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).