This blog post is not some sociological interpretation of female madams and their impact on modern feminism. Rather, it is about is your home-girl who calls herself “a pimp” or “player” when it comes to the world of men and sex. Where as madams or real pimps, like Heidi Fleiss, used the bodies of the women they employed for sexual services, I’m talking about the woman who uses her own…not necessarily for money or gifts, although they might be part of the perks, but for the pure, raw enjoyment of the sexual experience. She’s got several men in rotation, and boosts about keeping up with the promiscuity of her male counterparts. Mimicking some of the behavior that’s most abhorred in men, she keeps up relationships with several men at a time, keeping them all at a certain distance, and steadfastly claiming that “there are no strings attached”.Is she really a pimp, player, or mac? I’m not downing anyone’s right to have casual sex, or sexual exploration, but is having several partners at the same time really sexual exploration or just letting yourself be explored? Considering the very nature of sex and its dynamics, can a woman really say “there are no strings attached” when it’s her body that’s entered and sometimes left with a deposit from her most recent visitor? Now the female pimp might stop me here to correct me and tell me that her body is more a John Mayer-esque “Wonderland”, rather than a “Slip and Slide”, but I remain unconvinced. If every sexual experience is supposed to be some type of metaphysical connection between two bodies, how is it possible that you have that same connection with like three other people in same week. Better yet, do you ever wonder what you’re getting out sex? What’s the end goal for the female pimp – a couple dinner dates and pink polka dot Rolodex full of male acquaintances? I find it hard to believe that you are having great sex and tear inducing orgasms with every single partner.
The funny thing is, I truly believe that women are the more superior sex, and are capable of being better liars and more devious than most men. I’m fairly sure the female pimp can keep up more pseudo-relationships than her male counter parts and have all her partners convinced that they are the only ones. But what the female pimp fails to acknowledge is the fact is that there is probably more power in not giving it up than there is in being spread eagle. Great wars have waged by men simply over the possibility of getting some (Helen of Troy any one?). Think about it, male players give little and take a lot, all while dangling the mirage of a relationship in the face of their current plaything. If the male player currency is a relationship, perhaps its only fair that the female pimp keeps what the market wants high in demand, rather than tossing her currency around like free money (or better yet the US’s current economic stimulus package).
And as you treat your partners like a dessert tray, what happens when you can’t deny the fact that there maybe one particular dessert that hits the spot just right, satisfying you better than all the rest and leaving you longing for more? Ironically you face the same dilemma of the male player in the end. Now you want your late night dessert to turn into a breakfast croissant, and instead of a Sunday roll in the hay you want to enjoy a walk in the park. But like the male player –can anyone really take you seriously? Because you know, no one turns a hoe into a housewife…
5 comments:
I should be studying but a special person said I should read this post. And I did. And now I am intrigued enough to respond. A lot of thoughts but not a lot of time so I will say this:
Men and women of a certain type of personality say things like "I'm a player". Yea, but what does that really mean - casual sex with a number of different people without emotional connection or does it refer to the lead them on until you get into their drawers and leave them routine? Either way has its downfalls (not the least being increased chance of STDs, lack of emotional connection, and increased feeling of disgust at your partners for being so easy) However, the male pimp does have an advantage over his female counterpart - the double standard of the sexist society we live in will at the end of the day play to his side - that is to say that the male pimp - regardless of how scratched up his bed post is, will by most people, be more respected because society believes that men can (and maybe should) explore the opposite sex whereas a woman should err on the side of chastity. Yes, we are living in the age of female empowerment, but no, we have not yet reached the point where male and females are free to flaunt their sexual adventures without some backlash (think Lil Kim and Foxy brown vs. Biggie and Jay Z). I am not condoning the double standard, or saying that women who truly want to be "pimps and players" should stop what they are doing because of what others think - but I also think they should at least recognize that the dichotomy exists.
On a general note - for male and females out there who want to run around collecting partners - though the reputation ramifications are higher for women than for men, the fact of the matter that many partners may sound fun, both sexes need to think about why they are doing what they are doing. Is it the conquest? variety? the actual sex? do you need to sleep with someone to make up for the other things you aren't getting in life be it respect, money or love? or do you just feel pressured to be a player cause you have watched one too many B.E.T videos? Whatever the reason is, make sure you are honest with yourself about why you are doing what you are doing and more importantly, be honest with the people you are doing it with. Lastly, before I return to my studying - PLEASE USE A CONDOM!
My comment will be as brief and as head-thumpingly cool as possible (big ups to the shopaholic for inducing me to pop my comment-leaving cherry).
