Conference quark::human_relations-v1

         Here's one person in full agreement with your wife.  I am slowly
    beginning to despise "SO".  It is so yuppified, impersonal and TLA-ish
    that it seems as though one is not talking about a human being.
    
                                         Greg

    
    I hate [read despise beyond reason] the term SO. I suppose the
    "significant" part is not too, too awful....but "other" really kills
    me....
    
    When Nils introduces me...he usually calls me Melinda.
    
    If it is *necessary*, [like when signing mortgages....], to
    identify me...he politely inserts..."wife"....it becomes,
    "my wife, Melinda".
    
    He has never merely addressed me or introduced me as "my wife"...
    a nameless creature of questionable origins....I am "Melinda"...
    of identifiable origins, who happens to be his wife.
    
    My point?.....[lost in here somewhere]....
    
    *I* object to being intoduced by *any* term that seeks to
    catagorize me without seeking to identify me as an individual.
    
    I would object to Engineer, Writer, Piglett....just as much if not
    accompanied by my name...
    
    [sizzle...]
    
    Melinda

    I've always thought that "SO" was not to be used in reference to a
    specific person if there was a more appropriate title (or one that the
    person in question preferred). The usefulness of "SO" is that it can be
    substituted for the unwieldy "spouse/betrothed/live-in/whatever"
    string, in general questions such as "How do you and your SO work out
    finances?" In that context I find it quite useful, if perhaps a bit
    trendy - but I don't think I'd introduce an individual as "my SO".
    
    -b

    I heard one the other day I like:  Spousal Unit :^) :^) :^)
    
    grins,
    Marge

	I agree with Melinda 100%.  SO is totally impersonal and I'd
	hate to be introduced as one, or introduce someone else that
	way.  We were all given individual names for a reason.

							   Carla

    
    
                  I'll echo Greg's note.  Well put Greg.
    
                                  Dwight
    
    

    Ditto .0... At the party the other evening, Melissa took a pen to the 
    "SO of DODO::AMARTIN (or SO of Al MArtin) and wrote in WIFE.
    
    She feels that it sounds like the person being called
    an SO is somehow being labeled better than the other person. Or was if
    worse than the other... anyhow, she hates it....
    
    

    Re: .7
    
    In hindsight, I should have taken the time to establish the correct
    relationships of those where I used "S.O.".  I'm not inordinately
    fond of the term myself, but have been known to use it, especially
    when I am not sure if there is another, more specific, relationship.
    
    At least the tag had Melissa's name on it in large print...
    
    				Steve

    re:.10
    
    I don't. I don't have romantic relationships with "girls".
    
    I use "SO" for basically the same reasons as Bonnie pointed out.
    All of the alternatives are awkward except "wife" (but then, I
    only use SO if the person in question is *not* married, so...)
    The only alternative term I've ever liked was "soulmate", but
    even that may not be appropriate, depending on the relationship.
    
    --- jerry

    RE:8
    No problem Steve.  SHe didnt think of it that much... GESH!  You did
    fine.  You used the tern that you though best for THE WHOLE group.
    It was fine.  Honest.  If two out of 63 didnt like the term, so be
    it...
    it would have been better than 61 of 63 not liking the term "wife",
    right?
    
    You really cant take a get together like this and aske each and every
    person attending, "what is your preferance, SO, Wife, Girlfriend,
    Boyfriend, Lover, bedmate etc..."...
    
    AL

    
    I'm just surprised that Melissa would admit to being Al's wife!!
    :-)
    
    
    Kris

    in re .13
    
    She must be a very brave woman! :-)
    
    B

    I never gave the term "SO" much thought before.  Never bothered me.
    
    But, then, I like saying "This is my good friend - Jerry," or "Meet
    my bud - Mike."  And there's "sweetie", but that implies cute and 
    most guys I know hate cute.
    
    I've been introduced as being an "SO" on a couple of occasions, and 
    that never bothered me.
    
    But most guys I dated just said "This is Carol."
    
    
    
    

I usually introduce people I am with as 'my friend'.  If the person to whom I'm
speaking spends any amount of time getting to know either of us, they will get a
much more accurate idea of our relationship then any label can possibly give
them.

Then again, I've heard the term "spice" (as opposed to spouse) used, and I
rather liked the sound of that.

Jim.

    I used SO when discussing someone I was in a significant relationship
    with that wasn't marriage.  I would not use the term in front of
    the person I was discussing, simply because I use the term solely
    to remove any baggage anyone might want to attach to any other terms
    I might use "boyfriend" "fiancee", whatever.  If they're there in
    person, I refer to them by name.  I like the way SO
    doesn't imply any gender-specific things, though - or any specific
    type of commitment.  That's handy.  
    
    Someone I know recently suggested a term they thought could replace
    SO in many cases - and it was (formfeed for the weak-hearted)
    
    #uckbuddies
    
    I giggled when I heard it, but I don't use it very often, either.

    -Jody
    

    I have to go along with .18, I always introduce the one I'm with
    as 'my friend'.  If I were married, it would be 'this is my wife
    ______.'
    
    Never heard the term "spice" hmmmm interesting. I'll have to think
    about that.
    
    So, how does 'this is the spice of my life' sound?????
    
    Nils

    "Significant Other" de-personalizes a personal relationship. It
    is a piece of techno-jargon, to me.
    
    I like "friend". It can mean many things, on many levels. I see
    no need to be more specific with people I barely know, and as
    Jim said, those who do get to know me, and friend, will soon
    understand our relationship. I also don't bestow the word "friend"
    lightly.
    
    -roger
    

	 Most of you probably know my idea on this subject (shades of
	 "Labels")  :-)

	 It's important to me that the person I'm "involved" with call
	 me what they feel comfortable calling me....whether it be
	 "SO", "friend", "lover", etc, etc....To me, it basically
	 doesn't matter what the person I'm involved with calls me (as
	 long as they don't call me a "b!tch"!) :-)

	 What's important to me is that they are comfortable with what they
	 call me.......

	 kath

    re:  .23
    
    >>I just have a hard time thinking of an adult woman with whom I'm
    >>having a relationship as a "girl". Using "girlfriend" seemed fine
    >>back when I was a teenager. The term for me conjures up images of
    >>schoolkids passing love notes in class.
    
    Interesting.  What if I said that your attitude displayed a liberal,
    hen-pecked, suck up, attitude??  Wouldn't be fair, would it?  So
    neither would your comment above about passing love notes be fair,
    would it?
    
    "You" have a hard time.  Mike doesn't.  I don't.  I use "girlfriend"
    also.  As for the "schoolkids" bit... I hope I never grow up if that
    means becoming an old "stick in the mud."  And if my girlfriend doesn't
    mind it, what anyone else thinks doesn't matter.  Only "I" keep score.
    
    It did look like you were looking for the worn out, "girl vs woman"
    arguement with Mike.  And you did reference Mike's note and seemed
    interested in steering good conversation down another rathole.  
    
    Just my opinion from observing...
    
    Dwight                           

Re: .24

  >  Interesting.  What if I said that your attitude displayed a
  >  liberal, hen-pecked, suck up, attitude??  Wouldn't be fair, would
  >  it?  So neither would your comment above about passing love notes
  >  be fair, would it?

Well, there is one major difference between the two:  jerry never made
a statement about someone else -- he made a statement about himself.
Your statement is about someone else.

			    Brian Hetrick

    What about them Blue Jays?  Unfortunately, they're playing with the
    same inconsistency they've played with all year...
    
    					andrew

    "Significant Other"... sounds to me a very cloudy description for a
    long-term or important, relationship. I like clear things, WIFE means
    exactly that, be a wife is a well defined role and if chosen, anyone
    would be very proud of being one. Girlfriend also clearly defines a
    friendship that can include a more romantic feelings, why not? Fiance
    is a clear word defining a formal commitment to get married. 
    "Significant Other"... does not read well and I, as a woman, do not
    accept that term from any of my family, or friends or husband.  I am a
    mother, a wife, a friend, a sister, a niece, but no SO to any.

    
    An open letter to "my wife".
    
    Sheila, I humbly apologize for calling you my SO, and I promise
    I will never let it happen again.
    
                Love, Your husband Joe
    
    

    I have an SO.  We are not married, we will not be married, we do not
    live together.  We do see each other often, we are friends, we are 
    more than friends. I am not the only woman he dates, he is not
    (necessarily) the only man I date.  He is not my "boy"friend, my 
    "husband" or "fiancee".  I introduce him by his name and he introduces
    me as "This is my friend, Peggy."  	This is fine.  I will refer to 
    him as an SO when it is none of anyones business what our relationship
    is (or is not).  I do not know if he refers to me as an SO.  I do not
    care if he does or does not. I know I love him and he loves me.  As
    long as he does not call me by someone else's name it matters little to
    me.   At least at this time.  I may change my mind in the future.
      

    I didn't think Jerry's statement why he doesn't like the term
    "girlfriend" particularly rathole-ish.  He was just voicing his
    reason why the term is unpleasant to *him*.  Geez.
    
    I personally don't mind being called someone's girlfriend, even
    tho I have to admit I'm not really a girl anymore (dern it!).  I
    imagine, for some situations, it *might* come off rather
    awkward/inappropriate/clumsy etc, but for lack of a better term
    to use in it's stead, I would imagine Friend would fit fine.  If
    someone wants to inquiry later on just how close a friend, they
    can do it after the intro--whether or not they get an answer is
    dependant upon varying things.  
    
