The Difference Between A Ladies Man And A Womanizer
Posted by: Annika Harris
Filed in:
relationships
12:00PM, Thursday January 15th 2009
The topic on the “Tyra Show” the other day was womanizers. I expected all the male guests to be overly-primped, self-absorbed playas. I was actually surprised by one guest, Ahmed, who described himself as ladies man rather than a womanizer. I started thinking about the real difference between womanizers and ladies men and realized what makes a ladies man different is transparency.
Ahmed has had a lot of women. He admitted to sleeping with seven women in one day. The women were members of a bridal party and were cousins and sisters. “Freaks, straight freaks,” he said of the women. Now you could be thinking, “Ew, gross. Seven women in one day? He’s a whore.” But hold on a minute. Ahmed is more of a ladies man because he never led the women on. They knew exactly what they were dealing with when hooking up with him. And in exchange his partners experienced great pleasure and friendship, according to one of Ahmed’s former lovers who was also on the show.
A ladies man gets around a lot, but he is always real with the women he sleeps with. He knows he’s not interested in a real relationship and doesn’t play games. He knows how to pleasure a woman in many different ways. He can be a sexual partner, a confidant and an escort.
Sean, another guy on the show, on the other hand is a total womanizer. He lecherously goes after women and uses really weak game to get their attention. He doesn’t offer anything besides empty promises, but some women still aren’t able to see through his game. The sad thing about Sean is that he doesn’t realize how pitiful he is. He’s trying to convince himself more than the women that he is indeed intelligent, confident and a world traveler.
So what’s your take on this debate? Is there a difference between a ladies man and a womanizer? And what have your experiences been with these types of men? Tell us in the comments.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
CCstarlight08
wrote on January 15 2009 @ 12:29 pm: [report]
I have dated a guy from each breed…and I agree completely. The first guy I dated had me totally convinced he was going to take me away and marry me…little did I know, he was out shagging ex girlfriends, strangers, and even a “paid companion” in Las Vegas. Even when we broke up, he kept the act going, telling me how great I was, how if “it was a different time or place, we could be married”. A bunch of hooey. He was a lying, cheating sack of ick. I found out later he fed the same line of crap to two other women (during the same time period!).
Now the second guy was totally straight with me - he wasn’t in the market for a serious relationship and made that known from the first email. We had some fun together (make that a LOT of fun together!)and now three years later, we’re still friends. He’s a great guy!
Dmun
wrote on January 15 2009 @ 01:18 pm: [report]
Having known several players and ladies men, I have to say you’re right: it comes down to white knights and black knights.
I know guys who are known as “whores” but they never, ever, lead a girl into thinking she’s going to snare him. Mostly, girls resent them afterwards because the girls fooled THEMSELVES into believing they could somehow keep him—ala, the Ladies Mag myths on Marriage.
The bad guys, they just lie to get sex. The good guys get sex and no longer feel the need to lie.
EastCoastMale
wrote on January 15 2009 @ 01:31 pm: [report]
All good posts and I definitely agree with the concepts and want to add two others. If a ladies man was up front and both parties know what they are getting into and they have a little or a LOT of fun and the next day she has missed a ride home with her friend, he gives her 30$ for a cab because he’s a nice guy and is going the opposite way, is that a prostitute? even if she paid him and the scenario was reversed, would he be one? The only difference I can see if that they didnt “solicit” each other with the specific intent of sex for money but it still went down the same, so the ladies man goes free but a prostitute would get locked up. Hooery if you ask me
My second point would be that even if it is NSA from the beginning and both parties are just our for some fun and not a relationship, could the attitude during such a hookup turn a ladies man into a womanizer? Say he’s a guy that barks commans or is totally overly physical and not in a rough sex kind of way. Are we defining womanizer as just someone who misrepresents themself intentionally or does their demeanor during the timeframe make them lean one way or the other.
CCstarlight08
wrote on January 15 2009 @ 03:41 pm: [report]
Whether he’s a womanizer or not has nothing to do with his behavior in the bedroom…once he gets there, if he’s barking orders or being overtly physical (and it’s making the woman uncomfortable) he goes from being “womanizer/ladie’s man” to “abusive guy”. Those are different animals altogether.
