Use of the word 'pimping'

[slowmotion]

I dunno about you, but I honestly wasn't in a US ghetto of any kind in the 70s.

Your education can start with this documentary.....

[media]
]View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYriOuyJU5I[/media]

 

[Pat "5mph"]

And what, in your view, is the connection between flashy accoutrements designed to boost status through the display of possessions, and the ownership, commodification and sale of one class of people by another?

Surely same social class? I mean the pimp and the prostitute.

I think your understanding of pimps is based upon 1970s US ghetto culture and not based in reality at all.

Mine too: what does the modern pimp (of both genders, or indeed transgender), look /act like?

Personally, I think the term is vulgar, I have never used it to describe an embellishment/renewal of my bikes or stuff.
A local artist does an kids activity with their bikes, she calls it "blink your bike".

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

This is what some people are referring to when they talk about "pimps" wearing flashy clothes

https://www.aier.org/article/why-drug-dealers-rappers-and-pimps-wear-their-wealth


There's a lot more to it than showing off wealth earned off the back of others (on their backs)

 

[Pat "5mph"]

This is what some people are referring to when they talk about "pimps" wearing flashy clothes

https://www.aier.org/article/why-drug-dealers-rappers-and-pimps-wear-their-wealth
That article is not relevant to the point the OP of this thread makes, imo.
And yes, the article describes what pimps do (did?) with the wealth accumulated by pimping, they embellished themselves.
In conclusion, pimping one's bike would only be correct if the end result was as vulgar as the showing off practiced by ... a pimp in the 70's
Modern pimps might be more sophisticated


There's a lot more to it than showing off wealth earned off the back of others (on their backs)

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Not really, it's revolving around a narrow stereotype of one use of the word, a stereotype based in 1970s America where prostitution was broadly tolerated in some areas of some cities. Pimps could afford to wear gaudy clothes and jewellery because they could openly show what they were and their "business". To extend that very narrow stereotype to cover modern usage is wrong. To then try and impose a value judgement on that word and censor it's use on a cycling forum is equally wrong.

 

[theclaud]

This is what some people are referring to when they talk about "pimps" wearing flashy clothes

https://www.aier.org/article/why-drug-dealers-rappers-and-pimps-wear-their-wealth


There's a lot more to it than showing off wealth earned off the back of others (on their backs)

It appears to be chiefly you and slowmo that are fixated with this particular image of what a pimp is. Maybe stop projecting?

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

It appears to be chiefly you and slowmo that are fixated with this particular image of what a pimp is. Maybe stop projecting?

And the OP. It's not "projecting" to respond to what is explicitly said in the opening statement -

Pimping is what pimps did to their cars and outfits to display their wealth.

 

[EltonFrog]

What a very silly thread. It’s just word get over it.

 

[slowmotion]

It appears to be chiefly you and slowmo that are fixated with this particular image of what a pimp is. Maybe stop projecting?

Quoi???? Until now, I've never mentioned the stereotype "cock bawd" that seems to obsess some parishioners hereabouts.

 

[Blue Hills]

What a very silly thread. It’s just word get over it.

Got to agree.

I asked the OP a reasonable question about part of their original post and haven't had a reply despite the fact that they have clearly been back.

One wonders why the thread was started.

 

[Mugshot]

I asked the OP a reasonable question about part of their original post and haven't had a reply despite the fact that they have clearly been back.

Did you?
Maybe the OP thought the question was rather loaded, or maybe they felt they'd already answered your question before you'd asked it.

 

[Cycleops]

Did you?
Maybe the OP thought the question was rather loaded, or maybe they felt they'd already answered your question before you'd asked it.

So why don't you let him respond rather than answering the question for him?

 

[Mugshot]

So why don't you let him respond rather than answering the question for him?

Same reason you're answering on behalf of @Blue Hills probs.

 

[Cycleops]

Same reason you're answering on behalf of @Blue Hills probs.

But at least I wasn't trying to second guess what he was thinking.

 

[Mugshot]

But at least I wasn't trying to second guess what he was thinking.

Get off the fence then, give it a shot. Or maybe you already did when you implied that the OP was suggesting you didn't watch a particular TV program.

I used to like that TV programme where a bunch of experts would come to someone with a beat up old car and transform it into a hotrod. Perhaps I shouldn't watch it any more ?