    SO is a bit tired and so...yuppy sounding.  
    
    kim

    "Significant Other" also sounds a bit like an important alternate
    personality; perhaps many alternate personalities....
    
    -sybil
    
    oops! I meant -roger
    

    I guess it time to neuter that phrase.....from now on its.."
    
    	This is my "personfriend" for me...
    
    
    

    Don't count on it, Sarah - someone will come along and shorten it to 
    "PF"!
    
    :-)
    
    Carol
    

    I find it interesting that most of the suggested alternatives to S.O.
    imply that there is a sexual relationship between the two people.
    
    			Steve

>    I find it interesting that most of the suggested alternatives to S.O.
>    imply that there is a sexual relationship between the two people.


	 SO implies a "sexual relationship", doesn't it?  At least to
	 me it does......

	 My default is "friend" most of the time.....


	 kath

    Apparently not to Kevin in an episode of Wonder Years.... (^;
    
    ...dale
    

    If my DECmate (how do you like that one?) introduced me as his friend
    I'd be insulted. I'm a lot more that that to him. Girlfriend is fine
    in a face to face introduction. I like the term SO but only use it when
    writing, usually in notes. It is a short quick term that gets the point
    across to the noting community. I wouldn't dream of introducing Mike in
    person as "this is my SO, Mike". I'd rather say "this is Mike", if the
    other person can't figure out our relationship (as if they were in a
    need to know position) in a few minutes, I think they are kind of dense... 
    
    Gail

    I think that the term SO is rather retro and forced.  The reason that 
    I don't care for the label is that it stems from an era when people used 
    technical, often clinical-type terms to express themselves or human 
    relationships.  Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.  First names are often fine 
    for introductions.    
    
    I've also noticed that entries which quote or reference entries by others 
    as a means of correcting minutae, contradicting, or as a vehicle for
    finger-pointed sarcasm, often serve to steer a good topic down a
    rathole.
    
    Shawn

>    If my DECmate (how do you like that one?) introduced me as his friend
>    I'd be insulted. I'm a lot more that that to him. 


	 Well, perhaps it's just my way of looking at a relationship
	 that I am in....even if I am sexually involved with someone,
	 they are, above all else, my friend first and foremost.

	 Perhaps the reason I default to "friend"....but I have no
	 problem calling anyone anything they wish me to....nor me being
	 called anything they wish to call me.

	 And perhaps its a factor of the context of what's going on at
	 the time I'm introducing him.............. I'm not usually
	 having sex in public, so I don't think to refer to him in a
	 sexual way......but rather in a friendly way....

	 Now, if you walked up to us in the act of making love, he'd
	 probably get introduced as my lover!  :-)

	 For me, it's more important to have that emphasis on
	 friendship above all else....too many times I've been in
	 relationships where friendship did not exist.....and perhaps
	 subconciously, I'm expressing the part of the relationship
	 that is the most important part to me....

	 Who knows what's going on in my convoluted mind.  :-)

	 kath

    I use the term SO, but only in certain places at certain times. I agree
    that introducing someone as "my SO" is pretty yukky. I think that no
    explanation is better than that one.
    
    There is, though, a place for it, in my opinion. That place is in
    speaking to a lot of people when you're trying to include spouses,
    lovers, close friends, etc. For example, if I were to send an
    invitation to a party to the people I work for, like this:
    
       Hi, folks, I'm having a party at my place to celebrate our getting
       XYZ version 23 shipped. The party starts Friday at 8:07 sharp, SOs
       are welcome.
    
    The alternative ends up saying something like this:
    
       Spouses are welcome. Spouse-equivalents are welcome. Good friends
       with whom you tend to go to parties are welcome. Just don't invite
       scads of people, okay?
    
    I'm pretty good with words, and the above is the best translation I can
    come up with for the phrase "SOs are welcome" in an invitation. And
    while I don't particularly like the term "SO," trying to avoid it ends
    up sounding *more* awkward, forced, retro, and whatever. When I try to
    avoid "SO" a little voice in the back of my head mocks Mr Rogers and
    says, "Can you say 'ess-oh'? Come on, I know you can. Essssss --
    Ohhhhhh." Then I start feeling foolish and go edit things.
    
    	Jon

    
    The last few replies have been so interesting....they have
    led me to ask a question...
    
    Why is it necessary [oh dear....word hunt in progress, someone
    will jump on that term....ahhhh....desireable?....expected?]
    to *identify* a person in terms of some other [accompanying]
    person?
    
    I could [and do invariably] introduce Nils as Nils. He then
    has conversations, arguments, jokes...pinching sessions for
    all I know....all by his lonesome. *Not* in the context
    of being *my husband*.
    
