View Full Version : Word for not-spouse?
Are there some good words in English for "a committed long-term relationship that isn't marriage"?
Picture two people, who may not even live in the same physical space, who are in a committed relationship but who have no desire or intent to get "married", or desire to use the terms husband/wife/spouse.
What is a good marketing term for that sort of thing?
Partner? Significant other? Boyfriend/girlfriend/...? Comrade? Fellow-traveler? Love-o-my-life? Shieldmate?
I say "partner." That seems to be the term that most understand. I remember in 2012 when my permaculture teacher was talking about his "partner" I just jumped to "business partner" until I realized he was referring to the person he was married to.
I've heard my kids and their "partners" refer to all kinds of people they were committed to--married, unmarried, trans, straight, cohabitating or not--referring to them as "partners." So I think that's the term du jour.
ToomuchStuff
4-27-21, 2:04pm
Couple or committed couple?
Outpatients, as confused with inmates, who are in the institution of marriage?
I had extended family, that after the kids were grown, they divorced. If not for the kids, they would have sooner. Once that piece of paper was no longer valid, they dated each other like teenagers, again, until the former husband died.
iris lilies
4-27-21, 2:09pm
Partner is common and accepted.
If you use “girlfriend” or “boyfriend” you will show how unwoke you are.
I like “SO” (for significant other) in casual conversation. It just sounds less judgey-in-your-face-woke to me, but I admit that is entirely on me.
I remember years ago probably 25 years now, we were at a neighborhood party and I asked one of the young men where his “other half” was. And then I apologized because it sounded so old fashioned. That was a term my parents would say, “your other half.”
He laughed and said no problem he was just glad everyone would talk about his male partner so casually because it was still back in the day when being gay was iffy.
Partner? Significant other? Boyfriend/girlfriend/...? Comrade? Fellow-traveler? Love-o-my-life? Shieldmate?I would say whichever one you feel most comfortable with. I would think that trying to come up with one that may be seen as more 'correct' than the others may be just another round of ammunition in the wokeness cannon.
ApatheticNoMore
4-27-21, 2:27pm
Partner is common and accepted.
If you use “girlfriend” or “boyfriend” you will show how unwoke you are, be forewarned.
But partner almost seems like you are trying to hint it could be any gender (in fact it sounds strange for a heterosexual couple to use that term) when in actuality you may have a most ordinary heterosexual partnership (but keep em guessing!).
I do think boyfriend and girlfriend can sound kinda juvenile, like one is in high school, yea I'm not trying to seem young either, so it's a bit odd that way, but it's what I tend to use. Significant other also works IMO.
I liked partner or SO, and sometimes use "beloved" to refer to my dearly departed. Any of those work for me.
ETA: "not-spouse" is kind of cute, though...
ApatheticNoMore
4-27-21, 2:53pm
I would say whichever one you feel most comfortable with. I would think that trying to come up with one that may be seen as more 'correct' than the others may be just another round of ammunition in the wokeness cannon.
which seems at a certain point just plain old ageism as noone can keep up.
Look noone cares if young people have their own slang, anymore than anyone cares that they have their favorite music etc. that older people might not get. So it's a secret handshake or whatever, if one isn't pretending to be that age, who cares. Such has long been modern society anyway even if not all societies. Though it is cool to see some things like a country music club that closed with all ages of people (maybe less diverse otherwise although not as bad as you might think).
But when they start pretending that knowing the latest slang or not has some kind of moral significance. Yea um. It's like pretending not knowing what the latest trend among teenagers is has some moral significance. No, one is just maybe far from a teenager, and doesn't spend a lot of time around them.
iris lilies
4-27-21, 3:08pm
But partner almost seems like you are trying to hint it could be any gender (in fact it sounds strange for a heterosexual couple to use that term) when in actuality you may have a most ordinary heterosexual partnership (but keep em guessing!).
I do think boyfriend and girlfriend can sound kinda juvenile, like one is in high school, yea I'm not trying to seem young either, so it's a bit odd that way, but it's what I tend to use. Significant other also works IMO.
