to think there's no need for DH to "watch out" for me having an affair?

[PrettyRicky]

Lots of context so no drip-feeding!

DH's brother was in our city for work yesterday. DH met him in town for a drink at about 6pm and I joined them an hour later and we all went for a meal.

DH and his brother have a bit of a strained relationship. They very rarely see each other (once every few years at family things) and only speak on the phone a couple of times a year. I've only met BIL about three times.

Random context but this is important: I don't wear a wedding ring, I didn't change my name when we got hitched, I refer to my DH as my "partner" when I'm talking to people.

Anyway, while in the restaurant last night a male ex-colleague walked in. This colleague now lives in Japan and I haven't seen him for about five years. We used to get on really well when we worked together. We spotted each other and he came over. We hugged and kissed (on the cheek) and I introduced DH and BIL briefly. We had a quick chat then he went and sat with the people he was with. As we were leaving, I went over to my ex-colleague, we kissed again and generally said how lovely it was to see each other, we should Skype soon.. yadda yadda

This morning, BIL has text DH saying he thinks DH should "beware" of me having an affair. He said that he noticed I don't wear a wedding ring, last night I introduced DH to my ex-colleague as "my partner" rather than "my husband" and I was too touchy-feely with ex-colleague. Apparently DH should "watch out" for me having an affair.

AIBU to think this it's completely out of order for BIL to text this to DH considering he knows nothing about me or our relationship? What's his game here do you think?

DH hasn't replied yet- he can't think of what to say. How do you reply to something like that?!

Goodness. The fact that I don't have pierced ears seems to cause more consternation than me not wearing any rings! (I'm a fiddler and also work in an industry where jewellery can be dangerous).

There are so many people I know who have been partners since their 20s who are now getting married in their 50s/60s due to wills/next-of-kin/inheritance issues...

It's absolutely not me trying to "lay down a grammatical law"

It is. You are reading a meaning into 'wife' that nobody else has. We gave up the "promise to obey" years ago, you know.

purits

But surely laying down a law is me saying I think "wife" connotes "housewife" which is a problematic term for women and everyone else should think the same

I'm not.

I'm saying For me, I don't like the word "wife" because I associate it with "housewife" which I find to be a problematic term because of its historical associations with women's subordination

You're free to read/understand/use/interpret the word "wife" however you like but, for me, it's problematic.

"You are reading a meaning into 'wife' that nobody else has"

My DH also reads the word "wife" in this way. As does my friend from Zumba. As does my friend from my reading group. So you're wrong that "nobody" reads "wife" this way.

Anyway, basically irrelevant

For goodness' sakes. How the OP refers to her husband, whether or not she wears a ring and how she greets a colleague in public (in front of her partner and BIL) are irrelevant. Instead of tearing her and her relationship apart because it isn't like your relationship, why not respond to the question asked.

OP, he should respond like earlier poster's have suggested by just saying "Don't be silly" or something along those lines. What a rude man.

So you're wrong that "nobody" reads "wife" this way.

I am a wife, but have never been a housewife. It has never, ever occurred to me to link the words in that way possibly for that reason. But what you call each other is entirely your decision.

Posters are being very judgmental about OP's And Her DH's decision to refer to each other as "Partner". It is tinged with the old attitude that somehow a de facto marriage was inferior to a legal marriage and unlikely to be as stable and long lasting.
Certain assumptions are usually made when one knows a couple is married -- assumptions that the OP says do not prevail in her relationship.
Times are changing and women re entitled to not wear a ring as the majority of men have not done until very recently
To not change her name -- as very very few men have ever done and as is common in many countries
To greet all friends male and femal with a kiss and a hug without being suspected of infidelity.
People who are genuinely interested in one's marital status generally know and think nothing of what one calls one's spouse. Others can mind their own business -- only women are "expected to change their honorific on marriage which is why Ms originated as the 3rd abbreviation of Mistress.
DP ought to tell BIL he is insulted by the aspersions cast on his DP and also on his own intelligence.
Good luck

You're free to read/understand/use/interpret the word "wife" however you like but, for me, it's problematic.

It is a problem, I agree. So many women do the "it's only a piece of paper" routine, "it's so old-fashioned and I'm more modern than that".
Then their LTR breaks down and they realise that "the piece of paper" is a legal contract that would have given them protection. Instead the DP waltzes away with all his assets and earning power intact and the woman is left in a financial mess.
We should be celebrating marriage as an astute financial move (as you yourself know) not harking back to Victorian times.
It is not irrelevant. We should teach our DDs this stuff; we should teach them that marriage is a good idea, not a dirty word.

