Have Any Men Traveling Alone Been Approached by - What's a Female Version of a Gigolo?
Jun 19th, 2004, 11:41 AM
#81
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you've never been propositioned by a woman in Europe, you should change your mouthwash or deodorant. Rome, Paris, Budapest for sure, all the major cities. In Budapest last year I stayed for a week and at least once every night I was approached by a woman. Of course being of extremely high character and morals I refused all such advances. I am saving myself........for something or someone....I guess.
Larry J
Jun 19th, 2004, 11:59 AM
#82
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey, another Purdue grad here -- I agree about Gene's hair (I think it is painted on, though). My kids gave their dad such a bad time over his combover that he's FINALLY told the hair cutter not to worry about it anymore. He looks perfectly fine and the kids are proud of him as am I.
But I always thought a mistress was the term applied to the "mistress" of the man's heart...although he may be married to another. In fact, SHE might also be married to another if the love affair is that long-term (and some are.) Mistresses are usually "kept women" as in when she doesn't have financial means to support herself as nicely as when her lover assists.
But I always thought a mistress was the term applied to the "mistress" of the man's heart...although he may be married to another. In fact, SHE might also be married to another if the love affair is that long-term (and some are.) Mistresses are usually "kept women" as in when she doesn't have financial means to support herself as nicely as when her lover assists.
Jun 19th, 2004, 12:25 PM
#83
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who would have thought my original question regarding gigolos would have prompted Joe to start this thread. This one and Degas' thread are a riot. See, something funny can be found in almost any situation.
Jun 22nd, 2004, 07:40 AM
#84
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indytravel, I had 3 women come up to me on Champs Elysee all on one evening, only the third looked like a drugged up hooker, the other 2 came up to ask directions to a cafe then asked if I wanted company.
Tashkent was much more aggressive in the wild west days of a few years ago - there if you looked more than 2 seconds you got a "sex or massage" enquiry, and you got rung up every hour or so for "sex or massage?.
Tashkent was much more aggressive in the wild west days of a few years ago - there if you looked more than 2 seconds you got a "sex or massage" enquiry, and you got rung up every hour or so for "sex or massage?.
Jun 22nd, 2004, 10:10 AM
#87
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: <i>Textbook definition. Mistress. A female being supported by a male in a non-marriage arrangement.</i>
Thanks, GSteed. That's why I said earlier that while, in theory, a woman can be a mistress to a man of any income/asset level as long as he's married, I think of a "mistress" as a woman who's also supported, financially, by a married man. So I'd think that there are far more "mistresses" with wealthier men.
Thanks, GSteed. That's why I said earlier that while, in theory, a woman can be a mistress to a man of any income/asset level as long as he's married, I think of a "mistress" as a woman who's also supported, financially, by a married man. So I'd think that there are far more "mistresses" with wealthier men.
Jun 22nd, 2004, 10:28 AM
#89
Guest
Posts: n/a
One of our threads about "midges" was killed! We're still trying to figure out why........... all we could come up with, is Fodor's thought we meant midgets and were being politically-incorrect!
Regarding the definition of mistress: Merriam-Webster says it's a woman sexually involved with a married man, NO MENTION of financial support. Now I realize, in real life, we do think of a mistress that way, as being financially supported, much of the time...... but, technically, that wouldn't be the true definition...
Regarding the definition of mistress: Merriam-Webster says it's a woman sexually involved with a married man, NO MENTION of financial support. Now I realize, in real life, we do think of a mistress that way, as being financially supported, much of the time...... but, technically, that wouldn't be the true definition...
Jun 22nd, 2004, 10:40 AM
#90
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oui, Bonnie. There's often a difference between the techincal definition of something and its conventional use.
One of the best examples of this in recent memory was the end-of-the-millenium celebration, with the technical purists pointing out that the millenium actually didn't end until Dec. 31st, 2000, while the great unwashed conventional masses celebrated it on Dec. 31st, 1999.
One of the best examples of this in recent memory was the end-of-the-millenium celebration, with the technical purists pointing out that the millenium actually didn't end until Dec. 31st, 2000, while the great unwashed conventional masses celebrated it on Dec. 31st, 1999.
Jun 22nd, 2004, 10:48 AM
#92
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know people who are not well-to-do who have mistresses on the side. The women do it for other reasons than financial support.
My friend works at a designer clothing company and the people in the factory carry on affairs and some of the men have long standing mistresses even on their meager salary.
I guess the fine line is if the woman is "kept" or not and the meaning of being "kept" as opposed to helping now and then with grocery money, etc.
Of course it would be more glamerous if those women in the factory were mistresses of the owners......who knows?!
My friend works at a designer clothing company and the people in the factory carry on affairs and some of the men have long standing mistresses even on their meager salary.
I guess the fine line is if the woman is "kept" or not and the meaning of being "kept" as opposed to helping now and then with grocery money, etc.
