Talk:Mistress (lover)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Jimmy DellaValle

Most of my recent edit is punctuation and grammar cleanup, but I also removed the reference to "(Yet another Jimmyism: 'When you marry your mistress you create a job vacancy.')" in the middle of the note. Is this about Jimmy DellaValle? The reference is about a quote from a particular person, so something someone else said doesn't belong there. Also, it appeared to be in the middle of the obituary quote. Steve Pucci | talk 17:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, I misread the quote. I'm putting it back now. Steve Pucci | talk 17:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry you have lost me completely. What are you talking about?...and who the hell is Jimmy DellaValle? Giano | talk 17:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You could do me a favor by pretending I never wrote the first paragraph. :-) I've restored the quote. Steve Pucci | talk 17:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have just googled Jimmy DellaValle! Not quite James Goldsmith is he? I'll do you the favour, and give silent thanks America does not see the need to export all it's "talented wit" to our unsullied shores;-D Giano | talk 17:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well. Just to be clear, I only know about Jimmy DellaValle because I googled Jimmyism and that's what popped up first (well, after the "religion for agnostics" and a chat userid). :-) No, he's definitely not James Goldsmith, in any sense. Steve Pucci | talk 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology for a male mistress

OK, so a kept woman is the historical definition of mistress. What's the equivalent term for a male? The article skirts around the issue by saying, for example, that Catherine the Great was the mistress of several men, rather than saying she had several "misters" (or whatever you'd call them). The usage note on this page is rather informative and interesting, but still doesn't shed light on the male counterpart of a "mistress". Anyone know what it is? =Axlq 04:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here looking for that answer too.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The male counterpart is "Lover"....... I think Giano 16:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
i honestly don't think there is one out there. Although, Giano does have a point. For example, there is a movie called, The Lover, or L'amant. But then again, that could have referred to the girl of the movie. i like to think it referred to the man. but even then, the man was not kept..the girl is. so, i don't think the word lover is good enough to use for a man, as the word mistress is used for a woman. User:Agirl001001 12:35, 27 June 2007 (Pacific Time)
OK, I will stick my head above the parapet and say a man who has a sexual relationship with a married woman is her "lover". It is not the same relationship as that between a man and his mistress because historically a married woman would not have had the independent funds to maintain and keep the male equivalent of a mistress without having to ask her husband for the cash. I'm sure though it did happen, especially in more modern times that some men have been maintained by women but because of social opinions it has always been more clandestine and swept under the carpet. "Real men are not maintained by women" and also women do not like traditionally to admit "they pay for it". I know I'm in deeply dangerous waters here but I do think while to a man, in certain circles, being able to afford a mistress is a status symbol, in reverse it is not. Women like to be loved for themselves hence they have lovers - the fact they may give them gifts albeit money, cufflinks, a car etc is something they prefer not to acknowledge whereas a man feels being able to have such surplus income displays a credence of success and power. I know I am surfing here in dangerous water. :-) Giano 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Surfing? You're sinking. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC).
Boy toy? Glug glug gluuuuuuuu --Justanother 15:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This was bugging me for ages, seeing as how I was sure I'd seen something on Wikipedia about male mistresses before. After about half an hour of searching, I found it again! Cicisbei were open and socially accepted lovers of married women, in 18-19th century Venice. I'm sure there's plenty of differences between a mistress and a cicisbeo, but it's close enough for me! 82.5.238.204 22:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role reversal

The section on role reversal doesn't ring true to me. Surely the whole point of a mistress as opposed to a lover is that she is "kept" and is in some way dependant on the man? I think the examples cited are just wealthy, powerful women taking lovers, and they in no way become the socially-inferior/less-powerful man's mistress. Thoughts? Lou.weird 16:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Does a mistress have to be a social inferior? - If so inferior to whom? I think to say a mistress has to be "less powerful" is to miss the point. Perhaps, in real terms some mistresses have been/are more powerful and more clever then their lovers/providers Giano 20:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The mistress today

"During the 20th century, as many women have become better educated and more able to support themselves, fewer women find satisfaction in the position of being a mistress and are more likely to pursue relationships with unmarried men."

I disagree strongly with this statement and wonder what info it is based on?


Check out, "The Other Woman" at http://www.gloryb.com

It's a community of thousands of "other women" and "other men".

P.S. Mistresses are not necessarily kept women.

Knotties 15:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claim about mistresses and lovers having children

A while ago, I inserted a "citation needed" note to the claim that mistresses and their lovers often have children together. The claim was unsourced, and I thought it needed to be backed up by verifiable research. My note has been removed, but my objection was not dealt with, so today I am removing the claim from the article. Azlib77