Jump to content

Talk:Pimp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.175.69.32 (talk) at 17:47, 19 October 2011 (→"Loverboys": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Redirect‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference to UN convention of 2005

The following statement is made in this article:

sam mo fuckin Krause

"In 2005, the United Nations adopted a convention stating that prostitution is a matter of sexual choice and should be legal throughout the UN, repealing the 1949 statute. Most voters voted for the resolution, and 165 countries legalized prostitution. The most notable non-signatory was the United States."

Please add link to source

Incredibly Poorly Written

This article strikes me as extremely stupidly written and biased, even in the first paragraph. A pimp is not specifically someone who finds underage and "for what ever reason" susceptible women. Or take this.

"At the top there is the pimp who runs the business. Below the pimp is the bottom girl. She acts in a way like an office manager, keeping tabs on the neighborhood when the pimp is away, keeping the pimp apprised of the law enforcement activity, and collecting money from the prostitutes."

This is, let's face it, stupid. It's poorly written, and the citation doesn't link to anything.

Someone fix this article.

?signature?


In response to the above statement, Agreed. A few years back I edited the first paragraph (and the article in general) to be more factual and informational. Even if one thinks the activity is wrong or has negative consequences, one of the most important but onerous responsibilities of an editor is to meticulously present information in the most factual and unbiased format. Moreover, the article gives undue weight to current (at the time of the edit) practices with specific regional slang. After the first few sentences, the article effectively holds zero informative value. A discussion of the (I'm guessing quite extensive) history of the practice and the various forms it takes/took in different cultures would be of much greater value. Jgreeter (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 68.39.243.39, 18 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} May I edit this page?

68.39.243.39 (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to edit? —Mike Allen 05:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Tattoos

Basically nothing in this paragraph is supported by the given sites and should be removed. I'd remove it but the page is semi-protected for no obvious reason. 128.114.59.182 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where, in either linked ref, does it say any of the following things:
  • Many pimps tattoo prostitutes as a mark of "ownership"
  • The tattoo will often be the pimp's street or even his likeness
  • The mark might be as discreet as ankle tattoo, or blatant as a neck tattoo, or large scale font across the prostitute's lower back, thigh, chest, or buttocks
  • If a prostitute comes under the domain of another pimp, the previous pimp's tattoo might either be removed or simply crossed out and replaced with her new pimp's name.
I'm not seeing it. And as these aren't supported by either ref, please explain how I'm POV pushing by removing them. Also please explain why it's POV pushing to remove "type= Criminal" from the info box when nothing in the definition implies that pimps are necessarily criminal? To state that is potentially even a BLP violation. TJ Black (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general consensus is that paragraphs/sections of sorts need support of at least one source. The entry on the branding of prostitutes with tattoos is supported through two sources. Additional links are certainly available, but link farms are not appropriate. And honestly, trying to claim that pimping is not criminal is a stretch, or in other words, an attempt at POV pushing. Seriously, just stop. Cindamuse (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop what? Trying to bring the article into conformity with wikipedia guidelines? Or do they just not apply to this article for some reason? If so, then it should be explicitly marked as such. If not, then please address the questions raised above instead of just dismissing them, distorting my words, and repeatedly slandering other editors with false accusations of vandalism and POV pushing. Thank you. TJ Black (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I butt in? I think you are both right and both wrong. First, I think (this is my personal opinion) that the paragraph makes a bit (too) much out of two mentions, one of which is an op-ed piece. But the proper course of action here is not to remove the entire paragraph, since the two references are to reliable sources, and there is no violation of any kind here. The statements summarized above by TJ Black are more or less verified by the articles, but one may disagree about the depth and extent of those discussions in the articles. Conceivably though, sources could be found--removing it, and removing those sources, is at the least disruptive. At the same time, the section as it stands is, in my opinion, insufficiently verified. As for the criminal part, I don't get that at all--as far as I know, pimping is against the law (in most countries). That makes it criminal (in most countries). End of discussion. To want to remove that qualification is indeed disruptive POV pushing, and I urge TJ Black to refrain from making such edits. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for actually discussing content. I don't know what Cindamuse is hoping to accomplish by throwing out false accusations and refusing to discuss content, but it's very disheartening. I proposed something similar to what you said above on their talk page - reduce the section to 1 sentence, as that's all that's conceivably supported by the refs, and since 1 sentence isn't sufficient for it's own section, merge it into the previous paragraph. As for the remainder of the paragraph, it's purely original research, not backed by the given refs at all. An eminently reasonable compromise, but for some reason Cindamuse refuses to even discuss it.
As for defining pimping as criminal, you give an argument that it isn't and then conclude that it is. So it has to be removed as a potential BLP violation. Either that or remove the list of "Notable pimps and madams". It's one or the other, to suggest anything else means violating wikipedia's core principles. Thanks again for engaging in actual constructive discussion. That's the only way wikipedia can work; disruptive editors like Cindamuse are not contributing. TJ Black (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--No, I didn't give an argument that pimping is not criminal. I said it is against the law, and thus I think that "Criminal" is proper in the infobox. You can call for verification, but the argument that this is a BLP violation is quite a stretch. The list has nothing to do with that--I assume that those person's pimpness is well-established in their articles. BTW, I removed the unverified part from the Tattoo section, with an edit summary explaining why. Also, please don't call Cindamuse disruptive; their actions have been, in my opinion, in perfect agreement with Wikipedia's guidelines, and it is best not to let it go that far. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said it's illegal in some countries, and thus not uniformly criminal. And calling everyone listed on this page a criminal is a BLP violation. And most editors would consider reverting edits with no justification while making false accusations and refusing to discuss content disruptive, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. As mentioned before, please mark this page with a template stating that it's exempt from wikipedia's core policies. That would save a lot of trouble all around, don't you agree? Thanks. TJ Black (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcasm, as well as your twisting my words, is duly noted. Go ahead and mark it with a template yourself, since you are making that claim. But please try and gauge the opinion of other editors, to see if they agree with your reading of events. If my edits (and those of Cindamuse) are not in agreement with WP core policies, I will gladly stand corrected. I look forward to receiving a notification that says you have alerted the community at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; if you are right, you should be able to make your case easily. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The modern slang term for pimp