    If we attend a function together....we arraive and leave together.
    I think that is sufficient "information" for any problematic
    situations.
    
    Why do *we* like to be able define people so much? Is it 
    really because it is helpful in establishing the boundaries
    of an *acceptable* interaction...or is it because we are
    lazy? In chatting with anyone....we are bound to trip over the
    inevitable "Mel and I"....or "Nils and I" that will cue folks to that
    fact that we are [at least at some level] a multiprocessing unit. And,
    I guess....I would say Yes,...it *is* nosey and even occasionally rude
    to *need* to know more.....why is it any of your [in an editorial
    sense...not in a personal one] business?
    
    From this side of the corn patch...it seems we all place way too much
    weight on who everybody is in relation to everybody else. I prefer to
    evaluate how much I enjoy/like/am amused by/dislike/.../ a person
    solely on who they are...not on the happen-stance of their personal
    relationships.
    
    Yes, I know the bulk of my fellow HR noters are gonna think that this
    is pile of ***....so what's new?  Just let me get my shields up...
    
    [grin]
    
    Mel

"Spouses are welcome. Spouse-equivalents are welcome. Good friends with whom you
tend to go to parties are welcome. Just don't invite scads of people, okay?"

How about:  Guests are welcome, or Escorts are welcome?

But that says little about the relationship between the people involved.

I hate to diappoint you Mel, but I agree with you!

Jim.

    Why identify persons? For clarity, comfort and social acceptability. A
    person's relationship to you is a stepping stone for the third party to
    interact with them. 

    For example, say I showed up at a party with 3 men (lucky me).
    I introduce them by name only, or maybe as my friends Tom, Dick &
    Harry. One is my steady date-mate, one a coworker, another my brother.  
    Don't you think each of the people would be treated differently
    based on there "relationship" to me? Of course, as well they should be. 
    Acceptable behavior is going to be based on these "identities". For
    instance the woman are welcome to "hit" on my coworker but best stay
    clear of my SO. The point is obvious. People could end up acting in a
    rude or inappropriate manner if I do not clarify who these people are to
    me.
    
    Gail

    My boyfriend and I had this discussion the other night.
    
    We're both 27, single, never married.  I thought, what *do* we call
    one another?  We're much too old to be "boyfriend/girlfriend" now!
    
    This provoked a lot of giggles from both of us, trying to come up
    with something that indicates the status of our relationship!
    
    He came up with: SO?  Nah, sounds very impersonal
    
    Me:  How about sweetheart?  (he sings "let me call you sweeeeetheart
    etc" laughs, Nope!
    
    He:  How 'bout friend?  (no, then you've just joined the masses
    of other friends we both have!)
    
    Then he told me that these women in another site he has to visit
    were discussing the same thing.  They call their male companions
    their "lifestyle companions"!  We thought that was pretty cute but
    then ....
    
    I said, you are my best friend in this whole world, that will not
    change in the forseeable future, so I'm just gonna call you my "best
    friend"!
    
    But this afternoon in the parking lot, he was walking towards me
    and I thought, hmm, who's this gorgeous guy?  He said, hey, it's
    me -- your lifestyle companion!  We cracked up!
    
    Life sure gets funnier the longer you live it!
    
    Tam
    

	 Melinda, I agree with you 100%.  I don't like to feel I have
	 to "label" someone as being a part of me......

	 I'd rather just introduce the man I'm with by his name.  Too
	 many times, though, I've ran across people who think that
	 my personal life is part of their business....but using the
	 simple word "friend", it quells a lot of the inquisitive
	 looks/talk....while also letting the man know that he is
	 important to me.

	 If using a simple word is going to keep other people's noses
	 where they belong, then I'll use it.....

	 There is nothing I hate more than someone making my business
	 their business.....unless I give them the invitation to.

	 kath    

    "Lifestyle companion" reminds me of something. Last summer we
    had a 50th anniversary party for my husband's folks. They
    renewed their vows with a service taken from (and partially
    rewritten ) a marriage service book that was 50 years old.
    In the service was a reference to "this man, and his 'dear
    companion'". My mother-in-law requested that one be changed
    but for most of the weekend, my husband and I and his brother
    and his wife jokingly referred to each other as 'dear companion.'
    
    Bonnie

          <<< Note 854.47 by IAMOK::KOSKI "Insert smiley face here" >>>
    
>>> Why identify persons? For clarity, comfort and social acceptability. A
>>> person's relationship to you is a stepping stone for the third party to
>>> interact with them. 
    
    Well, if that's the case then people should be more specific.  Like
    "this is my monogamous *uckbunny" or "this is a casual friend of mine"
    or "this is someone I occasionally sleep with but am always looking for
    others" or ...
    
