Snippets From An Email

In a recent email, I was discussing my aversion to the words "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" being used to refer to one's partner in adult romantic relationships.

What follows is a section of that email, starting with the original subject, followed by how it digressed, but is mostly under the umbrella topic of "language and relationships" Her words are in blue, with my responses in purple:

Vocabulary wise - yes "girlfriend/boyfriend" just doesn't do it for adults. Rather interesting that there is no terminology for adult relationships, other than those relating to marriage: spouse, husband, wife, fiance', etc.

It is probably related to several factors. One, people live longer now and they no longer tend to get married and stay married as soon as they reach 18 or so. Society hasn't coined new words that have been largely accepted in order to keep up with new realities.

Oh, there are some words, to be sure, but they're not widely used and haven't reached critical mass.

One word used fairly often is "partner", but it's used mainly by gay people and most people think of gay relationships when they hear it. For this reason, it's a word unlikely to be used by any significant number of heterosexuals. Also, "partner" sounds too businesslike to many people, which doesn't help it any.

Another word that hasn't kept pace with current reality is "premarital sex". "Premarital" means "before marriage", thus "premarital sex" assumes that marriage will eventually happen. A better word, which I use is "NON-marital sex", which removes the expectation of marriage from sex. But you still hear people saying "premarital sex" when they know perfectly well the relationship will not end in marriage. But to continue to use this expression subtly suggests that marriage SHOULD happen.

It's like the word "maiden name".....an anachronism if I ever heard one. I've even heard women who have kept their own names after marriage say that they've kept their "maiden name". If she's kept her own name, she's not adopted her husband's last name, thus she does not HAVE a so-called "married name" that must be distinguished from one's "maiden name". To refer to one's own name that one still uses as a "maiden name" assumes that she has that "married name" anyway, whether she uses it or not.

No lifelong single woman refers to her surname as her "maiden name". So, a married woman who doesn't change her name should not do so, either. She could merely say she's kept her OWN name.

And even for a woman who changes her name, isn't there something rather ludicrous about a fifty year old first time bride referring to the surname she used for fifty years as a "maiden" name? A "maiden" is a young girl....a word rarely, if ever, used in that context any more. "Maiden name" assumes that all women marry at a young age....or that they should. In this instance, should could refer to it as her "birth name" or "family name".

Reflection of society itself - that being single is unacceptable unless it has some religious connotation ?

Yes, exactly. But at least you don't hear the word "unmarried" so much anymore.....the "un" giving a faintly negative connotation, a deviation from standard. Blacks get this idea....they've objected to being referred to as "non-white" in government statistics, because this makes whiteness standard.

But even the word "single" has problems. To most people, "single" means being alone and unattached. There's nothing wrong with being alone and unattached, but just because a person is not legally married, doesn't mean they are necessarily alone without a relationship or relationships.

I've taken to referring to people as "unattached" and "partnered", which I think is more descriptive and also nonjudgmental.

And, as a joke, when I've been asked if I'm "single", I ask, "Are you double?"

It is interesting - because another cousin is "involved" with a woman - and no one refers to her by anything other than her first name.

That's a good solution.

I don't know if that's because she's older than him, people don't "approve" of her, or because they aren't sure what to call her. I think they've been living together something like 10 years - am not sure. I don't think he "defined" her when he first started bringing her to family gatherings, either

Maybe she doesn't NEED a label.

She was just introduced by name. We had a conversation several years ago, and I asked him if they were going to get married. He told me he would marry her before he died so she would be "taken care of". Seems like a pretty shitty reason for getting married, to me. What's the point ? He can make a will and leave everything to her - why bother with "getting married" ?!

I see both your point and his. It's unfortunate that what he wants to do for her should be made easier by a legal marriage. This is another idea I have -- to unlink all the legal benefits that come automatically by marriage and make them available to people in other sorts of relationships -- and not all of them involving romance or sex -- without having to go through complicated legal proceedings.

For instance, when a couple marries, one is immediately entitled to place their spouse on their health insurance plan. But why shouldn't a grandparent be able to put a grandchild on their insurance or two siblings share a plan?

I can assure you that none of my women refer to me as a "boyfriend". I'm 47 years old, dammit.(My comments from a previous email).

Hee, hee, hee. ROTFLMAO !! No, I don't think anyone would refer to you as a "boyfriend" - it seems too tame. Could just picture your outrage - and you setting her straight - if not kicking her to the curb for using the term !

Being referred to as a "lover" is sufficient for me.

Hmm, I seems I think about a lot of things that the less introspective among us never even consider to question...