The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Ask a Mustachian => Topic started by: Healthie on July 10, 2021, 11:58:03 AM
-
I’ve been with my girlfriend about 3 years; she’s great, we’re stable, etc. I’ve had a will for a few years and need to make some minor changes; I’m curious what everyone’s thoughts are about putting a partner in?
-
I have a child, so I will never put a partner, married or not, in my will. I've also filled out paperwork that makes my son beneficiary to several accounts directly, overriding a will even if I had one that said I "want it to go to" someone else. However, I also plan to stay single forever.
There are a lot of considerations-- do you own property together? Do you live together? Who are you "bypassing" so stuff goes to her? Will you remember to remove her if you split up (in a timely matter)?
-
There are two ways of dying ie a will being needed.
One is fast, eg sudden accident. One is slower, like a terminal illness.
In the later case you will most likely have time to adjust a will to current circumstances.
So consider your will in this instance to be in event of sudden death.
What would you like her to have? And what is her current financial situation? And who else is significant in your life?
-
Someone is going to get the money. Who do you want it to be? If it's your SO then sure why not? If it's not then don't. You can divide funds up too without being overly complicated. Right now our will spreads our estate out over multiple family members because in total it's more money than we would want any one person to have.
-
I applaud you for getting a will, more people need that. Ask your lawyer (and please, only do this with a lawyer) about estate planning as well. It’s your will and legacy, you can put anyone you want in it if they mean something to you and you want to leave something to them. It’s entirely personal, and you’re dead at that point, so, there’s that. I’d make sure with your lawyer that the GF can’t claim any other money from living together or asserting any common law wife claims against your estate and is limited by what’s bequeathed. As was mentioned the second the relationship ends you need to update that will to remove her, which is your only risk here. It’s hard to set a condition, I leave her X if we’re together but 0 if we’re not. Don’t do that. If you intend to marry, you could wait until then. Personally I wouldn’t add a partner unless I knew that I was long-term committed to that partner and vice-versa (married or not). You’ve got to develop your own criteria on what’s meaningful to you.
-
Are you planning on getting married?
If not, I think the 'why' might answer your question here.
-
I'm finally having my will done in a few weeks. I plan to put my partner in it, although I have no plans to marry them. We live together and I'd like to make sure they are taken care of if something happens to me, while also making sure the rest of my family gets a little something too, and the rest will go to charity.
-
You are calling her your girlfriend. When you can bring yourself to start calling her your partner that's the time she should be in your will.
-
My financial advisor suggested I designate the portion of my life insurance (long provided as a benefit from my employer at 2.5 x my annual salary) I would like my partner to have. That could be changed at any time quickly and easily by logging in to my work HR site.
-
I’ve been with my girlfriend about 3 years; she’s great, we’re stable, etc. I’ve had a will for a few years and need to make some minor changes; I’m curious what everyone’s thoughts are about putting a partner in?
There's not enough detail here to really make a recommendation.
If you live together and you are concerned she can't afford the housing without your income, then you 100% should put her in your will. Are there people in your life who need your money more that she does? Children?
Another thing you could do instead is just make her the named beneficiary on one or more of your financial accounts. Then you don't have to worry about the will aspect, since the will doesn't cover assets in accounts with named beneficiaries attached at a financial institution. That also makes it easier to remove her from inheriting if things change as it's really easy to change beneficiaries online with most banks and brokerages, whereas a will you usually need to have it redone and resigned and re-witnessed and re-notarized.
-
I live with my other half (not married) and we own a house together. We both have children from before we met. Most of our estate goes to the kids. The half share of the house will go to the partner along with enough money to cover the half share of the mortgage. That way the partnet does not get left homeless and does no need to change their lifestyle in order to stay in the house. The rest moves to the next generation.
If yours if a long term relationship then its not wrong to consider something similar.
-
Do you want to put your girlfriend in your will?
If yes, then go ahead.
I'm not sure I quite understand what your concern is?
-
Yes, but I am married and have no children. I do have a small amount in my will left to each of my nieces and nephews.
-
You will have to change your will every time you get a new shack up honey.
[MOD NOTE: Uncalled for. Forum Rule #1]
-
You will have to change your will every time you get a new shack up honey.
....
-
You will have to change your will every time you get a new shack up honey.
....
Oof...
-
You are calling her your girlfriend. When you can bring yourself to start calling her your partner that's the time she should be in your will.
This feels incredibly arbitrary (and old-world). A close friend of mind calls her boyfriend her boyfriend and they've been together at least 15 years; I don't question their commitment to each other.
-
You are calling her your girlfriend. When you can bring yourself to start calling her your partner that's the time she should be in your will.
