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:
Original poster
marantha · 01/12/2009 15:45

Hence recognising cohabitation via the social security system but not recognising it in a legal context.

OP posts:
ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 01/12/2009 15:49

marantha
if a couple lives together why the hell shouldn't they be expected to support each other? A person who lives with their bf/gf can't claim JSA if the 'partner' is working. And why should they? Their rent and bills are their responsibility, if they want to make a joint claim for tax credits or HB they can, but they shouldn't be topped up by the state where a married couple wouldn't be, as the costs of running a household are the same whether a couple are married or have been together for 2 months.

Original poster
marantha · 01/12/2009 15:54

kat2907, because living with someone and having sex with them is not always the same as living with them in the same way as a married couple.
Are you seriously telling me that a pair of 18-year-olds who have no children, mortgage and so on should be expected to support one another finanically? You're having a laugh.

OP posts:
Original poster
marantha · 01/12/2009 15:57

Anyway, my point is not whether or not I agree with social security policy as it stands. I just wanted to point out that the government will deem people married when suits and deem people as unmarried when suits, that's all.
So kat2907, I take it that you believe unmarried couples should be entitled to things like widow's pension?

OP posts:
lovechoc · 01/12/2009 15:59

The thing is even when you are married, you can still get referred to as the 'partner' in a relationship. I prefer wife rather than partner (didn't pay for a marriage certificate for nothing - might as well get some use out of it's purpose!).

YANBU OP.

WhatFreshHellIsThis · 01/12/2009 16:01

We work it the other way round - DP and I aren't married, and so on forms he goes down as partner/co-habitee/whatever option is closest to truth. But socially I quite often call him my husband.

After all, it matters not a jot to the people at my playgroup whether or not we actually did the ceremony or not - our relationship is equivalent to marriage in commitment, in our opinion, so why not call ourselves the terms closest to the truth?

Can't imagine anyone actually getting upset with us using husband when we're not married, after all, what skin is it off their nose?

After reading this thread, though, he's now going to be my Dave

ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 01/12/2009 16:07

Yeah marantha - if a couple live together they should be expected to support each other. Why not? Financially I had to support DH when he wasn't working, because we live together and share costs generally. If a couple share a bedroom in a flat they are living more cheaply then if they lived seperately and with that comes the responsibility to support each other if necessary.

I don't see why that is contraversial - state benefits are only supposed to be paid where there is a need, when a couple lives together there isn't a need. Like I said, there is money they could get if they applied jointly, but they shouldn't be treated as single when they aren't. Whatever their motivation is in living together, the fact is that they do, and that's how it is.

ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 01/12/2009 16:08

No, I don't think cohabitees should necessarily get pensions etc. However they should be allowed to civilly partner rather than marry if they wish.

givecarrotsachance · 01/12/2009 16:13

kat it's just poncey and that is all there is to it.

Gay people DON'T have to define themselves with "partner". I just find it more acceptable than with straight people as they're less likely to want to use "husband" or "wife" if they marry/civil partnership - and this is understandable. BF or GF is fine, too. Or husband and wife. Whatever. Don't make insinuations that I'm being prejudiced or anti-gay as nothing could be further from the truth Trying to attack my point of view with an offensive comment is low.

My relationship with my boyfriend-now-husband is clearly different to that of the local teens, seen by the presentation of said relationship to the world. By introducing him as my "boyfriend", anyone who then sees me or him as a spotty yoof is a) blind and b) stupid.

Whether they take the term to mean that I am not serious about my relationship is purely their problem, not mine.

Therefore I maintain that the only reason to use the word "partner" is because the person using it is not secure enough in themselves or their relationship to not worry about people's perceptions of it.

I see it used so many times by people who get past a few months in their relationship and then call their other half "partner" even though they are not "life partners". It therefore has no meaning anyway. Many people who don't want to get married because they are NOT committed enough to their relationship to marry use it, thus degrading its meaning entirely.

Original poster
marantha · 01/12/2009 16:13

kat2907, I didn't really want to get into an argument about the rights and wrongs of whether or not it is correct to treat cohabitees as married. I just wanted to point out that as long-term cohabitation is a newish concept in the UK, the government can get away with inequalities of treatment as regards them i.e. treating them as married in social security but UNmarried when it comes to the law, that's all.
I am of the opinion that a couple are DENIED certain benefits on the grounds that they are "Living as married" they should be GIVEN benefits that are dependent on actually being married i.e. widow's pension, too. That would be true fairness, but, of course, it doesn't happen.