First, though I believe women are generally better suited at not getting caught, I think the prospect of being a "pimp" for either sex stems more from fear, insecurity and/or ignorance moreso than any pleasure or "fun" unearthed in the hunt of a pimp's prey (that shit is fun, though! j/k). As do most philosophers, we tend to ascribe to the separation of higher and lower pleasures and levels of happiness, which are regarded as such chiefly because we presume that when presented with a choice between these two levels (marginal utility notwithstanding) the higher levels are preferable. This, like all things can be contested, but I offer that one would be hard pressed to find someone who had truly found love to trade the process by which they came accross it with "pimpin," despite the proverbial greenness of the grass on the other side (although many say it in spite quite frequently, smh). Greeks made in a particular fashion can draw a similar parallel to "others"...lol.
Now, for the head-thumpingly cool part. Ever wonder why a black female who is "promiscuous" is looked down upon by damn near everyone while a white female of similar (or even more exaggerated) behavior garners discliples and adulation? There is something really weird to me about Superhead being a pariah while Kim Kardashian gets a show AND gets wifed up by Reggie Bush (wealthy black guy who could probably have anyone) AFTER he and the world watched Ray-J hit it RAW DAWG!!!! OMG!!!! If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is. It happens in our community so frequently that all I can do is shake my head. A black female can "pimp" all she wants, but she'll always end up looking like the hoe--and that's just down right pitiful and unacceptable for any real pimp. Sorry.
i think people should do what they want and not care what people think, as long as they are protecting themselves. double standards are such bullshit. white girls can be strippers and on girls gone wild and nobody thinks twice about it, but let a black chick do the same thing, people start twisting their faces like they just ate a lemon. and this whole "men can be pimps but females can't" thing is bullshit too. if a man and a woman do the same thing, it should be judged the same.
i, personally, don't find anything wrong with having casual sex. i think that it's unfair to automatically assume that a person is insecure and lacks something in their lives because they are participating in sexual acts with other people who they are not dating/marriage/whatever. i mean, newsflash: sex is FUN. as long as the participants are both on the same page and they are using condoms, then that covers protection both physically and emotionally as far as i'm concerned.
I see your point Bmore...but these double standards exist for a reason, especially in the matter of sex. As a female you are letting something enter your body- with the possibility of them leaving a little something behind. I believe the author of this blog is NOT saying that casual sex is bad nor do I think the author is referring to casual sex... it is more so the idea pimping, which seems to be different than just casual sex. It's more than just casual sex, its making casual sex and your casual partners your claim to fame.
I agree that there is some level of insecurity in a person that goes around claiming to be "pimping". 1. why do they need to broadcast their sex life. 2.It's as if they are not confident enough to withhold the goodies....I mean as the author said there is more respect and a greater level of power in being able to withhold -which usually makes them want it/you more. I believe a true pimp or pimptress is one who has all those interested drooling at his/her feet without her/him ever having to do anything but be themselves.
Suffice to say I disagree with all of you to some degree, lest render my nom de guerre sterile. In order to quantify how much so, I invite you all to wander with me as I attempt to rebut using a panoply of big (and perhaps misused) words, copious " ", and marginally pertinent asides.
It is decidedly atypical, though decreasingly so it seems, for a female to assume the position (laugh)of "pimp" "player" "mack" etc, but this is borne more so out of ignominy than desire from my vantage. To wit, how many chicks do you know with that Victorian virtue safeguarding magic number? Though for some this may be concrete, others just keep a running tally of "gentlemen callers" they'll entertain before their plan runs out of minutes- and yes nights and weekends definitely count. Health, hygiene not withstanding, this limit is more about others than about their own carnal desires.
After all, "can't turn a ho into a housewife" right?
Actually that happens damn near everyday. Dudes genuflect proffering their desires to make their exalted queen to be the one to bear his seed- on purpose- as well as to perform other "wifely" duties (ed note: being raised largely by a single mother and possessing a "progressive" 21st gender outlook, I demur from saying cooking, cleaning, laundry, but I will also point out that these things won't do themselves so....ahem)
Back to the story.
The other reason 'buddy' is willing to forgo his feral instincts is because presumably by then he either completed his background check on his prize or reconciled that it's cool ol' girl was cool with the basketball teams in college- at least that's only five dudes, could have been the football squad! Point is that women are all too keen to this fact and for the sake of their dowry; they try to keep the numbers in the single digits. (another ed note: for this "sacrifice on 'our' behalf we men thank you, between that and the whole childbirth thing, I think y'all been getting a bit of a bad rap through history's course- particularly amongst the Black Israelites[you tube it some time]).