The one article I really think Wikipedia hasn't mentioned was the slang term for pimp. Mainly due to the fact I have no idea of that term it should be mentioned in the main article of pimp. To me pimp really doesn't seem to mean anything to me about being sexual. Just saying okay. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.233.227 (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The description of "pimping" as a slang term being first used on the MTV show "Pimp My Ride" is incorrect. The slang term originated with the world wrestling federation. In 1998 wrestler Charles Wright debuted a "pimp" character known as "the Godfather" he would come to the stage with a group of women he referred to as "ho's" His character was highly stereotypical of the "1970's pimp". The women were local strippers who were paid to surround him that evening. The song written for Charles Wright's character contained the words "Pimpin aint pimpin aint easy man, pimpin aint easy man". Soon "pimpin aint easy" became a common catch phrase, derived both from the Godfather's act and used as a colloquiolism in "the hood". In low income black neighbourhoods in the United States, pimps and drug dealers are the only ones making money. So anyone who is rich in those neighbourhoods is "pimping". The etymology of the slang term becomes a little hazy from there, since both sources managed to turn "pimping" into a term that meant "being stylish in an over-the-top way". Pimp my ride didn't air until 2004. Frankly, "Pimping" was in wide use in the early 1990's but I only know that because I was there, and I'm not sure if there is a literary source for the fact.

For the rest, I suggest every Spike Lee movie ever made, Boyz in the Hood, The colour purple, fritz the cat, a book called how it was: growing up black in the 50's.

I apologize for being really bad at editing wikipedia, however, the reference was incorrect and I wanted to say something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.24.16 (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 209.129.115.2, 10 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Under Notable pimps, I'm sure that Miles Davis was one for a short period around the fifties.