This feels incredibly arbitrary (and old-world). A close friend of mind calls her boyfriend her boyfriend and they've been together at least 15 years; I don't question their commitment to each other.
I agree, that comment was a bit mean and unhelpful.
-
You will have to change your will every time you get a new shack up honey.
This comment is definitely mean, unhelpful and very disrespectful to the OP, the GF and the relationship.
-
I find describing a grown woman as a "girl" mean, unhelpful and very disrespectful.
-
In many places, if you’ve lived with someone for more than a year or two, they’re considered a de facto, and are eligible for half of the assets you’ve both accumulated while you’ve been together when you separate. After all, both members of the partnership have participated in the accumulation of assets.
I suggest that your partner should be considered in any will you make, just as you should be considered in hers, since you’ve been together for more than this amount of time.
-
I find describing a grown woman as a "girl" mean, unhelpful and very disrespectful.
Well then you definitely shouldn’t describe them as such, but you don’t get to redefine how they define their relationship or refer to each other because they aren’t the words you would use.
-
I find describing a grown woman as a "girl" mean, unhelpful and very disrespectful.
Well then you definitely shouldn’t describe them as such, but you don’t get to redefine how they define their relationship or refer to each other because they aren’t the words you would use.
I am free to comment on this forum, as are you and OP.
-
I find describing a grown woman as a "girl" mean, unhelpful and very disrespectful.
Well then you definitely shouldn’t describe them as such, but you don’t get to redefine how they define their relationship or refer to each other because they aren’t the words you would use.
I am free to comment on this forum, as are you and OP.
Of course you are, but if you’re using your comments to be unnecessarily mean and insulting, especially as someone is trying to work through an issue, then you should question the value you’re bringing, unless of course all you’re interested in is trying to make someone feel shame for using “girlfriend”. Choice is yours.
-
I find describing a grown woman as a "girl" mean, unhelpful and very disrespectful.
Well then you definitely shouldn’t describe them as such, but you don’t get to redefine how they define their relationship or refer to each other because they aren’t the words you would use.
I am free to comment on this forum, as are you and OP.
Of course you are, but if you’re using your comments to be unnecessarily mean and insulting, especially as someone is trying to work through an issue, then you should question the value you’re bringing, unless of course all you’re interested in is trying to make someone feel shame for using “girlfriend”. Choice is yours.
Oh please. All I was doing was suggesting that there is a difference in attitude between calling someone a "girlfriend" and calling them a "partner" which when examined by OP might provide them with an answer to their question.
-
I think there’s not a huge issue with saying girlfriend. A girl/boy/whateverfriend can be various levels of commitment, and most people acknowledge that.
-
I just asked my partner how he refers to me - girlfriend? partner? He uses both interchangeably, probably using girlfriend more. I also use both, but probably lean more into saying partner. We don't have plans to get married.
A good friend of ours often refers to his wife as his partner.
To answer the OP's question, of course it depends entirely on you. I have my partner listed as a beneficiary on various accounts, with my nephews/mom listed on other accounts. My partner and I have been looking to buy a house together for a while, at which time I want us both to make wills to ensure the property goes to the other and not our families. YMMV.
-
In many places, if you’ve lived with someone for more than a year or two, they’re considered a de facto, and are eligible for half of the assets you’ve both accumulated while you’ve been together when you separate. After all, both members of the partnership have participated in the accumulation of assets.
I suggest that your partner should be considered in any will you make, just as you should be considered in hers, since you’ve been together for more than this amount of time.
Be careful with this - look into the laws of your jurisdiction. In the US for example, very few states have common law marriage anymore (and some of the remaining places are "grandfathered" and require you to have entered into it years ago).
-
In many places, if you’ve lived with someone for more than a year or two, they’re considered a de facto, and are eligible for half of the assets you’ve both accumulated while you’ve been together when you separate. After all, both members of the partnership have participated in the accumulation of assets.
I suggest that your partner should be considered in any will you make, just as you should be considered in hers, since you’ve been together for more than this amount of time.
Be careful with this - look into the laws of your jurisdiction. In the US for example, very few states have common law marriage anymore (and some of the remaining places are "grandfathered" and require you to have entered into it years ago).
It doesn’t matter whether this is law in your jurisdiction or not. I was commenting about the concept that a partnership of some length of time provides mutual benefits that many people (mainly men) don’t seem to acknowledge. Most of the previous responses to the topic ignored this aspect, so it was worth pointing out. It also may be that OP lives somewhere that does have this as law and it is always worth investigating.