3750
You unwoke heteronormative person you! By your words you imply there is something wrong with a same sex partner and you do not wish to be associated with that concept and you wish to make it clear that is not you and etc etc.!!!!
just kidding you.
But that’s how it is done, the cancel culture shaming.
I think I use the term “husband” about once every 3 years. Very seldom.
"Cancel culture" is just a new phrase for social opprobrium that's been going on since time immemorial. It used to be a lot more final--we used to cancel witches, after all.
(Here I'd like to apologize for my ancestor, the oh-so-right Rev. Nicholas Noyes, who personally canceled a few...)
A life partner, partner in adventures or partner in business are two people sharing a space. of some kind Partner covers all possible interpretations and whose business it is anyway?
I think it's like if you're introducing your "SO/partner" at a party or if you're referring to them without using their name. In those cases, I would pick something short. I think "partner" is fine.
ApatheticNoMore
4-27-21, 4:25pm
This is my significant other ... and this is my not so significant other ...
iris lilies
4-27-21, 4:31pm
This is my significant other ... and this is my not so significant other ...
Haha, or for the pan person
“Here is my significant other, and this is my other significant other”
What about something simple like "good friend". Anything beyond that is private anyway.
I use partner, particularly around people who's relationship status may be unclear to me, eg how's your partner vs how's your spouse. I will refer to my husband as my partner in mixed situations (whether that's married vs living together or same sex couples) as well as among other heterosexual married couples . It feels more inclusive to me. If that makes me a woke wannabe, I'm ok with that.
ApatheticNoMore
4-27-21, 6:31pm
What about something simple like "good friend". Anything beyond that is private anyway.
I like it, couldn't get more inclusive (even non-partnered people may have good friends), but there might be times it doesn't work, like working at home during a pandemic on my bday and flowers arrive and I'm in a work meeting and have to stop to get them "oh my good friend just sent me flowers". It's pretentious and silly "my boyfriend sent me flowers" okay. And people may want to signal they are partnered (why have a wedding, why wear a ring etc. if not that). Even though much is ultimately private anyway.
Colleague? Co-conspirator? Accomplice? Associate? Fellow traveler?
Perhaps a better question to ask yourself - what do I want to convey about this relationship, why, when and to whom? That may guide you to the most appropriate usage for you.
Perhaps a better question to ask yourself - what do I want to convey about this relationship, why, when and to whom? That may guide you to the most appropriate usage for you.
Yes. Good friend would be an accurate description of SO. But using that phrase would not describe our relationship in 3 seconds to a random person that doesn’t know us. Partner does. Husband also would but isn’t technically accurate now since the supreme court’s obgerfell decision.
happystuff
4-28-21, 10:13am
I'm reading the responses and wondering - what term would the other person like to be used? After all, it's being used to describe them. Would they want to be called "partner", "significant other", etc.
catherine
4-28-21, 10:20am
I'm reading the responses and wondering - what term would the other person like to be used? After all, it's being used to describe them. Would they want to be called "partner", "significant other", etc.
I'm sticking with "partner" on that one. Honestly, I think that term is the most universal in this day and age. "Significant other" seems outdated. "Good Friend" is not explicit enough. "Boyfriend/girlfriend" is too cutesy for adults. "Lady friend/Gentleman friend" is too prissy--in that vein, how about "paramour"? :)
It has to be "partner."
Besides, "partner" conveys an egalitarian spirit of mutual respect and cooperation that appeals to me.
iris lilies
4-28-21, 11:44am
I’m ok with “partner” and will get used to it. I guess.
Part of my resistance to this word is that an “influencer” who I actively dislike uses it ad nauseam for her husband.
I do understand the concept that less loaded terminology will not be adopted if it’s not used.
Friend or good friend is good with me unless you want others to be aware of some sort of romantic bond.
