"playboy" [Was: article on the name "America"]

[victor steinbok]

Too bad we can't tell Telly Savalas.

VS-)

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Jonathan Lighter
<wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seems so. _Player_ magazine, a black-oriented  _Playboy_ clone, was already
> on the stands twenty or more years ago.
>
> On further reflection, I'd describe the early "playboy" paradigmatically
> as feckless, the new one as unusually successful with women.
>
> JL
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Bill Palmer <w_a_palmer at bellsouth.net>wrote:
>

>> pardon me, omitted a word in the last post.
>>
>> Is "playboy" being replaced by "playa"
>>
>> Bill P
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bill Palmer" <w_a_palmer at BELLSOUTH.NET>
>> To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: "playboy" [Was: article on the name "America"]
>>
>> >
>> > So is "playboy" being by "playa"?
>> >
>> > Bill P
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Jonathan Lighter" <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
>> > To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:40 PM
>> > Subject: "playboy" [Was: article on the name "America"]
>> >
>> >> The pre-1920 "playboy" seems to have been primarily fun-loving (rather
>> >> than
>> >> "pleasure-seeking") and irresponsible, given (perhaps) to drinking,
>> >> fighting, sporting, and whoring. The term seems to have carried some
>> >> slight
>> >> opprobrium.
>> >>
>> >> In contrast, the modern "playboy" is usu. well-to-do and socializes
>> >> successfully with
>> >> many women (who are not predominantly prostitutes).
>> >>
>> >> The condition about prostitutes is significant.  As I read it, a young
>> >> man
>> >> in the 19th C. who consorted regularly with prostitutes and was
>> generally
>> >> irresponsible, but was also seeking a wife, would very clearly be a
>> >> "playboy."  Since the mid 20th C., however, the playboy doesn't want a
>> >> wife.
>> >> As OED suggests, he is also paradigmatically well-to-do. (Cue the Jordan
>> >> Playboy.)  However, if his "sexual promiscuity" is chiefly with
>> >> prostitutes,
>> >> he is not a "playboy."  A playboy easily gets social dates with numerous
>> >> women. He's still a "playboy" even if he's not having sex with them, and
>> >> "playboy" usu. carries little or no opprobrium.
>> >>
>> >> "Sexual promiscuity" has never been a defining characteristic.
>>  Moreover,
>> >> today's "playboy" need not be generally irresponsible at all. Many
>> >> successful business executives and dedicated athletes are "playboys."
>> >>
>> >> JL

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org