If women have suitors, what do men have?

[twickster]

As some of you know, I've been doing the online dating thing this fall. (It's going okay -- thanks for asking. I don't want to jinx anything, but anyone who wants to cross their fingers, don lucky socks, or send good vibes this way in preparation for a Tuesday night dinner date -- your help would be appreciated.)

One of the developments of my adventures has been a new friend of the male persuasion, who I'll call by the amazingly clever pseudonym "M." We met as a possible match, and despite a little waffling on that on either side, we've pretty much ended up as pals, spending hours commiserating on our various misadventures, and offering behavioral translations, unsolicited advice, and color commentary.

M. and I have noted an interesting phenomenon -- the queue of potentials never actually gets all that much shorter, though the membership changes fairly regularly. There's always a group of a few people, each at a different stage (preliminary email, email correspondence/talking on the phone, first meet, first date, second date), and though not everyone goes through the full progression -- and sometimes it seems like the whole queue quits at once -- there's actually a fairly standard number of members in that queue.

We've also noted an inequity in the English language -- namely, the lack of agood word for the "potentials" in M's queue. I can blithely refer to my suitors, beaux, admirers -- there are no equivalents for the women who he's talking with at any time. Now, clearly this is about the different things courtship has been about for men and women, historically -- it has been the case that the women have been pursued, and so that terms for the pursuers have been developed. Thirty years after the start of the modern women's movement, however, there's still no language to talk about the women who might, en masse, be pursuing a man. (Harem is a post-consummation term -- and refers to the group, not to the individuals.)

M. and I were talking about this this afternoon. "I know," I said, "I'll post it on the Dope. They're smart people. They'll come up with something." He was skeptical.

Prove him wrong, fellow Dopers -- resurrect or coin a term for the women who are presenting themselves as potential SO's to a male. Equality demands it!

[DaisyFace]

You could just be silly and reverse the words: Beaux=Belles, Suitors=Dressors, etc. LOL!

I am actually a fan of "admirers", being non-gender-specific and all.

[Francesca]

How about... persuers. Interessantes. Woo-ettes.

[MonkeyMule]

My friend refers to the women he's intrested in as Targets, but thats just him ;)

[Shakes]

HEADACHES!

[notfrommensa]

SUITS!

[Gadfly]

Suitettes? Suitees?

[ataraxy22]

since women have beaux, men have joes (jo plural, which means sweetheart or dear)?

[Robot Arm]

How about "inamorata":

Pronunciation: i-"na-m&-'rä-t&
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian innamorata, from feminine of innamorato, past participle of innamorare to inspire with love, from in- (from L) + amore love, from Latin amor
Date: 1651
: a woman with whom one is in love or has intimate relations

Synonyms: girl friend, baby, beloved, flame, honey, ladylove, steady, sweetheart, sweetie, truelove

[jesleigh]

Originally posted by SHAKES
HEADACHES!

I have to agree with this one ;)

[Tripler]

I always thought it was that women had "suitors" and gentlemen had "courtees" (an apostrophe above the first or second "e" depending on the French spelling).

Tripler
No! I'm serious! I've heard this before. I just can't find a cite.

[Krisfer the Cat]

And you want this left highbrow I take it?

Ummmmmm I dunno can I take door number 2?

[bindera]

I second inamorato-inamorata.

[Dunderman]

According to Mallrats (and when it comes to matters of language, who better to turn to than the guy who plays Silent Bob?), "suitorette" is a word. According to www.dictionary.com it isn't.

I know who I'm sticking with.

[twickster]

Hmmm, I'm likin' "wooettes," "inamorata" (the plural of which, I suspect, isn't "inamoratae" -- ?), and "suitorettes," but am not experiencing full-tilt "Eureka" on any of 'em.

Keep the suggestions coming, gang.

[ccwaterback]

A baseball team?

[gallows fodder]

inamorata -- plural would be inamorate, but by dropping the second N the word has been hauled into English, so I guess the plural would be inamoratas. Gah.

[KidCharlemagne]

Pant Suitors

[Shade]

Q. If women have suitors, what do men have?
A. No-one.

Uh, anyway... groupies? Quote friend quotes?

[Horseflesh]

Prowlers. Huntresses. Tigresses. Predators.

Take your pick.

[The Mad Hermit]

If women have suitors, what do men have?

Competition.

It's difficult to think of a word to answer the OP that doesn't have a second meaning (or a double meaning.) Maybe fall back on the old favorite "bachelorettes?"

[Askance]

Wooers - pronounce very carefully

[Rhum Runner]

Gold Diggers.

Next?

[SanguineSpider]

Snake trouser hunters? CRIKEY!

[ccwaterback]

Hoes

(Courtesy of my bud in the city.)

[twickster]

Well, I sent M. the thread last night, as I've sent him other threads -- he'll succumb to the greatness of the Dope eventually. I've gotten my pal K. reading daily, though he claims he's too cool to post. Heh. Only a matter of time.

Anyway, here's M's take on the thread:

"If women have suitors what do men have?

HEADACHES!"

....that's a good one. Although it still doesn't solve the problem,
does it? And while some of the suggestions are aesthetically pleasing,
e.g., inamorata, beau-ettes, woo-ettes (actually, those all sound like
1960s girl groups produced by Phil Spector), none of the suggestions
thus far captures two essential aspects that the term must have: first,
it has to encompass a range of possible situations from mere potential
to the actual beginning stages of dating; and second, it must make clear
that, unlike terms such as, say, "sweetie" or "honey" or "girlfriend" or
even "bee-yatch," the romantic interest may not necessarily be mutual.
The members of a man's queue might be ladies he's contacted first, and
doesn't yet know if they're truly interested; they could be ladies who
have contacted him, and whom he may or may not be interested in pursuing
further; they could be mere flirtations or serious relationship
prospects or merely potential booty calls, or any combination of these.

So whatever term is decided upon here, it's got a lot of ground to cover
for one poor little word...essentially, it has to cover the entire range
of romantic potential, from all-out fireworks to abject humiliating rejection.

BTW, I liked your little precis of our discussion and general relationship.

(Christ, you know, you're right. I DO have far too much time on my hands...)

[twickster]

Well, I sent M. the thread last night, as I've sent him other threads -- he'll succumb to the greatness of the Dope eventually. I've gotten my pal K. reading daily, though he claims he's too cool to post. Heh. Only a matter of time.

Anyway, here's M's take on the thread:

"If women have suitors what do men have?

HEADACHES!"

....that's a good one. Although it still doesn't solve the problem,
does it? And while some of the suggestions are aesthetically pleasing,
e.g., inamorata, beau-ettes, woo-ettes (actually, those all sound like
1960s girl groups produced by Phil Spector), none of the suggestions
thus far captures two essential aspects that the term must have: first,
it has to encompass a range of possible situations from mere potential
to the actual beginning stages of dating; and second, it must make clear
that, unlike terms such as, say, "sweetie" or "honey" or "girlfriend" or
even "bee-yatch," the romantic interest may not necessarily be mutual.
The members of a man's queue might be ladies he's contacted first, and
doesn't yet know if they're truly interested; they could be ladies who
have contacted him, and whom he may or may not be interested in pursuing
further; they could be mere flirtations or serious relationship
prospects or merely potential booty calls, or any combination of these.

So whatever term is decided upon here, it's got a lot of ground to cover
for one poor little word...essentially, it has to cover the entire range
of romantic potential, from all-out fireworks to abject humiliating rejection.

BTW, I liked your little precis of our discussion and general relationship.

(Christ, you know, you're right. I DO have far too much time on my hands...)

[LouisB]

Rejection. Exes. Spousal support. Visitation. Poverty. Squalor. YMMV.

[Angua]

Paramours?

[ccwaterback]

Opportunists.

[twickster]

You know, I'm sensing some bitterness from some quarters....

[Shade]

Quaters? Men are half the population...

[Angua]

She did say [i]some[i] quarters. Two quarters are some quarters which is a half. :p

Oh, and I agree Twickster, some people seem rather bitter...

[pervert]

Bitterness, like paranoia, does not imply that the Bastds / beyatches are not out to get you. ;)

If the term has to include persons not yet contacted, then perhaps "stalkette"?

[pravnik]

"Groupies"

[ccwaterback]

Coquettes.

[Krisfer the Cat]

Originally posted by ccwaterback
Coquettes.

Sounds like chicken..

does it taste like chicken as well?

[ccwaterback]

Originally posted by Krisfer the Cat
Sounds like chicken..

does it taste like chicken as well?

It's finger lickin' good. :)

[Bear_Nenno]

Originally posted by ccwaterback
It's finger lickin' good. :) Try the breasts and thighs!

[Ben_E_Hill]

Debtors, :))

[jackelope]

Dames.

[Margeuerite]

Prospects.

[twickster]

We've discussed "prospects," Marguerite, and feel it has a wee bit of an MBA vibe -- a bit too clinical.

twicks, who's been known to refer to this whole process as "interviewing candidates for the position of my consort"

[T. Slothrop]

chicks

[lieu]

Beavers?