I\u2019m not a quite a language prescriptivist, but I share with my conservative friends a certain propensity to get short-tempered with radical redefinitions (a word to the wise: once you hear the phrase \u201cWords have meaning!<\/em>\u201d escape my lips, you have about 30 seconds to detonation).<\/p>\n So perhaps the couples in the articles below should consider themselves on notice.<\/p>\n \u2018Sugarbabe\u2019 favors negotiated infidelity<\/a> (CNN)<\/p>\n Hill says she believes negotiating their infidelity has been instrumental in keeping their relationship strong and committed, not to mention electric.<\/p>\n \u201c[Dean] can have sex with the Australian women\u2019s basketball team for all I care, but he can\u2019t spoon any of them,\u201d says Hill. \u201cFor me, spooning is cheating.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The secret of a happy marriage? Live next door to your husband<\/a> (Daily Mail<\/em>)<\/p>\n To be honest, I think we\u2019ve hit on an arrangement that most women secretly wish for, sick of the squabbling over the washing-up or their husband\u2019s shavings in the sink. Having separate houses puts paid to all that, but it also means that when we\u2019re together it\u2019s because we like each other\u2019s company, not out of habit or because we\u2019re forced to exist under the same roof. We appreciate and respect each other a lot more.<\/p>\n Our once-traditional marriage has evolved into a very modern relationship where we are effectively married singletons, but remain wholly committed to each other. Although I love my husband and he makes a great next-door neighbour, there\u2019s no way I want to live with him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why Divorce? Just Stay Separated<\/a> (NYT<\/em>)<\/p>\n \u201cMany people I\u2019ve worked with over time enjoy the benefits of being married: the financial perks, the tax breaks, the health care coverage,\u201d said Toni Coleman, a couples therapist in McLean, Va. \u201cThey maintain a friendship, they co-parent their kids, they may do things socially together. Sometimes they\u2019re part of a political couple in Washington or have prominent corporate positions. But they just feel they can\u2019t live together.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The only reason I\u2019m disposed to have sympathy for these folks is because, as the last quote suggests, marriage has been muddled up into a question of contract law. I don\u2019t see any reason why the state should get to have any say in who has a right to visit me in the hospital. I\u2019d much prefer a system in which I simply keep a file on record (or implanted in my arm<\/a>) that specifies my preferences. Most of the benefits of marriage can and ought to be reduced to contracts, only some of which have any relevance to a compelling state interest.<\/p>\n My desire to define the above groups out of marriage isn\u2019t because I am certain that they are harmful (I think it\u2019s possible, if difficult, to have positive long-term polyamorous relationships) but because I think to include them under the heading of marriage stretches the word beyond a sensible definition. \u00a0I\u2019d argue we\u2019ve already lost the concept of \u2018dating\u2019 entirely as the definition has broadened to include most of the activities of the hookup culture.<\/p>\n There\u2019s little the law can do (and even less that I\u2019d want it to do) about this classification problem, so I\u2019m left with mustering what shaming ability I have and decrying the trend on the internet and in casual conversation. \u00a0Does anyone have better ideas about how to fight semantic drift? \u00a0Do you see this trend as problematic in the first place?<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/4256452356987023523-1717515909070930846?l=www.unequally-yoked.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"