ApatheticNoMore
4-28-21, 11:46am
I'm reading the responses and wondering - what term would the other person like to be used? After all, it's being used to describe them. Would they want to be called "partner", "significant other", etc.
my bf calls me his girlfriend. I suppose I've used partner occasionally, but considering I'm almost always using a term when nooone has even seen their face, it seems like a guessing game "oh tell me is it a man or a woman?". None of your business. Oh wait I already told you something that's frankly none of your business, which people consider oh so important, whether the relationship is entirely platonic or not. So I'm hetro-romantic, move on. No of course I don't say that. :)
My boyfriend does the same, if asked what he did that weekend by coworkers who have never met me and never will he says "took a hike with my girlfriend" or whatever.
Otherwise to people who know them well when referring to my boyfriend, I use, wait for it ... their name!!!
Friend or good friend is good with me unless you want others to be aware of some sort of romantic bond.
and then you call them "my lover".
This conversation reminds me of a conversation my mother had with someone when I was a teenager. Our neighbors across the alley were an old couple. Mrs. OC died and a few days later there was an old lady in the yard watering the flowers. My mother said hello asked if she was Mr. or Mrs. OC's sister. She responded very excitedly "Oh no! He's my lover! I'm Shirley" Mom was quite caught off guard but quickly regained her composure and told Shirley that it was nice to meet her. Over the next several years Mom and Shirley actually became pretty friendly neighbors. Shirley was quite a character, but also a total sweetheart.
Undocumented spouse?
Hey, I like it!! hehe
Undocumented spouse?
Sounds very "illegal" to me. LOL.
Sounds very "illegal" to me. LOL.
Perhaps illegal spouse is what gay people should have been calling their spouses back in the dark days before the Obgerfell decision from the supreme court.
Perhaps illegal spouse is what gay people should have been calling their spouses back in the dark days before the Obgerfell decision from the supreme court.
Well, in my Dad's day, he and his husband would have each been fired from their jobs for being homosexual, so they didn't even have the luxury of using a label. Fun times...
Teacher Terry
5-3-21, 10:28pm
Bae, that’s really awful. There’s always a group to discriminate against unfortunately.
happystuff
5-4-21, 10:53am
Perhaps illegal spouse is what gay people should have been calling their spouses back in the dark days before the Obgerfell decision from the supreme court.
In my circle, it wasn't the gay people calling their spouses illegal, it was others outside the relationship that had their own issues with such relationships.
dado potato
5-4-21, 4:50pm
@bae,
The acronym for Before Anyone Else... "BAE", comes in handy when addressing the person. For example: "Stay safe. I love you, bae."
When referring to the person, it makes sense to use whatever term people will understand.
my partner,
my main squeeze,
ma cher amio (Cajun)
Nee-Chee-Moos (Plains Cree)
etc.
"Woke" and "un-Woke" seem to be the new terms of the month/day...where did they originate, I wonder?
Have we put "At the end of the day" to bed yet?? Whenever I hear it on media I tend to say "You're another day older"...
As to what to call an unwed soul-mate, I kind of like Love-Bunny. Let's be woke and original.
Sorry, kids, being frisky and silly tonight. Had first trip to the gym in over 14 months this afternoon and my endorphins have come out to play it seems...
That is a good question about woke/unwoke. It seems odd to me that "sleepy' joe Biden is the leader of the woke party, and the dude that only sleeps a couple hours a night (although who knows, maybe he sleeps more now that he can't spend his nights watching tv and rage tweeting) is the leader of the unwoke party.
iris lilies
5-4-21, 10:21pm
OM?g, do we get to complain about today’s words and phrases that bug us?
Just this moment I am internally cursing the phrase “lived experience” as in “my lived experience tells me that doesnt really happen in real life.”
What kind of experience do any of us have besides our lived experience? Do we have an unlived experience? Do we have an imaginary experience? What is wrong with the standard phrase “in my experience? “
Well, in my Dad's day, he and his husband would have each been fired from their jobs for being homosexual, so they didn't even have the luxury of using a label. Fun times...
