The term "Partner".

[marantha]

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?

Interesting that nobody has come up with a viable alternative to describe your co-habitee....

hmmm, you know what, perhaps there isn't one.

You really and truly can't say boyfriend if you are in your 30s, living together with kids. Well I would feel like a plonker anyway.

Always boyfriend here so far. People might have thought it sounded daft calling a 35-year old bloke a 'boyfriend' but there was no way I was using 'partner' under the age of 26.

Companion? Too old-ladyish.
The Bloke seems to be the favourite term round here!

man friend,said in style of leopard print wearing minx

Hmmm maybe significant other?

Or "My bloke/bird?"

My boss is called Dave,now though he is a fab bloke,the significant other analogy would just be embarrassing!

I am quite keen on the looser term - 'seeing someone.'

"My fella". I don't say this but I do quite like it.

But after 15 years,seeing someone doesn't quite describe it adequately,really.It is 15 years worth of 'seeing someone".

Maybe we should say "seeing someone,but like being marrried with the 2.4 children and mortgage and job"

There really isn't (as yet) another suitable term for 'person with whom one is having a long-term relationship which probably involves living in the same house or at least planning to, ditto for DC'.

Mind you, I often wonder why people always need to know this stuff. Surely a person's marital/relationship status is only your business if you're planning to put them up for the night or would like to have sex with them?

SGB; it is for things like calculating benefits and next of kin declarations and pensions at work.

SGB,I really enjoy your posts.They hit the nail on the head.life is so diverse.there is really no need to pidgeonhole people at all.

I remember the extreme mortification I felt when I once asked a patientperson if the person accompanying them was their daughter,and it turned out to be their significant other.My mistake and very narrow viewpoint.Also another if he had come to see his brother lover which is what he said as he felt the confines of medicine would not accept his relationship .

I got that the wrong way round.(need to go to bed emoticon)

MillyR: I agree that in some official cases, it's necessary to know about a person's living arrangements, but it's often asked when it's actually not relevant to the situation. I don't, for example, think it's necessary to indicate either your marital status or indeed your gender on a job application (unless it's for being a wet nurse or sperm donor or other very specific circumstances - if you're applying to stack shelves or flip burgers, why on earth does it matter?)

So when I introduce my MIL's ...er....appendage to my 89 year old mother, I say "Mum, this is Cathy's lover"? (Actually, in that case, "appendage suits perfectly!)

When I introduce my own 'bidey-in' to the Chair of Governors at school at a drinks party I say "This is Fred, the man I'm seeing"? I think not!

I'm middle aged, so is he, we have been together 30 years, we have two children. We do not intend to marry, so fiance is wrong, and I am not, under any circumstances going to call him my boyfriend. So what's left? "This is Fred, my Er-um'?

I can't see anything particularly offensive about partner. My FIL has spent the last ten years with a lady that he apparently loves but they haven't got married I suspect because the think it woudl cause ructions (FIL is a widower, and d and his siblings are not totally enamored of the lady in question). FIL is in his sixties and she is quite frail. She is not his girlfriend. Partner works very well.

generally the only people in RL I know who object to the word "partner" are married people. It's as if they think - consciously or unconsciously "Well, I got married - so you should too"

I know "partner" is an all-encompassing term used on forms but in a way organisations that use it are shooting themselves in the foot by doing so.
For example, a couple could have been living together for 2 months. The girl considers this to be a permanent arrangement, the guy an IMpermanent arrangement. Cohabitees often have differing views on where their relationship is heading.
Therefore the word partner may indicate to a company a permanency that is not really there.
Of course, if ACTUALLY married, it is at least safe to say they were committed in a very tangible legal way.
Also, "partner" can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean. It is entirely subjective- which can sometimes be a very good thing.
However, you can't really apply an element of subjectivity to marriage i.e. you're either married or you are not.

said,
I think we have reach a stage in this country now where- to my ears at least- "partner" sounds far, far more smug than "husband".

I'm sorry, is this really just an attack on poeple who dare to live together without being married?

I think YABU for hating the term partner in a relationship context, and that in fact I tend to find the smugness emanates from those who hate the word; "my life is so perfect that I went from having a boyfriend to fiance to husband. Those of you who got into the mess of choosing not to marry should sort yourselves out."

Most unmarried couples I know respect the decisions of couples who do marry. Shame that that respect does not always go the other way.

It's got nothing to do with respect- I don't personally care whether people marry or not, all I ask of cohabitees is that they don't campaign for intrusive laws that would let them demand half of their partner's property/possessions in the event of a break-up. They chose not to marry so they must live with the consequences of being unmarried.

There are people who are unmarried who ARE smug about it; as in : "This is my partner, who are unmarried because WE are perfect and our relationship will never end so we don't need that piece of paper (marriage certificate) that unenlightened MARRIED couples do".
So please don't tell me that smugness is confined to the married. It is most certainly not.

ProcessYellow
you are absolutely right. Personally, I like the word partner and would use it instead of husband if DH would let me. Of course marriage is an obvious, legal sign of commitment, but it can also be eneterd into lightly and without commitment. A couple could get married after 2 months or live together as partners for 10 years - the married couple is not 'more committed' and the fact of them being married doesn't make the relationship more strong or valid.

All those who hate the word partner (unless for gay couples - don't you see how divisive and heteronormative that is?) What is your alternative? If you choose not to get engaged or married, are you su[pposed to use boyfriend/girlfriend until you are in your dotage?

Oh marantha you have kind of missed the point

Plenty of straight people would like to have civil partnerships. Plenty of gay people would like to have marriages. There are valid reasons for objecting to the status quo. People should not feel they have to get married to legitimise their relationship - which is what you seem to imply should happen (take the consequences)

Nobody ever said smugness was confined to married people

Smugness is relationship death, whether or not you are married. No relationships come with long-term guarantees - they all require hard work every day!