Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
ON "MISTRESS."
Whether it's the John Edwards saga or the Mark Sanford story, it seems a lot of folks are throwing around the word "mistress" these days. But isn't the term hopelessly old-fashioned -- and just a little bit demeaning to the women involved? For me it fails the basic sniff test for sexism: There is no equivalent term to describe a married woman's male lover.This is totally unscientific, but I agree with Wikipedia's description of the word : "there is the implication that a mistress may be 'kept'—i.e., that the man is paying for some of the woman's living expenses, or provides her with an allowance." And while this may have been true in the case of John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, it's certainly not the case for Mark Sanford's lover, Maria Belen Chapur, a former journalist who lives with her two children in a luxurious Buenos Aires apartment building. A divorcee, Belen Chapur and Sanford first met on a trip to Uruguay and subsequently spent time together in New York City and the Hamptons.
Then there's that other, more contemporary use of the term "mistress" -- as a synonym for "dominatrix," as in S&M play. But I don't think that's what any headline writer was thinking when they chose the term!
--Dana Goldstein
Photo of Rielle Hunter filming John Edwards via Flickr user Chuckumentary.
COMMENTS (9)
Then there's that other, more contemporary use of the term "mistress" -- as a synonym for "dominatrix," as in S&M play. But I don't think that's what any headline writer was thinking when they chose the term!
And yet, I keep hoping. C'mon, I need a good scandal, people.
Posted by: Sam | July 1, 2009 11:33 AM
Me and my friends use the term "histress" for the male lover
Posted by: Tokay | July 1, 2009 11:39 AM
There are certainly more appropriate terms: Hunter is a cooze. Chapur is a love interest.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2009 12:09 PM
Do you think part of the reason there's no male equivalent for "mistress" might be that men were allowed to get away with having lovers for a long time, while women weren't? That wouldn't make the term non-sexist, but it'd present reasons for its existence that were independent of any currently living sexism.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | July 1, 2009 12:19 PM
If we run into a scandal involving a married woman and her lover, we can always fall back on "gigolo" or "boy toy" if the need arises.
Posted by: Aaron | July 1, 2009 1:14 PM
I agree with every word in pgh 1.
But in pgh 2, Chapur becomes a "divorcee." Would anyone use that term for a man? (I assume not.) Is there a male equivalent?
Pgh 1 is more important. But I'd skip both words.
Posted by: bob somerby | July 1, 2009 1:38 PM
Interesting linguistic situation here. While we do not have terms for males corresponding to "divorcee" and "mistress," we do have one for "widow": i.e. "widower." I wonder why the usages evolved that way.
Posted by: Lee Gibson | July 1, 2009 1:55 PM
But in pgh 2, Chapur becomes a "divorcee." Would anyone use that term for a man? (I assume not.) Is there a male equivalent?
Yes. It's divorcé.
And yes, it's used by the press as seen here (nytimes):
and here (washingtonpost.com)
Posted by: Jinchi | July 1, 2009 3:24 PM
How about the word "paramour"?
Original definition was specifically for a married woman's lover. Later it expanded to being a non-gender specific word for a married individual's object of affection. The French really are good in a few areas: Words and phrases connected to love and sex is one.
Posted by: Rob G | July 2, 2009 4:07 PM