AIBU to think that there is really no male equivalent to the female mistress

[winterchunderland]

I really don't understand why a woman would become a mistress but leaving that aside AIBU to think that there really is not a male equivalent?

I agree with quadro

There are just as many men as women involved in affairs, but there is no equivalent term to 'mistress' because of the societal interpretations of sex roles in marriages and the hangover from the historical elements of 'ownership' by men of women.

Trills

I meant there isn't a word which made me wonder why in the 21st century where opportunities are abundant for women would it only be women who become mistresses.

It would be master, but that sounds very BDSM

Perhaps it's because of the -generally speaking- different reasons why men and women have affairs?

A married woman may be looking for emotional involvement that her husband is not providing; a married man may just be out for sex. An unmarried woman having an affair with a married man may be out for emotional involvement, while a single man may just be out for sex with a married woman and nothing else.

No matter what the married woman earns, this remains true.

But men don't usually have affairs for emotional reasons, they do it for sex, and most of them with any pride would rather earn their own money than be kept as it is drilled into men-more than it is women- that earning his own money is a must.

Some would say that it is twisted morality, but most single men would be OK with being a bit on the side but not have his married female lover pay for him in any way.

I would agree with much of what quadro has written.

However, there are also many women who are also looking for the sex that her husband isn't providing - not just emotional involvement.

most single men would be OK with being a bit on the side but not have his married female lover pay for him in any way

Payment can take many forms, typically in this sort of situation it may be more in the form of 'gifts' rather than actual cash.

Perhaps a better term would be ''kept man'' in the same way that a mistress is often a ''kept woman''.

I agree, it's 'fancy man'.

I've heard the term 'mistress' used for a man's girlfriend even when he's unmarried, usually it's a man in a position of power. Has anyone else heard of that?

I can't think who I heard that in relation to. But it seems quite old fashioned to say 'mistress' not girlfriend or partner in that context.

Some of the beliefs and sexual stereotypes on this thread bear no resemblance to the affairs men and women are discussing in my consulting room. Life has moved on quite a bit in reality.

In my observation now...

Men are just as likely to fall in love with a woman, whether he's married or she is.

Women are just as likely to have affairs for reasons of sex and the thrill, as men.

Affairs are just as likely to arise in good and stable marriages, as bad ones. Possibly even more likely in fact.

The term 'mistress' is old fashioned and reflects a different era in terms of equality. The Other Person, Third Person or Affair Partner are more generally used terms these days, to reflect parity and single-sex relationships.

There is a difference noted in women having affairs still convincing themselves they are in love and not lust, because many women still have trouble giving themselves permission to seek sex and thrills just because they can, but there is no real difference between the sexes for their tendencies to confuse lust with love.

Where I'm from he would be referred to as the "fancy man" and she would be referred to as the "fancy piece".

I have only associated the term Mistress as someone bonking a male rich guy, who puts up a woman in a nice apartment where he can have unlimited sexual access and dinner, and not have to worry about booking a hotel or paying for extras.

I imagine he's calculated the long term expenditure and ease (apartment, clothes, food, holidays) versus the short term cost and hassle (high class prostitutes, 5 star hotels, risk) and chosen option A. I also always imagine that there is some kind of sexual function mistress is willing to perform - I.e. nappy changing, spanking, rubbing bollocks on a cheese grater, that his upbringing would never demand of his wife.

To this I always think of Joanna Lumley in that "Chips and egg" film.

The rest of us, should we enter into sex without but recompense of lust and love, would be OW.

If I was obscenely rich I still wouldn't put up a gorgeous young man in an apartment for my bidding. I'm too bloody tight. I might get a tennis instructor, gardener or regular masseur as there's a tremendous sense of value for money in that.