-
In many places, if you’ve lived with someone for more than a year or two, they’re considered a de facto, and are eligible for half of the assets you’ve both accumulated while you’ve been together when you separate. After all, both members of the partnership have participated in the accumulation of assets.
I suggest that your partner should be considered in any will you make, just as you should be considered in hers, since you’ve been together for more than this amount of time.
Be careful with this - look into the laws of your jurisdiction. In the US for example, very few states have common law marriage anymore (and some of the remaining places are "grandfathered" and require you to have entered into it years ago).
It doesn’t matter whether this is law in your jurisdiction or not. I was commenting about the concept that a partnership of some length of time provides mutual benefits that many people (mainly men) don’t seem to acknowledge. Most of the previous responses to the topic ignored this aspect, so it was worth pointing out. It also may be that OP lives somewhere that does have this as law and it is always worth investigating.
I mentioned this earlier to the OP. The de facto thing in Australia is bigger and generally stronger than in the US, but it’s good to make sure it does/doesn’t apply. OP should chat with a lawyer, a legal expert, to discuss these issues.
-
I find describing a grown woman as a "girl" mean, unhelpful and very disrespectful.
Well then you definitely shouldn’t describe them as such, but you don’t get to redefine how they define their relationship or refer to each other because they aren’t the words you would use.
I am free to comment on this forum, as are you and OP.
Of course you are, but if you’re using your comments to be unnecessarily mean and insulting, especially as someone is trying to work through an issue, then you should question the value you’re bringing, unless of course all you’re interested in is trying to make someone feel shame for using “girlfriend”. Choice is yours.
Oh please. All I was doing was suggesting that there is a difference in attitude between calling someone a "girlfriend" and calling them a "partner" which when examined by OP might provide them with an answer to their question.
Weird that you think the OP should accept your judgement that partner is more serious than girlfriend and that should be the determinant of whether one should include someone in their will. To me what you wrote was condescending, mean and completely unhelpful, but if that’s your best shot at giving helpful advice, information and guidance, so be it. Came across as pure snark to me. I’ll leave you with it, we’ve hijacked this thread enough.
-
I find describing a grown woman as a "girl" mean, unhelpful and very disrespectful.
Well then you definitely shouldn’t describe them as such, but you don’t get to redefine how they define their relationship or refer to each other because they aren’t the words you would use.
I am free to comment on this forum, as are you and OP.
Of course you are, but if you’re using your comments to be unnecessarily mean and insulting, especially as someone is trying to work through an issue, then you should question the value you’re bringing, unless of course all you’re interested in is trying to make someone feel shame for using “girlfriend”. Choice is yours.
Oh please. All I was doing was suggesting that there is a difference in attitude between calling someone a "girlfriend" and calling them a "partner" which when examined by OP might provide them with an answer to their question.
Weird that you think the OP should accept your judgement that partner is more serious than girlfriend and that should be the determinant of whether one should include someone in their will. To me what you wrote was condescending, mean and completely unhelpful, but if that’s your best shot at giving helpful advice, information and guidance, so be it. Came across as pure snark to me. I’ll leave you with it, we’ve hijacked this thread enough.
I actually agree.
Maybe the pandemic has people feisty, but I've noticed a lot of people making posts stating things as facts that should be stated as opinions or questions.
Someone is absolutely entitled to hold the opinion that using the label "girlfriend" is less respectful than "partner", but that's a personal opinion, not a fact, as there is obviously no consensus on that sentiment.amy of us aren't at all bothered by the term. And I think it's fine to share the opinion, but a bit of a stretch to basically tell someone they're doing something wrong in their own relationship because of a personal perspective that isn't at all a social consensus.
Now, had OP used the highly offensive term of "shack up honey" like PP did, then I'm pretty sure there would be some consensus of that being flat out disrespectful.
As for derailing, OP hasn't come back to their own thread, so it might not matter that it's been detailed.
-
Apparently this discussion isn't over?
"Girlfriend" as defined by Wikipedia "A girlfriend is a female friend or acquaintance, often a regular female companion with whom one is platonic, romantically or sexually involved. This is normally a short-term committed relationship, where other titles (e.g., wife or partner) are more commonly used for long-term relationships."
-
And a quick google shows that multiple other sources of definition for girlfriend don't specify anything about short term.
The point is, there is no social consensus that "girlfriend" is inappropriate for referring to an unmarried partner. OP did nothing wrong in using that phrase.
It's perfectly valid that you don't approve of it though.
-
I am in an LTR with my partner of 6 years, and I simply have them as a beneficiary on certain accounts - and I have other family members listed as beneficiaries on other accounts. These will pass "outside" of the will and avoid probate.
