Are
we really this far removed from the very concept of language and it’s
purpose that things are not themselves anymore? And by ‘anymore’
I have to mean the last several decades. Now that ‘literally’ has
been literally added to the oxford dictionary to mean, well,
precisely the opposite of literally we have to admit that our urge
toward bastardising this language of ours, is reaching a point of
apocalyptic crisis. No-one is being held to account and it’s
causing the fucking gold standard of the English language to sway to
the will of self-absorbed teenagers who, like, don’t really get the
implications of a rapidly failing communications system. Like, I get
it if your just whatevsing with your bestie or some other thing, but
seriously stop being annoying, pretentious little fakers.
Ok, so I had a point behind this whole production which the anger has wrangled away from me momentarily, though I shall do my best to get it back on the rails.
Baby. It is a word with a very specific meaning. That meaning, well Oxford the once gold standard of English indexes provides; ‘A very young child’. Granted it goes on to provide a meaning more inline with the way everyone seems to use it. David Byrne once spoke of only writing 'baby' into his lyrics only if they referred to an actual baby, which might be sage advice for the crop of modern popular 'musicians' and 'artists', working it in like a mandated buzzword.
Call me pedantic but I have always had an issue with this use of the word, in kind of exactly the same way I have had an issue with emotional openness with a partner ever. It is a two-handed thing and comes from a perhaps unreasonable and ham-fisted application of logic as well as the aforementioned emotional hermit I am around the opposite sex.
On the first-hand doesn’t the recipient of the apparent term of endearment feel patronised. The implication to me, and maybe only me, that one calling another 'baby' implies that one is raised, refined and in control while the other revels in bright things, shitting their pants and the various sounds of animals. To take it to a level of lunacy its pertinent to think of what babies call each other. I am too far removed from that time in my life and too unread on the science to claim anything concrete, though I would hazard a guess it is not 'baby', even in their language. Thus there is one baby and one adult/parent at any given time. Probably not untrue of many adult relationships but a little unsettling nonetheless. Though I must concede that 'partner', 'mate' and 'consort' are all probably a little lack-luster in comparison.
On the second, doesn't it strike anyone else as delving in the the realm of the sex-offender. Again this is evident of the hard logic David Byrne and myself apply to the word, but getting intimate with ones baby doesn't seem as thoroughly enjoyable as the truth behind the metaphor is. Fucking ones baby, even worse. I suppose this reasonably ties into the power struggle mentioned above. And the point must be made that baby as a term of affection is rarely used in the vicinity of bedroom activity. Still it bothers me in this respect.
Once again it is important to state that I am a well-known contrarian, cynic, skeptic and stubborn shit-head (In that I am well known to have those traits and am not well-known with those traits). I would much rather shit in someone’s cereal over something as innocuous and ultimately insignificant as a term between lovers, rather than let them be. It is also worth saying that I am probably more afraid of being seen being in love or a relationship than I am of either endeavour (Put that on your T-Shirt and wear it!) and that these complaints are certainly influenced by that attitude. But it is also important to say that when thought about with any depth, there is truth to what I am saying.
For just a moment I want to look at another application of the word. One that certainly suits my pessimistic line of thinking but is probably more apt as a point of the realistic. According to old man Oxford; 'A timid or childish person'. Man-child was drawn from this same idea. This is the insult, the backhander to the lovey-dovey. Though it is entirely possible that your baby has, at one time or another, been a big-baby about something or another. It seems qualification is necessary to distinguish the two, again it is a two hander; he or she is 'your baby' but becomes a 'big baby' when an offence of self-absorption is committed. . It seems there is nothing wrong with the notion of baby so long as it is in the possessive sense, but if it is a measure of gauge it is derogatory. Though this is a more accurate use of baby as a metaphor. This is the bad baby.
The final one is baby in both the possessive and positive sense but applied to objects. That car is my baby, that guitar is my baby or that generic woodworking project is my baby (weirdly into wood and the working of it right now, probably getting old). The sentiment is tantamount to the spouse though the object has no humanity. Your girlfriend is not a number, she is a human being. Your river-ready canoe? Not really. This makes the use of baby more appropriate; it implies the love, time and devotion needed to sustain an infant ball of flesh or a passion project but none of the patronising, negative realities of real babies or sexual predator incarnations that can come with the baby as a concept. This is the good baby.
