63

What's the feminine version of womanizer?

tchrist
  • 134,759
  • 12
    I don't agree that bitch would be a very good candidate. When used to describe a woman (mind you, some consider this an offensive term), it's used to denote a quick temper and irritable demeanor, more so than the female equivalent of womanizer. (I realize you're asking for better alternatives, but I just wanted to mention that I don't think bitch fits.) – J.R. May 27 '12 at 18:22
  • 2
    I'd say "nymphomaniac." – Alex B. May 27 '12 at 18:59
  • 8
    You would think that a skirt-chaser, being a lover of women (or Highlanders :), would be said to engage in philogyny, but instead he’s known as a philanderer (< Greek ϕίλανδρος) — which while at first glance would be just the word you’re looking for, certainly is not. Would flirt or coquette work better for you, or do you need something wicked? The OED says that in early use, being a vamp was a notion that “ranged widely from gallantry, wantonness, or immodesty, to pretty pertness”. – tchrist May 27 '12 at 21:50
  • 3
    Well, if she’s young enough, we have Nabokov to thank for calling her a *Lolita, who is a barely pre-post-pubescent kind of seductress. I think she may mature into a succubus* of sorts. – tchrist May 27 '12 at 21:56
  • 2
    @HaLaBi: Not my downvote, although I wonder if your use of the b-word led to some downvotes, partly because some deem it offensive, and partly because it's not a very good fit. – J.R. May 28 '12 at 01:55
  • 3
    Your title and question are a bit contradictory. Reading the title, I inferred that the question was a man womanizes a female so what do you call a female that womanizes a male. However, the question implies what is a woman that womanizes; I wasn't aware that womanizing was gender specific. As opposed to (what the title led me to believe the question was)... manizing? – Gary May 28 '12 at 05:47
  • 1
    Just to clarify, a woman could be a womaniser. Note that I've used the correct english spelling. I assume you want a term for one with many male partners? Perhaps you could expand the question. – Jodrell May 28 '12 at 08:27

11 Answers11

72

Man-eater and vamp are a little bit "slangy" compared to

seductress - a woman who seduces someone, esp. one who entices a man into sexual activity

Per Neil's comment to the question itself, bitch isn't really relevant to the meanings involved here.

Per comments/discussion below, it's probably impossible to come up with a "feminine version of womanizer" that only switches the gender without implying other differences. Language reflects social attitudes, biology, etc., so even a structurally trivial distinction such as seducer/seductress unavoidably entails gender-based preconceptions that OP is probably seeking to avoid.