OP posts:
Original poster
marantha · 01/12/2009 16:19

Personally, kat2907, I am sick to death of the whole concept of partners, wives, spouses etc.
I wish marriage and the whole concept of "living as married" would go the way of the dinsosaur. The state should treat people as single individuals in their own right not deem them to be tied to another adult.
Marriage/living as married should be no business of the state.
J C*, we are living in the 19th century- have sex with somone and they are financially responsible for you!

OP posts:
Poledra · 01/12/2009 16:20

Actually, I've been thinking about this, and I think it should be 'dave' (or davina) rather than 'Dave'. So, men whose name is Dave will be distinguished from the more generic dave [might not be taking this too seriously emoticon]

londonlottie · 01/12/2009 16:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

tethersend · 01/12/2009 16:48

Good point, Poledra. Duly noted.

I think the thread was in danger of getting away from discussion of the viability of dave, but you've selflessly pulled it back from the brink.

Well done.

givecarrotsachance · 01/12/2009 16:54

I'll just nip into my homophobic corner now. But don't you know that some of my best friends are black lesbians?

Bored as I am of repeating myself, I'll say it again. Generally speaking, within a civil partnership, couples don't tend to use "husband" or "wife". If they do, all happiness to them. Makes sense to me. However, given this, it seems that the word "partner" is a useful alternative given that there is no other. If they are not within a civil partnership, BF or GF is more appropriate. In my opinion. Therefore, I will "allow" them to use the term without it sounding stoopid because that's the kind of generous person I am.

The concept doesn't push my buttons. AIBU is amusing and people's reactions to it hilarious. Anyone with an opinion different to the majority of those on the board is "offensive" or their opinions are "flimsy" (not entirely sure that an opinion can be correctly actually described as "flimsy", really).

As for Ms/Mrs/Miss - I personally find the term "Ms" to be burn-bra-in-face and I don't like it. Therefore I don't use it. If you prefer to, I couldn't care less.

The question was, what do people think. I said what I thought. End of story.

blushes · 01/12/2009 17:17

I use the word "partner". That's what we have, a partnership. It's rather a lovely word actually, when you think about it. There's certainly nothing "smug" about it imo- far more smug (and pompous) to correct someone who unwittingly refers to your wife/husband as their partner. Why should it matter a jot to anyone else if you had a wedding or not?

On another note, my boss once introduced her partner to me as her lover. I could barely keep a straight face.

I sometimes refer to my partner as my Babydaddy. You know, just to really raise some hackles.

londonlottie · 01/12/2009 17:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

McSnail · 01/12/2009 17:48

givecarrotsachance "kat it's just poncey and that is all there is to it."

Oh, well if you say so then it must be true.

Ever heard of the phrase 'in my opinion'?

superfrenchie1 · 01/12/2009 17:48

babydaddy!!!

LeninGrad · 01/12/2009 17:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Wineonafridaynight · 01/12/2009 20:46

hmmm - I agree. I don't like the term but have been in a relationship with my 'partner' for over 7 years. Boyfriend seems a bit silly and makes me think it sounds like we have just got together or I'm 14. But when I use the term 'partner' I always think it may make people think I'm a lesbian.

I've never heard of married people refer to their DH/DW as partner though!

mrswill · 01/12/2009 21:21

PMSL at 'loverrrr'!

Think you are being a bit U. But i can see where your coming from.

I dont think theres a suitable term that describes a long term relationship with children etc, that is exactly like a marriage in terms of commitment but without the legal bit of paper etc.

What i call DP is dependant on the situation, and honestly how much ive had to drink. I have been known at weddings to introduce him as my bit of stuff, or the 'father of my child' - delivered in drunken loud booming voice. Or completely pissed up, I have introduced him as 'the sire' of DD. Shameful. So in answer to your question - yes, probably partner is best.

HuwEdwards · 01/12/2009 21:29

My "boyfriend" and I have been together 25 years.

FGS.

hahahahahahaha!!

HuwEdwards · 01/12/2009 21:30

fuckbuddy?

seeker · 01/12/2009 23:07

After 30 years? You must be joking!