I hate the terms boyfriend and girlfriend

Modernity is plagued by use of the vague, disagreeable terms, boyfriend and girlfriend, which have now become the colloquial categorization for any human relationship that is considered committed yet not married. Sub-categorizations exist among the youth and in pop culture, such as even more diminutive terms like situationship, or the concept of a "friend with benefits." Each of these terms is looser and more unsubstantial than the last. They provide the interpreter of the language with very little to go off of. Even the terms, boyfriend and girlfriend, which are arguably the most solid of the categorizations, do not offer the listener any idea of how committed the relationship being described might be. As it originates as a colloquialism, the definition is invented by the user each time the term is used.

As language is created by culture, so is culture influenced by language. The rise in these loose descriptors partnered with examples of these relationships playing out in real life leaves an impression upon the youth raised in this culture, surrounded by this language, that human partnership is vague, loose, and that strong commitment between two partners is secondary, or flat out unnecessary. The terms, boyfriend and girlfriend, are a reduction of human partnership. 

In contrast, the terms, husband and wife, are solid and easily defined. There is an expectation of unwavering commitment and active participation within the relationship--- at least historically. It is no wonder that a society so enmeshed in these loose, vague terms and relationships is so hostile towards the concept of marriage.

The advent of no-fault divorce has created in the populace a sense that a relationship is something fallible, and subject to the ebbs and flows of human flappability. If a man or woman deems that they have "fallen out of love" with their partner, they no longer must hold themselves to the vows they have spoken on their wedding day. 

This has further divided man from his partners. If marriage is something as fickle as the growing seasons of certain tenuous crops, why should he hold himself to good standard for his partner? Why should he provide his partner with unyielding commitment, protection, and nurturing? Giving up oneself to his partner now comes with an element of risk beyond illness and death. At any point in your relationship with your wife or husband, he or she could reject you under the guise that they simply do not wish to be with you anymore. 

It is evident that there is a mutual feeling of distrust and fear between potential young couples that principally governs their relationships. As man in a stateless society exists in a war of all against all, so too does the young male or female who is offered no true security even in marriage. It is, then, not shocking that we have seen the age of marriage steadily climb since the 1960s.

Young men and women become increasingly more distrustful of each other, and simultaneously more and more picky when it comes to picking a permanent partner. This does not seem, to the same extent, apply to hook-ups and "situationships." These short-term partners are typically partners deemed unworthy of permanent partnership, but fit for lust-driven, attraction-based matchmaking. They meet enough of the individual's (primarily physical) criteria to be suitable for sex or casual hookups, but not enough to be considered for long-term partnership or marriage.

We live in a society that is increasingly concerned, not with the needs of the society, but with their own needs as an individual. If young men and women view themselves as set apart from their communities, their society, is their behavior truly unprecedented? 

For most of human history, an individual's spouse would be someone who existed within the same culture as them, lived in the same town or principality, and shared the same religion, basic values and virtues. It was not outstandingly difficult to build a life with someone who was primarily homogenous to you and held the same set of goals to build a family and maintain a legacy for future generations. 

Modern day young people do not differ hugely on this front. They seek a partner that they deem compatible to them, one who holds the same values and mindset as them. However, globalization and digitalization have corrupted the mind by tricking it into believing that the pool of people from which you are to pick a spouse is virtually infinite.

The mindset has now become, if I can meet every single person of my mindset and ideals, why should I settle for one who is imperfect? If I can imagine an idealized person, certainly they must exist in the abundance of people that exist in the world.

Overabundance creates indifference. As with the overabundance of food, knowledge, information, and simple comforts, man becomes indifferent to them, so too does he become indifferent to people.

This is a corruption of the human spirit, and further, a corruption of man's ability to form true partnership with his fellow man. 

God created man so that he was two halves, intended to be made whole through the unity of marriage. God gave man the ability to literally merge flesh and through His divine design, create children who are, in the flesh, manifestations of this unity.

Casualty diminishes this beautiful gift that God has given us. Love was not designed to be a casual thing. Eve was not pulled out of the bones of Adam so that she may be simply a female friend for him to consult with or engage with in sex. They were created as one, and became two, who were meant to again return to oneness.

Casual dating and casual sex are a direct desecration of what God has intended for us. 

We are tasked with finding a partner whom we are to create a life with and fully give our souls to. 

I wish that all may find a partner who is compatible to them and truly does feel like an extension of their souls, but if we are constantly in search to find one that we deem "perfect," it is very unlikely that we find anything meaningful at all.

I strayed far from the original argument, but in essence, I believe the terms, boyfriend and girlfriend, reduce partnership to something akin to friendship. It is nothing like friendship. Partnership and therefore marriage are a commitment between two people before God that they should be their guardian angel on earth, that they must give all that they have to them, and we have reduced courtship to little more than "harmless" flirting, romance, and cohabitation. It is a distortion of the beauty of what human partnership truly is at its core.

I wrote this as I am vexed at the fact that I am constantly having to refer the one I love as "my boyfriend." It imparts upon the listener a sense of casualty that is not reflective of our actual relationship. He is the one that I intend to marry and there is no sense of doubt in my mind. If we were not separated by thousands of miles of open ocean and international borders, I doubt to think that we would remain unmarried for very long.

I am interested in hearing comments or others' opinions. I feel as though there were many more aspects I could have expanded upon, but I am satisfied for now.