Erin G
wrote on January 15 2009 @ 03:48 pm: [report]
I can’t concentrate on the topic of this article at all, because all I can fixate on is Tyra’s eyes in that photo. Oh my goodness, bug eyed much?
par3
wrote on January 15 2009 @ 04:32 pm: [report]
her eyes are def. weirding me out.
Hero
wrote on January 16 2009 @ 06:49 am: [report]
Bastard child of a frog and a sexdoll?
jojo
wrote on January 17 2009 @ 08:29 pm: [report]
ECMale- If the ladies man had offered to share the cab although he’d be headed in the opposite direction after dropping her off, he still would have foot the bill for the cab, right? Whether he gives her the money, or gives her a ride doesn’t make him a partaker of prostitution, it makes him a gentleman…to not leave a lady stranded. I think it would take a lot to turn a ladies man into a womanizer. One carries respect for the act of sex/hook-up, the other carries a tally board instead. Ones bedroom behavior is just that, who they do their business.
There are all sorts of ‘hook-ups’ taking place every day, some legal, some not so legal. Bottomline, a ladies man is into pleasing the lady, a womanizer is in it for himself.
I’ve had this conversation with a new friend, asked him point blank if he was a womanizer…why did I ask him that, because while we were talking across a table w/ Starbucks I noticed his eyes following certain ladies who walked by. Now I didn’t ask him this question at the time, just noted the behavior and dropped it on him while playing Q & A another time. His answer, “No, why, do you think I am?” As much of a gentleman that he was, I couldn’t help but point out the behavior and doubt his sincerity to wanting to be with just me. The most common reply came from him, that he notices people, a people watcher…yeah, right. We’re pretty much done seeing each other. He strung me along for 2 weeks playing dodgeball via email and text… couldn’t be upfront (gentlemanly) about just calling it quits.
I was able to call this like I saw it, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
datanggou
wrote on June 5 2009 @ 07:10 pm: [report]
I do not agree for a second. And if you really get into the pysche of a “lades’ man,” you’d rethink what you think.
A womanizer is only named one because his game is short-term and lower. But the “ladies’ man” is only a womanizer with a better game. You think what? He’s transparent? Hello, about what? Did he tell you the only goal he had for going to the wedding was to get laid?
Girls, wake up. You have men playing you and you don’t even know what hit you? In this case, who’s more transparent? The womanizer who is apparently desperate to get laid, or the “ladies’ man” who acts like he’s all cool but IN FACT sleeps with 7 women/ day and have you think he is really into you for you, and really think of you as a real friend. NEWS FLASH, men don’t sleep with their friends! If they do you, you are one of those “friends,” whether you admit it or not. He’s using you.
Let’s rise about this stupidity and give yourself some respect and protection. Stop talking about women’s rights and live the opposite. If a woman is WILLINGLY sleeping with a guy who’s sleeping with 7 women that day, she’s not doig it because he is honest. She’s doing it cus her low self esteem is leading her to lie to herself.
WAKE UP PEOPLE.
retro chic
wrote on June 5 2009 @ 08:02 pm: [report]
I see dataggou’s point, but less in the extreme. It has to do with words and the power they wield by all of us however unwittingly. Imo, it’s really much simpler than you might think.
While both are euphemisms for something truly unseemly, the only substantial difference is that in the Lady’s Man scenario, the woman remains human.
To me, Womanizer… the “-izer” part means she’s been reduced to an object or commodity processed for someone else’s convenience or pleasure. Much like anodized or galvanized metals, mercerized cotton, etc. The Lothario Womanizer is a User and makes no bones about it. And you can see him coming a mile away. Hit and Run.
Lady’s Man is another euphemism for User, much like Don Juan, Romeo or Casanova, and is much slicker and narcissistic since he wants attention and praise for his performance from his satisfied lovers, who if they knew how many, would drop him flat. He is maybe more dangerous because of his lying charms that keep them on a string.
Why do I think this? I dated one, and my father is the other. Just not sayin’ which.