Then, after all that mess, what point am I really making? While I love the different facets of a given word and consider this an essential element of the expressiveness of the English language, I wish to use baby as a watermark where things can, and have, gone to far. My personality notwithstanding, calling the one you love 'baby' is tired, inappropriate and creepy to various degrees. I think a big part of human association is what is done, not said. If a romantic partner has earned the title of baby in your book, then you probably don't need to say it. Though if you do, go for; honey, love, darling, pumpkin, cupcake or pudding. Until I shit all over them, that is.
Ok, so I had a point behind this whole production which the anger has wrangled away from me momentarily, though I shall do my best to get it back on the rails.
Baby. It is a word with a very specific meaning. That meaning, well Oxford the once gold standard of English indexes provides; ‘A very young child’. Granted it goes on to provide a meaning more inline with the way everyone seems to use it. David Byrne once spoke of only writing 'baby' into his lyrics only if they referred to an actual baby, which might be sage advice for the crop of modern popular 'musicians' and 'artists', working it in like a mandated buzzword.
Call me pedantic but I have always had an issue with this use of the word, in kind of exactly the same way I have had an issue with emotional openness with a partner ever. It is a two-handed thing and comes from a perhaps unreasonable and ham-fisted application of logic as well as the aforementioned emotional hermit I am around the opposite sex.
On the first-hand doesn’t the recipient of the apparent term of endearment feel patronised. The implication to me, and maybe only me, that one calling another 'baby' implies that one is raised, refined and in control while the other revels in bright things, shitting their pants and the various sounds of animals. To take it to a level of lunacy its pertinent to think of what babies call each other. I am too far removed from that time in my life and too unread on the science to claim anything concrete, though I would hazard a guess it is not 'baby', even in their language. Thus there is one baby and one adult/parent at any given time. Probably not untrue of many adult relationships but a little unsettling nonetheless. Though I must concede that 'partner', 'mate' and 'consort' are all probably a little lack-luster in comparison.
On the second, doesn't it strike anyone else as delving in the the realm of the sex-offender. Again this is evident of the hard logic David Byrne and myself apply to the word, but getting intimate with ones baby doesn't seem as thoroughly enjoyable as the truth behind the metaphor is. Fucking ones baby, even worse. I suppose this reasonably ties into the power struggle mentioned above. And the point must be made that baby as a term of affection is rarely used in the vicinity of bedroom activity. Still it bothers me in this respect.
Once again it is important to state that I am a well-known contrarian, cynic, skeptic and stubborn shit-head (In that I am well known to have those traits and am not well-known with those traits). I would much rather shit in someone’s cereal over something as innocuous and ultimately insignificant as a term between lovers, rather than let them be. It is also worth saying that I am probably more afraid of being seen being in love or a relationship than I am of either endeavour (Put that on your T-Shirt and wear it!) and that these complaints are certainly influenced by that attitude. But it is also important to say that when thought about with any depth, there is truth to what I am saying.
For just a moment I want to look at another application of the word. One that certainly suits my pessimistic line of thinking but is probably more apt as a point of the realistic. According to old man Oxford; 'A timid or childish person'. Man-child was drawn from this same idea. This is the insult, the backhander to the lovey-dovey. Though it is entirely possible that your baby has, at one time or another, been a big-baby about something or another. It seems qualification is necessary to distinguish the two, again it is a two hander; he or she is 'your baby' but becomes a 'big baby' when an offence of self-absorption is committed. . It seems there is nothing wrong with the notion of baby so long as it is in the possessive sense, but if it is a measure of gauge it is derogatory. Though this is a more accurate use of baby as a metaphor. This is the bad baby.
The final one is baby in both the possessive and positive sense but applied to objects. That car is my baby, that guitar is my baby or that generic woodworking project is my baby (weirdly into wood and the working of it right now, probably getting old). The sentiment is tantamount to the spouse though the object has no humanity. Your girlfriend is not a number, she is a human being. Your river-ready canoe? Not really. This makes the use of baby more appropriate; it implies the love, time and devotion needed to sustain an infant ball of flesh or a passion project but none of the patronising, negative realities of real babies or sexual predator incarnations that can come with the baby as a concept. This is the good baby.
Then, after all that mess, what point am I really making? While I love the different facets of a given word and consider this an essential element of the expressiveness of the English language, I wish to use baby as a watermark where things can, and have, gone to far. My personality notwithstanding, calling the one you love 'baby' is tired, inappropriate and creepy to various degrees. I think a big part of human association is what is done, not said. If a romantic partner has earned the title of baby in your book, then you probably don't need to say it. Though if you do, go for; honey, love, darling, pumpkin, cupcake or pudding. Until I shit all over them, that is.