Why can't the words "husband" and "wife" evolve? I am a wife; I don't feel demeaned by this fact. Am I supposed to

No. But accept that others don't like the word and never want it applied to them.

Problematic for me too.

others don't like the word and never want it applied to them.

What's the problem? It's a statement of fact, it describes the relationship. Do you also dislike mother, sister, daughter, aunt, niece, ...

Says a lot about brother in law. He could have been stung before, or he could Just be a suspicious person.

Then their LTR breaks down and they realise that "the piece of paper" is a legal contract that would have given them protection. Instead the DP waltzes away with all his assets and earning power intact and the woman is left in a financial mess.
We should be celebrating marriage as an astute financial move (as you yourself know) not harking back to Victorian times.
It is not irrelevant. We should teach our DDs this stuff; we should teach them that marriage is a good idea, not a dirty word

In my view we should be teaching them not to rely on being a 'Mrs' for one's financial future but instead to make sure that they are financially independent and don't need marriage to ensure this.

What's the problem? It's a statement of fact, it describes the relationship. Do you also dislike mother, sister, daughter, aunt, niece

These are not the same as wife. And if I don't want it applied to ME what's YOUR problem?

Purits I completely agree with you, I really do. I think marriage is important to avoid the sorts of financial messes you've said- that's the reason we got married!

However, marriage does have wider connotations of "ownership" and subordination of women. I completely understand that these roots are not explicit nowadays and most people don't think of marriage in that way but I (we) do and, for that reason, I find it hard to buy into it.

I'd like to see a society where we had something akin to marriage (i.e. protections for women) but which doesn't have the problematic historical associations. Never going to happen!

Op - there is currently a campaign for civil partnerships for 'straight' people - you might be interested in these.

So my BIL is gay and I'll be attending his wedding to the most lovely guy you could ever meet in a couple of weeks. Should they agree to call each other "wife" and "husband" because their bond will be so much less if they don't and it won't be a "proper" marriage? Or should they go on referring to one another as "partners"? One reason DH and I use "partner" is that it can be used for ANY marriage, gay or straight.

YetAnother Yep, I' m watching with interest

guilty That's always been my thought as well. I can't express this properly but I'd always thought "husband" and "wife" is somehow implicitly homophobic. I know that sounds ridiculous - I haven't really thought through my feelings on it. But it's like saying "I'm married to a man so definitely can't be gay" and vice versa.

I quite like the ambiguity of "partner" as people don't know if my partner is male or female. I quite like that because it shouldn't matter.

However, a few of my gay friends are very keenly taking up the terms "husband" and "wife" in their same-sex marriages as it makes a statement about their equality of rights and the legal recognition of their relationships.

Very complex stuff!

However, marriage does have wider connotations of "ownership" and subordination of women.

The Married Women's Property Act was passed about 150 years ago. Get with the times!

I don't know about homophobic. I maybe wouldn't go that far. But it is heteronormative to assume a marriage has to be between a wife and a husband, not two wives or two husbands. (Which is part of the reason there is some power in gay people claiming that terminology back, should they wish to).

At the end of the day, I think people have a right to self-describe on their own terms. It's none of your rather neanderthal BIL's business whether you describe yourself as a "partner" or wear a wedding ring, and it is completely laughable that such flimsy outer signs are deemed to imply some lack of inner commitment. He sounds straight out of the 1950s, to be honest.

It's perfectly possible to replicate the "piece of paper" outside marriage.

The Married Women's Property Act was passed about 150 years ago. Get with the times

I don't see anyone here who is 'anti-marriage' suggesting that married people are wrong or should 'get with the times' or whatever. We are merely expressing views about how we live our lives and how we interpret words for ourselves. That's our prerogative and business. It would be nice to be paid the same courtesy from the 'pro-marriage' brigade.

You can't just deny the past, either, by saying it is the past.

"Slavery ended about 150 years ago" doesn't confront the misery that slavery created, or its lasting effects down to the present day in terms of the economic hardships faced by freed slaves and their descendants. To pretend that something that pervasive ends and - TADA! - the playing field is completely level is naive in the extreme.

purits But that's my point exactly. The fact that there even needed to be an Act shows the problematic roots of marriage.

Most marriage ceremonies are shot through with problematic ideas about marriage and women (e.g. wearing a veil, wearing a white/off-white dress, being given away, speeches by all the men but no women). I get that most people don't think of marriage this way and wouldn't for a second think that walking down the aisle with their dad is being "given away" because they are literal property but the roots and connotations are there nonetheless.

guilty Heteronormative, that's what I was thinking of. Yes, thanks

Not completely Bertrand, and with far greater cost.