Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
seeker · 03/12/2009 17:52

"Open question to some cohabitees out there: you've got three children, a mortgage, a hamster called Mike. You wash his dirty socks and worry that he's having sex with his secretary. How the heck is that so different from formal marriage anyway?! Just tie the knot for heaven's sake!"

Sounds like a co-habitation to me - why not just live together, for heaven's sake?

Kaloki · 03/12/2009 18:01

"Open question to some cohabitees out there: you've got three children, a mortgage, a hamster called Mike. You wash his dirty socks and worry that he's having sex with his secretary. How the heck is that so different from formal marriage anyway?! Just tie the knot for heaven's sake!"

Because the money that it's spend on hiring even just a registry office etc could be better spent on the children, Mike the hamster, some new socks and a chastity belt

Kaloki · 03/12/2009 18:01

Also my grammar sucks

scottishmummy · 03/12/2009 18:37

because being a wife,washing socks,and fancying the hamster sucks

at least living in sin sounds racy.bitty exciting. formal marriage - god sounds terminal

mike
the socks
unfounded fears about his scertaru
sounds rotten to me

nah,im happy living over the brush

NotanOtter · 03/12/2009 20:02

marantha re 'open question to cohabitees'

i am relieved to be amongst my fellow co habiters on here

I feel free. No one will smile patronisingly and say 'go on you two - just do it - you can do it in private - no one need know...'

scottishmummy · 03/12/2009 20:06

i get more animated and excited about what's on tv than thought of marriage

Original poster
marantha · 04/12/2009 07:04

NotanOtter,
If the law commission get their way, cohabitees won't be "free" for much longer. Oh no, they'll all be married by default after a certain amount of time has passed. Oh good...

OP posts:
seeker · 04/12/2009 07:08

marantha - and the way to make this better is for us co-habitees to get married? Am I missing something?

Original poster
marantha · 04/12/2009 07:20

I have nothing against people who cohabit seeker (I was once one myself about 15 years ago) it's just I can see the way things are going with it as regards couples with children.
It is very early but I shall try to articulate my thoughts as regards this matter.

Marriage was sort of invented to keep track as it were of who was obligated to another person as regards property, children etc- it had little to do with romance and religion.

Therefore, if people wished to live together in the long-term and have children marrriage is useful because it is a tool that sets out their "stall" to the rest of society.
As couples are now living together and having children outside of this institution, it can be difficult for the rest of society to know who is owed what and so on in the event of a relationship breakdown/death - hence proposed cohabitation law.

Now I dare say that a few cohabitees would be happy with this proposal but I suspect the majority of them would not be.

So all I'm saying is that I wish cohabitees who- to all intents and purposes live like a married couple i.e. long-termism, children, mortgage, bill-sharing and so on* would actually tie the knot to spare other cohabitees who do not want this cohabitation law bollocks intruding in their lives.

*You know, like, marriage was sort of invented for you guys.

OP posts:
seeker · 04/12/2009 07:40

I don't think I don't think I understand. Two people who have a child are equally responsible for that child, regardless of marital status.

As to other rights and responsibilities, they should all be taken care of by the sensible making out of wills and joint tenancies or martgages. I am puzzled (being a bear of very little brain) why you think that extending legal rights to co-habitees is a bad thing. Surely it would protect the more financially vulnerable (usually the woman)person in the relationship?

Original poster
marantha · 04/12/2009 07:55

I agree that two people who have a child are equally responsible for the child regardless of marital status. That is proper and correct IMHO. However, what cohabitation law would do is make one cohabitee responsible for the welfare of their fellow cohabitee which I believe to be wrong.

I agree that rights and responsibilities SHOULD be set out by the making out of wills and joint tenancies but all too often they are not.
I think that extending legal rights to co-habitees is an appalling thing in principle AND practice.
It is wrong in principle as it legally binds people who by NOT marrying have not asked for legal binds on their relationships (married people have requested legal binds so have no rights to complain about being legally bound to one another).

It would be wrong in practice as it would be extremely difficult to establish which cohabitees were "serious" about their relationships and who were in it for the short-term.

If a financially vulnerable person wishes to have their rights set in stone, it is up to them to marry.
If NOT giving financial protection to such people is the price that society pays for having the government keep out of the bedrooms of cohabitees, then it is a price worth paying. As long as the children are provided for, I don't care.

