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

[Jonathan Lighter]

I don't get it. Telly Savalas was bald.

JL

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:26 PM, victor steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       victor steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: "playboy" [Was: article on the name "America"]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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