The opposite of womanizer
Petibacsi
janelaw
>
> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men?
For me, the answer is "not at all."
My friend Scott, however, would call her "promptly."
mlo...@slip.net
> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men?
As soon as possible?
John Davies
<peti...@aol.comic> writes
> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men?
"Come over here, darling."
Oh... I see what you mean. "Nymphomaniac" is probably the word you're
looking for, though it's much more insulting than "womanizer".
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
JMichaeI
>Oh... I see what you mean. "Nymphomaniac" is probably the word you're
>looking for, though it's much more insulting than "womanizer".
>--
>John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
>
In American usage, a womanizer is a man who pursues multiple casual
relationships with women. The corresponding woman is subject to multiple
derrogatory terms, whore, slut, hussy, loose, and easy being the ones that come
immediately to mind.
------------------------------
http://members.aol.com/jmichaei
The only sin is willful ignorance.
JUST AN H
>
>
I'm not going to even touch this one!
CaseyKCKC
The only such word I can think of that is no more offensive than "womanizer" is
the old-fashioned "vamp." I know...the literal meaning of "vamp" is quite
different, but I've heard it used as a polite, non-judgemental word to describe
"a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men," and I think it works
pretty well.
Karen
Charles Riggs
<jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <19981021182455...@ng153.aol.com>, Petibacsi
><peti...@aol.comic> writes
>> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men?
>
>"Come over here, darling."
>
>Oh... I see what you mean. "Nymphomaniac" is probably the word you're
>looking for, though it's much more insulting than "womanizer".
I think though that a clear distinction can be made. Nymphomania is a
medical affliction - it is sometimes even curable. A womanizer though
is very likely a womanizer by choice; I'd bring his morals into
question while I wouldn't with a woman who was a nymphomaniac. I once
knew a woman who described herself as one and she didn't feel at all
insulted if I called her that: she knew who she was and accepted it.
Charles
janelaw
>
> janelaw (jan...@mailexcite.com) wrote:
> > Petibacsi wrote:
> > >
> > > How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men?
> >
>
>
> --
> Ellen Mizzell
Because they're too much competition at the honky-tonk.
janelaw
>
> >
> >Oh... I see what you mean. "Nymphomaniac" is probably the word you're
> >looking for, though it's much more insulting than "womanizer".
> >John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
> >
>
> In American usage, a womanizer is a man who pursues multiple casual
> relationships with women. The corresponding woman is subject to multiple
> derrogatory terms, whore, slut, hussy, loose, and easy being the ones that come
> immediately to mind.
> ------------------------------
> http://members.aol.com/jmichaei
>
> The only sin is willful ignorance.
Actually, "man-eater" at least carries some connotation of
respect.
My favorite is "round-heeled."
Pk2222
>"Nymphomaniac"
but I think that it's too strong. How about "loose"?
In any case, I'd call her with great care, were I you, Peti.
pk
Opinicus
>Actually, "man-eater" at least carries some connotation of
>respect.
>My favorite is "round-heeled."
"Hard-hearted Hannah, the vamp of Savannah GA"
Bob
Istanbul
---
To reply by email, dot the dash in doruk-net.
janelaw
>
> janelaw (jan...@mailexcite.com) wrote:
> > Ellen Mizzell wrote:
> > >
> > > janelaw (jan...@mailexcite.com) wrote:
> > > > Petibacsi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men?
> > > >
> > > > For me, the answer is "not at all."
> > >
> > > Why not?
> > >
> >
>
> with some earnest monogamist.
>
> --
> Ellen Mizzell
Sigh. You're probably right.
All right, Peti, what's the round-heeled harlot's number?
Petibacsi
Mustang ranch 702- 342-0176
I live about 10 miles away. Have fun! :)
Petibacsi
>Ellen Mizzell
The Mustang Ranch is a serious brothel, and probably one of the world's most
famous, I don't know what is wrong with that.
If you didn't know, in NV not just gambling (locals call it gaming) but the
prostitution is legalized.
Peti
Patronius
resort to an adjective: "promiscuous." It can be used for either gender and
it's not necessarily insulting.
--P. C.
