What do you call the people you connect with? What do you crave being called? From the sweet to the kinky—and words that traverse both—the naming landscape voices much left unsaid.
A few months ago, I realized I was calling my new girlfriend by the same pet name (“sweetheart”) that I also use for my niece. It was an unconscious impulse, but once I realized, it raised awkward questions for me about the overlap between romance and platonic or familial connections. What does it mean to use the same intimate names for different people?
Intimate names (also called pet names) are common across many cultures. They’re often derived from animals, flowers, food, physical features, attitude, mythological figures or even celebrities. The Ancient Greeks called each other “blackberry.” In Polish, it is apparently endearing to call someone “small fish.” Being referred to by an alternative name can be a sign of affection; it can also be demeaning. The philosopher Jacques Derrida theorized that, when someone gives you a name that is not your own, it constitutes an insult; in some intimate settings, being called your government name means you’re in trouble.
Pet names have been studied by academics, psychoanalysts, and relationship advice columnists. Sociolinguists clumsily call them “affectonyms.” Evolutionary biologists see them as a kind of verbal grooming, not too distant from chimpanzees picking dirt and parasites from each others’ hair: not only serving a social purpose but also for the sheer pleasures of intimacy. Psychoanalysts have suggested that they offer a regression to what Freud called anaclitic attachment, an early-life state of comfort, security, and pleasure.
Do these nicknames intensify romance or spoil it? The most widely cited study on the subject was published in 1993, after Carol Bruess and Judy Pearson interviewed 150 married students at the University of Ohio about the use of intimate names like “sweet pea” and “pussy cat.” They found a correlation between relationship satisfaction and the use of pet names. Playful language, they concluded, was key to a relationship’s success.
Others disagree. In an outdated but spirited book Stop Calling Him Honey … And Start Having Sex! (2010) Maggie Arana and Julienne Davis make a strong case against the use of pet names in long-term relationships. They write: “‘Honey’ will bring you a warm cup of cocoa, but ‘honey’ is not going to fuck you.” They admit that some pet names retain their erotic appeal (“Baby is a very sexy word when used correctly and sparingly”) but in their firm—sometimes gendered, sometimes moralizing—opinions, people should call their partners by the names they were given.
Much of the research has been focused on married people within a monogamous framework. But how do people experiencing different types of relationships—whether single, dating, casual, poly, non-monogamous, or platonically intimate—interpret these questions? How have the intimate uses of language continued to evolve?
To investigate, we polled 70 Feeld members aged between 24 and 74 across a range of gender identities and sexualities—a far more varied sample than the previous surveys I’d found. The answers were fascinating.
Languages for private worlds
For some members, these names are markers of time and experience. They should never be used “right off the bat”, says N, 30, a Feeld member who identifies as pansexual). They reflect a particular shared history: “signifiers of the experiences and important moments we’ve had together” (G, 24, queer). Or something to work towards: “we want to know and really like someone before any kind of intimacy.” (K+N). In this sense, you are not born, but you become, “baby.”
Many people stress the importance of specificity: “different pet names for different people” (T, 38, pan). They should be “gender affirming and focused on who they are” (R, 35, queer). Some people want them to be “words we made up together” (S, 58, straight). What makes them special, I think, is the fact that these words deviate from normal language use. The invention of languages for private worlds.
Some people use the names to make distinctions between platonic and romantic, or serious and casual: “‘Bab’ or ‘babes’ is more [for] friends. Intimate names are more ‘Baby’ or ‘Sweets.’ Long term is more ‘Darling.’” (D, 35, bi). “‘My love’… is reserved for those I truly love.” (A, 24, queer).
For some people, they are always unique: “I don’t like to reuse them.” (A, 37, pan). Naming can be creative: “I have a nickname for every partner I have had, names like Lilac, Olaf, Sexy tiger, Sheriff.” (A, 34, bi). They demonstrate the comfort required to be playful: “Same ones for everyone. ‘Sweet potato,’ ‘possum,’ ‘angel,’ ‘ babycake’.” (R, 35, queer).
Consent in conversation
Feminists have sometimes worried about the gendered use of names like “baby” because they seem to frame (typically) women as submissive or childlike. Do these words degrade and diminish under the guise of affection (whether inadvertently or intentionally)? Some survey respondents shared this concern, finding that certain names can recruit people into unwelcome dynamics—exacerbating age gaps, or being read as condescending.