    SO works well, since it indicates you are serious about the person and
    avoids the controversies over "boyfriend/girlfriend."  But SO has also
    come, in my opinion, to take on a sexual connotation as well.  I like
    "friend" also, since its pretty nondeterministic.  Besides, your name
    is more important than any labels...

    And then there's the old-fashioned gay way to refer to the better half
    of a person, "Special Friend" (as in, "Oh, is she her Special
    Friend?").  I can almost smell the lavender...
    
    As for "why identify persons?", there's not much reason to in real
    life.  I even get uncomfortable sometimes when people introduce
    themselves as "so-and-so's husband/wife" - I hear an implied "just"
    prefixed before the phrase.  Use names and let people figure it out. 
    
    But for generalizations with a personal touch (like most H_R replies),
    "Fritz" or "Mildred" just can't compare to "SO" or "my ex".  When such
    abstractions are necessary, I think "SO" is much easier to take than
    concoctions like "Woman Warrior" or "Master of the Universe", but I
    stick with "my roommate" most of the time. 
    
    Ray

    But there's only one OABMOTU!
    
    		Steve

    Actually, I had never heard the term before.  Notes is the first and
    only place I've ever seen it used.  I think if you used "SO" with most
    people, they would ask, "What the hell is a SO?"
    
    I think it's important in some cases to label people.  If I go to a
    party and say, "This is my friend," when talking about my girlfriend,
    then others might wonder just how close we are.  If I announce, "This
    is my girlfriend," then they know.
    
    Dwight

    	Just for kicks, I decided to look up the terms "girlfriend"
    and "boyfriend" in my American Heritage Office Edition Dictionary.  
    Well, "boyfriend" wasn't even listed, and for "girlfriend" I found:

    	1. A female friend 	2. (informal) A sweetheart or favored
    female companion of a man.

    	Couldn't you just see it: "this is X, my favored male/female
    companion!" :^)

    	Personally, I've never had a problem with those terms, and
    haven't really run across many people that strongly object to
    them.  I rarely use the term SO except in general cases, usually in
    writing (not referring to someone in particular).  I just find it 
    awkward, and prefer to use someone's name.  If I want to say more
    about the person I'm with, I'll use friend or boyfriend depending 
    on the circumstances.  If someone is referring to me, whatever is 
    comfortable for them is fine (as long as it's meant in a nice way, 
    of course! :^) ).  I think there are some times though, when you 
    want to identify someone's relationship to you, and just a name 
    doesn't suffice.  If someone does object to a certain term, it's
    no sweat to me to use something else.

    	amy

        Ahem, I just deleted my previous note as Bonnie R pointed out
    it might well be, ah, misunderstood. (blush) "The Mistress of the
    Universe" was merely pointing out that the proper form of address
    when she is in your company is "My Mistress". I don't even require
    that you kneel. ;*)

    Now on to the real portion of my note. I didn't think SO was
    originally to designate a sexual relationship. It was just to mean
    someone close and important to you. It seems to have evolved to mean
    "the person I sleep with". I suppose that means singular and
    wouldn't be used if you were sleeping with more than one person.
    It seems to now be the equivalent of spouse. liesl

    re:.55
    
    Well, you've lead a sheltered life, then. I've heard the term used
    for at least the past 15 or so years -- long before Notes was
    invented.
    
    --- jerry

    -1
    
    You're such a "worldly" guy, Jerry, having known the term, SO!  :^)
    
    But what do I say???  
    
    				"SO" what!
    
    
    ~ Dwight
    

	 Jerry, you're forgetting something too...Dwight lives in
	 Colorado, and there are certain distinct differences between
	 the west and the east......

	 I never heard the term either until NOTEs.....and I never
	 hear anyone using it.

	 To use a stereotypical generalization (that could in fact be
	 mostly true), people in the west seem to be quite a bit more
	 laid back about a lot of things.....

	 you hear the words girl/boy-friend, friend, etc without
	 anyone even giving it much of a thought.

	 kath

RE:.47

Hmmm...Set flame/broil

>    Why identify persons? For clarity, comfort and social acceptability. A
>    person's relationship to you is a stepping stone for the third party to
>    interact with them. 


According to whose book of socially acceptable behavior? Pardon me, but it is
*not* necessary or even in some cases comfortable to do so. *If* the people
being introduced are happy with it fine, but it is not necessary. Your
comment here *sounds* like you are proclaiming an ualienable right...
like life, liberty, etc...sorry, I beg to differ. It is up to the person
accompanied and the person accompanying as to whether and how they
wish to be introduced....*that* is common curtesy.


>    For example, say I showed up at a party with 3 men (lucky me).
>    I introduce them by name only, or maybe as my friends Tom, Dick &
>    Harry. One is my steady date-mate, one a coworker, another my brother.  
>    Don't you think each of the people would be treated differently
>    based on there "relationship" to me? Of course, as well they should be. 

