WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

581

(post is archived)

[–] 2 pts

It is interesting that there's no male equivalent handy. I can't imagine it's really that rare or a new phenomenon. We have jokes about the milkman and all that even though we don't have milkmen anymore.

Paramour -- I don't think that necessarily indicates an extramarital affair .

Still, the idea of getting rid of a perfectly good word in a way that requires extra exposition later on is almost antithetical to newspaper-style writing. It's supposed to be tight and get right to the point. Maybe since they're all money-pit propaganda machines these days the news-to-ad-space ratio doesn't matter as much.

[–] 1 pt

No male equivalent other than paramour, you mean? Nothing directly to "mistress."
Also, this is spot on:

Maybe since they're all money-pit propaganda machines these days the news-to-ad-space ratio doesn't matter as much.

[–] 1 pt

Paramour implies an extramarital affair, but does it mean that explicitly? With mistress there is hardly any room for debate. Paramour might get closer to the meaning, but probably if I were writing the newspaper article I'd put a clarification later that the other person is married.

Anyway, just the English language. Waddaya gonna do?

[–] 1 pt

I'm going to continue to mock the news outlets, even though it's akin to spitting on a forest fire.

[–] 1 pt

Illicit relationship I believe. I'd say easily deduced based on context.

[–] 1 pt

Paramour is the unisex word. Written language is their business and they don't know this, or are they being deliberately obtuse?

[–] 1 pt

I doubt anyone at the AP cares much for accuracy, or even the use of a more appropriate word. All they're worried about is social justice.

[–] 1 pt

So homewrecker is out then...