I suspect that part of it might've also evolved as a result of the number of people in very long-term committed relationships that still opt to not get married. I know a fair number of people who've done this, and I could see why utilizing a different title for it might seem natural to them.
IE, "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" might sound insufficient after being together for so long (especially since those can be more synonymous with new or short term relationships) and descriptors like "lover" give off their own off-key vibes.
"boyfriend" or "girlfriend" might sound insufficient after being together for so long
No, it fits. It means both are too immature to grow up and get married. They're just hooking up because they don't want the responsibility of commitment and monogamy. So "boyfriend"/"girlfriend" is a perfect representation of their paper-thin relationship, no matter how long it has been going on.
There's a fair number of perfectly mature reasons to at least be a little hesitant of committing to the *state *institution of marriage. Divorce law being amongst the top reasons.
What I find a little more troubling is how often such couples have absolutely zero interest in ever having any kids, ever. Ignoring the marriage variable, I think that's a little sad, and that they're depriving themselves of an important part of the human experience.
There's a fair number of perfectly mature reasons to at least be a little hesitant of committing to the *state *institution of marriage. Divorce law being amongst the top reasons.
Oh definitely. Divorce laws make it where state recognised marriage is not viable. Even still, you can have common religious marriages outside of the court, but that's again assuming these are people are wanting to pair up for the right reasons, but a lot of people (judging by the relationship data) do not.
Oh totally. Like that's why I brought up the couples who also refuse to ever have children. That's almost always a solid indication that they're definitely trying to avoid growing up and becoming mature and full fledged adults.
That's where it actually came from. It wasn't solidarity with the gays, it was unmarried straight couples who wanted the recognition of their relationship without actually marrying. Gays adopted it from them, not the other way around. People forget that the LGBetc movement is the latecomer to the post-sexual revolution world. Unmarried heterosexual "partners" was a point of contention long before anyone gave a shit about what the gays thought.
It wasn't until the 90s that there was any serious consideration by the public of gay monogamy at all. That's when you really start seeing the concept of the domestic gay who "wants a relationship like yours, only gay." Prior to that, there was a common understanding that gay relationships were basically just playing at it, in reality being either sexually deviant men, or sexless dead-ends for troubled women. They didn't even have a use for the term until then, and it didn't find actual use in a gay context until the 00s with gay marriage.
I suspect that part of it might've also evolved as a result of the number of people in very long-term committed relationships that still opt to not get married. I know a fair number of people who've done this, and I could see why utilizing a different title for it might seem natural to them.
IE, "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" might sound insufficient after being together for so long (especially since those can be more synonymous with new or short term relationships) and descriptors like "lover" give off their own off-key vibes.
No, it fits. It means both are too immature to grow up and get married. They're just hooking up because they don't want the responsibility of commitment and monogamy. So "boyfriend"/"girlfriend" is a perfect representation of their paper-thin relationship, no matter how long it has been going on.
There's a fair number of perfectly mature reasons to at least be a little hesitant of committing to the *state *institution of marriage. Divorce law being amongst the top reasons.
What I find a little more troubling is how often such couples have absolutely zero interest in ever having any kids, ever. Ignoring the marriage variable, I think that's a little sad, and that they're depriving themselves of an important part of the human experience.
Oh definitely. Divorce laws make it where state recognised marriage is not viable. Even still, you can have common religious marriages outside of the court, but that's again assuming these are people are wanting to pair up for the right reasons, but a lot of people (judging by the relationship data) do not.
Oh totally. Like that's why I brought up the couples who also refuse to ever have children. That's almost always a solid indication that they're definitely trying to avoid growing up and becoming mature and full fledged adults.
That's where it actually came from. It wasn't solidarity with the gays, it was unmarried straight couples who wanted the recognition of their relationship without actually marrying. Gays adopted it from them, not the other way around. People forget that the LGBetc movement is the latecomer to the post-sexual revolution world. Unmarried heterosexual "partners" was a point of contention long before anyone gave a shit about what the gays thought.
It wasn't until the 90s that there was any serious consideration by the public of gay monogamy at all. That's when you really start seeing the concept of the domestic gay who "wants a relationship like yours, only gay." Prior to that, there was a common understanding that gay relationships were basically just playing at it, in reality being either sexually deviant men, or sexless dead-ends for troubled women. They didn't even have a use for the term until then, and it didn't find actual use in a gay context until the 00s with gay marriage.