it has a nice exotic ring to it. I also like 'consort,' usually used when talking about divine beings (like Parvati was Shiva's consort). It sounds technical, and yet racy at the same time.

But then I'm something of a traditionalist.

Her...slut

Him...whoredog

Actually she's divorced, so she's not cheating on a spouse.

While sure, people aren't supposed to have relationships outside of their marriage, surely Sanford's downfall - in good part due to his sanctimonious hypocritical positions - should give us pause before we start throwing around terms like "whore", "harlot" and whatnot.

People fall in love, sometimes with the wrong person. It happens. YOU may be strong enough or committed enough or insulated enough that this would never happen to you. Maybe it seems like weakness to you that these two acted on their feelings.

But you know, a lot of people we see as good and kind have fallen in love outside their marriage. Some of them have divorced and remarried, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

But who are any of us to be so judgmental? What if your best friend or sister came to you tomorrow and said "OMG, I didn't intend this to happen but you know Charles, that married dude at the office?" - and what are you going to do, call her a whore, harlot, cumbucket? Or are you going to listen, withhold judgment, support your friend or sister in perhaps getting out of such a crap situation?

We should avoid being so sanctimonious about other people's flaws and weaknesses. I'm sure there are plenty of horny men and women without morals who just fuck around without heed to whether someone's married.

But it's also possible for goodhearted people to find themselves in a screwed situation and straddling a very precarious fence, fall the wrong direction. Maybe hold up on the nasty name-calling.

It could come back to haunt us, like it did Sanford.

There's a gigantic editorial disconnect here. If Joan Walsh wishes it would all just go away, why are y'all still publishing this crap.

Unless we go with "shtupper" and "shtuppee".

Why should "girlfriend" be rejected? It's a perfectly good word, and it's the default term that pretty much everyone I know uses. And there's nothing wrong with "lover", either. That is, unless you DECLARE that there is.

Really, it sounds like you're just picking nits for the sake of killing bugs. Eeewww, I don't LIKE any of these words! Speak for yourself, princess.

Mistress is the right word. A wife obeys, a mistress is obeyed.

What's wrong with "paramour"? It means "illicit lover" and that pretty well sums up the situation.

I have to say that the term lover would seem to fit the bill. It tells you everything you need to know. It says just enough without saying too much.

Lover describes the relationship, which is how you get at describing what each person is with respect to the other. It is symmetric in that it can describe both people. It passes no judgment. It includes no outdated assumptions. It is neutral. It is what is it, no more and no less.

she is married with a family of her own. If you want a phrase without any judgy recrimination then any of those already listed suffice. You may not like them as a matter of taste but lover (agree with Lemon on that - kinda weird said outloud) boyfriend/girlfriend work.

If you prefer to be judgy there should be a word for a person breaking the vow- applies to both in this case and doens't need to be gendered. While it is obviously wrong to strictly blame 'the other woman' for being a 'homewrecker' I see no need to stay away from all stigma. People who screw people who are married are wrong too- not as wrong as the people who are married but it isn't something to glorify or pretend it doesn't matter.

Let's bring it back!

Etymology:

Perhaps from Dutch word "docke", meaning "doll".

The basic problem is the modern American English for Journalists is devoid of wit, and wit is one of the must common ways of making new words.

That's why most new words come from our sub-cultures that have a place for wittiness -- the net and the hood.

How about a "Trailmate"?

Not as rude as "harlot," "whore," etc. "Cheater" doesn't work, because really, he's the cheater, not her so much. She's not exactly ethical, but all the venom should hardly be reserved for the person who did NOT break marriage vows.

"lover," "paramour" gives the relationship more legitimacy than it deserves. Too Harlequin, star-crossed romancey than they deserve, particularly in light of his chronic hypocritical moralizing. Note to GOP: if you're going to be a manwhore/airport bathroom pervert/hooker hirer, you might want to save your sermonizing for the audience in your bathroom mirror.

As for an appropriate name to describe him, nothing printable comes to mind.

Adulterer. For both of them.

Floozy, jezebal, how about simply 'whore'?

How about "Appalachian Tail"?

Really, now. "Harlot"? "Whore"? "Seminal spitoon"? Again, we're back to pillorying her because he lied and cheated. News flash: women are allowed to have sex with willing men. (I assume no-one's contesting the fact that he was willing; he went to her.)

Sleeping with a willing man does not make a woman a whore, a harlot, or anything else. A man who sleeps with someone else while he's married, however, is at fault, just like a woman who sleeps with someone else while she's married would be at fault. Convenient as it is for men who cheat to have the women they cheat with catch all the flak while they duck and run? All she did was sleep with someone willing.

If my husband cheats, you'd better believe the one I'm going to be livid at is him, not her. He is not a passive piece of property, that I should get mad at her for trespassing. He is an adult with free will and a sense of right and wrong that should have kept him faithful and didn't. That's his problem, and mine for as long as I'm married to him after I find out about it, (not bloody long, that) but not hers.