long term relationship v marriage

jcr16

thing is we all have different views, we all say things perhaps without thinking, not with any nastiness but easy to do.

i don't see why call hubby , hubby if not your hubby. but i'd never think anything less of anyone for doing so. becuase everyone has reasons for doing so.

but i'm sure the op has family and friends around her who love her just as much no matter what she calls her oh then it doesn't matter.

sometimes emotions get in the way, and i've had alot of peeps make passing comments they may not realise they hurt, but they do. but then sometimes i can be over sensitive. as long as your happy and your not hurting anyone then it doesn't matter.

but i don't agree with getting married to please others. it is a magical time getting married and should be done , when and if you want. not cause you feel you should.

yes i see the legal side. but i think the legal side is wrong at times. a father is a father and just cause not married to the mother i think it awful he has no rights over the children if the mother dies.

minnie123

shellsuit wrote: »

If you call him your husband, why not get married?

You could book the registry office, go in one afternoon and be married for less than £100!

Wouldn't it be worth it, just so that you're each other next of kin legally?

If anything happens to either of you, what will you do?



Oh and hubby is short for husband just as 'hubs' is, I've never known it to mean anything else, let alone mean someone you're not married to.

Hi there - does it really cost under £100. I was looking into this and it was looking like being closer to £200 but I may have got it wrong. I would appreciate the info if you have it on minimum costs involved. x

sjc80

I found once we split I was able to find much more interesting names for my hubby/husband/partner/OH

Tropez your post made me giggle - especially the reference to 'pumpkin'!!

pimento

Tropez wrote: »

Obviously the OP might have her own reasons but "hubby" was originally used (and still is in some places, such as parts of the US) as slang to identify an unmarried woman's boyfriend as either having the qualities of a spouse, or being potential husband material. It is only relatively recently that its usage has more commonly come to refer to a husband in a marriage.

You sure?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hubby

pimento

I think you should be married. If I have to suffer I think you should too.

Tropez

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

What a very rude reply to a simple request for information!:mad:

I apologise if you found that statement rude. However, would you have preferred me to lie or not even bother acknowledging your request? Surely, given the fact I stated just how many records exist via a Google search, you can understand my position that trawling record after record is not a productive use of mine (or anyone elses) time.

shellsuit wrote: »

The meaning of hubby : http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=hubby+meaning&aq=0&aqi=g3g-s1g-o1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=fb65bc885a9abf7


ETA : According to the American Heritage Dictionary (whatever that is), hubby means husband.

Whoever told you hubby meant something else, was having you on.

Urban dictionary LOL? That's written by normal folk like you and me so anyone could say something means anything!

I can assure you that "whoever" was not "having me on". I can also assure you that "whoever" knows more about the history of language than you, I or anybody else on this forum.

Wikipedia is written by "normal folk" - is it fair to discount everything written on there? As a record of current, popular use of language, Urban Dictionary is actually as relevant as any other, especially given that, like Wikipedia, falsified entries are removed.

You're quoting sources yet admit that you don't even know who or what they are. This hardly puts you in any better position.

Tropez

pimento wrote: »

You sure?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hubby

*Yawn*

Congratulations, you found a dictionary definition of hubby that supports what I already stated - that the common usage of the word refers to a married husband.

However, as that definition does not refer to any previous uses of the word, nor the fact that for example the Norse had a word extremely similar to husband (and was in fact pronounced the same) that meant wife, nor does it refer to original Norse meanings that as a historical record it is lacking greatly.

pimento

Methinks he doth protest too much.

You're wrong, suck it up.

brians_daughter

OP the people who have said these comments may feel that marriage is a necessity in order to validate a relationship.. i wouldnt worry too much about it!

I call my oh my 'other half' or 'right hand man' We have been together over a decade and it is only very, very recently we have even considered getting married. When we do tie the knot he will still be my other half or right hand man!!

Dont let others comments lead you to questin any part of your relationship! My mother, and my oh's mother, have both said comments that would lead us to understand that we werent a 'real committed couple' until we got married... needless to say in their 'day' it wasnt heard of/right for ppl to share a life without the marriage ... we just let them get on with it lol

Tropez

pimento wrote: »

Methinks he doth protest too much.

Actually, methinks you do.

You're now engaging in the pursuit that I refused to - trawling through records trying to prove me wrong, despite the fact you have no idea where I gained this information or why I believe it to be true. As "the kids" from UD might say, fine, whatever. At the end of the day, you can find as many contemporary dictionary references as you like, and you can post them on here, expect me to care and feel all warm and fuzzy inside because you bested some stranger in some Internet duel. Bravo! I tip my imaginary hat to you!

But what does it really prove? None of you have dared to counter my argument that you have absolutely no right to tell another person what term of endearment they may use when speaking to another, which indicates that you have no argument and thus would rather shirk away and try and argue with me other something else and when I counter that argument you resort to more childish, one sentence phrases such as the above, as if you believe that it is I who am angered or upset or whatever it may be that some strangers don't believe me. I am not.

The only thing that I might be a little miffed about is that once again somebody on this forum asks for help and once again someone else, followed by a small group, decides to ignore the actual question, focus on something entirely minute and irrelevant to whine about, in order to push a facade of moral superiority. Spike was right when he wrote on the pet forums recently that there are too many keyboard, internet warriors here - too many people, who like I said in my first post on this thread, think that their way is the right way and in true, fascist, totalitarian style try and push those beliefs on others.

Well fair play to you all.