner')

    From my old psychology text books, I thought Significant Other (SO)
    referred to those individuals pre-pubescent/teenage kids chose to
    identify with.  As a father, I have seen my kids chose Significant
    Others such as scout leaders, clergy, teachers, or "really neat" older
    teenagers/young adults.  The whole point of the Significant Other was
    that this person became a role model for the developing teenager. 
    Parents always hope that these SO would be excellent role models.
    
    As for the use of SO applied to that person you were romantically
    involved with, my opinion is two fold.  First I hate it because it
    is so impersonal, so clinical; it tells me nothing about your special
    person (but maybe that is the point-it is none of my business).
    On the other hand I like it because it  is neither value-ladden 
    (like words as lover, co-habitant, common-law wife/husband), nor is it 
    juvenile (like words as boyfriend,girlfriend). I guess with co-habitation 
    being more accepted than a generation ago people need an innocous term to
    describe their mate.  I remember when my mom used to call it "living in 
    sin".  Ouch! 
    
    So for now, I guess I tolerate it. But I do abhor this phrase:  "I am
    in a relationship or I have a relationship with".  I can't think of a
    time when I was never in a relationship or having a relationship with
    someone or something, either family members, nature or some endeavor.  
    What is wrong with "I am seeing someone or I am dating someone or we 
    have a thing or anything else?
    
    Oh well, enough of this drivel!  I know a Digital employee whose partner
    is also a Deccie and they refer to each other as their DECMates.   
           

    
    I like the term "significant other"; I think it makes a strong
    statement, given the number of insignificant others that I have
    to deal with every day.
    
    
    
    

    What's wrong with "my better half"
    
    Charles

>        <<< Note 258.35 by HLFS00::RHM_MALLO "dancing the night away" >>>

 >   What's wrong with "my better half"
  


	Dunno !  Have you asked her ?   ;-)

  
	kits

    She's quite allright, and she told me to use that phrase.
    
    Charles

	

	If I was Tj...I would call you my sex object !  ;-)



	kits

    
    The term "SO" allows for non-gender specific usage.
    
    

    It is also non-possessive.  
    
    DougO

    "my SO" is non-possessive, eh Doug?
    
    :-)

    RE .39
    
    'gender neutral'   so is "my better half"

    Re .42
    
    SO is gender neutral and equal regarding power in the relationship.  I
    know it's only joking, but I feel it's kind of a put down to yourself
    when you say "better half."  "SO" doesn't put any preconceived notions
    as to where the balance of power is in the relationship.
    
    As others have said, "SO" is so neutral that it might not mean much to
    others, but then it has all the meaning you want to put into it.  Ever
    relationship between yourself and a "significant other" is different,
    and "SO" allows you to show that someone is very special to you, but
    doesn't fit into society's 'normal' catagories.
    
    >>>Ken
    

    SO is neutral.  If "my better half" had ever been told that she could
    bring "her better half" there would have been a war.
    
    ed

    
    is it pc?

    True but is it PC Mike???
    
    :-)

    
    re: last 2
    
    	BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    	

    SO is a yuppster expression that just doesn't have the ring 
    to it that 'ol lady (or 'ol man) has to it.
    
    Paul C.
    

 It seems to be a term used primarily by people in non-traditional relationships
to describe their most frequent sex partners. :-)

 The Doctah

    
    
    re .49
    
    	*growl*
    
    Sylvia
    

	Personally, I've always preferred the term "POSSLQ", pronounced
	poss-el-cue.

	The term is an acronym from the typical bureaucratic-English
	phrase "Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters" which
	I believe was used in the 1980 US census to describe unmarried
	couples living together.

	Charles Osgood, the witty CBS radio/TV reporter, popularized the 
	word in the early '80s when he wrote a humorous poem entitled, 
	"Won't You Be My POSSLQ?".  For some strange reason, it just 
	never caught on....
	
						Tom  :-)

Re:53

Doesn't include ultra-platonic situations like dormitories...

(Note: British Law doesn't have an answer for this: on housing benefit forms
etc. a partner is defined as one who lives with one "as if they were married":
this (by cases) means that gay couples are excluded from this definition, and
I think they get more state benefits as a result !)

Mark.

    
    
    I did kinda wonder 'bout that one Mike.
    
    (giggle)
    
    * Sylvia *

    Thanx for the clarification, Mike; it definitely makes a 
    big difference.
    
    Steve

    I use "sweetie" myself. Non-sterile, genderless, non-possesive.
    
    "old lady" - give me a break.
    
    SO is considered sterile and inconclusive only by people being
    deliberately offensive.
    