It's way easier to update a beneficiary than it is to update a will.
-
My issue with the terminology is that the available terms for "more than girlfriend, but not (yet) engaged/married" are so...clinical. "Partner" sounds like it could be a business partner, and "Significant Other" is even worse (And the abbreviation "SO" can cause confusion; at least once, someone thought I was using the word "so" with EXTRA EMPHASIS).
I agree that "girlfriend" for long-term committed relationships is problematic, but so are the alternatives. We really need a better term before we start formalizing this particular relationship stage.
-
My issue with the terminology is that the available terms for "more than girlfriend, but not (yet) engaged/married" are so...clinical. "Partner" sounds like it could be a business partner, and "Significant Other" is even worse (And the abbreviation "SO" can cause confusion; at least once, someone thought I was using the word "so" with EXTRA EMPHASIS).
I agree that "girlfriend" for long-term committed relationships is problematic, but so are the alternatives. We really need a better term before we start formalizing this particular relationship stage.
This is why I don't use "partner". I've had business partners and in conversations people constantly thought I was referring to a spouse.
Also, partner can refer to a married or unmarried spouse, so it doesn't specify anything.
Lastly, if I refer to my DH as my partner, people tend to immediately assume I'm gay and referring to a woman, which isn't accurate either.
There's nothing wrong with using "partner", sometimes you want some ambiguity, there's no need for everyone to know whether or not you are gay or straight, married or unmarried, etc. "Partner" is great for not having to specify the details if you don't want to.
But if you want to be specify, then it doesn't work very well.
I'm not saying I like "girlfriend" or "boyfriend", I just don't think they're wrong or disrespectful to use when someone wants to specify: romantic partner, unmarried
-
I am in an LTR with my partner of 6 years, and I simply have them as a beneficiary on certain accounts - and I have other family members listed as beneficiaries on other accounts. These will pass "outside" of the will and avoid probate.
It's way easier to update a beneficiary than it is to update a will.
Certainly true, and that's how I've handled things with my fiancee1 up to now. For other large assets there's always the option to add a person's name to the title. However, these methods still don't account for personal property, which may include items of monetary or sentimental value for your partner/SO/whatever1.
1Yes, I recently escaped from this particular terminology-hell! Hurray! :)
-
I find describing a grown woman as a "girl" mean, unhelpful and very disrespectful.
Well then you definitely shouldn’t describe them as such, but you don’t get to redefine how they define their relationship or refer to each other because they aren’t the words you would use.
I am free to comment on this forum, as are you and OP.
Of course you are, but if you’re using your comments to be unnecessarily mean and insulting, especially as someone is trying to work through an issue, then you should question the value you’re bringing, unless of course all you’re interested in is trying to make someone feel shame for using “girlfriend”. Choice is yours.
Oh please. All I was doing was suggesting that there is a difference in attitude between calling someone a "girlfriend" and calling them a "partner" which when examined by OP might provide them with an answer to their question.
Weird that you think the OP should accept your judgement that partner is more serious than girlfriend and that should be the determinant of whether one should include someone in their will. To me what you wrote was condescending, mean and completely unhelpful, but if that’s your best shot at giving helpful advice, information and guidance, so be it. Came across as pure snark to me. I’ll leave you with it, we’ve hijacked this thread enough.
Let’s calm down and try to seen where each other is coming from. I suspect strongly there’s a cultural element at play here. In the US, partner is used generally only in the context of same sex union. By doing so, it’s clear to me that society is making a distinction. In most other developed countries couples (gay or straight, married or not) are referred to as partners. It’s a more inclusive term. In the US, the differentiation clearly smacks of prejudice and indicates that certain unions are more valued and respected. I too find it disrespectful to refer to a grown man or woman in a committed relationship as boyfriend/girlfriend but I do understand it’s social convention in the US. I no longer use the terms.
-
I find describing a grown woman as a "girl" mean, unhelpful and very disrespectful.
Well then you definitely shouldn’t describe them as such, but you don’t get to redefine how they define their relationship or refer to each other because they aren’t the words you would use.
I am free to comment on this forum, as are you and OP.
Of course you are, but if you’re using your comments to be unnecessarily mean and insulting, especially as someone is trying to work through an issue, then you should question the value you’re bringing, unless of course all you’re interested in is trying to make someone feel shame for using “girlfriend”. Choice is yours.
Oh please. All I was doing was suggesting that there is a difference in attitude between calling someone a "girlfriend" and calling them a "partner" which when examined by OP might provide them with an answer to their question.
