The Further Adventures of a Pants-Chaser

Now that John Tower has tumbled into the abyss of celebrities past, there may be no point in trying to find a feminine counterpart for the word womanizer .

Womanizer is defined as “a man who is sexually promiscuous with women.” As applied to Tower by the media, however, it had the added meaning of a man of political power who used that power to attract and dominate women.

Because relatively few women hold positions of power in Washington, and because those few are known to be exquisitely circumspect in their relations with men, there hardly seems any need for an opposite to womanizer .

However, as more and more women reach positions of power, and as we cannot expect them to be any less aggressive than men in its use, perhaps the media, at least, should have a word handy in case the need arises.

Bill Wahl of Pacific Palisades suggests vamp , “a woman of seductive charm and sensuality who is unscrupulous in her exploitation of men.”

Tom Barnard of San Clemente suggests femme fatale --”an alluring woman, especially one who leads men to their downfall and ruin.”

Excellent words, though somewhat mildewed; their fault is that they imply women who destroy men, not merely use them.

Olivette Sprague says, “What’s wrong with nymphomaniac ?. . . . It comes on pretty strong, but I’m sure the media would have found much worse things to call a female who was under fire as was John Tower.”

Maurice Zolotow, the Hollywood historian, confesses long and exhausting liaisons with not one but two nymphomaniacs, one after the other, when he first came to Hollywood. After they took up with other men, he searched for yet another nymphomaniac, but never found one.

As a result of these not entirely disagreeable experiences, Zolotow feels, as I do, that nymphomaniac designates a mentally unbalanced woman, not simply one whose enjoyment of sex is indiscriminate and unrestrained. He suggests, instead, nymphomaniste . “It has a better feel to it and besides it has the soupcon of Gallicism which is necessary in amorous matters.”

But my colleague Doc Johnson favors nymphomaniac . “I fancy that a nymphomaniac would revel in the attentions of a womanizer, and vice versa.”

But he thinks nymphomaniacs are no easier to find than Zolotow’s third one. “I’m quite willing to concede that womanizers exist and that nymphomaniacs are as ephemeral as the mayfly, as easy to hold in one’s hands as the will-o-the-wisp, a Chimera (impossible or foolish fancy). . . .”

I do not concede, in any case, that nymphomaniacs are the opposites of womanizers; and if there are such females, I doubt that a womanizer would be interested in pursuing one, any more than a nymphomaniac would be interested in pursuing a womanizer. Both of them, I should think, would be drawn toward the young and innocent. Just as a womanizing senator might be expected to use his power on a dependent secretary, so a nymphomaniac senator, if one should ever be elected, would be interested in virile young men of a lower political order.

For the sake of our country’s moral welfare, let us hope that Johnson is right, and that the nymphomaniac is but a fancy.

Gerhard Henschke of Van Nuys notes: “The German language that had not the Puritanic and Victorian traditions had the very colorful word Mannertoll (mad for men) while the word for womanizer is Schurzenjager (apron hunter), which clearly indicates the class consciousness of the ‘Herren’ who abuse the maids.”

Finally, I am obliged to correct at least half of my friend Sara Boynoff’s statement: “There is no feminine counterpart for the word womanizer . Just as there is no feminine counterpart of the word cuckold .”

“Your reader was wrong about there being no word for a female cuckold,” writes Barry S. Rein of Azusa. “It is cuckquean . Look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary.”

I did. And it’s there. But it’s obsolete. Probably hasn’t been used (until today) since the 17th Century.

Meanwhile, Frank W. Ellis of Los Alamitos raises another question. “There is also no equivalent female term opposite to avuncular . Walter Cronkite is often described as avuncular. What is Betty Friedan?”

That’s an interesting question.