    	-- Charles

    A number of replies have included the word partner.  
    
    What's wrong with partner?  It's genderless, has no power connotations,
    and is no more possesive than SO.
    
    Bob
    
    BTW I phone my "old lady" every month.  Both I and the (note the
    non-possessive) wife talk to her.  She's my mother.  My father was
    always my old man when he was alive.
    

I have STILL yet to hear a normal person in the real world use "SO."  The ONLY
place I see it used is in the political community of a little notes conference.

People use "ole lady, ole man, babe, girlfriend, The Wife," etc, without it
seemingly bothering others.  I don't like "ole lady," so I don't use it, but I
don't get pissed if a friend does.  I know that if I went around town talking
to people using "SO," they'd want to know what the hell I'm talking about! 
Besides, I think it's neat that we all use different terms.  It says something
for one's personality....  But using "SO" seems so empty, to me, so shallow.
It's a political term used by political groups.  But I'd bet that even most of
them don't use it much, except in the noting circles.  

If I hear the term "SO," I'll know right away I'm talking to a DECCIE noter
who's under the influence of "noting circles."

-dwight

The above is of course, my opinion, cuz I typed it out whilst thinking about
this note.... Your noting beliefs may differ... but like they said to Ted
Bundy... "More power to ya!"

    	Apart from the fact that "possesive" may be almost impossible to
    remove from the language --- if I were to forget the name "Pete" I
    might be forced to the circumlocution of "the person who shares a house
    with Linda" --- it does not denote ownership. When a Christian (or
    other faith) says "my God", and in many forms of address for the
    aristocracy the sense of possesion is quite the other way round.

Re:64

I was trying to think of a way to say that about possesiveness. Unfortunately
I see people here say "My SO, your SO" so the argument is off the point anyway!

Re: a few...

How about reserving the use of SO to inherently vague cases, for example

"It is imporatant to trust one's SO"

is a statement that is intended to apply to gays, married couples or whatever.

Whereas "I trust my wife" is a statement about a particular relationship and
doesn't imply anything about other married couples  let alone any other
arrangement.

"I trust my SO" seems vague, (IMHO) dehumanising and pretentious. Then again,
I wouldn't mind "partner" in either case.

Mark.

    re: .62
    
    mike... I disagree that "my wife" is possessive.  not any more than "my
    daughter" or "my uncle".  the word "wife" denotes a type of
    relationship, more specifically 'the woman to whom a man is married'. 
    therefore, "my wife" is merely identifying 'the woman to whom I am
    married'.  it in no way says 'I own this woman'.
    
    on the other hand, "my car" clearly denotes ownership...  the
    difference?  personification.  ownership of people is not "normal" in
    todays society...therefore, when the object of the phrase identifies a
    person, the "my" denotes relationship, not ownership.
    
    tony

    Re: .63
    
    Actually, "SO" is not a DEC-specific term.  Having worked at several
    other computer (and non-computer) oriented companies, I've heard
    the term "significant other" used in many circles.  It doesn't seem
    specific to this region, either.  Perhaps it started at DEC and
    naturally crept outside, with people adopting the term here and
    there.  But there are many people who now use the word "SO" who
    are not in any way affiliated with Digital Equipment Corporation.
    
    However, I would suggest that "SO" is a term that is restricted to
    the more "yuppie-ish" class of citizens.  Personally, I have no
    problem with any term, although the nomenclature "Significant other"
    seems to be detached and mechanistic.  When I think of the phrase
    "my wife," it seems personal and reciprocal (e.g. "my husband")
    - I think of it as a phrase exclusively shared by two people.  Whether
    or not there's a subconscious component signifying the "underlying
    male urge for global domination and suppression of women" is another
    story.  At least for myself, I don't think it's true.
    
    FWIW,
    
    - Steve

    When I was at the University of Michigan, fifteen (!) years ago, the
    expression "significant other" was expressly used by the university
    organization that handled married housing -- in that context, SO was
    "legally" equivalent to husband/wife. Of course, UofM is populated
    almost exclusively by future YUPs.
    
    Over the years, I've generalized the application of "object" in "sex
    object" to apply to all manner of folk. I complain, for example, that
    men are stereotypically treated as income objects. At home, I refer to
    the person I married like so: "Yo, wife object, when's dinner?" This is
    meant and received in good humor.
    
    - Hoyt

    And does she reply: "Yo, husband object, whenever you gets it ready!"
    
    ??   ;-)

    Or even, "Yo!  Husband object!  Whenever you finish fixing it!"
    