Weird that you think the OP should accept your judgement that partner is more serious than girlfriend and that should be the determinant of whether one should include someone in their will. To me what you wrote was condescending, mean and completely unhelpful, but if that’s your best shot at giving helpful advice, information and guidance, so be it. Came across as pure snark to me. I’ll leave you with it, we’ve hijacked this thread enough.
Let’s calm down and try to seen where each other is coming from. I suspect strongly there’s a cultural element at play here. In the US, partner is used generally only in the context of same sex union. By doing so, it’s clear to me that society is making a distinction. In most other developed countries couples (gay or straight, married or not) are referred to as partners. It’s a more inclusive term. In the US, the differentiation clearly smacks of prejudice and indicates that certain unions are more valued and respected. I too find it disrespectful to refer to a grown man or woman in a committed relationship as boyfriend/girlfriend but I do understand it’s social convention in the US. I no longer use the terms.
Meanwhile my issue with the terms is that I prefer to use non-gendered language in general. I don't even love "husband" and "wife", but I use them if "spouse" will sound off in the context.
-
In the US, partner is used generally only in the context of same sex union. By doing so, it’s clear to me that society is making a distinction.
This isn't really true at all, at least in my circles.
-
In the US, partner is used generally only in the context of same sex union. By doing so, it’s clear to me that society is making a distinction.
This isn't really true at all, at least in my circles.
I think it's more that the term "partner" was first embraced in the US by the LGBTQ community, and so it has come to be associated with same-sex unions by default. More of a connotation than a deliberate distinction, but that's still enough for some folks to make an assumption if you use the term without providing further gender context.
-
In the US, partner is used generally only in the context of same sex union. By doing so, it’s clear to me that society is making a distinction.
This isn't really true at all, at least in my circles.
I think it's more that the term "partner" was first embraced in the US by the LGBTQ community, and so it has come to be associated with same-sex unions by default. More of a connotation than a deliberate distinction, but that's still enough for some folks to make an assumption if you use the term without providing further gender context.
Yes, with my short hair, people immediately assume I'm gay if I say partner. Pretty much without fail. Usually I just roll with it.
-
In the US, partner is used generally only in the context of same sex union. By doing so, it’s clear to me that society is making a distinction.
This isn't really true at all, at least in my circles.
Completely true in my area. The only times I've ever heard "partner" used IRL, it was a same-sex couple.
-
I find describing a grown woman as a "girl" mean, unhelpful and very disrespectful.
Well then you definitely shouldn’t describe them as such, but you don’t get to redefine how they define their relationship or refer to each other because they aren’t the words you would use.
I am free to comment on this forum, as are you and OP.
Of course you are, but if you’re using your comments to be unnecessarily mean and insulting, especially as someone is trying to work through an issue, then you should question the value you’re bringing, unless of course all you’re interested in is trying to make someone feel shame for using “girlfriend”. Choice is yours.
Oh please. All I was doing was suggesting that there is a difference in attitude between calling someone a "girlfriend" and calling them a "partner" which when examined by OP might provide them with an answer to their question.
Weird that you think the OP should accept your judgement that partner is more serious than girlfriend and that should be the determinant of whether one should include someone in their will. To me what you wrote was condescending, mean and completely unhelpful, but if that’s your best shot at giving helpful advice, information and guidance, so be it. Came across as pure snark to me. I’ll leave you with it, we’ve hijacked this thread enough.
Let’s calm down and try to seen where each other is coming from. I suspect strongly there’s a cultural element at play here. In the US, partner is used generally only in the context of same sex union. By doing so, it’s clear to me that society is making a distinction. In most other developed countries couples (gay or straight, married or not) are referred to as partners. It’s a more inclusive term. In the US, the differentiation clearly smacks of prejudice and indicates that certain unions are more valued and respected. I too find it disrespectful to refer to a grown man or woman in a committed relationship as boyfriend/girlfriend but I do understand it’s social convention in the US. I no longer use the terms.
and as mentioned above there aren't many other options. I divorced and started dating in my late 30s/early 40s and it was totally weird for me to call a 35 plus year old guy I was seriously dating my boyfriend. But we weren't partners or SOs or really anything but commited exclusive dating couple. Calling him my manfriend sounds creepy - or even weirder. I have lots of men who are platonic friends and I just call them friends. At least BF conveyed a romantic relationship. I still don't know what to call SO/partner/BF.
I remember making an airplane friend one time. He was an older gentleman in his 60s and in his stories he told, he would refer to his ladyfriend. Perhaps gentlemanfriend is the way to go? :)
-
I think there are definite cultural/ generational elements at play in this discussion. Partner is often used when people are in a committed relationship in NZ. But marriage is not such a big deal here. Our Prime Minister is still ambling toward it, with a 3 year old daughter. The main people excited about her wedding are the editors of womens magazines.
