On changing names - about as OT as you can get

Robyn Starkey rohina at shaw.ca
Wed Mar 12 09:35:57 EST 2003

> >I wish more people would use the convention of speaking of their
> >SOs/spouses/whatever as their "partner." It's so wonderfully inclusive &
> >doesn't assume marriage status or sexuality (although at this stage,
> >people tend to assume the latter if you use it--me being bisexual throws
> >them off even more *g*). And then you don't have to worry about getting it
> >wrong.
>I refer to my husband as my husband because I am married and it's accurate.
>I do like it when people who are in a long-term/permanent non-marital
>relationship use "partner" because it lets me know how they are connected
>and to what degree--plus it does cover a lot of ground. "Boyfriend" and
>"girlfriend" seems so transitory, not to mention overly youthful.  But I see
>no reason for me to use the word as well, referring to my own relationship,
>because it will likely give the impression that I'm *not* married.  Why
>wouldn't I want people to know that?  I've surviv--enjoyed eleven years of
>wedded bliss, and given some of the things we've gone through, I'm fairly
>proud of that fact.

I totally agree with Melissa on this one (she is so right). In Australia, a 
lot of government forms have become so "inclusive" they don't actually let 
you specify spouse as spouse, but only give the option of saying "partner". 
We caused some trouble by crossing it out and writing "spouse". The other 
problem is that occasionally people do talk about partners, meaning a 
non-social relationship, and this can cause some embarrassing confusion.

-------------- next part --------------

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003

More information about the Dwj mailing list