When it comes to relationships, could their inherent fragility and susceptibility to frivolity stem, at least in part from the language we use to express them? Of course, online dating sites have increased the fragility and frivolity. Words like “my,” “mine” and “our” are deeply embedded in our vocabulary when referring to human relationships—phrases such as “my partner,” “my friend” or “our child.” While these terms are often intended to convey affection, connection or shared responsibility they also subtly imply possession and ownership. This framing, however unintentional may unconsciously shape how we perceive and navigate our bonds with others.
Ownership language carries with it an implicit expectation of control or entitlement. In relationships, this can manifest as a sense that the other person is obligated to fulfill certain roles or meet specific expectations. When these expectations go unmet, relationships may feel fragile, as though they are contingent upon maintaining these perceived agreements. The underlying implication of “belonging” can also blur boundaries, leading to a dynamic where one party’s autonomy may be undervalued or overlooked.
Furthermore, this linguistic framing might contribute to the commodification of relationships in modern culture, where connections are sometimes evaluated based on what they provide or “deliver” rather than being appreciated as intrinsically valuable. The idea of relationships as assets—something “mine” or “ours” to hold, use or even lose—can make them feel transactional rather than transformational. This perspective may lead to a lack of resilience in relationships when challenges arise, as they are not seen as evolving partnerships but rather as static possessions that either serve a purpose or fall apart.
Conversely, when relationships are framed without possessive language, there is room to emphasize mutual respect, individuality, independence, self agency and shared growth. Describing someone as “a partner” rather than “my partner,” for example, subtly shifts the focus from ownership to collaboration in symbiotics. It acknowledges that the connection is not about control or possession but about shared experiences and values.
The words we choose to describe our relationships are not just linguistic tools; they are powerful vehicles for meaning that shape our perceptions and behaviors. If we could consciously adopt language that fosters equality and interdependence rather than ownership, might our relationships become more resilient, more meaningful and less prone to the fragility and frivolity that sometimes plague them?
Are there exceptions where sense of possession takes a different classification? Perhaps:
When it comes to raising a child, many factors come into play. Parents often have a healthy sense of possession, focused on ensuring the child’s safety and shaping their development which plays a significant role in who they become as adults. This type of ‘possession’ is distinct from material ownership and should not be confused with it, as the latter can lead to various forms of abuse. Children learn more from their parents by their example as role models over being told what to do. So leading by example also encourages a healthy sense of self-agency as being respected from the child during their formative years.