    :-)
    
    Steve

>I have STILL yet to hear a normal person in the real world use "SO."  The ONLY
>place I see it used is in the political community of a little notes conference.
    
    On the way home from work this evening I heard the term "SO" used
    on a local radio station in a promo for their "Back Seat Music"
    show ("the best make-out music ever recorded").

    And I saw it just yesterday in greater net-dom, I think it was in
    rec.bicycles (rec.bicycling?  rec.bicycle? something like that)
    though since the guy was talking tandems, I thought for a moment
    he was referring to his "Stoker Object" ;-).
    
    Certainly outside DEC notes.
    
    DougO

    
    *I* use the term SO.  I have for years.  I used it for any person in 
    my life who warranted it.  And (surprise) *none of them minded* - 
    *some of them even liked it*.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Though I respect the right of others to use the term
    I wouldn't use it if you paid me. 
    
    Besides, it seems so politically correct, and you know how
    I abhore being PC.

>                      <<< Note 258.75 by HANNAH::MODICA >>>
>                              -< She's "MY wife" >-

    
>    Though I respect the right of others to use the term
>    I wouldn't use it if you paid me. 
 

	Good for you Hank !    I agree 100% !
   



	kits

>I have STILL yet to hear a normal person in the real world use "SO."  The ONLY
>place I see it used is in the political community of a little notes conference.
>
>People use "ole lady, ole man, babe, girlfriend, The Wife," etc, without it
>seemingly bothering others.  

It seems like you folks are missing the point.  

The point is that, when you know the status of the person you are 
talking about, be specific, use "wife," or "husband" or whatever. 

When you are talking about lots of people (for instance, in an 
invitation that is sent out to a group of people) or when the 
relationship is unknown (for instance, if you don't know if you are 
talking to a gay person, why are you talking about "husbands" or 
"wives"?), then use "significant other" or "guest."

It's pretty simple and courteous, no?   No one is asking you to call
your husband or wife "significant other."  All I'm asking you, as a
gay man, is to stop sending me invitations with the words "husband"
and "wife" on it when those words don't apply to my loved one in my
culture.  (This issue also affects single heterosexual people, and
heterosexual people who choose not to marry but who are not
"boyfriends" or "girlfriends.")  Please show some respect for people
who don't live like you do, but use specific terms to describe the
relationships you know about. 


						--Gerry

    re .77
    
    	But Gerry, using the term Significan Other or SO is so very foreign
    	to me.  I (and many, many other people in this society) just don't
    	think to use it, or feel funny using it.  I also would not use the
    	terms "cool", "rad" or "radical", "gnarly", or a ton of other terms.
    	There are just some terms I cannot comfortably use.
    
    	I lead a very tradidional lifestyle.  I have a awkward time just
    	introducing to others a heterosexual couple who live together.  I
    	don't know how I'd handle a gay couple.  Actually I only know of
    	one gay couple I ever introduced, and I think I used the word
    	friend.  Most invitations I have seen handled this type of thing 
    	quite gracefully.  Usually  the term "and guest" is used.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    My wife and I often refer to each other affectionately as "my ol' man",
    and "my ol' lady".  Most folks we know think it's a cut down to each
    other, but for us, we like it.
    
    I never liked the term SO, but to each his/her own I guess ...
    
    Scary (my ol' ladies' ol' man ...  8^)
               

    RE: .79   hopefully the phrases 'ol man and 'ol lady will still be
    around long after SO has hit the yuppy-phrase graveyard.
    
    Paul C.   Cindy's 'ol man :-)

>        Most invitations I have seen handled this type of thing 
>    	quite gracefully.  Usually  the term "and guest" is used.
    
Great!

(I'm not a huge fan of "significant other," but I understand its 
logic.  I like "guest" better; it's less cold sounding.)


							--Ger

    Sometimes when the phone rings, the caller on the other end asks if 
    'the Bimbo' is there. I respond "honey, it's for you". Really, one of
    my wifes' (note NOT SO) theatre people refer to her as such. I love it
    and she is not offended... sort of an inside joke among friends. At
    other times she is my wife.
    
    I would use guest.
    
    
    Steve

I have made a promise to myself to never use the term SO when refering to
a special person its tends to remove that specialness.

-j

    So Gerry,  you're saying that SO is a gay term???
    
    -dwight

    
    
258.63::  I have STILL yet to hear a normal person in the real world use "SO."  
    
    	  Well, isn't that special.  A person (or a community of persons)
    	  uses a term which isn't necessarily a part of "your" community's
    	  vocabulary and **poof** you're normal and they're not.  I've
    	  read lots of b.s. in lots of notes conferences -- this is right
    	  at the top of the pile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    	     Greg

    
    
    258.68::  However, I would suggest that "SO" is a term that is restricted 
              to the more "yuppie-ish" class of citizens.  
    
