Sexualization of inert terminology
music: Ravel's Bolero
I resent how the word partner is being used to describe couples instead of the more accurate, and relevant, term 'lovers'. To me, and dictionaries for centuries, partner is a business term for a certain kind of business organization, and it sickens me that it has been appropriated for use as a description of sexual coupling. I realize that English shifts, but still I have a right to be sickened when nincompoops and morons of all kinds mess with the language in such a way that it is degraded. The sexualization of the word partner is such a degradation, and I don't care how many newspapers think it's cute, for I consider it to be an abomination. All you people should be ashamed of yourselves for giving a warm word
such as lovers the heave-ho, and replacing it with a cold, impersonal term such as partners.
Maybe there's other ways to desribe couplings, given that partner is so wrong. If I find that some man sweeps me off my feet and makes me all his own, partner is just so weak to describe something that is as strong as love. Maybe lovers is the only way to describe it, but for some reason people were stupid. I wish I could get paid for being so damn dumb, but I lack the connections and I'm not that dumb, even if I just got smacked in the head with a 2-by-4. In fact, my intellect revolts at the very thought of coming up with a weak term to describe the strongest of all human bonds. That's like calling Mom and Dad parental units. It's the kind of slippery slope that I refuse to slide down. I swear that when I turn queer and catch some man, I would rather go into the newsroom at the New York Times and kill every single living soul than allow them to call me and my stud partners.
To me, that would be a fate worse than death.
tommygun on 04.08.06 @ 05:01 PM CST [link] [No Comments]