It wasn't that long ago. I have a friend who worked as an elementary music teacher for a catholic school in upstate NY. After NY allowed marriage he got fired because they were fine with him being gay, and in a relationship with a dude, and the adoptive father of two kids, both of whom attended the school he taught at. But they were not ok with him being the husband of another man so once he did that they fired his ass. This was less than ten years ago.
We do see a lot of overused trite-isms right now, I think usually by people trying to sound more serious.
Every threat is “existential”. It’s “our democracy”, as opposed to North Korea’s. Any minor controversy triggers a “firestorm of criticism”. Any minor law change is some supercharged version of “Jim Crow”. Why say “science” when “The Science” , or better yet “The Settled Science” sounds so much more authoritative and eternal?
HappyHiker
5-7-21, 12:22pm
We do see a lot of overused trite-isms right now, I think usually by people trying to sound more serious.
Every threat is “existential”. It’s “our democracy”, as opposed to North Korea’s. Any minor controversy triggers a “firestorm of criticism”. Any minor law change is some supercharged version of “Jim Crow”. Why say “science” when “The Science” , or better yet “The Settled Science” sounds so much more authoritative and eternal?
Yep, you're so right.
Let's just calm down and be more mundane and real.
Tired of all the dramatic hyperbole...
"At the end of the day..." who wants to get upset?? lol The Science says it's not good for our blood pressure or digestion...
Yep, you're so right.
Let's just calm down and be more mundane and real.
Tired of all the dramatic hyperbole...
"At the end of the day..." who wants to get upset?? lol The Science says it's not good for our blood pressure or digestion...
At the end of the day, cliche-overreach has become the new normal, which represents an existential threat to our national conversation and consequently our democracy.
I nominate 'ooey gooey" for immediate oblivion.
To be fair, though, we’ve never had a president attempt a coup before. Followed by the continuing full throated support of that effort by his party months later. (Except liz Cheney). It really kind of is an unprecedented attack on our democracy. Not north Korea’s. Or Hong Kong’s. Ours.
To be fair, though, we’ve never had a president attempt a coup before. Followed by the continuing full throated support of that effort by his party months later. (Except liz Cheney). It really kind of is an unprecedented attack on our democracy. Not north Korea’s. Or Hong Kong’s. Ours.
I can't believe how sanguine most Republicans are about this armed insurrection. It's a given they wouldn't be so blase' if it really had been anti-fascists that pulled it off.
I can't believe how sanguine most Republicans are about this armed insurrection. It's a given they wouldn't be so blase' if it really had been anti-fascists that pulled it off.
In that that case the cliche would switch to “this is what democracy looks like”.
In that that case the cliche would switch to “this is what democracy looks like”.
I've chanted that in a few peaceful demonstrations myself. And I meant it.
Apples and grenades.
I've chanted that in a few peaceful demonstrations myself. And I meant it.
Apples and grenades.
I lack the moral agility to see much distance between burning a police station in Minneapolis and mobbing the Capital in DC.
I lack the moral agility to see much distance between burning a police station in Minneapolis and mobbing the Capital in DC.
I do... Jan 6th was to try and overthrow a duly elected President!
They didn't "mob" the capitol--they violently invaded it with the intent to lynch the ex-VP and do mayhem to others, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Trying to set fire to a police station is certainly a crime, but not remotely comparable to attempting to overthrow a duly elected government.
Trying to set fire to a police station is certainly a crime, but not remotely comparable to attempting to overthrow a duly elected government.
Not to be argumentative but didn't the Democratic Party and the majority of our major media outlets spend 4 years attempting the same?
I nominate 'ooey gooey" for immediate oblivion.
I feel very fortunate, indeed, that that particular expression has not crossed my auditory apparatus yet. May it never be heard...
Not to be argumentative but didn't the Democratic Party and the majority of our major media outlets spend 4 years attempting the same?
If, by "overthrow" you mean employing Constitutionally guaranteed rights, like impeachment and voting? Thanks for the laugh.
If, by "overthrow" you mean employing Constitutionally guaranteed rights, like impeachment and voting? Thanks for the laugh.No, I simply meant a previous mass attempt to "overthrow a duly elected government". I don't think we should use phrases like that unless we use it in every instance it applies, plus for all we know the previous attempts may have instigated the second so I'd rather focus on lessons learned.
