Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

What do you call such a man who is taken advantage of by the attraction of beautiful woman. This person is basically fooled by such a woman/girl.

share|improve this question

closed as unclear what you're asking by medica, tchrist, choster, Hellion, GMB Jul 19 at 21:03

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
Are you looking specifically for a noun? –  Henry74 Jul 18 at 18:05
3  
Which way @medica 's earlier comments go? (Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot. G Marx) –  Edwin Ashworth Jul 18 at 22:24
11  
I'm tempted to say that they are called... men (and sometimes women). –  Drew Jul 18 at 22:25
1  
I don't see how a John is taken advantage of. He goes there seeking such an arrangement. –  Loren Pechtel Jul 19 at 4:15
    
The first thing that popped into my head was "chump", but that is not specific enough. –  Tim Seguine Jul 19 at 10:04

7 Answers 7

For the sense of "fooled" the closest match I can think of is beguiled.

You could also consider captivated, entranced, or enthralled.

share|improve this answer
    
I would suggest that 'beguiled', although a lovely expressive term, only goes so far as to express the state of the man. It does not address whether he is being 'fooled by such a woman/girl', but rather that he is open to fooling himself. Furthermore, it does not extend far enough to include whether there is any actual, or intentional 'fooling' being perpetrated by the female ... –  Jester Riddle Jul 18 at 17:59
2  
I would argue that the question did not specify that the "fooling" needed to be an intentional act by the female so the final point is moot. –  ghoppe Jul 18 at 18:39

Consider moonstruck

Unable to think or act normally, especially because of being in love. [ODO]

Note that this is not limited to either gender as made clear in the movie of the same name. Both main characters are smitten and inclined to conduct that their families consider detrimental. The mother of the female character warns her that her infatuation is leading to perdition: Your life is going down the toilet!

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for Olympia Dukakis' line about Cher's life going down the toilet. My #1 favorite movie ever and "moonstruck" is a great word for the enchantment of the characters! :-) –  Kristina Lopez Jul 18 at 20:15
    
Another and very nearly synonymous gender-neutral term from the movies is Twitter-pated, from Bambi. –  Brian Donovan Jul 21 at 2:47

Surely "Men who are lured by the seductive beauty of women" are called seduced ?

Seductive, seduced, same root, entirely appropriate that one is seduced by something seductive.

But I think that OPs question sets up a false parallel between seduce and fool. A woman can seduce a man without fooling him, just as a man can fool a woman without seducing her. Being seduced and being taken advantage of are not the same

share|improve this answer

The Lord Chancellor in Gilbert & Sullivan’s Iolanthe confesses to and complains of this particular weakness of character, in his self-introductory entrance number, by terming himself “a susceptible Chancellor”—with progessively stronger intensifiers each verse. This corresponds to OED sense 2.a. (s.v. susceptible):

Capable of being affected by, or easily moved to, feeling; subject to emotional (or mental) impression; impressionable.

That definition is not at all specific to sexual attraction to pretty young women, of course, but the context makes clear that that is what it is about. You can do that through context as well. That approach, in general, is how the huge but finite vocabulary of the English language can be made to cover a far larger array of possible meanings.

share|improve this answer

You might say, depending on the circumstances, that the man is "whipped."

share|improve this answer
2  
For once, I would suggest, against my better judgement, that you consult Urban Dictionary to see if this really matches. –  Mitch Jul 18 at 17:49
    
A whipped man has surrendered his masculinity in order to appease his partner. I don't think that the word fits. –  Anonym Jul 18 at 20:04
    
There is a prefix to that word that makes it fit better. –  Jolenealaska Jul 19 at 10:29

If you must include the 'fooled' part, I would say that such men are 'habitually blinded by beauty', 'have a tendency to be blinded by beauty'.

share|improve this answer

I would suggest human.

Emotional and physiological effects occur so to disable the defences of cold logic. A man becomes “vulnerable” to a woman’s agenda, such as fertilisation, protection, supporting a family, or suchlike. This is irrespective of whether the woman knowingly or instinctively intends such.

A man’s instincts are buried deep within parts of the brain that bypass or override the conscious lobes. This is effectively animal instinct: survival and reproduction.

Incidentally, the woman does not have to “beautiful”, just one who causes the physiological and emotional reactions. These will vary in a man over time and experience.

The answer again is human.

Maybe a simple term would be exploited if the fulcrum of the issue is the advantage gained or taken by the woman, whether intentionally or otherwise, through the sexual or other attraction effects upon the man.

share|improve this answer
7  
This is more of a philosophical answer than a literal one. No dictionary is going to include the definition "Human: one who is lured by the seductive beauty of the opposite sex". –  ghoppe Jul 18 at 18:20
    
@Jester: I like the deep truth of your answer. I know it's not a language answer but so sadly valid point! –  Honza Zidek Jul 18 at 20:31
    
Boo! This analysis would seem to imply that gay men are inhuman. Even stripped of its evolutionary/gender direction claims, asexual people would be left inhuman. –  Merk Jul 19 at 4:56

protected by KitFox Jul 18 at 18:50

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.