ManOeuvre
Posts: 277
Joined: 3/2/2013
Status: offline
|
WaywardSoul,
You correct me, and I'm the richer for it. Romantic failure is unsuitable. Does the term "social failure" work well enough for you?
What I'm trying to articulate is that "causing someone else to experience discomfort" is a very subjective thing, while the specific lewd behaviours that carry some sort of legal sanction are somewhat less so.
In light of that, I think that society would be better served if there was more memetic distance between our label for men who attempt social interactions they aren't qualified for with people who aren't receptive, and genuine criminals who disregard the human rights of others and perpetrate antisocial acts of violence (physically or not) against them.
At the moment, it seems to me that the status quo, this continuum of "creepiness" lends itself particularly well to arbitrary and pernicious enforcement and an ever expanding definition of the offence in terms of our blunter instruments such as the law, and on the softer social side, a blanket ostracization that neatly covers serial rapists; pimply-faced teenaged boys who think asians' slits run east to west; lecherous drunken uncles at family reunions and that guy at the office who would be utterly charming if only he was 6 inches taller, had a full head of hair, got laser eye surgery and perhaps possessed a number of teeth divisible by 4.
I think the situation is analogous to the more relatable word pervert. While more than a few members of this site might very well wish to own, or take back that word, and many wear that term as a badge of honour, it's undeniable that in polite societies the world over, the word has overwhelmingly negative connotations, and groups the softest fetishists, child molesters and Jeffrey Dahmer under the same umbrella term.
Greta, thank you for sharing your experience, as well as giving your definition.
quote:
It's how a man looks at you. Even if he's prince charming, he can become a disgusting creep very fast, depending on how he looks at you, whether his focusing on your face or not, without shifty eyes, and what he says and how he says it.
I read your definition differently than most of the others that have chimed in, perhaps on account of a greater distance between a woman's outsretched index finger and the rendering of a man into a pariah in your part of the world than in mine.
Do the shifty eyes and lack of facial focus come across more as precursors to violence than say, symptoms of autism?
The reason I think this is important is because, even though as LadyPact pointed out here:
quote:
I'm trying not to sound flippant but creepy doesn't tend to have people finding the necessity to go to court. Creepy isn't necessarily going to hit the stalking level. It's not especially going to last months or years. There are a lot of things that creepy isn't going to live up to that stalking does. Can something start as creepy that can evolve into stalking? Sure.
Even though much of this behaviour doesn't cross the line into criminality, there are real life consequences of people getting labelled as creeps or creepy, and so long as such sanctions, be they social, civil or criminal are encouraged, they ought to be applied, if there is any attempt being made to right some injustice, as responses to actions that someone has taken. I have read a lot of posts on here that specifically reference the feeling of being creeped out.
I certainly cannot argue that someone has experienced some feeling or other, but to establish any sort of rules for society that is dependant on someone's feelings does feel a touch like a descent into madness. Of course nobody here has recommended that "creeps" be crucified, castrated, or straight up culled, but the OP did essentially title this post with something of an injunction.
I don't disagree with the notion implied by Ladies Pact and Constanze, and stated by Greta that well north of abductors, batterers and rapists on the behaviour charte there are legions of men who suffer a serious vitamin Etiquette deficiency.
I react much as you'd hope when some fool behaves in that way towards a woman of mine, or who's otherwise close to me. I tell imperfect strangers to smarten up if I judge them to be out of line towards women in public. I'm even arrogant enough to impose my western style chivalry-ish etiquette expectations on men within an umbrella's reach when I'm far from home, and can barely bahasa. I seriously do not defend the actions of a single one of the "creeps" brought up in the anecdotes posted by the women on this thread, and I'll never recommend similar actions to my sons. Of course, every instance brought up in the examples is something the world could have done without.
My argument is simply that the word creep, along with its many inflections, being so prone to arbitrary application, used for such a wide spectrum of cases, and carrying a stigma so scarlet in hue, is not a terribly useful term.
I also think that using it to describe a person who has harmed no one, rather than specific deeds, is disingenuous, especially when describing a man whose overall aesthetic, before he opens his mouth or lets wander his wonky eye, just exudes and aura of birth control.
*EDIT* Oops. Had this sitting on my desk for awhile. Didn't realize we were onto cars, women's fashions, and boring, boring insults. I'll try to be quicker next time.
< Message edited by ManOeuvre -- 12/1/2015 9:56:47 PM >
|
RE: Don't be a creeper - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread