Expurgations (3) Mistress

For reasons that are unclear to me, I have been offering you linguistic warnings so that you will not embarrass yourself. Perhaps I am doing so simply because our language seems to be changing more rapidly and the penalties for violations in usage are increasingly severe. In any case, avoid the word ‘mistress’.

The subject is broached by the very accomplished Paula Broadwell, West Point graduate, Harvard graduate, etc., etc. who you know only as the mistress of General Petraeus, who is generally described only by reference to his professional and military achievements since there is no corresponding male word for ‘mistress’.

The problem was addressed by the public editor of The New York Times in this article: “Is ‘Mistress’ a Word That Has Seen Its Best Days?”, Margaret Sullivan, March 26, 2015. After receiving many comments and complaints she thinks the word should go. Here is a portion of the article:

“I propose just such a shove to hasten the departure of “mistress” from news stories describing a modern-day woman having an extramarital affair.
I asked the standards editor, Philip B. Corbett, about the use of the term in Times stories. He responded:

‘I agree that “mistress” has a somewhat old-fashioned tone to it that isn’t ideal (though I don’t accept the argument that it necessarily implies a financial arrangement; it doesn’t. First definition from American Heritage: “A woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with a man who is married to someone else.”)

One problem is that there isn’t really a perfect word here. “Lover” is probably a little better, and we’ve used it fairly often in the Petraeus-Broadwell situation. But “lover” doesn’t necessarily convey the idea that one or both partners is married to someone else. And it, too, has a bit of a romance-novel tone that isn’t perfect in a news story.’
A longer description is probably best, but not always easy or practical in a headline or a lead paragraph: “the woman with whom Mr. Petraeus, who was married, carried on a secret sexual relationship …”?

In a more recent article about the issue  in the Times the author concludes:
“As a student of language, I was sympathetic to her [Broadwell’s] cause. As I am a feminist, the double standard apparent in the way she was characterized was clear: He was the revered general who made a grave mistake; she was a psycho homewrecker who, as many often reminded her, had “brought the general down.” “Why Do People Still Use the Word ‘Mistress’? A Reporter Reflects, Jessica Bennett, June 7, 2016

I was able to find an earlier article about another ‘affair’ which also raised the issue of the word ‘mistress’ and here it is:

“A “Mistress” by Any Other Name: Can't We Find a Better Word to Refer to Maria Belen Chapur?” Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon, July 1, 2009.

“As we sift through the wreckage of the Mark Sanford [remember him? - the former Governor of South Carolina who supposedly was out hiking] media circus, one thing that’s become clear is that the English language is sadly lacking for nomenclature. Specifically — shouldn’t we have a better word for a professional woman who’s had a husband and a family and career of her own than “mistress”?

The word, after all, carries old fashioned associations with a “kept woman,” and it certainly has no satisfying male counterpart. If Maria Belen Chapur was a mistress to Sanford, what, after all, was he to her?”

The Associated Press now deal with the issue in the latest AP Stylebook: “The AP now suggest avoiding the word mistress because there is no male equivalent. Instead they recommend using friend, companion, or lover. The new entry reads: “Whenever possible, phrasing that acknowledges both people in the relationship is preferred: ‘The two were romantically (or sexually) involved.” “The Signified and the Signifier: AP Stylebook Rejects Your Misogyny, Says No More Mistress,” Eve Peyser, New York Magazine, April 4, 2016.

As you might imagine, readers of some of these articles came up with suggestions for a good male term. For example, General Petraeus could have been referred to as Broadwell’s “Main Squeeze”,  or “misteress” or “cicisbeo” could be used.

I gave this topic some thought since it is highly likely that “mistresses” will be discussed more often than, say NAFTA, as the U.S. presidential campaign enters even more ruthless territory. But, I realized that the issue is far too complicated for me - as most of these topics are, once I start trying to think about them. For example, if one does come up with a new word to describe the randy husband, will it be usable when the couple come from the same sex and one of them fools around with an option from one of the growing number of other genders? And what about related concepts? If someone is fortunate enough to turn Trump into a “cuckold”, how do we refer to his wife - as the “cuckquean”? You see what I mean.

Before I abandoned this project I did have a look at the OED. It is interesting that the first few definitions of “mistress” are positive as in - “A woman who has charge of a child or young person; a governess”. It is only when you get to number seven that you find - “Mistress -  A woman other than his wife with whom a man has a long-lasting sexual relationship. In early use: †a woman notorious for some act.”

I did, however, learn one thing when I looked at some of the early uses of the word and that is that Men have always been, and will likely continue to be, Cads. See below:

1675   W. Wycherley Country-Wife i. i. 5   And next, to the pleasure of making a New Mistriss, is that of being rid of an old One.