# Why do we use the word "womanizer"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 2, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179 "2011-01-02T23:41:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/1 "2011-01-02T23:41:45Z")
What is the deal with the word “womanizer”? I have always thought it was a totally ridiculous word. I’m not talking about the word’s meaning, I am talking about the actual structure of the word. Why do we refer to a man who leads a sexually promiscuous lifestyle as a “woman - izer”? What’s the deal with the “izer” part? A meat tenderizer makes meat tender. A pulverizer makes something into powder (pulver is German for powder.) Okay. So a womanizer…turns something into a woman? Going by the logic of other “izer” words, that would be the assumption. What the hell? ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/2 "2011-01-02T23:49:16Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > What the hell? Welcome to the english language. For every rule, there are dozens and dozens of exceptions. And then there are the exceptions to the exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/3 "2011-01-02T23:57:32Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Why do we use the word “womanizer”? Because “fanny rat” was considered unsuitable for use in polite company. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/4 "2011-01-03T00:00:36Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > So a womanizer…turns something into a woman? A girl. Energize does not mean to turn energy into something, it means to fill something with energy. A womanizer fills his life with women. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/5 "2011-01-03T00:12:47Z")
Don’t get me started on “One Hour Martinizing”. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/6 "2011-01-03T00:20:30Z")
[Some learned history](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ize). > [@](#): > > a verb-forming suffix occurring originally in loanwords from Greek that have entered English through Latin or french ( baptize; barbarize; catechize ); within English, -ize is added to adjectives and nouns to form transitive verbs with the general senses “to render, make” ( actualize; fossilize; sterilize; Americanize ), “to convert into, give a specified character or form to” ( computerize; dramatize; itemize; motorize ), “to subject to (as a process, sometimes named after its originator)” ( hospitalize; terrorize; galvanize; oxidize; simonize; winterize ). Also formed with -ize are a more heterogeneous group of verbs, usually intransitive, denoting a change of state ( crystallize ), kinds or instances of behavior ( apologize; moralize; tyrannize ), or activities ( economize; philosophize; theorize ). It’s an attempt to form a common English term for philanderer. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/7 "2011-01-03T00:30:22Z")
The “-ize” suffix can be used intransitively when it is applied to personal behaviors - e.g “apologize,” “moralize,” “philosophize,” “terrorize,” “theorize,” “womanize.” ETA **Exapno** got there first. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/8 "2011-01-03T00:40:57Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Don’t get me started on “One Hour Martinizing”. That’s only a problem if you’re not named Martin, or if you’re _really_ in a hurry. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > [Some learned history](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ize). > > It’s an attempt to form a common English term for philanderer. Now “philanderer” is another interesting word. “Phil” is Greek/Latin for “love” (compare “philosophy”, love of wisdom); “andr” is Greek/Latin for man (compare “android”), plus we have the “er” ending, meaning “one who performs the named action”. Logically, then, a “philanderer” loves men, and a “womanizer” loves women. 🙂 Both words are grossly misleading. I don’t like the word “womanizer” any more than the OP. Except for the cases where people are in open relationships, we’re really talking about cheating and marriage fraud. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/9 "2011-01-03T00:43:52Z")
Well, does “womanizer” inherently imply that the man is married and cheating on his wife? Or can an unattached man be a “womanizer”? If so, then I don’t see how it is necessarily cheating or “marriage fraud.” ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/10 "2011-01-03T00:57:28Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Well, does “womanizer” inherently imply that the man is married and cheating on his wife? Or can an unattached man be a “womanizer”? If so, then I don’t see how it is necessarily cheating or “marriage fraud.” I’m with you. When I hear the term “womanizer” I simply take it to mean that the man sleeps or tries to sleep with lots of women, period, the male equivalent of a “slut” (in quotes because I don’t actually use either term to label anyone). If he happens to be in a relationship, then, yes, he would be cheating/frauding. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/11 "2011-01-03T00:58:38Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Well, does “womanizer” inherently imply that the man is married and cheating on his wife? Or can an unattached man be a “womanizer”? If so, then I don’t see how it is necessarily cheating or “marriage fraud.” Good question. I usually see it in the context of cheating on a spouse, but I suppose it could be used of a single person… though in that context I’d be more likely to use the word “playa” (not the landform). ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/12 "2011-01-03T01:01:47Z")