The terms girlfriend/boyfriend are more usual for teens and early twenties, cohabitation before marriage is the norm, and so is starting a family before getting married. If you are trying to work out what sort of relationship someone else is in you probably just need to ask them straight out, “ is she your missus?”
None of which influences who you put in your will!
-
In the US, partner is used generally only in the context of same sex union. By doing so, it’s clear to me that society is making a distinction.
This isn't really true at all, at least in my circles.
I think it's more that the term "partner" was first embraced in the US by the LGBTQ community, and so it has come to be associated with same-sex unions by default. More of a connotation than a deliberate distinction, but that's still enough for some folks to make an assumption if you use the term without providing further gender context.
And that's why I sometimes use partner deliberately, to try to combat the impression that partner = same sex partner. I *want* there to be a non-gendered term that can be used equally for same sex and opposite sex pairings and for married/unmarried, so I try to embrace it to help that idea along.
-
In the US, partner is used generally only in the context of same sex union. By doing so, it’s clear to me that society is making a distinction.
This isn't really true at all, at least in my circles.
I think it's more that the term "partner" was first embraced in the US by the LGBTQ community, and so it has come to be associated with same-sex unions by default. More of a connotation than a deliberate distinction, but that's still enough for some folks to make an assumption if you use the term without providing further gender context.
And that's why I sometimes use partner deliberately, to try to combat the impression that partner = same sex partner. I *want* there to be a non-gendered term that can be used equally for same sex and opposite sex pairings and for married/unmarried, so I try to embrace it to help that idea along.
I do this as well. Basically if the person I am addressing is an acquaintance or someone I am just meeting through my workplace or networking I will use the terms partner or family member because there really is no reason my sexual orientation/martial status/household structure should be relevant to the conversation.
-
No better I have kids. When married everything was first going to spouse and went both dead split between all of the kids from prior marriages.
-
When I first heard "partner" used it was almost exclusively for same sex relationships. Now it is used by others but it still makes me think it might be a same sex relationship when I hear the term.
Regarding the use of "girl" for a grown woman, that's a regional/cultural distinction. Our plan manager is a woman who moved here (rural midwest) from California. She corrected a department head when he referred to the two secretaries working for him as "my girls". The plant manager took it as a demeaning term but both of the women told me they liked being referred to that way.
-
In the US, partner is used generally only in the context of same sex union. By doing so, it’s clear to me that society is making a distinction.
This isn't really true at all, at least in my circles.
I think it's more that the term "partner" was first embraced in the US by the LGBTQ community, and so it has come to be associated with same-sex unions by default. More of a connotation than a deliberate distinction, but that's still enough for some folks to make an assumption if you use the term without providing further gender context.
And that's why I sometimes use partner deliberately, to try to combat the impression that partner = same sex partner. I *want* there to be a non-gendered term that can be used equally for same sex and opposite sex pairings and for married/unmarried, so I try to embrace it to help that idea along.
I do this as well. Basically if the person I am addressing is an acquaintance or someone I am just meeting through my workplace or networking I will use the terms partner or family member because there really is no reason my sexual orientation/martial status/household structure should be relevant to the conversation.
Yep. I use 'partner' All. The. Time. Anyone who knows me well knows what relationship I'm in, and if they don't, who cares. I like normalizing the term.
-
When I first heard "partner" used it was almost exclusively for same sex relationships. Now it is used by others but it still makes me think it might be a same sex relationship when I hear the term.
Regarding the use of "girl" for a grown woman, that's a regional/cultural distinction. Our plan manager is a woman who moved here (rural midwest) from California. She corrected a department head when he referred to the two secretaries working for him as "my girls". The plant manager took it as a demeaning term but both of the women told me they liked being referred to that way.
It can be regional/cultural, but in a professional setting you should really avoid referring to women as girls. The fact that he would say "my girls" as though they belong to him is extra unprofessional. I also grew up in a rural setting and I would call that nonsense out in a heartbeat.
-
When I first heard "partner" used it was almost exclusively for same sex relationships. Now it is used by others but it still makes me think it might be a same sex relationship when I hear the term.
Regarding the use of "girl" for a grown woman, that's a regional/cultural distinction. Our plan manager is a woman who moved here (rural midwest) from California. She corrected a department head when he referred to the two secretaries working for him as "my girls". The plant manager took it as a demeaning term but both of the women told me they liked being referred to that way.