OP posts:
seeker · 04/12/2009 08:51

So I should get married when I don't want to in order to protect the rights of feckless men to "love'em and leave 'em"?

pugsandseals · 04/12/2009 10:34

I may be living in the dark ages here- but what is everyone's problem with marriage these days?

I thought children needed two parents, so surely it is logical to assume that these two people should make a formal commitment to each other long before trying for a family? Those that aren't willing to make a formal commitment to each other are surely not setting the proper example to their children who in turn will grow up to believe that it doesn't matter if they leave their own children just because they no longer fancy the commitment to their partner?

I am not saying that co-habiting people set out to prove to their children that commitment doesn't matter, but if we carry on the way we are going (because people with children don't want to be tied down to their partner ), then marriage will soon be confined to the history books & where will we be?

seeker · 04/12/2009 10:55

Where does it say that the only way to show commitment is to marry?

pugsandseals · 04/12/2009 10:57

As I say, maybe I'm just a bit old-fashioned but surely it proves commitment to the nuclear family if nothing else?

seeker · 04/12/2009 11:04

Hmmmm.

I realize that my family might be extreme, but my two older brothers have between them been married 5 times and had 6 children in the time I have been monogamously co-habiting and having 2!

pugsandseals · 04/12/2009 11:19

So you think the 'pressure' of being married is what breaks people up then? Nobody likes the idea of responsibility?

An intreging thread BTW

seeker · 04/12/2009 11:31

No, I don't think that. i don't think my brothers' marriages broke up because they were married, and we're still together because we're not. I think that soem people stay together and some people don't.
A wedding is not a sort of magic glue. Except for religious people - who sometimes end up staying in unhappy marriages because it would be sinful for them to split up. That must be awful.

pugsandseals · 04/12/2009 11:35

I think a wedding is a promise to be faithful & support your partner forever. There is no problem that cannot be sorted out with commitment and compromise IMO. I find divorce & seperation very difficult to understand if you stick to this simple rule.

pugsandseals · 04/12/2009 11:38

Sorry- that sounded very 'judgy'

Didn't mean it to be, just fed up with the amount of unmarried couples without children that want none of the commitment of marriage but expect all their friends and relatives to treat & accept them as if they were!

tiredfeet · 04/12/2009 11:40

I quite like the use of 'partner', saying 'boyfriend' etc doesn't often convey the long term committment of people. Having said that, I called DH boyfriend but then we got together at 22 so I just got used to calling him that, still forget and call him that now!

my only problem with partner is that I have ended up wondering, sometimes for a quite a while, whether someone is straight or gay and not wanting to put my foot in it by getting it wrong! always a relief when they finally mention their partners name

seeker · 04/12/2009 11:45

"expect all their friends and relatives to treat & accept them as if they were!"

Not sure what this means. How would you treat them differently if they were married?

MeltedTreeChocolates · 04/12/2009 11:56

Maybe they are treated differently because people see it as different in that X's H is a part of her. (almost like a fact? That doesn't sound how i mean it though) Whereas Y's partner is more of a present choice? (not that X's H isn't a choice but it is a legally binded one)

I think in a relationship also, marriage changes how you feel about each other. Did for me and DH, cant explain how though. Has for friends aswell.

I would always try to treat them as if they were but would i think of them the same? I dont know that i would be being honest to say yes. It is different, so it is hard to think of them the same way as a married couple.

pugsandseals · 04/12/2009 11:58

SIL for example, expects us to send cards/presents etc. for her boyfriend & accept him as part of the family. On the other hand, she bitches about him behind his back as if they are not long-term. I am wary of letting DD (age 7) get close to him for fear of the relationship breaking down & her feeling rejected when he is no longer in touch.

There are various other friends and relatives I know that expect the same thing so she is by no means alone in this! It's a bit like when childless people compare your commitment to your child to theirs to their pet. It leaves you wondering what is expected of you.

Marriage shows a commitment to each other. Thus making it easier for relatives to judge what is expected of them and how much to let them into the children's lives.

MeltedTreeChocolates · 04/12/2009 12:04

Also if a married couple ever did break up the father would have rights for the children. He has a lot less rights for a child when he wasn't married to the mother. That is scary.

"Open question to some cohabitees out there: you've got three children, a mortgage, a hamster called Mike. You wash his dirty socks and worry that he's having sex with his secretary. How the heck is that so different from formal marriage anyway?! Just tie the knot for heaven's sake"

Who ever said this is not making a good/true impression of marriage.