Favorite

I like that the word partner is replacing gender specific spouse names (i.e. husband or wife).  Partner is gender and marriage neutral, which is a step in the correct direction, but I dislike the over-use of the word.  While partner is neutral in many ways, it is not commitment neutral.  Partner implies both emotional commitment and interdependence.

The emotional bond with a partner is one that implies the relationship has planned longevity.  Some relationships last a short time period, others have longevity with no vision, no plan.  Neither of these are partnerships.  A partner is someone you plan to emotionally commit to for a long period of time.  This applies to business partners as well as romantic partners (sexual partners, like lawn badminton partners would not fit this description).  In both cases, the people are bound by the belief that their relationship will be positive for their desired foreseeable future.  This is not to say that planning for something makes it happen.  Businesses and relationships often fail before the partners want them to fail, but partners are bound in the emotional belief that the relationship (or business) will last.  Some partners are more pragmatic, and may be bound in the thought that their relationship will work, but most people jump to belief, not wanting to logically analyze.

Next, partners are interdependent by free choice.  If two people are in a situation where their lives intertwine by situations out of their control, they may not be partners.  Those people may choose to become partners, but they are not necessarily partners.  Partners, choose to cohabitate, share bank accounts, or own cars or pets together.  These dependencies make undoing the partnership complex.  While a legal system may not be involved in the dissolution of a partnership, they often are.  Friendships are often strained or broken., and negotiations are always part of the end of a partnership.

Think about other uses of the word partner.  Police officers have partners.  I imagine that certain soldiers have partners (snipers and spotters?).  Even roommates who have planned to live together for long periods of time (forgive the reference, but were Joey and Chandler not partners?).  All of these people would probably not easily walk away from the relationship, and walking away may be complex owing the intricacies (interdependence) of the relationship.

When someone asks you about your partner, they are accepting that you may not be married, and they may even be accepting that you could be with someone of the same sex.  They are assuming (and expecting), however, that you meet a minimum level of commitment and interdependence.  When someone asks that not assuming a level of commitment, e.g. a plus one at a wedding, what they are really talking about is a significant other (SO).  A SO is anyone with a romantic interest (though I have known people who have taken platonic friends to weddings).  This spans the entire relationship spectrum from first date to elderly married couple.  SO applies to every type of relationship at every level of commitment, and every romantic situation.

For many people, this does not matter.  When I was with Heidi, we experimented a bit with partner, but found that it rarely helped elucidate the nature of our relationship for others (too soon maybe).  While I would correct people who assumed we were married, it never really bothered me.  With Corinne, our relationship followed a more regular trajectory, but it never bothered me (though I would usually correct) when our relationship status was incorrectly described.  Now though, as a divorcee, I find that it is all the more trying to describe my relationship status.

If, for example, Sarah is in town, and there is a work function open to partners, is Sarah welcome?  What if the function is open to partners, but not friends?  What if I had a business partner, or a very close (platonic) roommate, would they be welcome?  No, because these people actually probably mean romantic partner as spouse devoid of legal marital status.  People see "partner" used in this context, get lazy, and start using it as a synonym for SO.  Confusing their question by not using the proper terminology (i.e. SO).  If there was an invite where friends were welcome, Sarah would be welcome.  An invite where SOs were welcome, Sarah would be welcome.  More specific than this, and the situation gets confused.

Expanding beyond SO is tricky because post-divorce is also post-standard relationship.  Relationship status is a like a pyramid.  In a lifetime, one may have many girl/boyfriends, not many fiance-level relationships, and only one spouse.  At the pinnacle of my pyramid though is the foundation to another pyramid.  What do I call these people now?  Eventually they will be friend-level, and some of those may become partners.  However, I am not really looking to start a new pyramid, I am in a land of love beyond geometry.  Frankly, I like this new world better.  Had I begun my relationship life with this knowledge, it would have been better.  Alas, I have discovered this new world through experience.  The problem with the new world I have worked myself into is that it is complicated to tell people about it who have not themselves gotten here.