It can be regional/cultural, but in a professional setting you should really avoid referring to women as girls. The fact that he would say "my girls" as though they belong to him is extra unprofessional. I also grew up in a rural setting and I would call that nonsense out in a heartbeat.
Also, just because some women are okay with paternalistic behaviour doesn't mean the there isn't an increasing consensus that it's not acceptable.
Where I did my doctorate, sexual harrassment was common. However, no one ever reported the sexual harrassers, in fact, the mostly female class actually preferred working with the creepy sexual harrassers because they were nicer than the overtly bullying abusers.
Every Wednesday morning I had a choice between working with a clinical supervisor who went out of her way to publicly belittle and humiliate me or the head of the department who was really nice to me, but got drunk at faculty events and said graphic sexual things about me to my boyfriend.
That's where harrassment thrives, in environments where men can get away with it because their attention and praise is so desperately wanted. That's what makes it so insidious.
So yes, even if the female subordinates like the inappropriate behaviour, it doesn't make it magically appropriate.
That's why any fraternizing with subordinates should be approached with extreme caution. The power dynamic makes it inherently problematic.
-
In an attempt to veer away from terminology, I would put my boyfriend/significant other/partner in my will if:
- We had kid(s) together or were definitively planning on doing so imminently (not just nebulous wanting to work out long term with someone)
- We owned property together, especially if it would be onerous to pay the mortgage or carrying costs on our primary residence without me (but as others noted, a quicker way to cover this risk is to name her as the beneficiary to your life insurance policy or other asset)
- After deliberate discussions (not just time + assumptions), we mutually concluded that our relationship was as permanent/indefinite and committed as a traditional marriage, we just don't care to get the formal paper for whatever reason.
Edited to add: If you end up doing this, I'd add some parameters in the event the relationship ends. If you just say that Jane Doe gets X% of your estate, probate won't care if you broke up before your death. But, even with a term in your will, breakups and their effective dates are less definitive than formal divorces, so this adds an extra level of uncertainty that your estate might need to deal with in the event you pass away while things were rocky or uncertain or during a trial separation, etc.
-
In an attempt to veer away from terminology, I would put my boyfriend/significant other/partner in my will if:
- We had kid(s) together or were definitively planning on doing so imminently (not just nebulous wanting to work out long term with someone)
- We owned property together, especially if it would be onerous to pay the mortgage or carrying costs on our primary residence without me (but as others noted, a quicker way to cover this risk is to name her as the beneficiary to your life insurance policy or other asset)
- After deliberate discussions (not just time + assumptions), we mutually concluded that our relationship was as permanent/indefinite and committed as a traditional marriage, we just don't care to get the formal paper for whatever reason.
Lol, OP literally hasn't returned to their own thread in over a week. We're all just derailing it because, well, why not?
-
In an attempt to veer away from terminology, I would put my boyfriend/significant other/partner in my will if:
- We had kid(s) together or were definitively planning on doing so imminently (not just nebulous wanting to work out long term with someone)
- We owned property together, especially if it would be onerous to pay the mortgage or carrying costs on our primary residence without me (but as others noted, a quicker way to cover this risk is to name her as the beneficiary to your life insurance policy or other asset)
- After deliberate discussions (not just time + assumptions), we mutually concluded that our relationship was as permanent/indefinite and committed as a traditional marriage, we just don't care to get the formal paper for whatever reason.
Lol, OP literally hasn't returned to their own thread in over a week. We're all just derailing it because, well, why not?
*Shrug* I've come back to threads after a few days of vacation/busy work weeks/whatever. And I've also searched for old threads on topics I'd like advice on to avoid reinventing the wheel. And what are forums for, if not to shout my opinions on a given subject into the internet void, not knowing whether they will ever reach interested ears?
-
Also in the spirit of being opinionated...
The topic was clearly always a deeply personal matter with little background. OP might as well have asked if they should get married. *shrug*
-
Referring (just for the heck of it) to the original question: Would you put your partner in your will? (Not married)
No. I had various partners / GFs / SOs over the years before getting married, and I never put them in a will. At the same time, I never had a will (just account beneficiaries). They were never my beneficiaries, though -- I had my parents and siblings.
Re: the language, it is definitely cultural. I'm American, 44, and would still probably use girlfriend if I were in a committed non-married situation of any duration, many due to the lack of other options. However, we recently moved to Canada, and folks here use partner A LOT, for all circumstances (same sex / not same sex / married / not married) and it's kind of great. At the same time, the American in my tends to assume same sex when I first hear it. I'm slow to adopt new language / accents, so I imagine it will be a while before I pick it up but I am definitely pro-non-gendered and non-marital-status-specific language whenever possible.