Whoa! You just made a decision for me here...mind if I make my own?

The *question* was...don't I think they should be treated differently?
*MY* answer is Nope. I am basically bawdy but polite to everyone...whether
they are your brother, your mother, or your husband...you don't like it?
Don't introduce them....calling them one of those categories will
also have no effect on how *I* act...or are you trying to influence how
*they* act?

"of course"...what do you mean *of course*? Does everybody agree with you?

"as well they should be"....who says? [besides you?]

Gail, I realise I am coming across rather pointedly here, but I am rather
surprised by your assumptions that your viewpoint about this is somehow
self evident and of such unanimous agreement that any alternate method
borders on the ludicrous. The *tone* of your views infers that anyone
holding a differing one is running with several cylindars not
firing...my cylindars are just fine...and I think your reasoning is
spacious...but I am totally aware that is *only my opinion*...I would
not preface my disagreement with you with comments like "of course"...
as in talking to an undereducated child....
 
>    Acceptable behavior is going to be based on these "identities". For
>    instance the woman are welcome to "hit" on my coworker but best stay
>    clear of my SO. 

Whose acceptable behavior? By whose standards? Mine or yours? Or someone
else's? I think this is a generalization of the first degree.

And...[purely a personal opinion here]...I find the inference of "ownership"
in your statement about your :SO: to be offensive. {I do *not* find you
offensive...just your comment which infers that you have chatel rights
over another human being such that other human beings are restricted
in their actions and comments} In my opinion, anyone can hit on my
husband who would like...it is *HIS* responsibility and choice as to
how he reacts to those actions. It is *none of my business* to try and
control all possible interactions [it is also frustrating adn doomed to
failure]...it is my business to watch how *I* act...everybody is
responsible for how *they* act. If I am offended by someone's actions,
I say something at that point and we talk about it.

    The point is obvious. People could end up acting in a
    rude or inappropriate manner if I do not clarify who these people are to
    me.

I disagree. Having someone make a pass at my husband is (1) a compliment
to me [good judgement on my part to have married him and (2) a compliment
to him [so, they still think you're cute, huh?]. It is only *rude* when
(1) someone who has been politley told thanks, but no thanks, continues to
press the issue or (2) when having unobtrusivly let my husband know I
am uncomfortable with *his* reactions to someone's advances, *he*
continues to encourage them. *WE* have a commitment and an agreement,
it involves being aware and responsive to each other's feelings...
the third party in this case is totally blameless...they were being
excouraged.

I do not like having people try to force *their personal* belief systems
on me. I rather totally disagree with your view on this...but I am
perfectly comfortable with *you* believing it...I am rather irate
about the tone of your response that *seems* tpo be insisting that *I*
also believe it..."...is obvious..."...to you perhaps, to me it
lacks logic. I feel my opionion is *as valid*..no more no less, than yours.

Melinda

Re: .61:  HEAR, HEAR!

If you want the people you are with to be treated as discrete individuals,
introduce them that way.  On the other hand, if you want somebody else's
opinon of them to be formed in terms of their connection to you, add the
label.

If I consciously thought about this sort of thing when making introductions,
I would tend to use the labels in three cases only: 1) (first and foremost),
when I was really trying to say something like "You won't like Janice, but
be nice to her, or this may cause you problems with Andy",  2) when they
are blood relations, or  3) when I know the couple would (both) give me 
grief for not using the label and I didn't particularly want to deal with 
that.  In which case I would consider myself a bit of a wimp for choosing
expediency over principle.

When somebody introduces the person they're with with a line like "This is
my boyfriend, Aloysius", what I infer is "Stay away from this guy, because
he's mine... and his name is Aloysius."  To me, it sounds a trifle smug.  I
am less likely to try and get to know Aloysius (unless I spend a lot of time
with the person that introduced him and am really curious about what sort
of person she's seeing) than if he were introduced with "This is Aloysius".

I don't consider introductions with labels to be all that socially 
acceptable, but I'm also aware I'm probably in the minority on this one.
.61, and the response I once overheard of "Don't worry - I wouldn't be
interested in him anyway" would indicate, however, that I am not alone.

And I think SO is a great term for third-person purposes, since it saves
you from having to splay the gory details to people you may not know very
well.  If the designated SO is present, it generally leaves something to
be desired, even in a third-person context, unless you want the relationship 
to be kept secret to the audience.

By the way, Gail,  if your brother were happily married, would you introduce
him with a line like "This is Joe, my happily married brother"?

	Sharon

                
    Re:  .60
    
    You're right Kath.  Colorado is "laid back."  I've been here since
    1978.  Before that, I grew up in the great state of Tennessee.  Do the
    people from my birth place use "SO?" 
    
