The Verb "To Pimp"

A couple of weeks ago, television commentator David Shuster got into trouble for asking on MSNBC’s Hardball program whether Hillary Clinton had “pimped out” her daughter Chelsea by putting her to work as a fresh new face and spokesperson for her mother on the campaign trail. Hillary was outraged by the use of the term, found it offensive in the extreme and called for his head; MSNBC responded by suspending him temporarily. This episode brought up several issues: one is whether it’s fair of the press to follow Chelsea’s private life now that she is acting as a shill for her mother; the other is what is an appropriate use of the word “pimp.” Guy Branum wrote an interesting article on the first topic in Slate.com on February 11; Jesse Sheidlower discussed the second topic in a separate article published in Slate on the same day. I’d like to address both issues.

Let’s address the question of the appropriateness of dragging Chelsea Clinton into the limelight. All her life her parents have been extremely tenacious of her right to have a private life and have gone after those who intruded on Chelsea’s personal space and private activities like bulldogs. Most people have found this admirable; we don’t like to see parents trotting their children out and using them as tools to garner public sympathy.

But Chelsea is no longer a child; she is 28 years old, and she has chosen of her own free will to appear in public on her mother’s behalf. If the Clintons see fit to trot her out, it can only be because they feel she is an appealing and attractive surrogate for her mother who demonstrates that Hillary Clinton is not only successful in her public life, but has raised an exceedingly bright, successful, polite and socially astute daughter. It is exactly because she is a symbol that the media want to learn more about her: is she an appropriate symbol? What can we learn about her parents by examining her? If she and her parents have decided that she should play a public and ongoing role in the campaign, it is only fair that members of the press ask about the reasons why. When Hillary Clinton presents her child to the world in her stead, we must ask what the point is, and if she won’t tell us, we have the right to express the question.

David Shuster’s cynical and ugly terminology was totally inappropriate, and there seems to have been a nastiness to the idea behind it as well. I believe he used the objectionable term “pimped out” solely to convey the idea of displaying or using the charms or talents of another person for one’s own gain, but even as he made the comment, he was hedging and implying that he realized the term was loaded.

However, the idea behind his badly-worded comment was valid. Cynical, but valid. I believe that question is, What is the point of using Chelsea on the campaign? Furthermore, why is it suddenly okay to do so now? Why have the Clintons decided that it’s appropriate to put their daughter on constant public display now when they know full well her personal life, behavior, friends and opinions will be even more thoroughly scrutinized as a result? They have always contended that anyone who pried into her life was beneath contempt, but in using her in this way, they have to be aware that they’re opening her life up for even more sustained attention. It is, of course, her right as an adult to help her mother out in this way; I find Chelsea Clinton admirable for being willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary. But for her family to pretend that as a 28-year-old out on the hustings for her mom she’s as far off limits as she was as a 13-year-old is ridiculous.

The primary historical use of the verb “to pimp” means to solicit sexual partners for someone else and to benefit financially from the exchange. As a parent, if someone accused me of pimping my daughter, even in a purely metaphorical sense, I would also be outraged and incensed. Though she is much older than I, Hillary Clinton and I both come from a time when we knew of no attractive or appealing usage of the word “pimp.” Every possible meaning she and I were exposed to was offensive and ugly.

Since the Shuster dustup, I’ve heard a number of people under 30 complaining that they don’t get what the fuss is all about. They’re so used to seeing “to pimp” in a whole new and positive context: to decorate, to make more attractive, to show off one’s desirability or power. When they think of “pimping” they think of showing themselves or their possessions off in high style, and think of television shows like “Pimp My Ride” where cars are overhauled and go from blah to wow—at least according to those who admire a high bling factor.

The new use of the term is so common that millions of young people don’t realize how recently its meaning changed, and how loaded and offensive the term is to most people born before 1980. But David Shuster is 40 years old; he should be aware of how loaded and offensive the term is. There’s no excuse for his resorting to it when there are more precise and appropriate ways of getting to the root question.

I disagree that the word “pimp” is now so commonly used that the age-old offensive sexual meaning no longer competes with more recent meanings. Kids may believe that the term no longer carries offensive sexual overtones, but to most of the populace the first meaning of the verb “to pimp” remains an ugly one referring to people who benefit financially from the sexual degradation of others. Many people don’t mind using “pimped out” or “pimp my ride” in mixed company because they think of it as a term implying over-the-top fashion or a youthful hipness that they’d like to co-opt for themselves. It’s obvious that legions of people no longer give thought to the fact that the term has for centuries referred to (and continues to refer to) a man who subjects women to humiliation, duress and physical, legal and psychological dangers for his own gain. But millions haven’t forgotten the meaning of the word just because an alternate meaning has become popular over the past decade.

