Our Language Not Marriage-Centric

[LinkH]

I remember coming back from spending many years overseas, and some things had changed. I didn't know who the hottest musical artists were, not that it matters that much.

People kept saying, "I don't want to be THAT guy." I wondered if this was a reference to a movie or TV show that I wasn't familiar with.

But I also noticed unmarried people would say they were not 'single' if they were dating. For a long time, young people have called ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends their 'ex'.

The 'single' thing is still hard for me to get used to. If you aren't married, you are single. That's the way I see it. But if you live in a society where a lot of people live together and don't get married, have kids, and die without ever getting married, then I can see why they could say they are not 'single' even though they aren't married. I can also see why men who don't fear God would just 'shack up' instead of marrying, to save on the costs of divorce. If someone changes love interests like they change their underwear, I can see why they don't get married.

In the '80's, some churches had 'singles groups' but I heard someone not too long ago saying, though he wasn't married, he didn't know if he should go to a singles' meeting since he was dating someone. The language has changed. Calling a group at church 'Singles' also might overly emphasize the idea that the group is about matching people up to marry them in the minds of Generation Y people for whom 'single' means you aren't seeing someone.

 

[Lethe]

But I also noticed unmarried people would say they were not 'single' if they were dating.

All I hear when someone says they are not single is that they are not interested in seeing someone else.

While it is interesting to think about former uses, it's not particularly useful to me to dwell on a definition that is no longer in common use, since it is the shared definitions in a language that allow us to communicate. Historically interesting, functionally useless, is where I'm going with this.

What's the problem exactly? I can't quite make it out in your post.

 

[seeingeyes]

'Single' means something like 'available to meet someone new'. So when an unmarried person is dating someone and stops referring to themselves as 'single', you are actually seeing a bit of commitment. (Sometimes just a wee bit of commitment, e.g. "I won't date anyone else but you this week." )

I haven't really considered the change in use of this word. I think it's been the same since I was a kid (in the 90's). It seems clear to me that the internet could have fostered such a change, though. If you are female, unmarried, dating someone that you like, and online, then you really need a descriptor other than 'single' or 'married' to keep the hoards off your back a bit. It's a practical matter.

 

[Avniel]

I think a lot of single people that are in "love"(I say that because I think there needs to be commitment for love) feel as though their relationship is as important as married couple's and they attempt to validate this by saying that their status is not single. I think it has to do with the nature of human beings.

 

[Hetta]

My kids who are dating would not say they were "single" because they are involved with another person, and therefore unavailable for dating other people. That is what the word means now and I don't think it really matters, and I don't think it relates to whether people live together or get married. My eldest kid who is dating considers himself not to be single, and they will be getting married.

I also think it's really funny when people refer to men not wanting to get married -- in my experience, it's women who don't want to get married, because they don't have to any longer. Many women want a career, and they want freedom to be able to pursue that career, without the ties of husbands and children. As has been shown here on the forum (CF, not just married couples) and from what I have experienced in the wider world, many men don't like the idea of having a gf or wife who is devoted to her career, and on whose behalf they may need to move to another city or town. So, those women have learned to not even bother getting tied down.

I would like to see some stats - some objective evidence - on 'men not getting married because they are afraid of divorce'. In this culture, where both husbands and wives work, alimony is not what it was. In most cases, where both partners work, there is a 'clean break'. Yes, there may be child support payments to the parent who has primary custody of the children, but spousal payments to a working spouse? Not that I have seen.

Anyway, I don't believe that language shapes culture (if that is the argument), but rather than other way around. There's nothing wrong with a young man or woman saying that they are not single if they are dating. I think it's quite an honorable thing to 'take yourself off the market'.

 

[Hetta]

I think a lot of single people that are in "love"(I say that because I think there needs to be commitment for love) feel as though their relationship is as important as married couple's and they attempt to validate this by saying that their status is not single. I think it has to do with the nature of human beings.

I agree with this.