Of course it would be more glamerous if those women in the factory were mistresses of the owners......who knows?!
Jun 22nd, 2004, 12:01 PM
#93
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've got it.......... all these terms are now antiquated considering the shift in morality since these terms were commonly bandied about!
Anyone, male or female, married or not, who gives sexual favors for any kind of support is EASY!>
How's that?
Anyone, male or female, married or not, who gives sexual favors for any kind of support is EASY!>
How's that?
Jun 22nd, 2004, 12:55 PM
#95
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 34,878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care what Merriam Webster says, mistress is not conventionally used just to mean a woman who has sex with a man. It means a woman who is being supported in some way by that man. Whether a guy is married or not is kind of irrelevant, although usually he is. I think intention is more the concept, although somewhat outdated, regarding suitability of marriage and being presented as a couple in society. That may not happen much any more, but I'm thinking a single guy can have a mistress and certainly did in the old days (pre-20th century).
Saying that mistress is conventionally used to just mean a woman who is someone's girlfriend or who is having an affair with someone is sexist because it implies that a woman can't have sex with a man just because she likes it. Why would she have to be labeled as someone's "mistress" instead of him, if he wasn't supporting her, at least partially?
I do think a guy may help out his girlfriend financially if she has a vastly different income, and that isn't a mistress, I think we all know that. I lived with a guy once for quite a few years and some of that time I wasn't earning much money because we moved and I didn't have a job for a while -- he contributed more money to the household than I did, but I sure wasn't his mistress, and I did more around the house. This is just real life--both persons in a couple can't be always contributing the exact same monetary amount to a household.
In my experience, people who are having affairs with others, regardless of whether one or both are married, simply refer to each other as their lover or in the third party, it would be just having an affair. They don't call the woman a mistress--I think that is age-related, mainly older people feel the need to call a woman a mistress who may just be having sex with the guy because she enjoys it. I don't know anyone my age (and I'm not that young, early 50s) who uses that term for a woman if she's not being supported, and isn't acknowledged in public as part of a couple, I guess you should add that.
(yeah, I know, some mistresses are acknowledged in some circles, but this is another level of society most of us aren't in)
Saying that mistress is conventionally used to just mean a woman who is someone's girlfriend or who is having an affair with someone is sexist because it implies that a woman can't have sex with a man just because she likes it. Why would she have to be labeled as someone's "mistress" instead of him, if he wasn't supporting her, at least partially?
I do think a guy may help out his girlfriend financially if she has a vastly different income, and that isn't a mistress, I think we all know that. I lived with a guy once for quite a few years and some of that time I wasn't earning much money because we moved and I didn't have a job for a while -- he contributed more money to the household than I did, but I sure wasn't his mistress, and I did more around the house. This is just real life--both persons in a couple can't be always contributing the exact same monetary amount to a household.
In my experience, people who are having affairs with others, regardless of whether one or both are married, simply refer to each other as their lover or in the third party, it would be just having an affair. They don't call the woman a mistress--I think that is age-related, mainly older people feel the need to call a woman a mistress who may just be having sex with the guy because she enjoys it. I don't know anyone my age (and I'm not that young, early 50s) who uses that term for a woman if she's not being supported, and isn't acknowledged in public as part of a couple, I guess you should add that.
(yeah, I know, some mistresses are acknowledged in some circles, but this is another level of society most of us aren't in)
Jun 22nd, 2004, 01:10 PM
#96
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I scrolled through this thread, I kept waiting for someone to bring up the word "lover" (thank you, Christina).
From my perspective, if a married man is having sex with a woman who is not his wife and he is not supporting her financially, she is his lover.
And he is hers.
What does a kept woman call her keeper? I really can't imagine that anyone really uses the term "Sugar Daddy".
Jun 22nd, 2004, 01:17 PM
#97
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: <i>I don't care what Merriam Webster says, mistress is not conventionally used just to mean a woman who has sex with a man. It means a woman who is being supported in some way by that man.</i>
Christina, I agreed with you from the beginning on this. But I don't think a dictionary definition is a "conventional" definition. M-W's definition, where financial support of the woman is not necessarily involved, may, in fact, be technically correct. I wouldn't have thought so, however, as I thought the technical defintion of a mistress was also a woman who received financial support.
You make a good point, that if a "mistress" was merely a woman who was having an affair with a married man, with no financial support involved, then there should be a similar name for the man having an affair with a married woman where support is not involved.
Christina, I agreed with you from the beginning on this. But I don't think a dictionary definition is a "conventional" definition. M-W's definition, where financial support of the woman is not necessarily involved, may, in fact, be technically correct. I wouldn't have thought so, however, as I thought the technical defintion of a mistress was also a woman who received financial support.
You make a good point, that if a "mistress" was merely a woman who was having an affair with a married man, with no financial support involved, then there should be a similar name for the man having an affair with a married woman where support is not involved.