(remove "55" from address to send E-mail)
Daniel James
> From: peti...@aol.comic (Petibacsi)
> Newsgroups: alt.english.usage
> Subject: The opposite of womanizer
> Date: 21 Oct 1998 22:24:55 GMT
>
> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men?
>
Surely that is not the opposite of a womanizer, but the complement?
The opposite should be a man who does *not* womanize.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Daniel James
> Oh... I see what you mean. "Nymphomaniac" is probably the word you're
> looking for, though it's much more insulting than "womanizer".
>
Do you think so? I'd have said that "womanizer" carried connotations of
a willingness to use and discard females, whereas "nymphomaniac" lacks
that predatory overtone.
Perhaps society forgives one the evil of behaviour in men while
condemning the (to me) lesser evil of the other behaviour in women, but
if so it is lamentable.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Member0123
From: $news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk (Ellen Mizzell)
Date: Thu, Oct 22, 1998 1:31 AM PDT
Message-id: <70mqhc$l...@tictac.demon.co.uk>
>
Why not?
--
Ellen Mizzell
-----------------
Hmmm.....
Slut
Slattern
Whore
Tramp
Contemporary feminism notwithstanding, terms for women are seen as pejorative;
terms for men (womanizer, cocksman, etc.) are seen as high praise.
'pity this busy monster, manunkind, not.' -- E. E. Cummings
Alan Horowitz
attribute moral qualities to the animal; we say that they don;t form
pair-bonds. It's as morality-neutral as carniverous v. omniverous
Since we also use morality-neutral descriptors for humans when discuusing,
eg, carniverous v. omniverous, why should we feel compelled to inject
morale attributes into mating patterns?
--
Alan Horowitz al...@widomaker.com
JMichaeI
>Since very few of us exist on a meat-only diet, I think for humans the
>appropriate comparison is herbivores v omnivores. I've heard devout
>vegetarians mention meat-eaters in terms of utmost moral loathing.
I agree. It works the other direction, as well. I've seen people sporting
bumper stickers and buttons with slogans such as "I didn't claw and scratch my
way to the top of the food chain to eat veggies." and "If God didn't want us to
eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat."
------------------------------
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/jmichaei/">Catch 23</A><BR>
http://members.aol.com/jmichaei/
<P>
<I>There are three kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.
</B></I><BR>
janelaw
>
> Ellen Mizzell wrote:
>
> >Since very few of us exist on a meat-only diet, I think for humans the
> >appropriate comparison is herbivores v omnivores. I've heard devout
> >vegetarians mention meat-eaters in terms of utmost moral loathing.
>
> I agree. It works the other direction, as well. I've seen people sporting
> bumper stickers and buttons with slogans such as "I didn't claw and scratch my
> way to the top of the food chain to eat veggies." and "If God didn't want us to
> eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat."
>
> --
Just try having a cookout in SoCal. The vegetarians rummage
through the cabinets looking at the ingredients in every
prepared food I used. (Of course, I'm still on probabation from
the Great Worchestershire Sauce Debacle). The meat eaters revel
in gnawing the flesh off ribs as close to the "granola crowd" as
possible. The great gastronomical middle class, the chicken and
fish eaters, sigh audibly over the intolerance of the first two
groups. Vegans just don't get invited.
Statements I have heard at such dinners include:
- There's really no difference between animal flesh and human
flesh. If I ate that, I would feel like I was eating a person.
- The only good cow is a dead cow.
- When you look at a dead body, you see how much it looks like a
steak.
- That smells just like my period.
- All these damned granola bars are going to die young, you know
- not enough protein.
- No thanks, really, I care to much about my body to put that in
it.
And my personal favorite:
- Hell, your kids eat hamburgers over my house all the time.
Opinicus
<70s7t5$m...@tictac.demon.co.uk>...
>Since very few of us exist on a meat-only diet, I think for humans the
Bob, "Hand me that lambchop", in
Istanbul
JUST AN H
>pejorative;
>terms for men (womanizer, cocksman, etc.) are seen as high praise.
Definitely a double standard, held by men and women alike. Why? I would
venture to guess that it comes about since women, because of their very
nature, have always had an enormous civilizing influence on society ... and not
without good reason.