 

[ValleyGal]

I think in any language and in any time, there have always been words to describe being with someone without being married. Back in the 80's we were "going out" with someone. Today I think people say "dating" which could refer to a specific exclusive relationship or dating many to find one for exclusive relationship. There are words like engaged, living together, shacked up, in a relationship, with someone, etc.

Words also have changed meaning over time. Remember when "gay" used to mean "happy and joyful"? This happens in every culture. And this leads to part of the translation issue with different Bible versions and language. Even if a word meant something in Hebrew 3000 years BC, did it actually mean the same thing in 500 BC? Not likely. Then you lose a lot in translating from the original languages to English. English is a difficult language because one word is used to describe many things and it lacks the nuances of more thorough languages like Greek. Translating those nuances would take numerous volumes and rabbit trails to discuss in English.

So language changes...being married now could mean a lot of different things, but 40 years ago, it meant the legal union between one man and one woman, and you were either married, engaged, dating/going out, or single.

 

[Tainted Scrolls]

There is "single" and being "commited" to someone else regardless of if I am married to them or not.

The way that others choose to label them self should not be of any concern to you. I don't have to be married to know that I want to spend the rest of my life with someone.

 

[LinkH]

All I hear when someone says they are not single is that they are not interested in seeing someone else.

While it is interesting to think about former uses, it's not particularly useful to me to dwell on a definition that is no longer in common use, since it is the shared definitions in a language that allow us to communicate. Historically interesting, functionally useless, is where I'm going with this.

What's the problem exactly? I can't quite make it out in your post.

Maybe it's not useful to you, but for me 'single' means not married. That's what it says on the box on the 1040 still. I was wondering if other generation X or baby boomers on here felt the same way. "Those young people are using it wrong."

Churches need to be careful not to use the term 'single's ministry' and Gen X or baby boomer church leaders need to be careful not to use the term to describe ministries for people who aren't married unless they are trying to match people up who aren't dating.

What I was getting at, though, is I think the word shifted in meaning partly because so many people get in long-term-relationships without getting married. And this has been by the trend of society being accepting to fornication and 'shacking up.'

 

[LinkH]

I also think it's really funny when people refer to men not wanting to get married -- in my experience, it's women who don't want to get married, because they don't have to any longer. Many women want a career, and they want freedom to be able to pursue that career, without the ties of husbands and children. As has been shown here on the forum (CF, not just married couples) and from what I have experienced in the wider world, many men don't like the idea of having a gf or wife who is devoted to her career, and on whose behalf they may need to move to another city or town. So, those women have learned to not even bother getting tied down.

That seems to be true, too. It seems like a lot of women put off getting married for the sake of career and personal freedom, and then change gears and want to get married later on when the biological clock starts ticking louder and they are past their prime years for attracting a husband.

I would like to see some stats - some objective evidence - on 'men not getting married because they are afraid of divorce'. In this culture, where both husbands and wives work, alimony is not what it was. In most cases, where both partners work, there is a 'clean break'. Yes, there may be child support payments to the parent who has primary custody of the children, but spousal payments to a working spouse? Not that I have seen.

I don't know the stats. It could be that I get that impression partly from hearing (or reading posts from occasional) bitter divorced men who say divorce is not worth it.

Alimony is not what it was, but splitting joint assets 50-50 with someone is a pretty big deal. Women tend to get the kids, and child support payments can be crippling. There are divorced men who go back to live with their parents. There was an article several years ago about divorced European men sleeping in their cars. There are also many women who end up living under the poverty level after a divorce. I hear that neither party usually comes out better from a financial perspective. That makes sense when you consider the former family's housing expenses just doubled.

Anyway, I don't believe that language shapes culture (if that is the argument), but rather than other way around. There's nothing wrong with a young man or woman saying that they are not single if they are dating. I think it's quite an honorable thing to 'take yourself off the market'.

I wasn't going for a Whorf hypothesis argument. I think it's culture shaping language, though it could work the other way, too. I do think there is far too little emphasis on marriage and far too much fornication, and so the emphasis is on 'the relationship' instead of marriage. My guess is that is partly why 'single' changed in meaning. Folks in Long Term Relationship who never married didn't feel right calling themselves single. That's not to say anything bad about people using the more modern use of the term. It's what the word means to Gen Y.

 

[seeingeyes]

I wasn't going for a Whorf hypothesis argument. I think it's culture shaping language, though it could work the other way, too. I do think there is far too little emphasis on marriage and far too much fornication, and so the emphasis is on 'the relationship' instead of marriage. My guess is that is partly why 'single' changed in meaning. Folks in Long Term Relationship who never married didn't feel right calling themselves single. That's not to say anything bad about people using the more modern use of the term. It's what the word means to Gen Y.

Gen X and Baby Boomers, too. I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe themselves as 'single' when they were in even a minimally committed relationship (fornicating or not).

 

[mkgal1]

I think in any language and in any time, there have always been words to describe being with someone without being married. Back in the 80's we were "going out" with someone. Today I think people say "dating" which could refer to a specific exclusive relationship or dating many to find one for exclusive relationship. There are words like engaged, living together, shacked up, in a relationship, with someone, etc.

Words also have changed meaning over time. Remember when "gay" used to mean "happy and joyful"? This happens in every culture. And this leads to part of the translation issue with different Bible versions and language. Even if a word meant something in Hebrew 3000 years BC, did it actually mean the same thing in 500 BC? Not likely. Then you lose a lot in translating from the original languages to English. English is a difficult language because one word is used to describe many things and it lacks the nuances of more thorough languages like Greek. Translating those nuances would take numerous volumes and rabbit trails to discuss in English.

So language changes...being married now could mean a lot of different things, but 40 years ago, it meant the legal union between one man and one woman, and you were either married, engaged, dating/going out, or single.

Exactly.....and, like so many other things----context matters (and the audience). My DD and her peers use "I'm talking to someone" to mean the stage before actually being in a committed relationship (the "getting to know you" stage). If that's said in any other context.......it may not be understood in the same way.

 

[LinkH]

Gen X and Baby Boomers, too. I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe themselves as 'single' when they were in even a minimally committed relationship (fornicating or not).

For real? I spent part of the 90's and the half of the decade that followed overseas. I don't think I'd ever heard of 'single' used except to describe people who weren't married. I'd never heard of people dating and then saying they weren't single. Maybe it's a regional thing rather than a change in the language.

 

[mkgal1]

Maybe it's not useful to you, but for me 'single' means not married. That's what it says on the box on the 1040 still. I was wondering if other generation X or baby boomers on here felt the same way. "Those young people are using it wrong."

Churches need to be careful not to use the term 'single's ministry' and Gen X or baby boomer church leaders need to be careful not to use the term to describe ministries for people who aren't married unless they are trying to match people up who aren't dating.

What I was getting at, though, is I think the word shifted in meaning partly because so many people get in long-term-relationships without getting married. And this has been by the trend of society being accepting to fornication and 'shacking up.'

No.....I don't generally ever think "those people are using it [a term] wrong". Like I posted earlier.....different audiences......different context.....mean different things (and different terms are used).

If there's a problem deciding exactly what people mean, it seems to me the question that's more direct would be, "are you married?".

 

[LinkH]

Exactly.....and, like so many other things----context matters (and the audience). My DD and her peers use "I'm talking to someone" to mean the stage before actually being in a committed relationship (the "getting to know you" stage). If that's said in any other context.......it may not be understood in the same way.

I used to live in a southern town where interracial relationships at the time were a bit unusual. One of my cousins who grew up there was riding on the bus. She was white. A fellow female student on the bus was black. The local black slang was that 'talk to someone' meant date with them. So this girl asked my cousin, "Do you talk to black boys." She said, "I talk to just about anybody." They thought that was strange, that she would 'talk to' anybody.

I was used to 'he be fine' and 'she be fine' as slang already, but I was riding that but route to school and overheard a couple of middle school girls talking on the bus one time. She said something like, "Do you know that red headed boy with freckles, kind of bow legged.... he be fine."

 

[mkgal1]

Gen X and Baby Boomers, too. I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe themselves as 'single' when they were in even a minimally committed relationship (fornicating or not).