Apropos child birth... Perhaps a part of the reason why women auto-inhibit is to avoid being on an episode of Maury. Prior to paternity testing a man could escape caring for his progeny by calling into question the piety of the mother. This probably mattered a great deal more in the days of yore when heredity largely determined one's station in life and the consequences for impropriety far more severe than just being labeled a "slore" or "harlot" even.
Moral is that male has a pretty good idea he's not marrying a virgin, so female could have "gotten it in" as much as she wanted to; she should just not tell male about it if she ever wants her male to pay homage to that old Kia song again: “My neck, my back, lick…” – it goes downhill after that, trust me.
Segueing to my next point: double standards. It is unfortunate that women can't do what they do without blotting their own escutcheons, but it is something that many a female buys into conversely. Call it some sort of primal attraction or even effective brand marketing by Axe, but women seem to want a man who exudes favor from Priapus. Often such esteem is only enhanced by the notches accumulated on his amatory shillelagh. I mean if a dude declared his sanctity by trying to wear a white tux at his wedding, a lot of women would rather throw him pity than p*ssy. Men, not so much. It's not that dudes mind per se that their chick has known the touch of a man, but we just ask you to play a little pretend. Though this may sound unjust and turning asunder the principle of fairness, it's really no different than make-up or the wonder bra. We know you really ain't that banging, and you know we know, but we all get along much better just allowing the game to be played that way- posterity for sake of posteriors if you will. The ultimate key to the trick is, as a mutual friend of the blogs mother said "just keep it tight".
With regards to pink vs. purple parts and their perception, there again we are victims of our own actions. Yes Kim K and Reggie Bush got their thing, but Bill Maher was seen in public with Superhead to minimal ballyhoo. We black folk are the ones who call our own women "hoes", "skanks", "bitches"(though that's only because we don't know all your names individually) etc. White folks just chalk it up to “college” or “jager bombs” or “getting back at daddy”. This is not to exonerate Mr. Charlie from contributing to problem, but we are more than willing to carry the water for him on this one. I've also noticed that no activity is so satisfying as for a woman than to talk about "who's poking who" and what that says about how a woman carry themselves (not anyone on this blog though- the progressive, virtuous lot you all are. Ha).
Biologically women are the only creatures in the animal kingdom with an organ whose sole function is sexual pleasure. Who are you to tell the man, or woman, above "thanks but no thanks" for such an endowment (though pity for those whose experience in "congress" has led them to believe it really “is a bridge to nowhere”). With that being said women can exercise prudence without being prude. To paraphrase a speech I heard from the honorable Judge Joe Brown, when women use their va-jay-jay (I think that's the term he used) as a bargaining chip, that leads to the bastardization of society. The result is that the prize really resides not between the shoulders, but between the thighs (poetic). I mean I'm sure you're sporting some top notch trim, but the making a main focus on that- or the pursuit of it, will invariably alter the course of the relationship. Ultimately the dude will find you interesting or he won't, "keeping the goodies in a jar" only seeks to delay the inevitable. Highly inefficient I'd say.
In fairness, the "poon as power" argument cuts both ways. The concept of casual sex with no strings sounds great, but rarely works out that way. Someone will catch feelings. If you're adult enough to "make the beast with two backs" (shout out to Bill Shakespeare), then you should be adult enough to know when the beast has run wild- and summarily put it to sleep. Knowing this would save a lot of drama and Eric Jerome Dickey novels.
The idea of women's sexual liberation is still a burgeoning movement. One only has to look at the title of this blog entry- there basically is no feminine form of the word pimp. Similarly there isn't much of a moniker for a male prostitute (with all due respect to Richard Gere, Rob Schneider, and Nick Cannon, "gigolo" cannot be taken seriously as a word). For males this works out quite conveniently. Who among us wouldn't mind being called a "libertine" or "ruee" to a "hussy" or "strumpet". Language evolves as society does so maybe with a few more years and a few more partners, le mot juste can be found.
So "can women be pimps"? Sure. Do they generally make a habit of it? No. Does it mean there's something wrong with them if they do? Not at all. I venture to say women have sex for many of the same reasons as their male counterparts: love, boredom, curiosity, remuneration, etc. “It ain’t trickin if you got it”- and ‘it’ could be a watch, some shoes, dinner, a wedding ring. It’s all the same principle really, just different payment plan.
Alas, the world is imperfect so the burden for chastity falls upon Eve. Perhaps had she not shared her fruit so willingly then, we could all indulge in the sweet nectar from her apple (bottom) without shame. Adam should have heeded scripture from the profits Bellamy, Bivens, and DeVoe about the 11th commandment: “never trust a big butt and a smile.”
Post a Comment