Help with a more historical sounding word please - not for kids

I would like suggestions or input please on a fitting term for a woman in a physical but not romantic relationship, just for fun.
What I have so far is "plaything" but I think maybe that would sound too modern for my medieval setting. Do you agree?

She's not forced or paid and they are talking about little more than kissing. She's keen to be making out with him. He wants her but worries it wouldn't be fair on her because he doesn't want a girlfriend or wife.
It didn’t seem right to lead her into a physical relationship. There were two many ways it could go wrong. And when it all went pear-shaped, she – a young woman with nowhere else to go would suffer the most. She had everything to lose and nothing to gain by being his plaything. and “You’re too good to be my plaything..."

"consort" sounds too formal and to me necessitates sex. Any other suggestions please?

autumnleaf said:

Paramour? Doxy? Fancy woman?

"Pear-shaped" also sounds modern to me. It appears to have originated with the RAF in WW2: https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-24660,00.html

Click to expand...

Thanks! Good note about the "pear-shaped", I can replace that easily enough.
I did think of paramour but I thought it sounds like "lover" - that is, with romantic attachment. Is that just me?
To me "doxy" means the small, annoying fairy-like creature from Harry Potter.

Tocotin said:

Ladylove? Or just "friend"?

Click to expand...

Thanks, but I'm afraid they don't fit as I'm looking for a term that specifically excludes any inference of attachment.

Wow! Thanks!
It is medieval-esque fantasy setting, loosely based on England about 1200 to 1400.

"Plaything" sounds to me as if he's using her maliciously, rather than it being a two-way, for-fun kind of arrangement. That's another reason it doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Actually it captures the nuance of way he is thinking. Not that he wants to use her maliciously or uncaringly but even though she's keen he worries that he is using her and feels a bit guilty. He's telling himself he should not get involved so he would use a term that frames it the worst light. In modern times he would say f*#!-toy or bitch or maybe f*!#-buddy.

I find the expectation of "historical" language is the hardest part of writing a vaguely historical story. Friends and family are quick to pounce on words they think sound too modern. I find it very difficult to replace them because there may not be an equivalent term or the equivalent term has probably fallen into disuse and my reader would not know what it/I meant. And sometimes words that sound modern are actually much older than people think so they jump on you even when it's correct.

AW Admin said:

Marriage wasn't so much of a thing for non-wealthy/religious folk.

Remember that Chaucer c. 1400 says in the Prologue to his Canterbury Tales that the Wife of Bath

Click to expand...

I have no idea what Chaucer is saying.

Do you mean non-wealthy folk had relationships like many couples today - committed de-facto without the need have the wedding? Or are you saying they had relationships without any commitment - which would mean lots of single mothers and unsupported kids? That doesn't seem likely?

eldergrantaire said:

I recommend the tumblr thetimelinesofslang.tumblr.com. He doesn't have a timeline specifically for this concept, but Because Patriarchy, some of the less graphic words for 'sex worker' on the commercial sex timeline might fit? I'm thinking something like 'doxy' or 'punk'.

Click to expand...

That's a great resource which will be very useful to me! Thanks!