    	But, is it "normal" to be a yuppie??????????

    RE: .87 
    > But, is it "normal" to be a yuppie ?????????
    
    Not unless being a self-centered, egotistical, money grubbing Biff or
    Buffy is goodness to you :-)
    
    Paul C.

 re: .86

 Don't have a cow, man.

 The Doctah

>    So Gerry,  you're saying that SO is a gay term???
    
Yes and No, Dwight.  It applies to us, but it isn't a "gay
term." 

I don't want people to ask me if I am bringing my wife (or husband) to
the party, since I don't have a "husband" or a "wife." I find the
automatic assumption that I am heterosexual to be annoying at best and 
insulting at worst. 

Which brings us to the point that gay people don't really have ready-
made terminology for the person closest to us in our lives.  "Husband"
and "wife" don't apply.  (Though some of us use these terms jokingly
among ourselves.)   "Lover" is probably used most frequently among
ourselves; however, that has connotations of temporariness and
on-the-side-ness  (and you should see my mother's face curdle every
time I slip and use that word; also, in "Longtime Companion," there is
a scene in which a heterosexual woman says, "I don't like the term
'lover'...").  "Partner" is used by some people, but this term can
apply to everything from a life partner to a business partner.  "SO"
is used by some gay people, but many find this term to be too cold and 
too general.

(Can you imagine the psychological effect of not having a term to 
describe the most important person in your life, when, all around you, 
heterosexuals can use the words "husband/wife" and everything is 
understood?  It's annoying....)

I like "loving partner" or "life partner."  I also like the term
"lover."  I used to be concerned that "lover" got heterosexuals bent
out of shape because of the sexual implications, but now I like the
fact that the sexual aspect is upfront (not my problem, man). 

So, anyway, to make a long story short, using "SO" (or "guest" or 
"partner" or "friend") in an invitation that is going to people whose
"marriage status" is unknown is a polite way of acknowledging that
not everyone is heterosexual, not everyone is coupled, and not
everyone has a traditional marriage.  Yes, it applies to gay people,
but it also applies to single people (who might want to bring a
"guest" who isn't a "boy/girlfriend") and to heterosexual couples who
choose not to get married. 

When you know the sexual orientation of the person you are talking to,
use the more specific terms: husband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend,
lover, partner, friend, whatever.  (If you aren't sure what the person
chooses to call her/his partner, you can always ask....) 


							--Ger

Re: .90

Gerry, would "spouse" be appropriate for you?  I recently received an invitation
that was addressed to several people, but invited "spouses" to attend.  I
took its meaning to include the woman with whom I've committed to spend the
rest of my life, but we're not yet married.

For me, it all depends on the situation.  "Guest" is appropriate if you are
allowing the "primary invitee" to bring along a companion to the event.  Yet
there are some occasions where the intent is that casual companions ("dates")
should not be brought.

				Steve

>Gerry, would "spouse" be appropriate for you?  I recently received an invitation
>that was addressed to several people, but invited "spouses" to attend.  I
>took its meaning to include the woman with whom I've committed to spend the
>rest of my life, but we're not yet married.

Yes, that would read okay to me.  (Though, if I didn't know the person 
well, I'd probably call up to make sure that a gay spouse was okay.)


							--Gerry

    re:  .86
    
    Doc!  You beat me to it!  I have Bart Simpson on my tee shirt saying
    just that!
    
    -dwight

    
    
    ...the people of DEC relying on Bart Simpson for their "wit" -- doesn't
    say much about the future of the company.  Obviously, just my opinion.
    
    	GJD

Re: .94

It's just reflecting society at large, I'm afraid.  At least we don't have
anyone here who proposed to argue morality with a cartoon character, as
William Bennett did....

					Steve

 >What kind of person watches the Simpsons?

>    ...the people of DEC relying on Bart Simpson for their "wit" -- doesn't
>    say much about the future of the company.  Obviously, just my opinion.

 What kind of person? Must be the type that's sufficiently self-confident to
not worry that repeating an oft heard phrase uttered by a cartoon character
will be mistaken for having a lack of wit of one's own, especially given the
abundance of counter-examples.

 The Doctah

    OH DOC!  its coitens for ya!  you watch the ....gulp... Simpsons!
    
    GESH!  I mean, what next?? Looney Tunes??!!!!!
    
    

 <crunch, crunch, crunch> Ahh- What's up Doc? :-)

 The Doctah