Too much information?

[tim]

Poll #2586

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 21

View Respondents

Suppose you are a researcher and you collaborate with your husband, wife, domestic partner, boyfriend, girlfriend, partner, lover, mistress, gigolo, inamorat{o|a}, sweetie, fuckbuddy, or baby mama. Suppose you are giving an academic talk. Which of the following do you consider reasonable ways to refer to your joint work with your collaborator (named, say, Dana Q. Zygomorphism), when used more than once in the same talk?

View Answers

"In work with my wife..."
3 (14.3%)

"In work with my husband..."
3 (14.3%)

"In work with Dr. Zygomorphism..."
16 (76.2%)

"In work with {Mr.|Ms.} Zygomorphism..."
6 (28.6%)

"In work with Zygomorphism..."
11 (52.4%)

"In work with Dana..."
18 (85.7%)

"In work with my collaborator..." [when credit is given by name in a slide]
17 (81.0%)

Something else
2 (9.5%)

None of the above.
0 (0.0%)

Which of the following phrases would you consider unprofessional to use one or more times during an academic talk (assuming it was true)?

View Answers

"In work with my wife..." [speaker is male]
13 (68.4%)

"In work with my husband..." [speaker is female]
13 (68.4%)

"In work with my wife..." [speaker is female]
13 (68.4%)

"In work with my husband..." [speaker is male]
13 (68.4%)

"In work with my partner..."
10 (52.6%)

"In work with my significant other..."
14 (73.7%)

"In work with my boyfriend..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with my girlfriend..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with my girlfriend's other boyfriend..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with my friend with benefits..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with my gay lover..."
17 (89.5%)

"In work with the mother of my children..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with the person with whom I have sexual intercourse on a regular basis..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with my partner in a full-time BDSM relationship..."
17 (89.5%)

"In work with your mom..."
13 (68.4%)

None of the above
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[autumnus]

marriage (or civil union) is an official thing, and at least in theory, has aspects of being publicly known and permanency, while gf/bf or any other variations do not. It is not TMI for that reason (as in you cannot really cannot be discreet about being married, it is there :P) It might be my language confusion but I see the word "partner" as a gender neutral way to indicate a husband or wife (as one of its meanings) and in that context that too is okay.

Hope this makes sense?

[autumnus]

I really cannot formulate sentences, that much is clear. :P

*as in you really cannot be discreet...

[tim]

"Spouse" is a gender-neutral word that implies "husband or wife" (you wouldn't say "your spouse" unless you considered yourself married to the referent). "Partner" doesn't imply either legal or self-identified marriage to me, though it does imply commitment. (As others pointed out, "partner" can also mean a non-romantic business or professional partner, which can be confusing.)

But more to the point, why *can't* you be discreet about marriage? It's true that we usually aren't, but that just begs the question. If I've been with my (imaginary) boyfriend for 40 (imaginary) years but don't want to refer to him with terms usually associated with marriage or monogamous partnership, either because I'm not monogamous and don't want to imply I am or because I simply don't like the connotations, why is it more wrong for me to mention him in a work context as "my boyfriend" than it would be if we happened to call each other our "husbands" instead?

[autumnus]

cultural norms and the way the words are used. When you say boyfriend people still think something non-permanent, even through you might be using that word for lack of a better term. (and yes, a lot of this is based on tradition, culture and ideas that are outdated and we really need vocabulary to describe non-monogamous relationships)

and about why you can't be discreet about marriage? because then they will wonder why you hide it. :)