Glossary of Relationship Terms

Marriage, Love Relationships

& Polykoity

By

Norman Elliott Anderson

Former title (until June 27, 2003):

Marriage, Love Relationships & Polykoity: A Glossary of Terms

Alternative titles:

The Vocabulary of Love and Relationships

Love's Vocabulary

The Language of Love

INTRODUCTION

"Chaque sentiment a son language qui lui convient."

("Every sentiment has the language proper to it.")¹

"The spirit of music arises from primeval speech, by means of which males and females are attracted to each other."²

This is a glossary of terms for or related to marriage, love relationships, and multiple sexual partnerships over the course of a lifetime. At the core of the subject matter are traditional marriage and alternatives to it. The point is to bring together in one alphabetical list anthropological, ethical, historical, legal, psychological, and religious terms, as well as terms generated by various social movements and, for that matter, terms from almost any source so long as they are related to the subject and are susceptible to general use. Special attention, sometimes even exegetical attention, is given to biblical terms, because of their enormous influence around the world. Generally definitions given are not prescriptive. Rather they are descriptive of how terms are actually used.

For terms that fall outside of the scope of this glossary (although there will be some spill in), see the following chart.

Categories of Terms That Fall Outside the Scope of This Glossary
Categories	Examples of Omissions
Kinship terms, except for broad terms, terms related to affinity, and general family terms	For a list of examples, see under "kinship"
Terms having to do with the details of wedding celebrations, except for those that are directly related to the joining of partners	See under "wedding"
Terms of peerage or station in life, even if they indicate spousehood	See under "consort"
Terms related to pregnancy	"Dystocia," "eutocia," "knock up," "oikonisus," "nepiomania," "opsimatria," "opsipatria," "parturition," "philoprogeneity"
Terms related to offspring	See under "interracial marriage," "mulier," and "out of wedlock"
Terms having to do with prostitution or other aspects of the sex industry	"Floozy," "hooker," "hustler," "john," "pornerastic," "scortator," "sex tour," "strumpet," "trull," "whore," "woman of ill-repute"
Terms having chiefly to do with the physical aspects of sexual practices, even of group sex, although other terms related to group sex are included	See under "group sex"
Terms having chiefly to do with BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, masochism), except for general relationship terms	See under "Dominant/submissive relationship"
Terms having to do with the watching or awareness of sexual activity, except insofar as partnership is involved	See under "mixoscopia"
Terms having to do with sexual orientation, except for a handful of the most basic terms and terms having to do with relationships	"Berdache," "butch," "femme," "gunsel," "prushun," "sathon," "winktes"
Terms having to do with gender-identity/role, except as specifically relational	"Transgender," "transsexual," "transvestite"
Terms for emotions, except as specifically relational	"Anger," "apétie" (the latter, De Sade's "indifference," is borderline)
Terms for paraphilias and pathologies, except for those pyschological conditions that have to do with partners	"Electra complex," "narratophilia," "normophilia," "Oedipus complex," "sexual abuse"
Names of specific groups; although such groups are responsible for some of the terminology and may be mentioned here and there	See under "libertinism"
Specific aphrodisiacs and love potions	"Pomme d'amour"
Terms developed for highly particularized systems, except as those terms lend themselves to outside use	Terms used in the system of Charles Fourier (1772-1837), which was presented in Le Nouveau monde amoureux (1967); also Klingon terms used in Star Trek, such as bang (love or one who is loved), be'nal (wife), loDnal (husband), nay (marry, wife as subject), Saw (marry, husband as subject), tlhogh (marriage)

The point is to fill a niche. Glossaries for terms related to kinship, weddings, sexual anatomy, sexual practices, and psychological disorders abound. However, love relationships have received comparatively scant attention, even in textbook glossaries on human sexuality; and many relationship terms, including some that are decades or centuries old, have never been incorporated into any of the major dictionaries.

Frankly I am puzzled by this neglect, since relationships are so fundamental to human life. I wonder:

• Could the neglect be due to a simple blindness to the fundamentals of life as terms from more esoteric fields are pursued?
• Could it be due to a lexicographical bias towards materiality rather than relationality?
• Could it be due to a distaste for the sources where many of the terms are to be found?
• Could it be due to a fear of the effects of offending conventional sensibilities?
• Could it be due to a fear of perpetuating views of the world that some find unsavory or even of precipitating social change, a fear that presenting a full panoply of relationship terms brings into awareness options that people might actually opt for?³
• Could it be because a focus on the study of sexuality is, even today, a career-buster for many scholars?

Many of the terms found herein do represent relationships that are anathema to many. No attempt is made to censor such terms, although slight censoring has been done so that this document is not automatically excluded by filters on the basis of the f*** word.

In my view, it is important to have a full panoply of relationship terms at one's disposal, at the very least for the sake of serious discussion -- whether sociological, ethical, or otherwise -- and for the sake of precision and understanding. Furthermore, helping professionals, such as counselors, psychiatrists, and pastors, can hardly afford to be clueless when it comes to understanding the language and the attitudes embodied in the language of those they serve; and they need a means to be clued in. For such purposes the vocabulary of marriage and relationships is inseparable from the vocabulary of polykoity and nonconventionality. I have certainly been struck by the extent to which the lack of an adequate vocabulary has stunted serious discussion in my own field of ethics. It's simply not okay to be clueless in ethics, and I see this glossary as a necessary precursor to an adequate dictionary of sexual ethics.

Generally the wording of definitions is mine, however occasionally wording in brief form is borrowed from or is heavily influenced by sources that I have consulted.⁴ By the way, I haven't hesitated to cannibalize a number of my own unpublished writings, including, for instance, my Glossary of the Inner Life.

Using my own wording has benefits and dangers. Among the benefits: I am able to provide context, nuances, and connotations. Among the dangers: I may overlook and even distort them. Avoidance of the latter is the primary reason for borrowing the wording of another, in those instances where such borrowing has occurred.

Speaking of distortion, it should be pointed out that sometimes attempting to fix a lexical definition within certain boundaries of meaning violates a sense of freedom that some insist upon in the application of words;⁵ and this is especially true with regard to relationship terms and the closely related set of terms having to do with sexual self-identity. Thus, with regard to the term "switch" ("bi poly switch" and "mono/poly switch" appear in this glossary), a person may consider it his or her right to decide what that term means to him or her, especially if the term is adopted as a descriptor for self-identity. Similarly with terms like "bisexual," "in love," and "polyamorous." (By the way, the term for a word used to mean whatever the speaker chooses it to mean is "Humpty Dumpty word,"⁶ and the term for a counter-definition is "anthorism.") This philosophy of subjectivity in the use of such terms poses a challenge for the lexicographer and sounds a cautionary note all around when it comes to interpreting the meaning of another or trying to sound authoritative with regard to the exact meaning of words.

Furthermore, some terms evoke paradigms that to some people seem illusory, artificial, or wrongheaded. A case in point would be the set of terms that indicate relative closeness of lovers -- "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary." "How can lovers be ranked?" some say. "How can the heart be so categorized?" Just because a term appears here does not mean that the paradigm which gave rise to the term is universally accepted or above criticism. Quite the contrary, in many cases.

Much the same is true with regard to meanings. A case in point, this one affecting terms like "love" and "lover": Some make sharp distinctions between sex and love, love and friendship, and lover and friend, while others blur the lines. Different paradigms often mean a recasting of sense, sometimes in subtle nuanced ways, sometimes in categorical ways; and someone operating out of one paradigm may react intensely to a meaning that emerges from another paradigm.

I have sought to avoid exclusionary biases in the writing of definitions, for example, dimorphic dyadic heterosexual statist moralistic biases. That avoidance has caused many definitions to take on a "stepped back" cast. However, it must also be said that much of our terminology was born out of a culture -- or, actually, a multiplicity of cultures -- with heavy biases and so cannot be divested of those biases when one is trying to reflect accurately how terms are used. Furthermore, it would defeat the purpose of this glossary to use, in definitions, words that are not widely or easily accepted, such as epicene third person singular pronouns.⁷ Thus I have used "he or she"/"him or her" rather than, for instance, "zir"/"zie" or even the singular "they"/"them" (what some call the "adolescent they").⁸ However, it is important to understand that "he or she" is meant to be inclusive of everybody and is not meant to reinforce a dimorphic (that is, a binary or two-sexes-only) bias. By the way, except in those rare instances where I weigh in, readers should beware of inferring too much about my particular biases and positions from the way that definitions are written; for I am deft at playing devil's advocate.

Although I have not made a systematic practice of doing so, occasionally I comment on controversies surrounding words, especially words that are considered classist, racist, or sexist by some people. From time to time this has led me to be prescriptive, which is uncomfortable for me, since I am keenly aware of how inventive people can be in their use of words and therefore how silly it often is to make blanket statements about word usage. Furthermore, I am keenly aware of how off the mark other glossators have sometimes been with regard to controversial words, for instance, by arguing that a word applicable to women should be abandoned because it has no parallel for men, when in fact it does. Nevertheless, such comments as I have made may help sensitize some to the issues.⁹

When I have coined a term for this glossary, such as "koitogamy," I indicate that fact with a coinage note.¹⁰ The truth is that I see a crying need for many more terms than are found in English and for greater regularization of terms that already exist. However, for the most part, the terms given here are terms used elsewhere and with definitions that reflect usage by others.

The results are sometimes anomalous. Why, for instance, should there be the sort of distinction reflected between "multimate relationship" and "multipartner relationship"? And why are "triad" and "triangle" interchangeable, when they could function to distinguish two different types of relationships?

For the time being, at least, the goal is more to cover a wide range of concepts (while keeping the distinction between term and concept firmly in mind) than to cover every term for one concept. Filling in a niche where somebody might feel a need for a term is especially satisfying for the author and will, I hope, be satisfying for the reader.

Little attempt is made to give the etymology of a word or its full range of inflections, apart from the most common and exceptional forms. Nor is any attempt made to provide systematic coverage of foreign terms, although some foreign terms that have been either more or less adopted into or on the fringes of American English or that bear a sense for which there is no word in English have been provided, including, for instance, Akkadian, Algonquian, Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Greek, Hawaiian, Hebrew, Hindi, Italian, Inuit, Japanese, Latin, Old English, Portuguese, Spanish, Tahitian, Yiddish, and Yupik terms. Unfortunately some characters and diacritics used in linguistics could not be replicated here, and this problem affects especially Eskimoan, Greek, and Semitic terms. On occasion quotations have been provided showing the words used in context, the preferred contexts often being the crucibles in which the words were coined. However, this is just a glossary, without all the apparatus of a lexicon.

One of the useful features of this glossary is the lavish use of cross-references, which, taken together, form a chain of word clusters. Here are a few comments on references:

• Users should be aware that "see also" references may but do not usually indicate synonyms. They often indicate other words that have both some commonality and some distinction of sense.
• Where a careful distinction is in order or where a direct opposite is ofttimes paired with the word being defined, a "contrast" note is sometimes used.
• The abbreviation "q.v." (Latin quod vide = which see) is frequently used as a cross-reference within an entry to another entry.
• An "x" indicates a one-way reference from something else. ("Bible," "Koran," and "Shakespeare" are the only "see" references for which "x" references are not systematically provided under the entries to which those "see" references refer.)
• Sometimes one entry is used to bring together a wide array of "see also" references. See, for instance, "-gamy," "kiddushim," "marriage," and "partner."
• On occasion a list of related words not included in the glossary is provided, for those who might wish to pursue a research trajectory.

My intent is to keep growing this glossary by the addition of terms. I already have a lengthy and growing list of terms to consider adding. I also intend to continue refining the definitions and to provide more examples of usage. Suggestions are welcome.

If additional terms or definitions are suggested, it would be most helpful for sources to be cited (with page numbers or urls), the earlier the sources the better, and for quotations illustrating usage to be provided (again with precise citations if appropriate). Useful protologisms and neologisms, especially collective terms like "bundle of freemates," are welcome if accompanied by the name of the person who has coined them. Please send suggestions or any feedback you may have to my e-mail address.

Notes
1 The manipulative and machiavellian but, in outlook, starkly realistic character, the Marquise de Merteuil, in the novel: Les Liaisons dangereuses, [par] Pierre Choderlos de Laclos; chronologie et préface par René Pomeau (Paris: Flammarion, c1981; in publisher's series: GF; 13): lettre 121, pp. 275-276, specifically p. 275. Originally published in Paris, 1782. For the English translation, see: Les Liaisons dangereuses, [by] Choderlos de Laclos; translated and with an introduction by P. W. K. Stone (Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, 1961; in: The Penguin Classics; L116): letter 121, pp. 287-289, specifically p. 287. In both the French and the English, the quotation is embedded in a larger sentence.
2 The Martyrdom of Man, by Winwood Reade; with an introduction by J. M. Robertson (London: Jonathan Cape, 1927; in: The Travellers' Library): p. 355. Originally published, 1872.
3 Perpetuation, it is theorized, is one effect of polyonomy. To quote from The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, [by] Arthur S. Reber (2nd ed., 1995): "In linguistics, [polyonomy is] a situation in which a language has a large number of specific terms for the various aspects of a thing... The existence of polyonomy in a particular perceptual or conceptual area reflects a particular cultural/linguistic view of the world and helps to perpetuate it within the culture." In my view this is far too simplistic a description of the relation of language to culture. For instance, in the case of relationship terms, one of the very reasons that the English language has so many is that a large number are not widely known and so new terms keep being invented for the same concepts. I would suppose that a far more impelling route with regard to social effects arises out of relationships themselves, just as Henrik Ibsen suggests in the exchange between Rector Kroll and Rebecca West in his play Rosmerholm (1886): Kroll. I would rather not go into the matter too closely. But I believe I have noticed that it is nowhere easier to break through all so-called prejudices than in -- h'm ---- Rebecca. In the relation between man and woman, you mean? Kroll. Yes, -- to speak plainly -- I think so. See Act 3, in: Eleven Plays of Henrik Ibsen, introduction by H. L. Mencken (New York: Bennett A. Cerf, Donald S. Klopfer, The Modern Library,  [1935]; in series: The Modern Library of the World's Best Books, Modern Library Giants): p. 319 (3rd group). The same point could be made with regard to same-sex relationships.
4 To name just a smattering, among hundreds, of sources consulted for this glossary: The American Heritage, Funk and Wagnalls, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford English dictionaries; Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed., 1979); The Complete Dictionary of Sociology, Robert T. Francoeur, editor-in-chief (New expanded ed., 1995); A Dictionary of Americanisms on Historical Principles, edited by Mitford M. Matthews (1951); A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, [by] Eric Partridge (5th ed., 1961); A History of Matrimonial Institutions, by George Elliott Howard (1904); The Language of Sex from A to Z, [by] Robert M. Goldenson, Kenneth N. Anderson (1986); Lovemaps ..., [by] John Money (c1986); Manual for Kinship Analysis, [by] Ernest L. Schusky (2nd ed., c1983); Modern Dictionary of Sociology, [by] George A. Theodorson and Achilles G. Theodorson (c1969); The Polyamory Society Glossary; Shakespeare's Bawdy, [by] Eric Partridge (3rd ed., 1968); Understanding Sexual Interaction, [by] Joann S. DeLora, Carol A. B. Warren; with contributions by Carol Rinkleib and Douglas Kirby (c1977).
5 Ambrose Bierce serves as a classic example of one who strenuously objected to the lexicographical strangling of a language. He begins his humorously pointed definition of a lexicographer this way: "A pestilent fellow who, under the pretense of recording some particular stage in the development of a language, does what he can to arrest its growth, stiffen its flexibility and mechanize its methods." He similarly defines a dictionary this way: "A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work." From: The Devil's Dictionary, [by] Ambrose Bierce (New York: Dover Publications, 1958): pp. 76, 31. Originally published in full in v. 7 (1911) of The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce (New York: Neale Publishing Co., 1909-1912).
6 The allusion is to the character Humpty Dumpty as he appears in chapter 6 of Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, by Lewis Carroll, pseudonym of Charles Dodgson (1871): "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
7 Regarding epicene pronouns, see: The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing, by Casey Miller & Kate Swift (New York: Lippincott & Crowell, c1980). Grammar and Gender, [by] Dennis Baron (New Haven: Yale University Press, c1986). The Epicene Pronouns: A Chronology of the Word That Failed, [by] Dennis Baron (January 14, 2000).
8 For declension of the third person singular in five different forms -- two native and common, one drawing upon the preceding two and common in recent decades, one native but rejected by many, and the last recently invented and much used on the Internet -- see the following chart: Third Person Singular Personal Pronouns Declined Gender Subject Object Possessive adjective Possessive pronoun Reflexive masculine he him his his himself feminine she her her hers herself neutral he/she him/her his/her his/hers him/herself neutral they them their theirs themself, theirself neutral zie zir zir zirs zirself For more, see the Gender-Neutral Pronoun FAQ (2004): §5.2, "Declension of the Major Gender-Neutral Pronouns"
9 Among the glossaries that speak to the issue of bias in language and that have been touchstones for this project, although I may frequently disagree with their authors on both facts and conclusions, are: The Dictionary of Bias-Free Usage: A Guide to Nondiscriminatory Language, by Rosalie Maggio (Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx Press, 1991). Womanwords: A Dictionary of Words about Women, [by] Jane Mills (New York: Free Press, 1992, c1989). Besides Miller and Swift (1980), mentioned above, among the books that helped inform my thinking before this project ever began is: The Language of Canaan and the Grammar of Feminism, by Vernard Eller (Grand Rapids, Mich. : William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1982). Another that I have consulted now and then is: The Language of Oppression, [by] Haig A. Bosmajian (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, c1974; reprint: Lanham, MD: University Press of America, c1983). By the way, Maggio has a useful classification of terms that relate to bias in language: bias/bias-free; inclusive/exclusive; sexist/nonsexist; gender-free (or gender-neutral)/gender-fair/gender-specific; generic/pseudo-generic. To give some indication of the meaning of the two least obvious terms: "Writing or speech that is gender-fair involves the symmetrical use of gender-specific words (e.g., Ms. Leinwohl/Mr. Kelly, councilwoman/councilman, young man/young woman)." (See p. 8) A pseudogeneric is a word that is used as though it included all kinds of people or at least both sexes, but that in reality or in the perceptions of certain others does not (example: "mankind"); or it is a word that by itself appears to include all kinds of people or at least both sexes, but that in an actual usage does not (example: "those clergy permitted to have wives"). (See pp. 8-9)
10 Among the books that I've been consulting regarding neologisms are: Word-Coinage: Being an Inquiry into Recent Neologisms; also, A Brief Study of Literary Style, Slang, and Provincialisms, by Leon Mead (New York: Thomas y. Crowell, 1902; in: Handy Information Series). A Source-Book of Biological Names and Terms, [by] Edmund Jaeger; illustrations by Merle Gish and the author (2nd ed. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1950). Predicting New Words: The Secrets of Their Success, [by] Allan Metcalf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., c2002).

Go to report: The Theory of Human Sexuality and Marriage.

Go to main page.

 Begun, March 16, 1999; posted, July 26, 2002; new url, January 28, 2004; last modified, November 20, 2009, by NEA

Copyright ©2002-2009 by Norman Elliott Anderson