From: utzoo!watmath!cbostrum Newsgroups: net.women Title: Re: posslq Article-I.D.: watmath.4718 Posted: Fri Mar 11 23:51:55 1983 Received: Sat Mar 12 09:26:23 1983 This idea is clearly of limited use. If you take it literally, the term doesnt imply anything near what is wanted. If you dont take it literally it isnt any better than any other term. One suggested term is covivant, and unlike cohabitant this has better implications (although not literal). I have taken to using MOA (for "Major Object of Affection"). What is wrong with calling your MOA a posslq? 1) Te may not be of the opposite sex 2) Te may not live with you 3) There may people people of the opposite sex living with you who are not your MOA (Perhaps MPA might be better if we wish, (reasonably!) to assume that an MOA is always a person).