Top of the evening everyone.
In its never-ending quest to do...something, the Associated Press decided this week that the use of the word 'mistress' is sexist and offensive. The AP suggests instead the use of either 'companion' or 'lover.' Here is what they wrote:
"We now say not to use the archaic and sexist term "mistress" for a woman in a long-term sexual relationship with, and financially supported by, a man who is married to someone else. Instead, use an alternative like companion or lover on first reference."
(Please note that the citation is copied word for word and mark for mark. I probably would have put "companion" and "lover" inside quotation marks, to remain consistent with "mistress" in the first sentence. As well, I would have used single quotation marks, bearing strong resemblance to an apostrophe, as I did in my opening paragraph.)
Now this change is a big deal. In standard writing styles, there are two major systems of grammar and usage, MLA and AP. I was taught MLA. For the AP to say this could really bring about changes to the way that people write.
Let us evaluate their suggestions.
'Companion' is an utterly useless term. We talk about companions often. Rav Jen and I have three cats. They are great companions. 'Lover' should, in an ideal world, be very specific and unique. Your spouse should be your lover. To have a second one referred to with the same word puts both of these people on the same level and creates ambiguity as to which one is the topic of discussion, thought, etc.
Despite their feeble alternatives, in this regard, the AP is right. There really is not such a great equivalent for men. If there is a woman sleeping with a married man who is not her spouse, it necessarily follows that there is a married man who is sleeping around. I suppose that 'philanderer' is a possibility, but a philanderer is not necessarily married.
The term 'mistress' definitely has adulterous connotations; however, we must consider that we use that term often, even daily. It is polite. The shortened form of it is 'Mrs.'
So what are some other possibilities? How about...?
1. Willing to accept leftovers
2. Accomplice to spousal abuse
Those are both too wordy.
We thus require an appropriate, gender-neutral term. The term should leave no ambiguity as to what adultery can do to a marriage. It should clearly identify both parties to the affair.
I humbly suggest 'homewrecker.' It works for both parties simultaneously. It is to the point, and is gender-neutral.
Folks, I have written in the past that there is nothing one can do with a potential homewrecker that one cannot do with a spouse. That remains true. Avoid the homewrecker. Look in your own bed. You might find that your spouse likes pina coladas and getting caught in the rain (the name of that song is "
Escape").
Have a great evening.
R/SCG