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • 8
    To me, one of the key facets of a womanizer is that he has relations with many women. Although seductress fits in some ways, couldn't it also be used to describe a woman who pursues a man on only one occasion? – Cameron May 27 '12 at 20:32
  • 2
    @Cameron: I think that would be a somewhat sexist interpretation - would you call a man who only pursued one woman on one occasion a womaniser? Of course not. So why label a woman by "one-time-only" behaviour? Real seductresses often make a career of it as golddiggers – FumbleFingers May 27 '12 at 22:45
  • 10
    I see your point, but I don't think it would be out of place to describe a woman who has seduced a man, even just once, as a seductress. If a man seduced a woman only once, I wouldn't call him a womanizer, but I would certainly call him a seducer, so I don't think it's a particularly sexist interpretation. – Cameron May 27 '12 at 23:06
  • @Cameron: Hmm. It sounds like a "label" to me. If I happened to know it was the woman, not the man or mutual, and if I happened to be discussing such delicate matters with another party (God forbid! :) I think I'd probably say "she made the running", "she was up for it", or "she was all over him". What she did, not who she is. Unless she's a right slag - but then it wouldn't be a "one-off", would it? – FumbleFingers May 27 '12 at 23:23
  • 7
    I prefer man-eater to seductress. A seductress is merely good at creating sexual desire in men. A man-eater uses men for her own desires without much care for any harm she may be doing to the men. This is more analogous to womanizer than the other options are. – Old Pro May 28 '12 at 01:28
  • Isn't 'womanizer' slangy too? (a sincere question, I'm not an english speaker) – Sebastián Grignoli May 28 '12 at 02:00
  • @Sebastián Grignoli: I wouldn't say womaniser is particularly "slangy". It's a neutral/slightly disapproving idiomatic term - alongside lady's man for "approving", and lecher for "strongly disapproving". – FumbleFingers May 28 '12 at 03:03
  • 14
    Seductress still doesn't ring right to me. A womanizer is one who engages in numerous casual sexual affairs with women, while a seductress is a woman who seduces someone, esp. one who entices a man into sexual activity (NOAD). A serial nature is implied with the former word, not necessarily so in the latter. Not that this word isn't a good one to consider – it is – but if I saw "man : womanizer :: woman : seductress" as the answer on a standardized test, I'd vehemently vote to throw the question out ~ which goes to show how hard it is to find just the right word. Great question. – J.R. May 28 '12 at 12:25
  • I guess this depends on your point of view. I would personally say that if "man-eater" and "vamp" are 'slangy' then you're setting a pretty low bar on what you count as being slang. On the other hand, for me "seductress" would be over literary for most contexts. – Neil Coffey May 28 '12 at 15:18
  • 1
    @J.R.,Neil: I pretty much agree with everything you guys say, but at the end of the day there isn't really an "exact" female equivalent, because our language and culture make such strong distinctions between men and women. Particularly in such matters as sexuality itself - which is assumed to be "inbuilt" and natural to men, but must somehow be part of some higher goal in women. – FumbleFingers May 28 '12 at 18:34
  • 1
    I guess you could try Serial seductress, if you want to get a bit closer... – Benjol Aug 17 '12 at 10:38
46

Man-eater is one term sometimes used.

[INFORMAL] a dominant woman who has many sexual partners
Oxford Languages

Heartspring
  • 8,600
  • 6
  • 43
  • 73
Neil Coffey
  • 19,622
  • 2
    According to Wikipedia Man-eater is something else ;) –  May 27 '12 at 17:38
  • 27
    Yes, as a biological term it means something else. Sometimes words have more than one meaning. Shocking fact: Wikipedia doesn't contain all of the knowledge in the universe. – Neil Coffey May 27 '12 at 17:40
  • I think "man-eater" fits perfectly. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/man-eater 4. (Informal) a woman with many lovers – Sebastián Grignoli May 28 '12 at 01:57
  • 10
    @HaLaBi Their definition includes cougars… – Potatoswatter May 28 '12 at 02:39
  • 1
    Based on my limited experience as non-native speaker, man-eater sounds somewhat more disparaging than *womanizer". But it is nevertheless the best option I see. – Gorpik May 28 '12 at 10:59
  • 8
    @Gorpik: You're correct that man-eater is a bit more disparaging than womaniser; it implies predatory as well as sexual. However, it's probably as close as you can get. Gender biases in English mean that there often isn't an exact equivalent. – Tynam May 28 '12 at 13:54
20

You could say vamp.

"A woman who attracts men sexually, then seduces and exploits them" (Chambers)

Bravo
  • 16,067
  • 1
    One problem with vamp is that a significant part of the meaning is that she is using her sexuality to gain non-sexual benefits. – mgkrebbs May 27 '12 at 19:41
  • @mgkrebbs. My dictionary (Websters 2nd edition) has "A woman who uses her charms .. to gain admiration or attention from the opposite sex." No mention of exploitation. – Bobbi Bennett May 27 '12 at 21:57
  • @mgkrebbs: I checked a few dictionaries – I couldn't find any mention of "non-sexual benefits", although I did find the notion of "exploiting" a man to "get what she wants." But, when you get right down to it, isn't that also what a womanizer does? – J.R. May 28 '12 at 01:50
  • 1
    @J.R. "How can men possibly use sex to get what we want? Sex is what we want!" Dr Frasier Crane. – Tim Lymington Dec 05 '12 at 22:43
11

One that comes to mind is man-chaser. Another common slang term with a similar meaning is boy-crazy, though it doesn't have the same sexual connotation.

