Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

The term "Partner".

297 replies

marantha · 30/11/2009 12:51

Am I being unreasonable to find the term "partner" intensely annoying when applied to those in a relationship? Particularly when they are actually married so it should be like, er, husband, wife or spouse instead?
Partner in what exactly? Ballroom dancing, bridge-playing. Isn't there something just a teensy-weeny bit smug about the term?

OP posts:
MeltedTreeChocolates · 04/12/2009 23:26

You dont want legal status and rights? Fine, but dont expect the rights to magically happen.

NotanOtter · 04/12/2009 23:29

i don't melted

MeltedTreeChocolates · 04/12/2009 23:29

Indeed Otter you are not in a contract. My contract states that I have all the same rights as my Dh does. You dont have anything to state that so you cant expect it to happen for you.

What I am saying is you couldnt go to the law for help if things were to go wrong in your relationship cos you chose not to make anything legal of it.

I am not debating your relationship.

MilaMae · 04/12/2009 23:30

I'm nothing to do with him!!!Thankfully dp being a decent bloke thinks otherwise and has put everything in joint names so legally I am entitled to half the house and several other things he's put in my name. I will be very well provided for if we did split up or he was to die so legally I don't need to be married thanks

scottishmummy · 04/12/2009 23:30

i dont seek approbation or legal rights.dont presume

MeltedTreeChocolates · 04/12/2009 23:31

Ah, sorry my point was direct at the person that said should she not get part of her husbands house because of all they have been through together. My answer was sadly (because maybe morally she should) but simply, no.

X wires

MeltedTreeChocolates · 04/12/2009 23:34

Mila, thats great then, but you didn't state that in your post. Of couse you are something to do with him I never thought otherwise. I was just talking about someone that had no legal rights set up and expects to magically have them.

My mistake seeker.

I withdraw my side of the debate as it appears I am not debating with anyone on here.

MeltedTreeChocolates · 04/12/2009 23:37

Actually Mila can i ask (cheeky, nosey person that I am ) what is it about marriage then that you dont like? The title? The big hoohaa about it? It's origin? Curiosity nosiness

MeltedTreeChocolates · 04/12/2009 23:38

not seeker, scottishmummy that was btw

scottishmummy · 04/12/2009 23:44

people should do what they want
marry if you want
live over the brush if you want

MeltedTreeChocolates · 04/12/2009 23:48

and people will.

P.s Over the brush? Context tells me the meaning of that but I have NEVER heard it before. What on earth is it about/ where does it come from??

halfcut · 04/12/2009 23:48

I've lived over the brush for 30 years works for us

muminthemiddle · 05/12/2009 00:08

I don't like the term partner and am not anybody's partner.

Had to correct the midwife several times when she kept referring to my husband as partner.

scottishmummy · 05/12/2009 00:10

obviously being married wife is available to you.those of us unmarried dont want to be wife so partner suffice

halfcut · 05/12/2009 00:20

I don't want to be a wife..perfectly happy with partner

seeker · 05/12/2009 05:55

I am very puzzled by this. Are people really saying that if a woman gives up her job to look after a couple's children for 10 years and they split up she should have no rights to a share of the house for the simple reason of being unmarried?

Does this mean that the man in this relationship has no rights or resposibilities towards the children, either?

I find this position completely incomprehensible - and, actually, quite anti-woman. As I said earlier, what it boils down to in practical terms is a man's tight to love 'em and leave 'em!

Original poster
marantha · 05/12/2009 08:22

Nobody is saying a man should have no responsibilities towards his CHILDREN, only his ex-cohabitee.
Anyway, in the case of cohabitees who split, even if the female partner has no tie to the house legally a judge can order that the main carer (usually female) and child stay there until child reaches a certain age.
Then, of course, it reverts to owner of house.
This is fair enough, as long as female does not expect to actually have any say in what happens to hosue AFTER child has grown up.
It is reasonable at this stage to ask her to leave.

OP posts:
Original poster
marantha · 05/12/2009 08:23

Correct me if I am wrong, anyone. I very well could be.

