Author Topic: The origin of the phrase, "baby-daddy" (Read 3891 times)

JT · « **on:** May 10, 2006, 07:43:59 AM »

http://www.slate.com/id/2141083/

This is pretty interesting. Although I have a feeling that its use as a colloquialism hasn't quite trickled down to the LDS ranks.

Porter · « **Reply #1 on:** May 10, 2006, 07:57:18 AM »

I've never heard of those words.

Jonathon · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2006, 08:07:03 AM »

I've heard them before, but not from anyone I know personally.

Jonathon · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2006, 08:45:36 AM »

By the way, someone just used the term on Hatrack.

pooka · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2006, 09:58:43 AM »

I heard Queen Latifah say that on the Rosie O'donnell show when Sphere came out. 1996 or 7, I would imagine. Ah, it was 1998. Ironically enough, she was calling Tom Cruise Rosie's Baby-daddy.

rivka · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2006, 10:03:00 AM »

I am familiar with the terms, and even had a vague notion of their origins. I rather disagree with this statement, though: ". . . are slowly stripping them of their emotional fangs."

While I can usually manage to have no opinion (or at the very least, none I feel the need to express in public) about couples who choose to live together with getting married, that is not true when they have children. IMO, the fact that we not only have these terms in our (general) culture, but they are becoming neutral or even positive is somewhat nauseating. To me, they will ALWAYS have "emotional fangs."

Porter · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2006, 10:07:29 AM »

Quote

IMO, the fact that we not only have these terms in our (general) culture, but they are becoming neutral or even positive is somewhat nauseating. To me, they will ALWAYS have "emotional fangs."

*applauds*

saxon75 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2006, 11:22:23 AM »

According to the link, though, the term isn't about a couple who live together and have kids but aren't married. It's about an ex-couple who presumably don't live together and have kids. That's quite different.

saxon75 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2006, 11:26:09 AM »

Actually, re-reading a bit more closely, it looks like the term also includes current but non-exclusive relationships. I'd still say that's different, though.

Jonathon · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2006, 11:45:51 AM »

And the article notes that the term has also been used to describe married or engaged couples with kids.

rivka · « **Reply #10 on:** May 11, 2006, 11:44:50 AM »

Quote

And the article notes that the term has also been used to describe married or engaged couples with kids.

Right. IOW, many people see no difference between those three situations.

That would be precisely the part I have a problem with.

Jonathon · « **Reply #11 on:** May 11, 2006, 12:45:09 PM »

Me too.

saxon75 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 11, 2006, 02:41:10 PM »

There were four situations mentioned in this thread, though: an ex-couple, a non-exclusive couple, an exclusive but unmarried couple, and a married/engaged couple. To be honest, I don't see much difference between the last two situations except for religious concerns.

Porter · « **Reply #13 on:** May 11, 2006, 03:01:37 PM »

Quote

To be honest, I don't see much difference between the last two situations except for religious concerns.

Because those don't matter, eh?

saxon75 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 11, 2006, 03:56:02 PM »

I didn't say that. I'm kind of surprised that you'd put words in my mouth. You don't usually make inferences like that.

I wouldn't say that religious concerns don't matter to those who are religious, but I'd say it's pretty likely that they don't matter in a personal way to most of those who are not religious. But even the non-religious sometimes take religious concerns into consideration because of respect they have for other people.

Porter · « **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2006, 04:03:43 PM »

I apologize for making that assumption. I was surprised, as it didn't seem to be in character for you.

-----

Even knowing that you didn't mean it, it still reads as dismissive to "religious concerns". :shrug:

Jonathon · « **Reply #16 on:** May 11, 2006, 04:24:22 PM »

Saxon, I think you're missing a "not" in the first sentence of your second paragraph.

Porter · « **Reply #17 on:** May 11, 2006, 04:25:25 PM »

I don't think he is.

saxon75 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2006, 04:27:09 PM »

Quote

Saxon, I think you're missing a "not" in the first sentence of your second paragraph.

What do you think it should say?

Jonathon · « **Reply #19 on:** May 11, 2006, 05:40:15 PM »

"I wouldn't say that religious concerns don't matter to those who are not religious."

If that's not what you meant, then I don't understand that sentence at all.

saxon75 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 11, 2006, 06:17:56 PM »

That sentence says three things:

1.) Religious concerns matter to religious people.
2.) Religious concerns may not matter to non-religious people.
3.) If religious concerns matter to non-religious people, it's probably not in a personal way.

Jonathon · « **Reply #21 on:** May 11, 2006, 06:20:26 PM »

Okay. I think I see it now. Sometimes I have a surprisingly hard time with double negatives.

pooka · « **Reply #22 on:** May 11, 2006, 07:05:45 PM »

So if marriage is solely a religious concern... why have some insisted it is a civil right?

I will say that Hip hop terminology is not of concern to me since I don't strongly identify as hip hop. I don't agree with the assertions of some (no one here, but someone many of us know of) that it is not music.

saxon75 · « **Reply #23 on:** May 12, 2006, 09:49:17 AM »

I didn't say that marriage is solely a religious concern. I wasn't talking about the general institution of marriage. Aside from the fact that marriage does have legal benefits and consequences--things like taxation, power of attorney, survivor rights, and visitation rights--it's quite possible for a person to invest meaning in a symbol without that symbol having a religious basis, and I think it's likely that most non-religious people who are married do exactly that.

Porter · « **Reply #24 on:** May 12, 2006, 09:53:20 AM »

Then I don't understand why you said that you don't see much difference, aside from religious concerns, between an exclusive non-married couple and a married couple.