What is the opposite of a mistress?

[Wildcard Ky]

If a married man is seeing someone, she is his mistress. If a married woman is seeing someone, what is his "title"?

 

[Handley_Page]

He doesn't have one.

 

[sr71plt]

gigilo? boy-toy? kept man?

Unfortunately, whereas society has been able to perceive a woman (a mistress) just waiting around for her master to show up and pay attention to her, it hasn't been able to perceive a man doing that for a woman.

 

[Stella_Omega]

gigolo? boy-toy? kept man?

These.

Unfortunately, whereas society has been able to perceive a woman (a mistress) just waiting around for her master to show up and pay attention to her, it hasn't been able to perceive a man doing that for a woman.

This.

 

[amofiga]

<<<If a married woman is seeing someone, what is his "title"?>>>

The generally accepted term often used in books and movies is simply "lover". Lady Chatterly had a "lover". Princess Diana's "lover" was that captain in the guard or whatever. It doesn't necessarily imply lots of "love".

A "gigilo" is more like a man-whore or sleazebag out hunting rich women. If it were a woman, it would be a "gold digger". Gigilos are often paid or maintained. Mistresses aren't always maintained by men, but serve as regular sex parters.

A "boy toy" is more like a breathing dildo and not the equivalent of a mistress. He's often significantly younger than the woman. Most men appreciate and maintain long term relationships with a "mistress". They care about them in many ways. They're more than just a quick bang and run. A "boy toy" can be sort of the bang and run hunk for a horny woman. He's the maintenance guy for the backyard pool that the lady of the house uses like a flesh and blood vibrator to get off once a week. She generally doesn't give a shit about him like she would a "lover".

Those are my definitions for what it's worth.

 

[Klogg]

A manstress.

 

[lovecraft68]

Depending on who she's married to Dead man walking

 

[SweetMaj]

A Misteress.

 

[sr71plt]

A "gigilo" is more like a man-whore or sleazebag out hunting rich women. If it were a woman, it would be a "gold digger". Gigilos are often paid or maintained. Mistresses aren't always maintained by men, but serve as regular sex parters.

Then why isn't she called a lover too? Why isn't a mistress a whore or sleazebag out hunting a rich man? I do think of a mistress as someone being kept by another for sexual favors.

 

[lovecraft68]

Not all the time. If the guy is paying her bills sure. However there are "other women" who are not on the payroll so to speak and are just sex partners.

For me, I always refer to them as simply "cheats" just as I refer to the Male versions and the spouses doing it.

For me the title Mistress denotes a powerful woman, whom men serve, not a cheating flooz.

 

[PennLady]

I tend to think of a mistress as someone who is kept -- perhaps the guy rents an apartment for her -- but it also strikes me as a kind of old-fashioned term. I bet that doesn't happen so much anymore.

I've always thought of gigolos as the male equivalent of female escorts, or high-priced call girls.

If you're talking about a long-term and/or serious affair, I'd think "lover" would probably be the best term.

 

[lovecraft68]

I tend to think of a mistress as someone who is kept -- perhaps the guy rents an apartment for her -- but it also strikes me as a kind of old-fashioned term. I bet that doesn't happen so much anymore.

I've always thought of gigolos as the male equivalent of female escorts, or high-priced call girls.

If you're talking about a long-term and/or serious affair, I'd think "lover" would probably be the best term.

I think you're right. Mistress in that sense is a very dated word. Created back in a time when many men had them and their wives were supposed to accept it.

 

[sr71plt]

I agree it may be an archaic term, but, to me, the "other woman" is just the "other woman" unless she's been paid for the relationship somehow--and then she's a mistress.

 

[TheEarl]

Spare man?

The Earl

 

[lovecraft68]

I agree it may be an archaic term, but, to me, the "other woman" is just the "other woman" unless she's been paid for the relationship somehow--and then she's a mistress.

In the archaic sense yes. But I think the definition has changed over time.

 

[werdsmith]

an "extra"? lol

 

[Safe_Bet]

Well, I think the best solution is to simply ask!

"Hey, SR! Ask your wife what she calls hers!"
(cuz we all know your pissy little ass sure ain't satisfying her!).

 

[sr71plt]

Is that post what you would call being pissy and huffy?

 

[XsNrg]

Mister Lucky.

 

[sr71plt]

Mister Lucky.

Good one.

 

[3113]

Then why isn't she called a lover too?

Well, in this day and age, she often is. But you answered your own question there. The inequality in terms really relates less to the relationship of the unmarried woman/man to the married man/woman than to who can provide for whom. And in this I disagree with Amofiga, because I don't think a Mistress is independent. She is a Mistress because she is dependent on the man to keep her financially afloat. If she was independent, then she would, indeed, be his Lover. Not his Mistress.

The whole idea of a Mistress was (and presumably still is) that she's a second wife, belonging to the one man and not seeing other men. He provides for her as long as they're together, the same as he provides for a wife. Thus, a Mistress, was, and still to some extent, a relatively respectable term among a certain class of people. The respectability of a Mistress was (is?) in her "wife-like" position of being dependent on one man. But, obviously, the opposite was not usually true. Women didn't usually have control of the money, nor the opportunity to earn enough money to keep a man. So they rarely got the chance to have the male equivalent of a mistress. And men who relied such women for upkeep were looked down on. It was not "manly" to be supported by a woman.

So, the giglio has a bad reputation because he *does* rely on women to support him. Not manly. Also, his reputation is in the fact that he usually services several women--he's not devoted to one as a Mistress is usually devoted to one man. Meanwhile, the word "Lover" (the only near equivalent to "Mistress") implies a man who is NOT supported by the woman. No matter what his status, he is equal to her somehow, and self-sufficient. The sexism in the terms aims to keep the man equal or superior to the woman, or make him ashamed if he's not (i.e. gigilo).

 

[sr71plt]

Well, in this day and age, she often is. But you answered your own question there.

I was a rhetorical question. I was trying to ironic.

The whole idea was that the man would pay for the "second wife" (ergo mistress), too.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I was a rhetorical question. I was trying to ironic.

The whole idea was that the man would pay for the "second wife" (ergo mistress), too.

No, dude... ^^^ THIS would be a great example of huffy and pissy! ^^^

 

[sr71plt]

So, you're trying to kill this discussion with your juvenile hate bitchery too?

 

[TE999]

If a married man is seeing someone, she is his mistress. If a married woman is seeing someone, what is his "title"?

I'll go with 'stud muffin' since someone else said 'lucky'.