Personally, I have never gotten the hype by the names “baby,” “babe,” “bae,” “honey,” it feels forced to me. I’ve seen those TikTok videos where as a joke people will address their spouses by their real names and the spouses get mad and say something like “my family and friends can call me that, but you can’t.” I’ve never gotten the seriousness of it. If we already know we’re boyfriend and girlfriend, or husband and wife, why should I have to address you by those names? Again, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with saying them, but using real names should become more common as well.
I don’t know. I think it would lead to weird conversations, especially during romantic events.
See what I mean??
If you replace every name with a term of endearment, this is still super fucking weird. This has nothing to do with pet names.
I was gonna say this on reading. pipi? vivi? im outa here.
I ran a test script below switching everyone’s names to the pet name Muffin to get a feel for it and have provided an analysis after.
Adapted Script
I think you’re right. The thing that sticks out to me is that it becomes difficult to recognize to whom a person is speaking. For instance, let’s consider the following line:
Jane tries to get the attention of everyone present with emphasis on two specific people. Since she used the pet name Muffin for both, it is hard to discern specifically who, so we need to conduct a logic analysis. Reviewing the history of the script until that line, we notice that only three characters have been introduced. We could temporarily assume that she is not trying to get her own attention (this assumption is discussed further below), so that leaves John and Jack left. Be that as it may, she does say everyone, which can imply that there are other people. She also explicitly calls two people by name, which could suggest that there are other people present since she would not have to have mentioned them by name otherwise. Still and all, she could be an inefficient speaker, so we cannot be certain either way. For the sake of deduction, we have to conduct a run through by holding these assumptions as true for the time being. Precipitously, it gets even crazier because there are three characters to whom she refers to by pet name at the end. Holding our assumption that she is not referring to herself, our previous deductions would be proven invalid. That would clear things up for us as we would now know that she is referring to the first two Muffins in particular, just not who those two would be by discernible name. It also leaves us a bit charmed as to who is the possible new Muffin. Per contra, that would be holding our assumption that Jane is not referring to herself. I have heard people call themselves by name, so we cannot be certain. I conjecturize that if we had enough data, would could analyze how often someone refers to themselves by name, then use statistical methods to analyze and conclude confidence percentages.
In any case, I agree with you. Using pet names does not measurably make this interaction less weird. But something still feels uncomfortable. I wonder what it is then. Any ideas?