ADS

Better words than "boyfriend" and "girlfriend"?

82 posts in this topic

Hello All,

I actually like saying "My Woman!" Maybe it's the cromagnon redneck in me. "My Lady" works well, also. But the best suggestion I've seen is Piz's "Steamin' Hoochie Mama." I mean, what better way to express love, respect, admiration, and sexual passion, all at the same time. Way to go, Piz!

I also like the french phrase "mon Petit Chou," which literly translates as "my little cabbage." It means "sweetheart" or "muffin butt" in English, and it rolls off the tongue so softly!

--Dan Edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also like the french phrase "mon Petit Chou," which literly translates as "my little cabbage."  It means "sweetheart" or "muffin butt" in English, and it rolls off the tongue so softly!

In this context, the word "chou" refers to a cream-filled puff pastry, which is more appropriate... B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like "My precious" ... even in public introduced with a seemingly cocky smirk, with a glance to Precious as if one were glancing at not god but some earned life source. Like, "there's my gold mine" or something.

Jose Gainza.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... My thoughts on this issue.. perhaps "my precious" repeated over and over could leave the wrong impression, especially if ever a ring becomes involved.Lol! I think that'd be a good personal term though.

How about these ideas for introductions:for aquiantences- full name and how you know them, for friends- "my friend-name-" and how your friends or know each other,etc. To replace the vague and confusing terms boyfriend and girlfriend I suggest introducing them as -My Own. For instance , if your own's name is Maria you would introduce her like so-" Everyone, I would like you to meet My Own... Maria."

To the enivitable question "Are you guys uh, like, going out" I would answer,"No , we are already out.". To the question, "Are you guys boyfriend and girlfriend?" I would answer,"No ,we are more than friends.". I would use this term only for exclusive relationships, never for dating, which --since platonic love is an oxymoron in our belief system (as far as I can tell)--is more or less the equivalent of close friendship.

I hope this helps clear this issue up a bit, please- if anyone knows a term of endearment more appropiate to our belief system please let me know. I think we alone,among the people of the world, as objectivists- can say that and have it mean its full and sacred meaning.Hence, I can think of nothing more fitting for someone I love than to call them My Own.

She would be my own as my hands or my eyes are my own- just below the point of being the same being.If someone meant just less than that then they are brothers and sisters of the soul but their love is not worthy of my physical attraction.A love greater than this cannot be, for to love someone more than you love yourself is to pull the foundation from a building to use as the final boards to complete it.

I realize using this consistently would draw attention and raise questions. While that in itself is not a valid reason to use this terminology it surly is no reason not to.It could, perhaps, even draw others to you who understand the world as you do, and that .. is something to value for all the most selfish reasons.

btw, either I'm a better speller than I thought or your spell checker is not working, I wrote this with no spelling errors at all. gramatically however....

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... btw, either I'm a better speller than I thought or your spell checker is not working, I wrote this with no spelling errors at all.

I used the spell checker on your post and, among lesser things, it flagged "aquiantences," "enivitable," and "appropiate." Perhaps you did not use it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used the spell checker on your post and, among lesser things, it flagged "aquiantences," "enivitable," and "appropiate." Perhaps you did not use it properly.

Exactly. hmmm.. I must be using it wrong. I'll attempt to remedy that. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must be using it wrong. I'll attempt to remedy that. :D

We have a "HELP" forum in which you can ask questions about using facilities of THE FORUM. (We don't always have an answer, but we try. :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have a "HELP" forum in which you can ask questions about using facilities of THE FORUM. (We don't always have an answer, but we try.  :D )

Thanks, I'll check it out Mr. Speicher. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Ryan!

you would introduce her like so-" Everyone, I would like you to meet My Own... Maria."

    To the enivitable question "Are you guys uh, like, going out" I would answer,"No , we are already out.".  To the question, "Are you guys boyfriend and girlfriend?" I would answer,"No ,we are more than friends.". 

I think this has a nice humorous twist, sort of along the lines of Burgess's 'keep em guessing' idea, which I also like.

I've been on the various sides of this question, married, posslq'd, single. When I was a possilcue [i'm giving Sam's spelling a try-out!] I did have a similar question. But with time I've come to think it's not a high quality question... there's little payoff, no romance and nothing of real value to gain by a change from convention.