Often times, in situations where geometric relationship description fails, people describe their relationships as "it's complicated."  I do not really like describing those who are special to me as it's complicated.  Further, for many people I talk to, it's complicated does not make sense.  They continue to probe.  In fact, the only person that it's complicated really worked for was a coworker who, according to scuttlebutt, has a level of complication rarely achieved by humans. Everyone else wants a pigeon hole for every relationship status.

In my desire to clearly communicate my meaning with people I think I have thought of the ideal word to describe a new relationship status.  A relationship status beyond the elementary, traditional descriptions.  It is neutral in every aspect but preference.  It is also modifiable as needed.  I introduce to the world the relationship status of "Favorite" (capitalized for clarity).

Think of anything that is your favorite.  It could be a trail, an ice cream flavor, band, or song.  Literally anything that you have preference in, you probably have a favorite.  Think of that thing.  What is your relationship to that thing?  It is, your favorite.  It is not easy to describe why that thing is your favorite, it just is.  My favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate.  Chocolate ice cream can be improved by adding peanut butter cups.  Roger Clyne (for the sake of this argument) is my favorite musician.  I have gone months without listening to his music, but when I come back to one of his songs that I enjoy, or am emotionally invested in, my relationship resumes with that music as if there was never a lull.  At Bootleg Canyon, I had my favorite series of trails to ride.  Those trails were my favorite because of the varied aspects of the trails, maybe the personality of the trails.  Whatever favorite thing comes to mind, there are aspects that you like, and maybe those you do not.  Some favorites are what you always choose because they are all you want, and sometimes you have other things to better appreciate your favorite.  Your favorite may change over time, or it may stay with you for life.  Some people may even have multiple favorites (would a parent of two children be unlikely to claim that they have two favorite children?).

All of these things are true of your Favorite.  Favorite is marriage and gender neutral.  It is also free of expectations.  The only thing Favorite conveys is preference.  A spouse, partner, fiance, boyfriend or girlfriend is probably a Favorite.  Then again, a spouse may not be a Favorite, and we can avoid the emotional response to words like mistress.  In fact, Favorite even eliminates expectation of love and romance.  I have had friends who were definitely each other's Favorite, but they were simply friends.  Do we really care if our friends are sleeping with the people whose company they most prefer?  Do we need recently divorced people to fall in love to have companionship?  Do we need to deny people the pleasure of spending time with the person they most enjoy because they do not fit into an arbitrary relationship pigeonhole?  No.

Favorite is also easy to modify!  My friends whose favorites were friends will likely eventually fall in love.  Their friends may no longer be their Favorite, but will likely remain a Favorite friend (best friend).  People who deal with long distance relationships could have a local Favorite (which may or may not be romantic), and their favorite Favorite.  Favorite is so easy, so straightforward, and so elegant.  It can be modified, or not, as the user sees fit.  It conveys all the information that others need, and probing for more information is really just being nosy.  Nosy is of course fine, because people's lives are interesting.  However, sometimes it is best to take the polite approach, letting people live their private lives with their Favorite, whatever that means to them.

Whatever that means to them is the key to it all.  Friend, SO, partner, fiance, and spouse all have external meanings.  They all have meanings that others apply to the relationship.  Favorite, on the other had, has only what has been defined by the people in the relationship.  I would be unlikely to call one of my friends my Favorite.  That said, I definitely have had best friends, and have had friends that were, for periods of time, my Favorite.  Favorite is not meant to displace SO.  SO, partner, spouse and all other relationship terminology should be used correctly.  Failing to use them is lazy on the part of the speaker, and thus confusing for the listener.  Favorite is simply the easiest way for me to communicate with the world what my relationship status is.  I do not need to share messy details with anyone (everyone).  I do not need to describe the nature of my relationship with coworkers.  I do not need to do any of these things.  Why?  Because, I do not necessarily know the answers to their questions.  I know one thing.

I have a Favorite.