A natural follow-up question is, "why is there no such word as manizer?" There is a language log post that discusses the coinage of this word, with the main argument against manizer being the awkwardness of the monosyllabic root with the -ize suffix. The comments suggest a number of interesting alternatives.

Cameron
  • 7,140
  • 3
    Given that gay men can certainly be *boy-crazy* — and often are :) — I wonder whether gay women can be *womanizers*? – tchrist May 27 '12 at 23:44
  • @tchrist: the OED would infer so, via its parenthetical statement: A person (typically a man) who engages in casual sexual or romantic encounters with women – J.R. May 28 '12 at 13:02
  • @J.R. "casual .. encounters" - that seems a bit kind to me. I think womaniser definitely carries connotations of exploitation or manipulation. Or maybe just a level of emotional detachment. I'm aware I'm arguing with the OED here, not you. – Robin Winslow Nov 19 '13 at 14:47
10

Wanton is probably the closest term. Dictionary.com define the word as "a lascivious person, especially a woman." There's a good discussion on "What is the female equivalent of 'philanderer'? on Quora, and it explores the complex nuances involved in comparing the sexes in this regard.

Personally, I like female Don Juan, a term applied to Carla Bruni in a recent biography. The term coveys a sense of direct power and control that is typically is missing in describing women who have multiple sexual partners.

Bill Lefurgy
  • 2,266
  • 3
  • 18
  • 30
9

Please excuse me if you find these terms profane but, my grandmother would refer to woman who chases men as a slut, although this is sometimes used to describe a girl as dirty or messy. I do recall a man using the term to describe another who was especially open and active in his choice of bedfellows.

I've often heard the rather coarse term slag used as slang but I would suggest this reflects negatively on the user.

I assume these both share a common route with the old fashioned term slattern which in turn leads me to consider harlot, brazen hussy or trollop.

Laurel
  • 66,382
Jodrell
  • 455
  • 9
    And note how all of them have negative connotations, unlike the term “womaniser” which, if anything, has a positive (admiring) note. Which really says a lot about our society … – Konrad Rudolph May 28 '12 at 08:49
  • @KonradRudolph, totally agree, all these terms are traditioanlly derogatory and while womanizing is not necessarily encouraged it is often deemed more acceptible. Certainly in eighteenth century england women were still burned at the stake for Petit Treason. A history I found truly bizarre for a "civilized" society, not dissimilar to contemporary stonings. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1519461 – Jodrell May 28 '12 at 09:03
  • Nothing wrong with slag - in the UK its an often-used term although more as vernacular than in high-falutin' circles. In the US I understand the equivalent is ho, a truncation of whorewhich again in the UK is still in use amongst people of a certain age and social class. – immutabl May 28 '12 at 09:29
  • 2
    @Konrad: Slut is in fact often the word that comes to mind; the double-standard you mention has been a point of contention for some time. From Wikipedia: Feminism has traditionally argued that there is a significant double standard between how men and women are judged for promiscuity. Historically, stereotypes of the promiscuous woman have tended to be negative, such as "the slut", while male stereotypes have been more varied, some expressing approval, such as "the stud", while others imply societal deviance, such as "a womanizer". – J.R. May 28 '12 at 12:30
  • 3
    @J.R. I’m not sure what you mean by “point of contention”. Surely the argument is more or less universal in modern societies, not just among feminists? – Konrad Rudolph May 28 '12 at 12:51
  • @Konrad: I was merely referring the sense of frustration that often accompanies the age-old question: "Why is it considered negative when a woman does it, and not necessarily so the other way around?" I think we're in agreement. – J.R. May 28 '12 at 12:57
  • @J.R. You apparently mean "concern", not "contention" -- the latter is simply the wrong word for the meaning you tried to convey. – Jim Balter Jun 02 '12 at 02:29
  • @Jim: You're probably right. Let me try this: this double-standard has annoyed/bothered/irked some people for a long time. That's all I was trying to say. :^) – J.R. Jun 02 '12 at 09:09
  • 'Slattern' is not an archaic term and does not have sexual connotations, a slattern is a woman of slovenly habits who does not do her housework properly like a good woman should! I'm being ironic of course, before anyone leaps to the attack. – Mynamite Jan 06 '13 at 23:54
  • @Mynamite, I agree, slattern is not archaic and I've corrected. However, I disagree with your assertion concerning sexual connotations. I think this dates back to a time when it was considered more impolite to directly reference anothers sexual activity. In the feminine case, a description of messiness or untidiness, has been used to imply a "lack of moral rigour" or promiscuity. Likewise, the modern term dirty can be used in both sexual and non sexual contexts to describe both men and women. Its meanings can be varied and not limited to cleanliness, trustwothiness and promiscuity. – Jodrell Jan 07 '13 at 09:13
  • Everyone here in the comments is talking as if slut\slag\ho is an acceptable equivalent to womaniser, and then bemoaning how much the double standard says about society. I say slut is no sort of equivalent. It's entirely different in its connotations. Also it's not unheard of to call a man a slut (although many definitions explicitly say "woman"). Man-eater or vamp (in other answers) are much closer. Still slightly more derogatory, but for those it would at least be legitimate to discuss how they reflect on society. – Robin Winslow Nov 19 '13 at 14:56
  • @RobinWinslow, I refer to the term "man-slut" in the answer, the term could be applied to any man, whatever the sex of his partner(s). I don't agree that vamp is indicative of any level of promiscuity, or even a promiscuous intent. A lady could be a celebate vamp. I would agree that Man-eater is probably the best analouge of the answers and have already voted for it accordingly, it idicates a level of female dominance in the partnerings which seems correct. The subjective offensiveness of any term says as much about the terms user and the offendedee as the object of any statement. – Jodrell Nov 19 '13 at 15:33
  • 2
    "I say slut is no sort of equivalent. It's entirely different in its connotations." -- A womanizer is "a promiscuous heterosexual man". It has the same denotation, with gender changed, as "slut", and thus is a "sort of equivalent". – Jim Balter Sep 13 '14 at 21:44
  • Also it's not unheard of to call a man a slut... Borrowed term. – Vector Jul 30 '17 at 00:33
9