In most societies (especially within Western societies), men who "sleep
around" have never really been called to account for the offspring of their
dandying. Meantime, women who "sleep around" risk pregnancy and the
complications of raising a "bastard" or "illegitimate child" without benefit of
a husband and father, and most societies are ill-equipped to help them.
These days, many such women opt for abortion while their richer counterparts
engage in costly paternity suits ... while many more opt to raise the child by
themselves.
We obviously have a long way to go. Meanwhile, people (both men and women,
married and single) will continue to have sex. It's human nature.
Until men are finally pressured to
take responsibility for the offspring of their sexual "conquests," women who
"sleep around" (even those who bear the child and insist on
raising it alone) will continue to be referred to as "tramps," "trollops,"
"sluts," etc, etc.
How unfair ... especially to the children abandoned by these so-called (and
exalted) conquistadors.
Daniel James
> I'm still on probabation from
> the Great Worchestershire Sauce Debacle
>
Tamarinds are OK, it's Tamarins that are made out of meat. (You surely
can't mean that people complained about anchovies?)
Cheers,
Daniel.
janelaw
Yes, Daniel, as incredible as that may seem.
jalalde...@gmail.com
jalalde...@gmail.com
CRNG
wrote in <7320b904-0279-45b1...@googlegroups.com> Re
Re: The opposite of womanizer:
>On Wednesday, October 21, 1998 12:30:00 PM UTC+5:30, Petibacsi wrote:
>> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men?
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.
Don Phillipson
> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men?
most people are hypersensitive about sex.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Whiskers
> On Wednesday, October 21, 1998 12:30:00 PM UTC+5:30, Petibacsi wrote:
>> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men?
symptom of the "Google Groups" latest web forum interface failing to
prevent it from happening, and new users of Google Groups not looking at
what they're doing and probably not knowing they aren't doing it to a
Google Group but to a usenet newsgroup archived by Google.
The archaeological interest in this instance is doubled, as the original
question was posted by an AOL user who also probably had no idea that he
was using usenet, and at a time when Google was still operating from a
friend's garage and was just a baby search engine; the article was
archived by DejaNews three years before Google took them over to create
"Google Groups". AOL closed their (much criticised) usenet portal in
2005.
The original poster, "Petibacsi", hasn't posted to this newsgroup since
1999 so probably has no further interest in this thread.
See also "Eternal September"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eternal_September&oldid=580815610>
"Today is September, 7396 1993, the september that never ends"
<http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=faq>
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
John Ritson
<noe...@atthisdomain.gov> writes
>wrote in <7320b904-0279-45b1...@googlegroups.com> Re
>Re: The opposite of womanizer:
>
>>On Wednesday, October 21, 1998 12:30:00 PM UTC+5:30, Petibacsi wrote:
>>> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with men?
>
>"Loose" or "easy".
--
John Ritson
Don Phillipson
news:I1ntYLA9...@hotmail.co.uk...
>>>> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with
>>>> men?
>>
>>"Loose" or "easy".
> Obituaries tended to use 'vivacious'.
The best-known item of Fleet Street code was "tired and emotional,"
which always meant too drunk to stand up.
Paul Rudin
> "John Ritson" <j.ri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:I1ntYLA9...@hotmail.co.uk...
>
>>>>> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with
>>>>> men?
>>>
>>>"Loose" or "easy".
>> Obituaries tended to use 'vivacious'.
>
> This "vivacious" seems to have been Fleet Street code (nudge, nudge.)
would be wrong to think that it always means that. Often it means just
what the dictionary definition says it means.
John Ritson
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> writes
>news:I1ntYLA9...@hotmail.co.uk...
>
>>>>> How do you call a woman pursuing multiple casual relationships with
>>>>> men?
>>>
>>>"Loose" or "easy".
>> Obituaries tended to use 'vivacious'.
>
>This "vivacious" seems to have been Fleet Street code (nudge, nudge.)
>The best-known item of Fleet Street code was "tired and emotional,"
>which always meant too drunk to stand up.
>
for that.
--
John Ritson