-
Also in the spirit of being opinionated...
The topic was clearly always a deeply personal matter with little background. OP might as well have asked if they should get married. *shrug*
Exactly.
That's my point. The thread never had enough to go on as it was, so what could be shared other than "it depends" and "here's my personal anecdote".
Otherwise, the derailment convo is just as valid to have, since it's impossible to stay on track with an OP question that no one can meaningfully contribute to without more info.
Also, FTR, drive by threads are a huge pet peeve of mine
-
In an attempt to veer away from terminology, I would put my boyfriend/significant other/partner in my will if:
- We had kid(s) together or were definitively planning on doing so imminently (not just nebulous wanting to work out long term with someone)
- We owned property together, especially if it would be onerous to pay the mortgage or carrying costs on our primary residence without me (but as others noted, a quicker way to cover this risk is to name her as the beneficiary to your life insurance policy or other asset)
- After deliberate discussions (not just time + assumptions), we mutually concluded that our relationship was as permanent/indefinite and committed as a traditional marriage, we just don't care to get the formal paper for whatever reason.
Lol, OP literally hasn't returned to their own thread in over a week. We're all just derailing it because, well, why not?
This was OP's most recent post. OP seems to be wilderness camping at the moment. Or other non-internet equivalent.
-
In an attempt to veer away from terminology, I would put my boyfriend/significant other/partner in my will if:
- We had kid(s) together or were definitively planning on doing so imminently (not just nebulous wanting to work out long term with someone)
- We owned property together, especially if it would be onerous to pay the mortgage or carrying costs on our primary residence without me (but as others noted, a quicker way to cover this risk is to name her as the beneficiary to your life insurance policy or other asset)
- After deliberate discussions (not just time + assumptions), we mutually concluded that our relationship was as permanent/indefinite and committed as a traditional marriage, we just don't care to get the formal paper for whatever reason.
Lol, OP literally hasn't returned to their own thread in over a week. We're all just derailing it because, well, why not?
This was OP's most recent post. OP seems to be wilderness camping at the moment. Or other non-internet equivalent.
That's great for OP. Maybe they'll come back eventually. Maybe not.
I still have no problem with threads getting totally detailed for fun when an OP walks away from them.
-
In an attempt to veer away from terminology, I would put my boyfriend/significant other/partner in my will if:
- We had kid(s) together or were definitively planning on doing so imminently (not just nebulous wanting to work out long term with someone)
- We owned property together, especially if it would be onerous to pay the mortgage or carrying costs on our primary residence without me (but as others noted, a quicker way to cover this risk is to name her as the beneficiary to your life insurance policy or other asset)
- After deliberate discussions (not just time + assumptions), we mutually concluded that our relationship was as permanent/indefinite and committed as a traditional marriage, we just don't care to get the formal paper for whatever reason.
Lol, OP literally hasn't returned to their own thread in over a week. We're all just derailing it because, well, why not?
This was OP's most recent post. OP seems to be wilderness camping at the moment. Or other non-internet equivalent.
That's great for OP. Maybe they'll come back eventually. Maybe not.
I still have no problem with threads getting totally detailed for fun when an OP walks away from them.
I am also fine with posts that have a life of their own. Just a mild (very mild, passing, fleeting) regret the OP doesn't reap any benefit from a post they started. The rest of us have fun and possibly learn something.
-
In an attempt to veer away from terminology, I would put my boyfriend/significant other/partner in my will if:
- We had kid(s) together or were definitively planning on doing so imminently (not just nebulous wanting to work out long term with someone)
- We owned property together, especially if it would be onerous to pay the mortgage or carrying costs on our primary residence without me (but as others noted, a quicker way to cover this risk is to name her as the beneficiary to your life insurance policy or other asset)
- After deliberate discussions (not just time + assumptions), we mutually concluded that our relationship was as permanent/indefinite and committed as a traditional marriage, we just don't care to get the formal paper for whatever reason.
Lol, OP literally hasn't returned to their own thread in over a week. We're all just derailing it because, well, why not?
This was OP's most recent post. OP seems to be wilderness camping at the moment. Or other non-internet equivalent.
That's great for OP. Maybe they'll come back eventually. Maybe not.
I still have no problem with threads getting totally detailed for fun when an OP walks away from them.
I am also fine with posts that have a life of their own. Just a mild (very mild, passing, fleeting) regret the OP doesn't reap any benefit from a post they started. The rest of us have fun and possibly learn something.
Oh, OP can easily bring the convo back on track if they want to when they return. All they have to do is come back and start answering some of the many clarifying questions people posed and I'm sure we'll all fall back inline like we usually do.