209.129.115.2 (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Since that request is somewhere between patent nonsense and unreferenced, it cannot be added to the page. Should you, somehow, produce a reliable source verifying that fact, then we could consider adding it. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • We could consider that, but why would we? In his autobiography Miles says that he acted like one, but what is the point of listing that in this article? It was hardly his main line of income--you may know that he also played the trumpet. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to take issue with the statement that "most pimps are men". As a matter of fact, ALL pimps are men. A female pimp is called a madame. There are just as many madames as pimps, and certainly more of note since the media tend to glamourize madames. You wouldn't see a male pimp getting away with writing a book called "the happy hooker" (authored by xaviera hollander) and getting away with it. Which is why I would have to agree with the assertion that most male pimp/female prostitute relationships are abusive. No woman would choose to have sex with men for money. It would be severely physically painful. Cervical dysplasia is often found in prostitues. See "Cervical Neoplasia and human papiloma virus" http://sti.bmj.com/content/67/6/478.abstract "The results demonstrate a higher incidence and prevalence of cervical dysplasia in prostitutes and therefore suggest regular cervical PAP smear screening in registered prostitutes twice a year" There is also an increased risk of hiv/aids among prostitutes. here is a site that links to other sources http://www.avert.org/prostitution-aids.htm Incidentally, can the person who refers to prostitution as legal in some countries please provide an encyclopedic reference. I'm pretty sure it's just plain illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.24.16 (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion so far

Greetings. Not considering the validity of the arguments given above, one thing remains after all these years of debate; this article doesn't give any information on pimping in countries where it IS legal. That's somewhat troubling. Not all countries that allow brothels are 3rd world nations being abused by rich westerners; one example of modern western states with laws allowing prostitution (and yes, pimping) might be Germany.

The problem here is that the whole article is very POV from the, and I'm going to say this even risking a backlash, American feminist, politically correct, viewpoint. While the 'facts' stated in the current article are most likely true in a subset of the whole set of 'pimping business', they are not universally true by any means.

Anyone know a professional pimp operating in a country where it's legal who could give this article a little touch-up? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimakela (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution is legal in most counties in the state of Nevada in the US (though not in Las Vegas or Reno). See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada . It is also legal in some locations in Holland, such as the city of Amsterdam. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands . In both these locations the activity is government regulated (e.g. government-mandated health inspections and condom use). I'm uncertain of the legal status of 'pimping' in these jurisdictions, though in both of them prostitutes normally work in buildings owned by someone else, and pay fees to them. Obviously even in jurisdictions where being a pimp/madam is legal, abusive treatment of their prostitutes by pimps/madams would be illegal, and the Wikipedia page on Dutch prostitution makes it clear that this sometimes occurs there.

Prostitution itself (the act of exchanging sex for money) is legal in England, though many activities normally associated with prostitution (e.g. pimping/being a madam, advertising the prostitute's services, soliciting for prostitution in public places, more than one prostitute working in the same building, not reporting prostitution-related earnings to the tax authorities, etc.) are illegal there. There are also some countries/locations where, while prostitution is technically illegal, the law is seldom or almost never enforced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.71 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • June 2011 ***

This saying that Pimps are not anymore valid is going too far. Some traditionalists who are comfortable with alpha maleness and the management factor of MALE pimps or Madams (depending on one's preference) actually prefer to negotiate prices or in/outcalls with a pimp. It is also somewhat unattractive to talk shop with the prostitute for pricing for others. You want to have memories of a prostitute not of have a conversation with it like a merchant or in fact any conversation at all! The more humanised, the worse, for some clients at any rate. Based on these reasons, pimps are NOT passe or dated. How many orders can a telemarketeer manage at a time anyway? And the whole idea of a millionaire pimp just puts one off somehow. This should be a middle class lifestyle assuring/level type of job at any rate, otherwise it will just put everyone off again - the kind of wealth and number of girls managed by a single pimp should not be excessive. Then finally attitude and flexibility as well as mindset. preferences, enjoyment of work or enjoyment of the joy of customers. It's not a necessity but definitely NOT no longer needed. Some of us prefer the presence of witneses and alibis as well in case something goes wrong or the sex workers are inclined to sabotage etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.37.239 (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Loverboys"

I doubt that the section on "Loverboys" should be included in this article. To begin with, the phenomenon as described does not differ so much from "pimping" in general - many prostitutes in general are coerced into dependence on their pimps via seduction or drugs. Furthermore, the existence of "loverboys" is poorly supported by cited documentation which, in any case, only cites about 30 cases, which is less than one out of a million of the estimated prostitutes active worldwide (http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000095). Finally, the idea that these sexually experienced immigrants, presumably from North Africa, are seducing the nice local repressed Protestant girls, seems to me the sort of thing that could easily be motivated by xenophobic hysteria, rather than legitimate concern. (68.175.69.32 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pimp&oldid=456386092"