                          NO, NO, HELL NO!  :^)
    
    They'd say to an east coast dude, "Hey boi.  Ya shore do talk strange." 
                                   :^)
    
                                  Dwight
    

    re:.60 (and.59)
    
    I wasn't trying to be condescending, and if that's how I came
    across, then I apologize.
    
    The point I was making is that he said in his notes title, "if
    seems like a Notes fad to me" based on the fact that he'd never
    heard or seen the term used before. I seemed to me to be drawing
    a conclusion without sufficient information.
    
    I don't think that living in Colorado or Massachusetts has
    anything to do with it. The places where I'd seen the term used
    were nation-wide forums, indicating that the term was familiar
    to people all across the country.
    
    To say nothing of the fact that I'd first heard the term in
    college courses in Psychology.
    
    --- jerry

    re.60
    I still have yet to hear the term "coined" in mainstream colorado outside
    of DEC and Deccies. I love living in the 'backwoods'.
    
    -j

>I do not like having people try to force *their personal* belief systems
>on me.

    Melinda,

    Rather than debate your response to my note, I think the above line
    will do fine. I am not forcing my personal beliefs on anyone. I know
    you're not an infrequent reader of notes, surely you know that a reply
    is "personal opinion" understood. 

    There was no indication in my reply that it was putting down your
    opinion. *You* asked a question. I answered it, with, of course, my
    opinion. How else does one answer a question of opinion except with
    their *own* opinion, excuse me if that isn't a given.

    Try reading the words on the screen, and do a little less reading
    between the lines. 

    Back to the subject at hand:
    
    If I meet you at a party I'll be sure not to introduce myself, my
    DECmate or any person who's name I know for fear of reprisal. Because
    for some reason I think it *will* have a great impact on how you react. 
 
    Gail

    re. introducing people by relationship as well as name:
    
    Yes, once upon a time, when parents still taught their children
    the rules of etiquette that smoothed our interactions with people
    we encountered, we were taught to introduce people by name and add a 
    little bit about them so the introducees would have a clue to why
    we happened to know each other.
    
    That allowed us to avoid clumsy cocktail-party conversations like,
    "And how is it you happen to know <name>?"
    "Oh, we're married to each other."
    "My, one would never have been able to tell by the way you treat
    him/her."
    
    Regardless of whether you (generic) like it or now, I'm going to
    continue to introduce people by indicating their relationship to me.  
    It ensures against all sorts of awkward situations.  And if anyone 
    wants to come on to my spouse after learning our relationship, that's 
    their problem.
    
    (Oh, yes, I learned the aforesaid rules of etiquette in the back
    woods of Colorado.)
    
    Karen
    

    I'd never heard of SO before NOTES either.   I don't see anything wrong
    with it if you want to use a generic, non-gender-related term for a
    relationship.  (It's better than spouse or POSSLQ or lover -- one's
    restricted, one's jargon, and the other's a little too blunt for my
    taste.)
    
    Personally, I would not introduce somebody with it because it sounds
    awkward -- do you say "Ess - Oh" or "so" or translate it to "significant 
    other"?  It's easy to type but not easy to say.  Also, the thing that
    makes it a clean, summing-up label for a close relationship makes it
    bad for a real live introduction to a human being.  It's a little cold.
    
    My counter-suggestion for the term is PARTNER.  I like that a whole lot
    better, since it has all the advantages of SO and adds the "feeling" of
    friend and companion.
    
    
    As an aside, I found .61's reply to .47 surprising.  I suppose if you
    and your husband are not jealous people in the slightest, you will
    handle "unwanted" attentions to your husband from a third person with
    humor and take it as a compliment to your good taste.  Not all people
    are like that, though.  Most of my friends, like .47, prefer to head
    off mistaken-identity scenes like that because they find them a hassle
    rather than funny.
    
    The other problem with this is:  how does the person who has
    (unsuccessfully) hit on your husband come out feeling?  Like a jerk,
    possibly.   ("I can't *believe* I was flirting so blatantly with him IN
    FRONT OF HIS WIFE...I feel like a fool...")  In this situation, giving
    a label to your husband is a kindness, a helpful social easement, not
    an indication that your husband is your chattel.  Lots of times you can
    tell in context who's "attached" to who, but not always.  (This is a
    "be nice to single people who have not yet found a partner" plea!)
    
    Others have said they think people should "figure out" what their
    relationship is ... I don't understand why.  I agree with .68:  I LIKE
    to know the relationships of people I've just met -- it helps me
    establish a bond, helps me find something to talk about.  If I know
    you're brother and sister the conversation will take a different track
    than it will if I know you're old college friends...etc.  
    
    Pam

	 You guys/gals also seem to be forgetting one important
	 concept that has to deal with all of this.....actions.

	 Actions speak louder than words....and I introduced someone
	 at a party, and I had come with them, and I was holding their
	 hand or something else very apparent, I think everyone would
	 get the idea.  (and since I am a very affectionate person, if
	 I am holding hands with the person, you can be assured that
	 something is going on, whereas, if am not, you can pretty
	 well be assured that NOTHING is going on.....hence friends).

	 I beleive you can tell by actions who's "together" and who
	 isn't.  At least in a good majority of the cases.

	 kath

Re: Note 854.69
>>. ..I LIKE to know the relationships of people I've just met ...>> 
                    Really ?

Just this past Sunday (yesterday afternoon) I was at  a Foliage MarketFest
and stopped at one of the booths owned by someone I know professionally.
His display included handcrafted jewelry,"T" shirts, etc.. While I was browsing
thru' his displayed wares he noticed that the woman who was with me happens to 
be tall, slim and beautiful, so he asked me: "Is she one of the models ?" 
I replied, "yes". BTW: The last time he saw me was at a fashion show, which
I was photographing about six weeks ago. Did he ask me that question because
I had not introduced the woman and her three year old daughter ? Was he 
wondering what it was all about ?  Was he implying that If I photographed at a
fashion show, one of the models should be walking beside me six weeks after?
Was I obligated to have introduced the woman friend, when I was merely stopping
by his booth to purchase a souvenir ? Was he supposed to be interested in 
helping potential customers make a selection or in the relationship of someone 
who stops by to browse briefly ?  Could I have been justified If I had replied
rudely & crudely by saying: "What'Zit ta You ?"    
Re: "terminology" what about -->  "Currently Seeing" (SE) will it pass ?

Fazari(the wanzam)  

    re:.69
    
    I use "ess-oh".
    
    As for describing people in terms of their relationship to someone
    else, I don't see the problem. Just because the grammatical case
    is known as "possessive", doesn't mean that one who uses it thinks
    in terms of ownership.
    
    When I'm in a romantic relationship, my partner is *important* to
    me and, I would hope, I'm important to her. I would feel great at
    being introduced by her to someone as "her" partner/SO/um..err../
    whatever, and I'd hope that she would be happy to be thought of
    as "mine".
    
    It's a sign of bonding, not of ownership.
    
    --- jerry

    Re:  .71
    
    Well, my assumption in .69 was that the introduction is voluntary. 
    Furthermore, I am assuming that the *purpose* of the social occasion at
    which I meet the person is to talk and have fun.  That is very
    different from your example, in which you are shopping and are not
    planning to have a long friendly chat.
    
    The real question in your example is "should I introduce my friend to
    him AT ALL in this situation?"  He thought you should.  You didn't
    think you should.  I wasn't there and I don't know how well you know
    him, so I can't really comment.  Furthermore, all I can offer is
    groundless speculation as to why he wanted to know if your friend was a
    model.  It sounds like you felt he was rude to question you.  For the
    record, I wouldn't have questioned you if I were him.  (Since you ask,
    I don't think it would have been appropriate for you to reply "rudely &
    crudely", unless he asked the question in a sarcastic or suggestive or
    slavering or snide way, which it doesn't appear he did.  Your simple
    reply "Yes" is exactly what I would have done.)
    
    All I was trying to say is that I personally, in a social, friendly
    atmosphere, appreciate it when I know the relationships of the people I
    am introduced to.  It's more fun for me that way!  Yes, the
    relationship is often clear in context.  Yes, I can read between the
    lines when necessary.  Yes, I know some people feel differently, and I
    don't grill them if they don't volunteer the information.  It's
    perfectly possible to manage a conversation when you don't know how the
    people you are talking to are related.  I just like it better when I do
    know.  For me, it gives an added dimension to the person.  Personal
    preference.
    
    Hope this explains what I was trying to say a little more clearly.
    Pam

         A very dear friend pointed out to me, [immediately
         after I entered .61], that although *what* I had said
         held some merit, the way I said it stank...sort of like
         three-day-old fish...or house guests after 24 hours...
         [sigh]


         Well....I hate being wrong....and I hate *even more*
         being wrong when someone else is right...

         But...

         Apologies to all who had to listen to me flail around in
         the darkness...it was inexcusable.

         WHAT I said, I think was justified. I *do* indeed, think
         that .47 was phrased in such a way that implied a
         judgement of people who did not accept the author's
         views.

         THE WAY I said it certainly managed to hide that fact
         beneath a wealth of unnecessary vituperative rhetoric.

         Gail, I apologize to you in particular, [Although I
         still think that your phraseology in .47 leaves
         something to be desired...{grin}] and to the HR
         community in general. Although a Bitch of the first
         rank, I ususally manage to keep my mouth under wraps.

         Sorry, folks.

         Melinda