What is one's intended communication? And what is actually heard? I'll tell what I hear; I admit to be shamelessly pro-marriage! LOL Are these the things you want me to think? [generally to people here, not just you, Ryan]

This is considering a party situation, where you're meeting strangers, -not- intimate family. I think that's the case of interest, right?

These are sort of funny, sassy answers of mine below, I don't mean any offense! I've been there! I'm just trying to show my current view, that doesn't seem represented... I admit it's a bit of a downer... Feel free to eloquently disagree as I'm sure you may :)

>To the question, "Are you guys boyfriend and girlfriend?" "No ,we are more than friends."

I'm disappointed. If you are 'more,' you are one, ie your relationship includes the lesser. You are a subspecies. If you think you're a different species, you didn't name it. Thus, my hunch is upheld, I believe you are boyfriend and girlfriend. However, I find your answer unromantic. Your answer makes me feel you aren't comfortable about that fact.

>my woman

you are possessive. I'd not want to be that woman, not unless married... of course that's my taste :).

>My Own... Maria

you are possessive but a little more sophisticated about it, because it's vague. It could be short for 'my own girlfriend.' It seems gentlemanly, as if conferring the soulmate status. But on the other hand, if you are soulmates I'd expect marriage. So I leave thinking or hoping you're on the verge of it. If it's been 20years... well, ok. I don't see the symmetrical language for the lady though. I can't see her saying, "This is Ryan, my own." Do you? For the same reasons it's nice for a man to say it, I feel it would be wrong for a woman. But overall, I reject it for vagueness.

>posslq

you share a sex life. Why did I need to know that? Are you trying to warn me or something? or flaunt it?

>lover

you share a sex life, and the sex is really good. Same caveats

>girlfriend/boyfriend

a romance is in progress, and it's serious enough that you're willing to name it. This pleases me immensely, having seen one too many couples who are having sex but adamantly claim they are "not dating" or "not girlfriend/boyfriend." I appreciate honesty and simplicity in these matters. Tell me what I need to know and no more. This is enough to say hands off and an agreeable possessiveness.

>wife/husband

a committed romance

>soul mirror

>better half

pretentious if unmarried. Imho there is a very very large gap from sex+ to marriage, especially nowadays. I say that knowing a very few couples seem very happy with posslq for 25years. I have my doubts about that.... as to whether they're experiencing the best life has to offer...

>my goddess

I like this, precisely because contrasts to sexual hero worship by the woman. It's chivalrous, a wonderful gentleman saying in essence, 'I love her.' My brother used to call his now-wife this. It was really cute; cute because we all knew he hadn't gotten her to marry him yet. She could only be his goddess forever if she married him. And, what does the lady say? My sister-in-law sometimes called him her prince. I don't think she did that on introductions, however, but merely en famile. So this term doesn't help me as a woman; it doesn't solve the full problem, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
love is not an essential characteristic of premarital, "preengagement," exclusive romantic relationships.  Many relationships start out small, and (hopefully) build up to love.  But finding love is not as easy as simply finding a boyfriend or girlfriend.  (If only it were!  :))

hi Alex!

Ummm, I know you two are -very- happy together, and that's wonderful, so I sort of assume this doesn't apply to your particular case, but...

I would most strongly advise any woman -against- posslqship without an I love you.

Actually I'm not even sure why I think you two are posslq. Maybe I just presumed it, it's so common today, LOL!

Maybe I'm presuming because if you're not posslq, then I think the terms boyfriend/girlfriend are very appropriate.... my bias I suppose :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like "My precious" ... even in public introduced with a seemingly cocky smirk, with a glance to Precious as if one were glancing at not god but some earned life source.  Like, "there's my gold mine" or something.

Jose Gainza.

------

".... But his hands betrayed what he wanted to hide. His hands reached out, ran slowly down the beams and joints. The workers in the house had noticed it. They said: 'That guy's in love with the the thing. He can't keep his hands off.'" The Fountainhead (p. 130)

hi Jose!

hmmm, very interesting... I like the word "precious". You could say it "And this is my Precious Sarah [your gf's name here]". I think the lady could say it too. But I guess it comes off as an endearment, not a description.

