Can an affair ever have a happy ending?

euronorris

Is 'Other woman' preferable to 'Mistress'.

I don't think of either of them as derogatory terms. Just factually correct.

The amount of sexual partners that one considers respectable, is all down to how the individual views it. ie, some people would say that more than 1 makes you a !!!!!!, but most wouldn't.

There are women I consider to behave in a sluttish way, but it's not just about numbers, it's how they go about it. Yes, their sexuality is their own business, as is how often they have sex, and who with, and number of sexual partners etc. They are entitled to do as they please (so long as they use protection and don't put themselves or others at risk, and only with single guys). But it doesn't mean that I won't take in all of that information, and feel that it is sluttish behaviour based on my own morals and interpretation. I'm entitled to do that too. What I'm not entitled to do, is spread rumours about it, or gossip.

Taadaa

euronorris wrote: »

Is 'Other woman' preferable to 'Mistress'.

I don't think of either of them as derogatory terms. Just factually correct.

The amount of sexual partners that one considers respectable, is all down to how the individual views it. ie, some people would say that more than 1 makes you a !!!!!!, but most wouldn't.

There are women I consider to behave in a sluttish way, but it's not just about numbers, it's how they go about it. Yes, their sexuality is their own business, as is how often they have sex, and who with, and number of sexual partners etc. They are entitled to do as they please (so long as they use protection and don't put themselves or others at risk, and only with single guys). But it doesn't mean that I won't take in all of that information, and feel that it is sluttish behaviour based on my own morals and interpretation. I'm entitled to do that too. What I'm not entitled to do, is spread rumours about it, or gossip.

It is most certainly derogatory, because it is rarely used for a man; there is no male equivolent; and because it is sometimes associated with brothels and kinky sex. It is typecasting. That makes it unfair and derogatory in my book.

Ditto !!!!!! - people say 'he's a man !!!!!!' because they have attached this horrible term to women. Why do we need a term at all? Oh yeah, I forgot; it sums up our judgement of someone we hardly know, based on one aspect of their behaviour. Not their personality, but an aspect of their lives that probably changes from one month to the next.

FatVonD

Taadaa wrote: »

It is most certainly derogatory, because it is rarely used for a man; there is no male equivolent; and because it is sometimes associated with brothels and kinky sex. It is typecasting. That makes it unfair and derogatory in my book.

Other man? Bit on the side?

euronorris

Taadaa wrote: »

It is most certainly derogatory, because it is rarely used for a man; there is no male equivolent; and because it is sometimes associated with brothels and kinky sex. It is typecasting. That makes it unfair and derogatory in my book.

Fair enough. That is why I asked the question (though I did forget the question mark. Whoops!).

So, then other woman, or other man, is preferable then?

Ditto !!!!!! - people say 'he's a man !!!!!!' because they have attached this horrible term to women. Why do we need a term at all? Oh yeah, I forgot; it sums up our judgement of someone we hardly know, based on one aspect of their behaviour. Not their personality, but an aspect of their lives that probably changes from one month to the next.

I don't bother with adding the man part before it. If you're a !!!!!!, you're a !!!!!! regardless of gender.

We need a term to describe that particular behaviour. Just because I think that someone is a !!!!!!, doesn't also mean I think that they are x, y or z.

I can still find their personality to be bl00dy great, and would always refer to that when talking about them, or asked about them. I keep my thought about their sluttish behaviour to myself.

Welshwoofs

I think the problem with the term 'mistress' is that its historical definition was a kept lover of a married man; a woman who was whollly financially supported by her lover. Essentially; a sex for money situation only with one man, not many....and that was pretty much the only distinction between a mistress and a prostitute.

I simply think of in terms of a married person and their lover.

Lotus-eater

Welshwoofs wrote: »

That's fine...but the problem with 'twisting people's tails' if you believe they've got 'a bit above themselves' is that they, or someone else, may well turn round and stamp on your testicles in response

Well if that's what happens, then it does, or they could just look a bit of an idiot.
Sorry, if you post something and can't agree with it later, as I said, not my fault for pointing it out.

nickyhutch

euronorris wrote: »

We need a term to describe that particular behaviour.

Do we? Why? It's just someone having sex with random people. Why does it need to be labelled or even talked about by other people?

Taadaa

^^^^ Lotus eater, still waiting for you to explain the criteria for someone getting ideas above their station.

Unless of course, your silence indicates you are backtracking, in which case you might look like a bit of an idiot. ;-)

euronorris

nickyhutch wrote: »

Do we? Why? It's just someone having sex with random people. Why does it need to be labelled or even talked about by other people?

Because it's human nature to do so. To choose one word to say, what would otherwise take several. It removes the need to explain in full.

It doesn't need to be talked about by other people, unless it is negatively affecting others of course. But, as you will note from my posts, I don't talk about it as a general rule.

Taadaa

euronorris wrote: »

I don't bother with adding the man part before it. If you're a !!!!!!, you're a !!!!!! regardless of gender.

We need a term to describe that particular behaviour. Just because I think that someone is a !!!!!!, doesn't also mean I think that they are x, y or z.

I can still find their personality to be bl00dy great, and would always refer to that when talking about them, or asked about them. I keep my thought about their sluttish behaviour to myself.

But generally in society, people consider a !!!!!! to be female. I object to that. Also don't agree that behaviour should be described, because it amounts to judgement. It really isn't anyone's business, except those that are directly invovled.