I suggest "loose woman" as an alternative to the very derogatory term "slut." Although "loose woman" also carries a sermonizing attitude, neither is such an implication entirely absent from "womanizer." The latter is certainly not a term of praise.

Were it not for the usual sexual asymmetry present in our language and culture, "loose man" would be a reasonable synonym for "womanizer."

I also agree with the suggestion above that "man-chaser" is a good equivalent, and probably better than "loose woman."

Ralph Dratman
  • 401
8

'Siren' carries a connotation that the object of her attractions is doomed to disaster.

ncmathsadist
  • 1,050
  • 8
  • 15
2

floozy

A girl or a woman who has a reputation for promiscuity.

aviraldg
  • 1,622
0

Slut. Slut: Disparaging and Offensive. a sexually promiscuous woman, or a woman who behaves or dresses in an overtly sexual way.

Not the nicest or most proper word, but IMO definitely the most accurate.

Promiscuous

might not be a bad choice either. Although it tends to be gender neutral, it seems to be used more commonly with reference to women.

promiscuous: Characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.

Vector
  • 585
  • @ab2 Cougar : http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cougar Informal. an older woman who seeks sexual relationships with much younger men; much, much less insulting than calling a woman a slut that's due to gender roles, not the word. – Vector Jul 30 '17 at 04:29
  • Why do you simply repeat what you said before, after I cited the dictionary definition of cougar, and explained the fallacy in your logic? If you want to make a meaningful contribution, refute what I said. – Vector Jul 30 '17 at 05:44
  • 1
    slut was already here, but promiscuous wasn't. - cougar denotes old age, and from what I've been told, there's no worse way (other than "fat") to describe a woman. If I were a cougar, I think I'd take slut as a compliment, way before I was cool with you calling me a cougar. – Mazura Jul 30 '17 at 06:41
-1

What about wench?

wench (wnch) n. 1. A young woman or girl, especially a peasant girl. 2. A woman servant. 3. A wanton woman. intr.v. wenched, wench·ing, wench·es To consort or engage in sex with wanton women. Used of a man.

janexlane
  • 227
  • 3
  • 6
  • 12