Meanwhile, others welcomed such names—and some used them to dominate men: “I’ll use baby boy for any submissive men I talk with.” (M, 31, pan)
For those who see pet names as intimate acts, some feel they require consent. “If somebody calls me ‘baby’ or ‘sweetie’ without my explicit consent, it can feel uncomfortable.” (K, 25, pan.) Others complain when names are used too soon; they don’t want to hear them from someone “who isn’t a potential partner, or before we have met.” (L, 38, straight).
In asking for consent, some say they want a lover to tell them exactly what intimate name they’d like to be called: “They requested it, and I leaned into it. It works for us both.” (B, 54, queer). Naming is something to be figured out together
Overcommitted and insincere
Intimate names can come across as “simultaneously overcommitted and insincere.” (A, 32, queer). Some feel confused about them: “I actually feel kind of weird about using them… I don’t know WTF to call partners.” (Anon). Some people hear generic pet names as “impersonal and give me the ick.” (N, 31, lesbian).
Others welcome them, across relationships. “Some pet names overlap, like ‘babe.’ Friends will call me babe, and intimate partners do too.” (C, 38, queer). They can be given casually. “I’m comfortable using ‘baby’ for friends and hookups as well as long term partners” (R, 27, bi). They can be used to seduce: “New or potential hookups might be called ‘gorgeous.’” (Anon). Or indiscriminately: “I don’t dislike any. I have a vivid imagination and really enjoy wordplay.” (B, 54, queer).
Some people dislike conventional pet names, especially those which are “stereotypically romantic” (K, 35, aromantic). Many people agree with the authors of Stop Calling Him Honey … And Start Having Sex that excessively cute or babyish names—i.e. “shnookums,” “pookie,” “kitten,” “boo,” “babydoll,”—are poison for the libido.
For some, pet names can be uncomfortably gendered: “I struggle with some gendered nicknames such as ‘baby girl’ due to my own gender nonconformity.” (P, 34, bi). Some people dislike names that are too casual: “mate,” “bro,” “fella,” “king,” “boss.” Many object to names relating to family dynamics: “I am a parent and I don’t want to think about that OR my own parents.” (M, 41, pansexual). “I’m not your mom.” (Anon, 26).
Praising, degrading
Intimate names can be a great way to communicate preferences and kinks. “Different people trigger different things in me.” (K, 34, heteroflexible). Some names can indicate that someone wants to establish a particular dynamic—such as “Daddy,” “Mistress,” “Cheeky Monkey,” “Goddess,” “Pet”—suggesting submission or dominance, giving or receiving, praising or degrading.
For anything degrading, it is important to establish consent. “I’m not big on degradation, so anything that belittles me makes me feel off.” (B, 30). If including personal details, like “Anything related to race, size, or abuse” (D, 60, demisexual), they can make some feel uncomfortable; or “Anything that makes me feel in a position of uneven symmetry” (A, 34) is a turn-off for others. Some people don’t like receiving degrading names, but like to give them: “I have no problem the other way around.” (Y, 29). Crucially: informed, enthusiastic, and ongoing consent is a non-negotiable for any dynamic, and should be a part of conversations around degradation, or kink-centered intimate names.
Don’t stop saying “honey”
Despite some objections and firm preferences, the responses were overwhelmingly in favor of intimate names. Almost every respondent said they liked pet names in one form or another. In the right circumstances, most people enjoy “babe,” “love,” “darling,” “sweetheart,” “gorgeous,” and yes, even “honey.”
Some liked “Anything inherently complimentary,” (K+N). Lots of people liked names that establish a playful dynamic: “kitten,” “daddy,” “mama,” “baby girl,” “slut.” Others enjoy uniqueness and creativity: “I do like being called ‘tiger.’” (A, 34).
And what about given names? Did people want to hear their actual first name during sex? The answers were varied. “It’s a great turn on for me, especially to have one name for special occasions.” (P, 31, bi). “Sometimes it can feel too formal.” (Anon, 44, bi/pan). “A rare treat, especially whispered.” (A, 35, queer).
For me, I think wanting to call my girlfriend the same name as my niece was one of the first signs I was in love and wanted our romance to assume the deepness and security of a family bond.
The survey responses helped me to see that people use pet names to map out a wide variety of shifting feelings, some platonic, others romantic, or sexual—each specifically signifying different dynamics, levels of intimacy, and personal preferences. Also helpful if you’ve forgotten someone’s name.
Ready to explore expansive connections—and affectonyms—of all kinds? We’re waiting for you on Feeld.
