6-7 - (n.?) ineffable slang term coined by an undefined middle schooler meant to prank adults.
situationship - something like "friends with benefits" between two consenting teens or adults.
Quite recently, I gave in to The New York Times ubiquitous ads and purchased an online subscription as I have decided I do want to know what is going on in the world on a daily basis. And my like affair with Time magazine ran dry, mainly because it features way too many articles on AI and climate change. What can I say? I crave variety, and the Times provides it.
A week or so ago (I think), "6-7" and "situationship," obscure terms indicative of the present day youth quake popped up in The New York Times. I have to admit that I am not impressed with 6-7, kids. The only thing it reminds me of is 1967, a very good year for music but little else, and my age: 67, something I would rather not contemplate. My great nieces used a light board that I gave one of them as a birthday gift to create a colorful, eon "6-7" and then sent me the photo of it, which I will use to advertise my age if the spirit moves me throughout 2026. Of course, they have no idea that 67 actually means more than "6-7." Why the originator of the term chose 6-7 as opposed to 1-2 or 2-3, or even 7-8 is unfathomable. Clearly, it is nonsensical, an attempt to confound, confuse, and therefore, manipulate adults. In short, 6-7 is a power play, an oddity that most likely won't be added to the Oxford Language Dictionary. But given the absurdity of the age, it probably will be if it hasn't been already. So parents, what you need to do is ignore your kids when they answer any question you ask them with "6-7." Just put real words into their mouths. Example: "How was your day, Junior?" "6-7." "Oh, not so great, ah?" etc. You get the gist. Eventually someone will back down.
On the other hand, "situationship" isn't new. It appears to be just a synonym for "friends with benefits," which dates back a couple of decades and is probably on the well-worn side. Clearly, the person who coined the new term was looking for something slightly more sophisticated or perhaps more specific as "benefits" could refer to any number of pluses, such as health benefits, home insurance, a tax break, not just casual sex. A situationship that may or may not have a limited self life is something more than a platonic friendship because there is sex, but it is not quite a committed relationship. There is a communication gap about future plans that usually creates conflict as one party may see the coupling as more than what it is: a gray area like purgatory. It is no doubt for young people (or old geezers like myself) who are simply scared to death of anything resembling a marriage. I am on the fence about walking away from a situationship myself because the guy shares a house with his ex-wife albeit there is no physical intimacy between them. She and I can't co-exist sans complications. For him, it's pseudo-polygamy, the best of two worlds, like having the cake and eating it, too. Inequitable. I think Boomers need to borrow the term to refer to a short-term love affair that can't move forward due to a past entanglement that won't unentangle. I'll ask the Times to add it to the definition. Maybe the revised definition will go viral.
In closing, I have to thank the younger generations for their linguistic inventiveness. For the most part, their neologisms are on the creative side and harmless. May they continue to reinvent the language. As long as I have The New York Times for clarification, the innovations won't plague me.
#blog, #social commentary, #6-7, #situationship, #personal essay