Teacher Terry
5-8-21, 7:14pm
Hanging Pence is much worse than setting a police station on fire. That’s obvious.
Hanging Pence is much worse than setting a police station on fire. That’s obvious. The psychology of mob mentality is interesting, yet totally destructive. When it results in violence and destruction I think we do a disservice to grade them.
Not to be argumentative but didn't the Democratic Party and the majority of our major media outlets spend 4 years attempting the same?
No. They attempted to hold him accountable for his actions once he became president. I realize that he didn’t lie about a blowjob but contrary to republican opinion other things also qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors. At least in rational people’s eyes.
I can't believe how sanguine most Republicans are about this armed insurrection. It's a given they wouldn't be so blase' if it really had been anti-fascists that pulled it off.
In that that case the cliche would switch to “this is what democracy looks like”.
Come back and both sides us when the Democrats elect a president who attempts to invalidate the results of their attempted reelection. So far in our history only one party has supported a traitor president both during and after his traitorous activities and it ain’t the democrats. I realize that republicans don’t understand the concept of shame but dang, your party doesn’t have a pretty look going on right now.
No. They attempted to hold him accountable for his actions once he became president. I believe efforts began as early as December 2016, before he took office and were formalized in early February of 2017 by Jerry Nadler and the Impeach Trump Leadership PAC. If they hadn't had to wait till the Democrats took back control of the House, the first actual impeachment would have been much earlier, perhaps in his first hundred days.
I can't believe how sanguine most Republicans are about this armed insurrection. It's a given they wouldn't be so blase' if it really had been anti-fascists that pulled it off.
I believe efforts began as early as December 2016, before he took office and were formalized in early February of 2017 by Jerry Nadler and the Impeach Trump Leadership PAC. If they hadn't had to wait till the Democrats took back control of the House, the first actual impeachment would have been much earlier, perhaps in his first hundred days.
So do you think soliciting the aid of our country’s ally to get fake dirt on his political opponent by withholding aid that congress had passed legislatively and had been signed into law was an impeachable offense? I may be wrong but I seem to remember that’s what the turd was actually impeached for the first time. The second time he was impeached was certainly more serious but both actual impeachment’s were over rather serious offenses. Not lying about a blowjob serious but still pretty serious.
Although it was pretty well laid out in the Mueller Report (that no Republican apparently read), the case against Trump and his henchmen is supported by recent intelligence revelations. A successful impeachment would have prevented his traitorous coup attempt.
It's remarkable to me that the only upstanding republican politician currently is Liz Cheney. I have to assume that she's banking on trump going down once Rudy colludy starts squealing like a stuck pig. Otherwise her honorable current position makes no sense. Republican voters don't reward honor. They reward fealty to dear leader and the ability to support trump's big lie.
Not lying about a blowjob serious but still pretty serious.I believe lying under oath and obstruction of justice were the actual charges, and unlike our most recent adventures in impeachment, the process didn't start until he'd actually committed the offense.
To be honest, I don't understand Trumpism, but I have to believe it stems from the same tribalism which requires some to defend Clinton at every opportunity.
Getting back to the point that someone else made, there are many ways to attempt the overthrow of a duly elected government and the Democratic Party leaders showed us one way before the object of their scorn even took office. If they hadn't been so anxious, maybe some people wouldn't have come to believe the entire process was an example of a desired conviction looking for an offense to charge. Hopefully everyone learned something from that mistake.
So should there be a ‘get out of impeachment free’ card regardless of a president’s actions if a few people are speaking about impeachment before the president commits high crimes or misdemeanors?
Perhaps Clinton’s biggest failing was agreeing to testify. Perhaps he should have gone all pre-trump and said ‘eff you. Ain’t gonna testify’. And then there would have been no lying about the blowjob so no impeachable offense.
Apparently relying on pathetic technicalities is republican style. Do democrats get to do the same?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.