The only time, that I can think of is at weddings when they ask for all the single young ladies/young men to come forward to catch the bouquet and garter. Then......everyone knows why they are being asked.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

There are many stages for me in wording things about a relationship.
1. I am single. (available to date)
2. I am dating. (dating but in the future I could date you if things don't work out)
3. I am engaged. (I am taken and will never be available again)
4. I am married. (same as above)

I don't know the stats. It could be that I get that impression partly from hearing (or reading posts from occasional) bitter divorced men who say divorce is not worth it.

Alimony is not what it was, but splitting joint assets 50-50 with someone is a pretty big deal. Women tend to get the kids, and child support payments can be crippling. There are divorced men who go back to live with their parents. There was an article several years ago about divorced European men sleeping in their cars. There are also many women who end up living under the poverty level after a divorce. I hear that neither party usually comes out better from a financial perspective. That makes sense when you consider the former family's housing expenses just doubled.

Alot of men I know either refuse to marry someone, won't do so without a prenup or overall fear marriage (even when married) because they see women pretty much always get everything and anything in a divorce. THe man is always the bad guy, even when proof shows hes not.

I didn't 100% believe that until my parents friend (who is mine also), who is in his mid50s got divorced (well literally a few days ago). His wife whos been proven to be unstable and overall HORRIBLE to people has managed to get everything from him. Hes never hit her, never swore at her... hes been super patient and loved her even when she was mad at him.

Hes so disgusted by the divorce because even though hes innocent, she has pretty much taken his life and then some. His wife was even allowed to stay in HIS house, the house thats only in HIS name. He was forced to move out despite this. The judge even whats his guns taken away because she says he will kill her. Despite the fact yet again hes not a violent person.

He owns guns because not only was he in the military, but he worked on the team that developed the stealth f-117 project, and finally worked for the FBI. He has 0 records of ever being a bad person and yet hes being looked at as the devil. Oh his wife is also mentally unstable, but the judge doens't care. Granted this could be a case of a angry judge who doesn't care. Or he has a bad lawyer. Whatever the case divorce is always one sided it seems.

 

[Hetta]

That's why I asked for statistics. I could sit here and enumerate the number of women I know who have been abused/cheated upon/left by husbands for younger women. But those are single cases and don't prove anything.

As always, nobody knows the reality of what goes on behind the curtains. Just because someone says he or she didn't do this or that, doesn't mean it is the truth.

I could quote a friend of mine, she was married for 20 years, and they had children. Her husband gambled away all of their joint savings behind her back, some of it at casinos, some of it with women. She did not find out until the accountant told her during a business audit. Her husband then turned the children against her by telling them lies that she was cheating (she was not, he had been the one with other women), and he made the home so horrible to her that she had no choice but to leave and go and find her own place, and find a job because the business was no more, because they were bankrupt and now owed the IRS money too. She found the cheapest kind of housing, and started working, 6 days a week. The husband stayed in the house with the children (all teens) and when she finally got an order to sell the house, he damaged as much of it as he possibly could, so that this beautiful house was worth very, very little. Nonetheless, she prevailed. Over time, her children began to visit her, and her by-now ex could not stop this, and she prospered in wealth as well as well-being, and was fortunate to meet another man to whom she is now married. Her ex husband died last year, very unexpectedly, but his health had been poor since he decided to spurn his wife. I am not gloating that the ex husband died so young, but I did see that he paid for his evil behavior towards her. She is reconciled to her adult children, praise God, and lives a contented life in comparison to the one she lived with this man.

Not all men are like this, but obviously some are, just as some women do wrong things that drive their husbands away. If we are all sinful, then it makes no sense to say that women are worse than men, or men are worse than women.

 

[Hetta]

Oh the "talking" thing - my 16yo son does that. He talks about "talking to" girls, and I had no idea what that meant. I would think he meant he was just .. talking .. but then I found out that this is the prelude to dating. He has just started dating the girl he has been "talking to" all summer.

 

[Hetta]

The Sapir-Whorf "hypothesis" was discredited a long time ago, btw, so I wasn't "going there."