I’ve got a bunch of work in the queue for the future – a piece on how dating is like the Hobbesian State of Nature (definitely not the Rousseu S.O.N. and Locke…maybe), on how it’s tough to be a man nowadays (it’s a hard life y’all), and some interviews I’ve had with people who have successful relationships on what makes their relationship work out so well and a boatload of other stuff – the new year will be one to remember here at the newly titled “Mr. Philosopher: The Thoughts of the Ignorant Intellectual.” Shameless plug by the way – follow me on Twitter!
Oh, and subscribe to the blog since I plan to do more posts that are shorter as opposed to my normal sized ones as best I can. Lots to talk about from an ignorantly intellectual perspective! (And don’t worry, I’ll explain why I call myself that in the near future…or should I say why it’s been ascribed to me.)
But let’s get to the title – the whore vs. the player. I’m not getting into the whole “women can be players and men can be whores” stuff – I already agree that both men and women are capable of both. But where does the line get drawn at between the two? I think this is a murky area for most people – we want to use a more laudatory term for both sexes as opposed to “player” for men and “whore” for women. But the words have weight only in their perceived power – they lack distinct definitions unless whore = prostitute. But I don’t think we’re using whore like that (I still do refer to prostitutes as whores, but not to their faces. That’s just rude. But you are what you are – just Ask John Witherspoon.) Anyhow, I’m going to throw in a couple of charges here –
1) There’s a difference between being a player and a whore but I’m going to try to make it a lot more tangible than it’s normally been;
2) Though more desirable than being called a whore, being a player really isn’t much better (from an ethical standpoint).
And I’ll try not to take too long to do it.
So on charge 1, we’ve got the difference between a player and a whore. At first read, somebody inevitably says, “Duh. Men are players if they get a lot of ass, and women are whores if they have a lot of sex.” Well, it’s not all that obvious to me. For one, the title “player” and “whore” have been gender stratified for awhile now. Whore gets the derogatory (female) connotation; player gets the laudatory (male) one. Let’s remove the gender aspect from it, however, since the new move is to level the playing field and have both men and women be players and whores, where exactly do we draw the line between the two? Whore still has a negative connotation, though it may still be through its long-standing connection to “women of ill repute,” but for argument’s sake (goody! Thought experiment time!) let’s remove the gender aspects to the words, since that’s what we want to do anyhow, and just focus on what a whore is and what a player is.
Before now, folks would call the player somebody who just gets around all the time with whomever, whenever, but clearly had the power in the situation. They came after it, you know? The whore, on the other hand, was the loose person who just was willing to hop in the sack with anybody. The key difference? One’s gunning, the other is just willing to deal with anything that comes their way. The player has standards but they are flexible, the other lacks standards essentially. The whore gets used and abused and considers it part of the life.
Sure, these differences might be simple, but I’ve tried to make them at least a little bit more concrete. If there’s something I missed in the subtlety, let me know, but I’m going to move on now to Charge #2 – why being a player still isn’t all that much better in the end.
The player is the one with the perceived power to the rest of the world. The player travels searching for more conquests to notch on his/her belt or headboard. The player controls the situation but is only after one thing – the sex. As I noted in an earlier post, men have been reduced to being sexually charged beings who only endeavor to have sex, which is probably tied to why men have been called players in a negative way (the positive way has obviously come from men in order to laud their exploits of women). Either way, the player wants to have as many partners as the player can handle.
Clearly I’ve taken a few literary liberties with the concept of the player, but the case I’m making here is that people would rather being the player vs. the whore, all gender biases aside and even historical connotations aside, is because of the perception of the power the player has. That power is at the expense of the using of those that the player conquers. And as I’m sure many of you are aware, I’m a good Kantian – you can’t go using people as means towards an end. So even though it might be socially “better” to be considered a player due to the perceived power of the player (which reminds me, I’ll have to do something on the power of the p-u-s-s-y, as it was once termed to me), it’s still not ethically better, in my estimation.
Someone might go, “well that’s fine, I’ll proudly be a whore! The social stigma may stay, but I still get what I’m after!” Well yeah, you do, but you end up being the one being used – still poses an ethical problem. Whether or not you wish to acknowledge being used, it’s still an ethical issue of being treated as means and not an end. So no, opting to be a whore comparative to a player doesn’t alleviate the issue at all.
And at just around 1000 words, I’ve tried to problematize the “player vs. whore” debate from a different angle. What are your thoughts? Did I miss the mark? Is being a whore or a player alright? Is there another viewpoint to give this?