And while we’re at it, consider “widow” and “widower”. A widow is a woman whose husband has died. A widower is a man whose wife has died. Eh? What was that? Doesn’t “widower” look like the man did it? “Yes! I killed her and threw her body off the train outside Shanghai! You’ll never catch me! Bwa ha ha!” Stupid bloody words… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/13 "2011-01-03T01:12:21Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Well, does “womanizer” inherently imply that the man is married and cheating on his wife? Or can an unattached man be a “womanizer”? If so, then I don’t see how it is necessarily cheating or “marriage fraud.” The implication is that his relationships with women are primarily sexual and emotionally shallow or non-existent. ---
**Author:** ![ClevelandProud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@ClevelandProud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClevelandProud)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/14 "2011-01-03T01:14:27Z")
Q) Pourquoi? Ah, man, now I going to be up all night! ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/15 "2011-01-03T01:30:26Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > Now “philanderer” is another interesting word. “Phil” is Greek/Latin for “love” (compare “philosophy”, love of wisdom); “andr” is Greek/Latin for man (compare “android”), plus we have the “er” ending, meaning “one who performs the named action”. Logically, then, a “philanderer” loves men, and a “womanizer” loves women. 🙂 I know you’re kidding, but you’re sorta right in a way. > [@](#): > > 1675–85; \< Gk phílandros one who loves (of a woman, loving her husband); see philo-, andro-; later used in fiction as a proper name for a lover, and appar. mistaken as “a man who loves” > [@](#): > > Both words are grossly misleading. I don’t like the word “womanizer” any more than the OP. Except for the cases where people are in open relationships, we’re really talking about cheating and marriage fraud. I think it’s the other way around. Today the connotation of philanderer is someone who cheats during marriage. A womanizer may or may not be married. It’s not defining. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/16 "2011-01-04T16:13:45Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The implication is that his relationships with women are primarily sexual and emotionally shallow or non-existent. You see, I’d just categorize that as a playa or player. Womanizer has an extra connotation–that the guy pretends to want a relationship. A player is usually honest about their desire to play the field. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/17 "2011-01-04T16:14:57Z")
I don’t think “womanizer” has that connotation at all. In fact, I think “player” carries more of a connotation of manipulation than “womanizer” does. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/18 "2011-01-04T16:27:28Z")
**BigT** , remember it this way: James Bond is a womanizer. He’s a manslut. But (as far as I know) he doesn’t ever lie to them or trick them into sleeping with them. He just seduces them. On the other hand, a player will _play_ women. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/19 "2011-01-04T18:51:35Z")
A long, long time ago, a man who had sex with a lot of girls ws a stud (positive) and a girl who had sex with a lot of men was a slut (negative). When the language chaned l, we needed terms to equalize the terms. Stud became “womanizer,” but oddly “manizer” never became popular. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-use-the-word-womanizer/566179/20 "2011-01-04T20:11:39Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > Now “philanderer” is another interesting word. “Phil” is Greek/Latin for “love” (compare “philosophy”, love of wisdom); “andr” is Greek/Latin for man (compare “android”), plus we have the “er” ending, meaning “one who performs the named action”. Logically, then, a “philanderer” loves men, and a “womanizer” loves women. 🙂 I’m pretty sure the logical conclusion is “philgynerer” 🙂 As for womanizer, I’ve always felt like the word came about by confusing the -ize meaning of “to make/convert/subject” with “to use”. The ideas aren’t that far apart, though womanizer is obviously not the correct usage. A womanizer, then, uses women for his pleasure (whether he does it openly or not, or honestly or not, his primary goal is self-centered - especially in the context of a culture that considered all sex wrong if it’s not procreative and within marriage).