Maybe that's ok :) Not sure what Alex is hoping for in the reaction of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From Steven Brockerman

One thing that stikes me about today's romancing -- off topic, perhaps -- is how no one really plays the field anymore.  Indeed, that term has disappeared from dating nomenclature.

Now I don't mean in a Lothario or playboy manner -- like Sam on Cheers.  I mean, prior to finding a lover, just dating different people at the same time.  Going out, having fun and seeing how each woman "fits" one's own self.  Today it seems you're either "going out *together*" or it's your first few dates, during which time you will NOT date anyone else.  Or you're just not "going out."

But, like I said, maybe it's my age.

hi Steve!

yes, this possibly could be a topic.

I think the cause is simple, though; sex. In the past there was rarely sex before marriage. Now there usually is. Do you agree?

I strongly believe sex should be exclusive. It isn't always... at the boundary conditions you know, LOL. But such overlaps ought last 1day or 1week, -not- 3months unless you have couples that go by 'fee love' and have agreed to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
unless you have couples that go by 'fee love' and have agreed to it.

LOL! what a funny typo!!! Probably fee-love does indeed count also as a case of free love, except that the love isn't free, or rather the love is not existent and the act is costly, which is now the proof of contradiction and thus typo that I was hoping to reach! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the cause is simple, though; sex.  In the past there was rarely sex before marriage.

How true is this, really? It's something I've always been curious about. I find the idea of waiting until marriage so inconcievable, personally, that I've often had trouble believing that the vast majority of people really did wait (i.e. torture themselves) until they were married. I've often thought that maybe people had just as much sex as they do nowadays, but didn't talk about it.

I'd love to hear what people who are older than me have to say, although I'm not sure anyone is old enough to comment on times as far back as I'd like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How true is this, really? It's something I've always been curious about. I find the idea of waiting until marriage so inconcievable, personally, that I've often had trouble believing that the vast majority of people really did wait (i.e. torture themselves) until they were married. I've often thought that maybe people had just as much sex as they do nowadays, but didn't talk about it.

I think you're right. Very little is taboo in modern America. The baby boomer generation was the last to grow up with a strong influence of social mores. After the '60s, that's gone.

Of course, look at ancient Greece or Rome. Their cultures didn't have Victorian prudishness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're right.  Very little is taboo in modern America.  The baby boomer generation was the last to grow up with a strong influence of social mores.  After the '60s, that's gone. 

Of course, look at ancient Greece or Rome.  Their cultures didn't have Victorian prudishness.

hi Ed! I'm confused what you agree with? Do you agree with Dave that it's impossible to wait for marriage to have sex? That doesn't seem to be what you're talking about...

[just reading, must get back to other things but of course I'll be back :D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi Ed!  I'm confused what you agree with?  Do you agree with Dave that it's impossible to wait for marriage to have sex?

I just want to clarify that I never said it was impossible to wait for marriage, just that I find it personally inconcievable, i.e. I can't think of any reason that could possibly be a good choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi Ed!  I'm confused what you agree with?  Do you agree with Dave that it's impossible to wait for marriage to have sex?  That doesn't seem to be what you're talking about...

I was agreeing with Dave's comment that it's hard to believe that most people used to avoid premarital sex. I think it's largely a Victorian myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hii Dave!

I just want to clarify that I never said it was impossible to wait for marriage, just that I find it personally inconcievable, i.e. I can't think of any reason that could possibly be a good choice.

So you don't think today's breakups are needlessly made more difficult by sex? I see that -everywhere- all the time.

How many couples stay friends afterwards now?

Why don't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you don't think today's breakups are needlessly made more difficult by sex?  I see that -everywhere- all the time.

How many couples stay friends afterwards now?

I was thinking Dave may not know, not being old enough to have seen so many relationships. Others' opinions would be welcome!

I had a fascinating talk with my Mom about this. She disagrees and her view is more like William Glasser's. He has a little chart he loves to show: exponential progress in technology over 100's of years. No change in level of goodness of human relationships.

I think he's at least a little bit wrong. If only because better health you'd think would make people more rational. But maybe I'm wrong!!

Anyway, Mom thinks there were lots of difficult breakups in her time. The differences we agreed are:

1.far less time til known difficulty [breakups at 6mos or 1year not 7years etc etc]

2.less public carrying on, due to higher standards of public etiquette.

p.s. I'm starting to feel a little self-conscious about having last words here so I may try to consolidate posts, lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you don't think today's breakups are needlessly made more difficult by sex?  I see that -everywhere- all the time.