OP posts:
scottishmummy · 05/12/2009 10:06

dearie me why so animated about another woman relationship choices?no direct impact upon you how two adults behave when they split up

all this who gets the house is froth and a bit of a digression

is it so incomprehensible that some couples do not wish to marry?

Original poster
marantha · 05/12/2009 12:28

scottishmummy, the reason people are getting so worked up about it is because there are a lot of cohabitees out there who have no desire to have any legal restrictions imposed upon them by the state. Thanks to women having children outside of wedlock and because the government thinks it correct to interfere when children are involved in the relationship if they are unmarried, such cohabitees now face the prospect of NOT being to be able to live with one another for fear of state intervention.
So yeah, people are right to get worked up about it because a liberty is about to be taken from them.

OP posts:
MeltedTreeChocolates · 05/12/2009 13:55

I am not getting worked up about what other people do. Just saying to people like seeker;

Why would you expect law to jump in and help if nothing about your relationship involves law? We are NOT talking morals here. They are two completely different things.

If like some of you, you have set up all the wills and have joint accounts etc etc, then no problem. You have invovled law (more so than a married couple IMHO) but if you haven't you cant expect the same rights. I think you are right marantha, I have heard of cases like that on a few occassions.

It's a very simple question. If no law is involved why should those couples expect it? For reasons marantha has said you cant give the same rights to unmarried couples. If the gov does give these rights, there will end up being no point in marriage at all because every couple may as well be married. It is a ridiculous idea. Total nonsense.

MeltedTreeChocolates · 05/12/2009 13:58

No one answered my question about what it is about marrige they do not like. The title? etc. If all these ties (like wills and joint money and accounts etc) are in place anyway.

You say you are happy as it is but that isn't what I am asking. What specifically is it about marriage that you do not want?

This isn't me telling you I think you should get married. This is me wanting to understand why marriage is disliked as much as it is nowadays. As yet no one has answered that question.

MeltedTreeChocolates · 05/12/2009 14:37

Actually I am gonna pull out of this discussion. I fear we are all too stuborn and will just keep going round and round in circles

pugsandseals · 05/12/2009 14:54

I certainly don't understand what people have against marriage! It's not as if anyone here has given us any reason to understand why they don't want to be married other than shear bloody-mindedness

I do get very upset with the right those that co-habit/live-in-sin think they have to call my husband my 'partner' or not call me Mrs when I have asked them to!

Totally disrespectful if you ask me? But maybe I am just being very old-fashioned again

Original poster
marantha · 05/12/2009 17:03

I find it deeply ironic that the two groups opposed to the "make cohabitation equal to marriage" concept are the old-fashioned types of people and the libertarians. I would say that I relate more to the second group on this issue.
The first group, in my opinion, have nothing to fear by cohabitation being made equivalent to marriage. If it happens, then cohabitation will become far less prevalent anyway as a lot of people will not tolerate being married by default and live apart. For making cohabitation equivalent to marriage DOES NOT undermine marriage at all (people will still marry if they wish) but it sure as hell undermines cohabitation.
You know, cohabitation, where two people can live together and have sex in a relationship without it being subject to outside interference in the event of a break-up.

Marriage isn't really disliked, Melted..., the government say that they are for "all types of lifestyle" but if they can save money by "marrying" you by default, they will
hence, all the "are you living with someone as if you're married?" questions on various benefit forms.
The tax authorities, of course, want to treat everybody as individuals in their own right and tax them as single people.
It is a battle between the benefit agencies and the tax authorities at the end of the day. The first wishes to "marry" all people -whether they like it or not- the second, to treat everybody as individuals.
It's all down to money.
Women say that marriage is old-fashioned, too.
Yet they STILL live with a partner, have babies, mortgages and so on and do all the things that married people traditionally do. Bizarre. Personally, I don't care but I do wish such women would shut up and not demand to be seen as married in the event of a break-up. I do find that annoying.

Men, of course, often move in with a woman on a casual basis (in HIS view, not HERS). The woman gets pregnant in the mistaken belief that the relationship is more serious than what it is. Man panics and leaves.
Marriage serves an important function as both parties can reasonably assume from it that their relationship is for life.
This is why cohabiting relationships are ALWAYS at a higher risk of break down than marriages- a simple case of crossed wires.

OP posts: