WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

(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.