Even among young people who admit that the first use of the word refers to someone who procures customers for a prostitute, the term has lost its sting because so many younger people no longer see pimping (that is, making money as a procurer for sex workers) as offensive. They now see sex workers and those in their orbit as becoming ever-closer to the mainstream. Over the past decade, our culture has embraced a certain pimp and ho chic; pornography may not be completely mainstream, but it’s so pervasive and such a lucrative, easily accessible and popular form of entertainment now that hardcore porn style and terminology are now freely accessible and attractive to middle-schoolers. Disturbingly large numbers of teens are quite knowledgeable about porn, from its techniques to its accoutrements.

Many girls now compete to look as much like professional sex workers as possible, not only on reality television shows but also when they choose the clothes they wear to school or select the entertainment they provide at sweet sixteen parties. It's no wonder. Britney Spears’ earliest videos showed her vamping for the camera in extra-short schoolgirl clothing in a blatant appeal to pederastic fantasists. Christina Aguilera and other hot young singers vie for spots on the Pussycat Dolls stage, dressing like hookers, bumping, grinding and stripping as a way to build their public image and sell more CDs. And it works. Porn style becomes more pervasive all the time: breast implants and Brazilian waxes are now commonplace enough to discuss over suburban brunches.

There are some who view this as pro-sexual empowerment of women: “Look at me! I claim my sexuality and am not afraid to flash my crotch to show you how powerful I’ve become!” Pole dancing and faux-lesbian bumping and grinding are now commonplace concert and video cliches. They’re packaged and presented in a way meant to sexually excite men and play to their fantasies, but the only power women get out of it is the power to tease—to excite and then deny satisfaction. Their power is only an extension of their desire to trade sex for what they want. Nor is it even the power to demand their own sexual satisfaction. It is solely the power to prove that they can elicit a sexual response in others, then not fulfill this promise unless they get something of commercial value in exchange.

This kind of perpetually-titillating sexualized social interaction encourages women to believe that their power rests in their ability to focus on and then frustrate those who wield real power. It encourages men to continue to see women as sending mixed messages, to believe that maybe no doesn’t really mean no, and to believe that sex is all about what men want, and that satisfaction requires considering only their own needs and denying women their power. It’s about playing games to heighten excitement, but where do we go from there? And how does that spill into other ways that men and women interrelate in the rest of their lives? I fear that hypersexualization of young people and the presentation of sex as something women promise and then deny in order to gain power (and that men overcome women’s will to get) is a huge step backward for women and men both. Selfishness, force, game-playing and denial all build frustration and walls. And they’re not that great for sex, either.

I’m not against people acknowledging their sexuality. I have no problem with adults reveling in the pleasure of exercising their sexual power with other consenting adults as they see fit. I’m not even against legalizing prostitution, disturbing as I may find the concept personally, since legalization would allow women who have chosen that work to stand up for their rights to represent themselves and not to have to rely on pimps for “protection” from the law or from others who would harm them. They would be more likely to seek proper health care, which would keep themselves and their tricks (and their tricks’ partners) safer, and they would have legal recourse when threatened.

But our odd American puritan streak has so strangled healthy, honest sexual awareness and communication that lust has had to work its way up and out in convoluted forms and formats. It’s disingenuous and dangerous when a culture denies and demonizes people’s basic sexual underpinnings yet at the same time incorporates them into its youth culture so completely that everything is sexualized but no one will admit it.

Advocating abstinence-only sex education and denying teens the right to easy access to contraception and health care is hypocritical and unrealistic, and is totally insufficient preparation in a world which whets sexual appetites and debases sexuality at the same time. Girls are told at home, in houses of worship and even sometimes in their classrooms that they’re weak-willed, dirty sluts unless they’re abstinent till marriage, and they learn that it’s a sin to acknowledge their sexual feelings. If they want to show that they’re basically “good,” they learn not to prepare themselves properly for sex or follow safe sex guidelines when they put themselves in situations where they’re likely to be sexual.

They’re also taught by different but equally persuasive segments of society that their most valuable commodity, which can be traded for power and money, is their sexual attractiveness. If they get “carried away” and end up having unprotected sex, then somehow they’re not as slutty as they would be if they thought ahead, acknowledged what they wanted to do, and had a supply of condoms with them. Meanwhile, the songs, TV shows, websites and movies they like tell them they should be teasing men like whores; their families and houses of worship call them bad if they think ahead and admit that they’re actively sexual creatures.

Talk about mixed messages!