One term that gets bandied about a lot recently is ‘Simp’.
It’s one of those where the original meaning has been claimed into a fetish and also thrown around as an insult by those who’ve lost the meaning.
So, let’s dive.
What is a Simp?
As it’s simplest, a simp is someone (usually a guy) who will hyperfocus on one person (usually a lady) in a desperate attempt for just a crumb of her attention.
This could be by going above and beyond trying to impress someone. Or persisting in trying to win affections even after rejection.
Some internet definitions have this as not being one woman, but women in general.
Though some of this seems similar to White Knighting, another misused internet term.
But why the word Simp?
It’s an acronym : Sucker Idolising Mediocre Pussy. So people being called Simps are not only being told they’re a sucker, but it’s also a swipe at the person/women they’re chasing.
The claim into fetish
Particularly in Financial Domination circles, people will say or do clips which are basically “Simp for me” and the idea is simple.
“You pay me, buy me things, promote me… and in return I will give you very little.”
I’m not sure if they are aware they’re implying they themselves are mediocre, mind.
Wait? Some guys like that?
It’s not for me. But. When you digest, there are a lot of guys who like the idea of the unobtainable Goddess. That whatever they do they will always be rejected.
This might be because they’re someone used to getting their own way.
Or, it might be because they have previously displayed negative behaviours when trying to get women’s interest. Repeating this in a consensual framework might be something they find fun, or even arousing.
But also ironic usage
On some fan forums some fans describe themselves as ‘Simps’ for certain celebrities. It’s meant is ironic.
Which is apt, because the fans probably haven’t done that much in terms of supporting. Let alone (thankfully) straying into obsessive behaviour. That they mean more that they admire/lust the figure and so will watch a lot of shows with them in.
So, tell me about its lost meaning?
Like a lot of internet phrases with negative connotations it’s often used to try to insult or shut down discussions.
That is, a guy is saying something online in support of women, or offering support if she has had a bad experience, someone might call them a Simp (or white knight, or accuse of virtue signalling) as an attempt to either silence them or to discredit them.
Like, to give an idea – let’s spin this on the other foot. If a woman said, “we should take men’s mental health more seriously,” can you imagine the reaction if someone accused her of just saying this for male attention?
Incidentally. The men who persist in trying to get someone to message, meet, play with them even after being told ‘no’ are probably closer to actually ‘Simping’ than the guys who respect this.
In short it’s a slur to attack people with or to shut down discussion, rather than any form of calling out bad behaviour.
So is being a Simp a bad thing?
Ignoring a no and persisting with trying to impress someone is a bad thing.
Equally, if you register something as a soft no and use it as an excuse to persist.
It is often suggested that people who simp are also more likely to be taken advantage of. Either deliberately (the recipient knows what they want, and won’t give it to them, but will use it to manipulate and get what they want) or not (that they thought someone’s behaviour towards them was nice/friendly and so might ask for favours).
Disingenuous behaviour is also negative, that is perhaps having a public display which is not how you would act in private.
“It is terrible that women receive so many horrible messages, but, should reply to the nice message I send” is negative, because it displays entitlement – also who quantifies which messages are ‘nice’.
Also if you are doing anything where you are getting less out of it then you are putting in you have to ask yourself if this is healthy.
That is the lack of the responses you desire because the person simply isn’t interested (may have displayed a soft no you’ve not picked up on) or even finds your approach creepy.
Whether these are ‘simping’ or not, they’re still negative traits.
Of course. If this is clear and consensual. For example in the fetish example above, of course. But it must be clear and consensual.
But any form of acting with integrity, behaviour in private consistent with public displays, and ‘doing the right thing’ is never a bad thing. Regardless of what strangers on the internet say.
If you think your behaviour might not be appropriate, why not check with the recipient?
Leave a Reply