How many couples stay friends afterwards now?

I was thinking Dave may not know, not being old enough to have seen so many relationships. Others' opinions would be welcome!

I'm not sure I follow the point. If people are more promiscuous about sex then why are breakups made needlessly more difficult? And what exactly is the connection to staying friends afterwards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hii Dave!

So you don't think today's breakups are needlessly made more difficult by sex?  I see that -everywhere- all the time.

How many couples stay friends afterwards now?

Why don't they?

Well, of course breakups are made more difficult by sex, and a heapload of other things. Pretty much ever significant difference between a romantic relationship and a non-romantic one makes it more difficult to end.

Very few couples stay friends afterwards, and yeah, sex has a lot to do with it, but it's far from the only factor. Personally, I can't be "just friends" with any woman I'm attracted to, whether we've slept together or not. Either we're not friends, we're friends, or we're more than friends, and trying to make it more than one of those is always a recipe for disaster.

And, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of promiscuity, either. I'm certainly not. But waiting until marriage seems a little silly to me, frankly, for a number of reasons.

1. Sex (with someone you like, love, care about, whatever) is too great a value to pass up.

2. If fear of a bad breakup is reason enough to avoid having sex, why not just avoiding romantic relationships altogether; then you never have to break up at all.

3. Sex changes things between people. A lot. Marriage is a big deal, and I'd be very hesitant to enter into a binding contract of that degree if I didn't have some first-hand experience with all the circumstances I would be facing afterwards. (And yeah, I definitely advocate living together and sharing a bank account at some point before marriage.)

4. I've had some pretty bad breakups. When the worst breakup happened, I lost all my furniture, my surround sound system and my cat in the breakup; I was almost married that time. Breaking up sucked. A lot. Do I regret having made the breakup harder by having sex before marriage? Hell no! Had we not lived together and been involved sexually, I'd probably be very unhappily married right now.

Bottom line: I find the whole idea of saving oneself for marriage rather foolish and unwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many couples stay friends afterwards now?

Why don't they?

Good question, although I'm not sure how much the era has to do with it. Did most couples 'stay friends' afterwards at some point in the past? From personal experience, I would find it hard to believe.

Personally, I have never been friends with a romantic partner after the romantic part ended. It seems that in relationships, I can get progressively closer to a person, but if it just doesn't work at some point, it's over entirely (except for maybe some awkward and dutiful exchanges). Although I'm not sure if this is just my own personal experience or if it is common (or more importantly, what the reason is).

And Dave, I completely agree with you about your aversion to 'waiting for marriage'. I say, the fewer the unknowns when getting married, the better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I have never been friends with a romantic partner after the romantic part ended.  It seems that in relationships,  I can get progressively closer to a person, but if it just doesn't work at some point, it's over entirely (except for maybe some awkward and dutiful exchanges).  Although I'm not sure if this is just my own personal experience or if it is common (or more importantly, what the reason is).

My Mom stayed friends with many men she dated. But on questioning her further there were only two it seems that were serious outside Dad, and she didn't remain close to them.

However, there are certainly cases of couples remaining close. A prominent Objectivist I know divorced so amicably that he helped introduce his ex to her new husband.

I think a lot of women are ready to switch to a lower key friendship after dating, but men aren't. I don't really get it. It seems like the men are saying that they can't [face reality of no more romance]? That argument doesn't make sense to me, but it seems to be what I've heard.

The only explanation I've heard that seems to make some sense is that men are goal directed, so they'd rather pursue actual goals [another woman] than keep up old friendships. But it's so nice to have a network of friends! Why not have mixed sex?

I confess to this being a pet peeve of mine, as a long time single person, there are many men I've dated who now I find quite cold to me. It's off-putting, and I'd feel better about it if Iunderstood the reason. I understand it's not personal in the sense they do it to all women [as Dave describes], but it affects me.

And now that I'll soon be looking for a job I'm starting to think, you know what? I want to join a women's group because women stay friends and we'll be able to trade favors.

It seems unintelligent to limit myself this way to women, but it seems like my best option. Suggestions appreciated :)

If I were married, I don't think I'd have this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites