RE: Don't be a creeper (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/4/2015 6:16:26 AM)

That's the same one I posted



PeonForHer -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/4/2015 6:36:02 AM)

Whoops, didn't see your link.



NookieNotes -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/4/2015 6:46:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
Since when does a person's dress make them less deserving of basic human decency?
Since when does a person's sexual life (whether chaste or promiscuous) make them less deserving of basic human decency?
This is what I'm not understanding. As far as I know, it does not.


The problem is that the issue is (far) DEEPER than you make it out to be.
It's still SIMPLE. It's just not as simple as you would like to make it out to be.


Yes. It is. CHOOSE how you feel people should be treated on a basic human level, then do that. It's as simple as it can be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
We have to explicitly define what you consider "basic human decency" since we're talking about the phase difference between (1) noticing, (2) looking, and (3) leering - and - we're talking about that under various conditions (e.g., city streets, business offices, wedding receptions, etc.).


No. We don't have to define what I consider basic human decency, because YOU are the one making excuses and giving reasons for behavior above and beyond what you would give to every human.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
Bearing in mind that probably only 1 out of 10 guys actually noticeably leers at women, there is a reason I brought up the phase curves in previous posts.


And you are satisfied with the odds? 10% of men treating women so poorly it's noticeable to you, and admitted Aspie who does not grok interaction easily?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
Some people might think that H2O goes linearly from a solid phase (ice) to a liquid phase (water) and then to a gaseous phase (steam). While it's not that simple, it's not that much more complex because there are OTHER FACTORS in play other than sheer temperature.

Those (slightly complicating) actors are simultaneously in play (remember that "triple point" example?).
So, it's not as simple as just going from solid to liquid to gas with temperature.

There's more to it that you have to think about to understand what is really going on.


No. You just have to decide if you are going to have ethics and stick to them or allow others to control your behavior through their mode fo dress and goodness knows what other random cues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
Likewise with the ramifications of why (some) women dress the way they do, and why (some) men react the way they do.
It's simple. But I believe it's not as simple as you portray it to be.


Immaterial. Treat people with kindness and compassion, rather than as if you are mentally holding your dick in your hand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
But, just like we need to have the same definition of "steam" to understand each other, we need to be working valid definitions of:
a) What the women are dressed like on the day they are leered at?


IMMATERIAL. Choose how you believe all humans should be treated on a basic human level, then apply that to women, men, blacks, whites, ugly and beautiful

SIMPLE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
b) What the women are dressed like on the other 364.25 days of the year?


IMMATERIAL. See above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
c) Why they dressed that way?


IMMATERIAL. See above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
d) How many men actually leered anyway (was it 1 out of 10,000? 1 out of 1,000? 1 out of 100? 1 out of 2?)


IMMATERIAL. Why would it ever be OK to make another person uncomfortable because of YOUR sexual urges?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
e) Why they leered at them?


IMMATERIAL. See above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
f) How do you differentiate leering from looking anyway?


I already did that for you:

no·tice
ˈnōdəs/
verb
1. become aware of.

look
lo͝ok/
verb
1. direct one's gaze toward someone or something or in a specified direction.

leer
lir/
verb
look or gaze in an unpleasant, malicious, or lascivious way.

So, looking at you with kindness in my eyes is not the same as looking at you in a malicious way. And so on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
g) Do we all agree on that definition?


Do you disagree with the definitions as stated? How so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
h) What other factors are in play here?


Doesn't matter. If you are told you are being a creep, making excuses about a person dressing a particular way deserving it is NOT the right reaction. Ever.

Now, if you believe you are in the right, and someone is being over-sensitive, well, it's certainly your right to stick to your guns. And it is their right to walk away and not be followed.

Very different than defending your creepy behavior, "because tits."

--

I should be clear. I tend to not be as sensitive as many to "creepy" behavior. I actually respond more to what I call energy, and is more likely me picking up subtle body language and olfactory cues than any sort of woo-woo thing, even before people interact with me.

Others whose energy I like, I allow the "creepy-ness" as mistakes, and let them know (as compassionately as possible) when it could be an issue to me or others. And I find it is overwhelmingly positively received. Because I have chosen my audience.

So, my point is...

I, choose how I prefer to interact with other humans every moment of every day. I do not excuse my behavior with the children's phrase, "He/She/They made me do it!"

Do you see how that can affect everything, including "creepy" behavior?



LadyPact -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/4/2015 7:06:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
I really agree with that completely, I would like to stress that I don't think Crumpet is anybody who would actually ever harass, rape or stare to the point that it makes somebody uncomfy or if he would by mistake, he'd stop it ASAP, it just seems a bit unfair to place all the burden (i.e. some fucked up dude who has no idea what's acceptable and considers himself "manly" for being a complete and utter idiot) on women, that's akin to saying any woman who doesn't walk around with all her features covered is asking for attention from any male out there.

If that would be the case, then nudist colonies would be a hotbed of rape, yet oddly enough there doesn't seem to be much oggling going on there.

This whole catcalling thing seems to be so juvenile, it reminds me of some old comedy show from the UK (they recently repeated it) about 2 buidlers (maybe Peon knows it) I think they are called Harry & Paul and they have over the top cultural discussions, yet the moment a woman or a member of the general public walks by, they start acting like complete apes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJa7VzfWJQg

Just to be very clear, I hope nobody is thinking that I'm putting Crumpets in the category of folks who do this kind of thing. If anything, I'd be thinking that he would be going the other way due to the fact that so many folks with AS have to work harder than the average person to learn to pick up social cues, such as how long is too long to be staring at someone or how to determine it's time to back off when overstaying someone's company. Those things come easily to most of us but some have to actually focus on it.

It's actually a little disappointing that so much of the thread went to leering vrs staring and how women dress because we ended up glossing over so many other behaviors.




LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/4/2015 7:11:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha
Not sure which is more gross, the direction of this thread, or crumpets sad attempts at flirting.


Ok. Caught again. Yes, with that hairy-chest picture in the previous post, I was flirting with Lady Constanze!
I saw PeonForHer flirting with her, and I just plumb got jealous.

But, you caught me.
Yep.
You did.



Uh, no. Not the pictures. The comment with the smiley about her waxing your chest and suggesting it would be ok if she genuinely enjoyed it.




He sent me the pictures and wanted my reaction, like what went through my head when I saw them, and I gave him exactly what I thought, might have been inspired because I just got my waxing done, but my first thought really was "Bet he'd flinch and squeal" - possibly not polite of me to say that. I don't think that about a guy on the beach usually, but since it was a foto, sent to me, I actually had more of a look as I would give anybody I just casually pass by. If he would pass me by on the street, I might not notice him, which is not about *him* at all, because I'm usually just out and about doing something, I often run past people I know because I'm busy thinking about something else and then have to explain that I didn't mean to snub them, usually the dogs alert me by wanting to greet somebody they know.



LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/4/2015 7:49:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Just to be very clear, I hope nobody is thinking that I'm putting Crumpets in the category of folks who do this kind of thing. If anything, I'd be thinking that he would be going the other way due to the fact that so many folks with AS have to work harder than the average person to learn to pick up social cues, such as how long is too long to be staring at someone or how to determine it's time to back off when overstaying someone's company. Those things come easily to most of us but some have to actually focus on it.

It's actually a little disappointing that so much of the thread went to leering vrs staring and how women dress because we ended up glossing over so many other behaviors.





I wasn't thinking you put him into that category at all and I think he caught a bit too much flack here, when he tried to introduce different aspects.

While I think women should take some responsibility, but it's a slippery slope, because we seriously aren't responsible for guys not respecting limits.

For example I have a lovely dress, I adore it, it's not too short, it doesn't flash boobs, it's just a nice dress, actually quite classy, usually wore with a jacket even to meetings, wore it when going out with hubby a few times, never any issue, I once wore it out when meeting friends and had several gropes and comments who were possibly meant to be complimentary but were creepy to me, I mean strange men asking me if I had a boob job is inappropriate, a guy grabbing my butt and telling me it's nice and firm, I complained to the manager because that was just too much and I thought if the manager of the place will let him know, he might stop that behaviour. The manager looked at me and told me to not wear a dress that fits quite so well. I was just speechless, haven't worn the dress since but we are also not going to that place anymore. When I came home and told H he was just as outraged.

By claiming that it's OK to stare and touch if a woman flaunts her breasts, where does it end? With the creep grabbing my arse because I wasn't wearing something shapeless on a night out, where you'd think it's perfectly reasonable that people dress up and try to look their best? Should I gain 50 lbs so a guy isn't tempted to leer or are we back to wearing burkas, and so that the guy doesn't find my ankles attractive I best also wear some kind of moonboots in the summer or just don't leave the house at all?

The impression I got from this and other incidents is, that some guys think a woman is *less* because that shit doesn't happen if you go out and a guy is with you, it's almost a throwback to us being property.



PeonForHer -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/4/2015 10:48:51 AM)

quote:

I mean strange men asking me if I had a boob job is inappropriate, a guy grabbing my butt and telling me it's nice and firm


Lawks. This does not evoke a picture of a sophisticated venue.



LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/4/2015 10:57:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I mean strange men asking me if I had a boob job is inappropriate, a guy grabbing my butt and telling me it's nice and firm


Lawks. This does not evoke a picture of a sophisticated venue.


Same venue where you had that really really nice burger, though at the time we were sitting outside, I'd have expected it in the venue where you were introduced to pickled egg, but nope, it was actually the nice venue...



PeonForHer -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/4/2015 11:10:52 AM)

Oooh, that burger was good. So was the pickled egg. Fond memories.



LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/4/2015 11:16:20 AM)

Ha, I don't go to the pickled egg place anymore, remember the dogs were always welcome, staff changed and some barmaid who always looked like a pissed off chipmunk with the figure and the charming demeanour of a wounded rhino decided she doesn't like dogs especially big ones and was pretty "in my face" yelling that my dogs are "big", so I looked at her, said "I'm sure nobody ever accused you of being small and at least the dogs are friendly, an accusation I wouldn't throw at you!"

That was pretty much it then, heard she got fired in the meantime as she pissed off all the regulars, but not in the mood to go there again.



crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/5/2015 6:16:55 AM)

This is an attempt to add value ...

In private conversations, a member of the community has steadfastly been in daily communication with me on this topic, where this member has started the process of convincing me that what I had previously considered to be two totally different almost-unrelated acts (noticing->looking->leering being sexuality issues, versus rape being an aggression issue), may, perhaps, lie on the same, if distantly spaced, number line (by arguing that it is known that a percentage of small boys who pull legs off of spiders inexorably transgress to further increasing acts of violence during their lives).

Making a huge leap of faith by assuming there is a co-linear number line cascading from noticing -> looking -> leering and then on to taunting -> touching -> raping, how do these numbers look as a SWAG (un scientific wild-assed guess) for how many men (percentage of the population) fall into each category when, say, a woman dressed as the ladies here have described walks by?

[image]http://cdn.collarspace.com/attachments/120415/4C5CC67E-2D9B-4EA9-A878-0A214E93F4571.jpg[/image]
QUESTIONS:
1. How do these numbers look?
2. Do you believe that noticing->looking->leering is related to the further progression to taunting->touching->raping?



NookieNotes -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/5/2015 6:45:04 AM)

1. The numbers look made-up.

2. In the same way walking is in the progression to running marathons. It is a PART of what they do that is related, but does not necessarily mean they will go all the way, as it takes a certain set of circumstances.



PeonForHer -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/5/2015 6:51:43 AM)

FR

The difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.



LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/5/2015 7:15:49 AM)

I don't think all cases are related but SOME are.

Take for example the usual alcohol limit when driving, most people would be fit to drive even if slightly over the limit, however some would not be, so the limit is low to protect others.

If we take rape as an act of violence, I think by making other acts of lesser violence acceptable (i.e. touching without consent) the boundaries get lowered and to go from there to rape is not that different anymore...

Take bullying, it usually starts with taunts, then a push, then more violent actions, so most teachers will step in when the taunts happen to avoid it escalating.

Obviously it will not stop the whole problem, but I believe that if we even manage to lower the numbers of rapes just slightly, it's a success.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/5/2015 7:27:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

This is an attempt to add value ...

In private conversations, a member of the community has steadfastly been in daily communication with me on this topic, where this member has started the process of convincing me that what I had previously considered to be two totally different almost-unrelated acts (noticing->looking->leering being sexuality issues, versus rape being an aggression issue), may, perhaps, lie on the same, if distantly spaced, number line (by arguing that it is known that a percentage of small boys who pull legs off of spiders inexorably transgress to further increasing acts of violence during their lives).

Making a huge leap of faith by assuming there is a co-linear number line cascading from noticing -> looking -> leering and then on to taunting -> touching -> raping, how do these numbers look as a SWAG (un scientific wild-assed guess) for how many men (percentage of the population) fall into each category when, say, a woman dressed as the ladies here have described walks by?

[image]http://cdn.collarspace.com/attachments/120415/4C5CC67E-2D9B-4EA9-A878-0A214E93F4571.jpg[/image]
QUESTIONS:
1. How do these numbers look?
2. Do you believe that noticing->looking->leering is related to the further progression to taunting->touching->raping?

1. I think the numbers look made up.
I'm about as heterosexual as a human can be but I don't even look at every female. If I did, I'd trip and fall.
Add in the males who are gay and you have less than 100% 'lookers' so that number is incorrect.
As for one leading to the other, your logic is faulty.
B happening after A doesn't mean that A caused B.
It makes about as much sense as saying that kissing leads to pregnancy as a high percent of women who became pregnant were kissed beforehand.



LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/5/2015 7:38:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


1. How do these numbers look?
2. Do you believe that noticing->looking->leering is related to the further progression to taunting->touching->raping?

1. I think the numbers look made up.
I'm about as heterosexual as a human can be but I don't even look at every female. If I did, I'd trip and fall.
Add in the males who are gay and you have less than 100% 'lookers' so that number is incorrect.
As for one leading to the other, your logic is faulty.
B happening after A doesn't mean that A caused B.
It makes about as much sense as saying that kissing leads to pregnancy as a high percent of women who became pregnant were kissed beforehand.



I think it's less about numbers, basically if you look back at the discussions, there was a disagreement about appropriate and inappropriate, some "guys" (term used as loosely as possible) who did a bit of victim blaming and of course if a woman doesn't cover up she's inviting rape and shouldn't complain and all the usual BS and that a guy leering at us is completely the woman's fault (I guess they have bought a huge stock of burkas and are now trying to sell them).

My argument was, from leering to touching to rape might not be a linear progression but there is something that connects those actions, it's a loss of boundaries, for example if a guy gets away with groping all the time, never any consequences for his actions, the woman is always blamed, then isn't there a significant danger of the same guy doing a bit more than just groping one day? Not every burglar or pick pocket will turn into a bank robber or will do armed house invasion, however I don't think that most criminals progress to it without having done "less violent" crimes and gotten away with them and it gave them the confidence to go for the bigger deal.

A bit like child abusers don't always start with children, they start with animals in a lot of cases and each and every time they get away with it, their confidence grows...



Hillwilliam -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/5/2015 7:52:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


1. How do these numbers look?
2. Do you believe that noticing->looking->leering is related to the further progression to taunting->touching->raping?

1. I think the numbers look made up.
I'm about as heterosexual as a human can be but I don't even look at every female. If I did, I'd trip and fall.
Add in the males who are gay and you have less than 100% 'lookers' so that number is incorrect.
As for one leading to the other, your logic is faulty.
B happening after A doesn't mean that A caused B.
It makes about as much sense as saying that kissing leads to pregnancy as a high percent of women who became pregnant were kissed beforehand.



I think it's less about numbers, basically if you look back at the discussions, there was a disagreement about appropriate and inappropriate, some "guys" (term used as loosely as possible) who did a bit of victim blaming and of course if a woman doesn't cover up she's inviting rape and shouldn't complain and all the usual BS and that a guy leering at us is completely the woman's fault (I guess they have bought a huge stock of burkas and are now trying to sell them).

My argument was, from leering to touching to rape might not be a linear progression but there is something that connects those actions, it's a loss of boundaries, for example if a guy gets away with groping all the time, never any consequences for his actions, the woman is always blamed, then isn't there a significant danger of the same guy doing a bit more than just groping one day? Not every burglar or pick pocket will turn into a bank robber or will do armed house invasion, however I don't think that most criminals progress to it without having done "less violent" crimes and gotten away with them and it gave them the confidence to go for the bigger deal.

A bit like child abusers don't always start with children, they start with animals in a lot of cases and each and every time they get away with it, their confidence grows...
quote:


The problems with things like the chart, Lady C, is that things like that get spread around and soon accepted as gospel.
When something that is logically faulty becomes a rallying cry, those who can see through it tend to ignore the problem.

Back in the 60's, a big US Govt. anti-drug propaganda advert said "95% of all heroin users started with marijuana, therefore marijuana leads to heroin".
I was 8 years old and could see that the logic was absolute BS and so could anyone else with a brain.
The net result was that an entire generation tended to ignore the fact that drugs aren't particularly good for you.

Using made up numbers and faulty logic that an intelligent 8 year old can see through is a great way to have people ignore the problem.
This is counterproductive.

Our quotes are fouled up but I bet folks here are intelligent enough to figure it out.



LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/5/2015 8:12:18 AM)

I didn't take the numbers as gospel but as an attempt to illustrate his way of thinking.

You have to remember that crumpets has Asperger's the thought process and nuances are slightly different. We had dozens of emails on the subject, I think sometimes the way he expresses what he means might be perceived the wrong way (as in he finds it OK when a guy leers, which he made abundantly clear that he doesn't).

So maybe we can just ignore the graphic...

As for the from the joint to heroin thing, yeah they tried to do that even in the 80's and 90's, what I find funny is they always completely neglected the fact that if there is a gateway drug it's booze but since that was always legal and taxable, no need to address it and upset a major tax revenue. That whole war on drugs was just such a farce that did nothing but made it attractive for youngsters to try it...

I think the issue here is slightly different, like I said before, if touching without permission becomes acceptable and is handled with "She should cover up more" then it's a dangerous step in the way of victim blaming, just like this whole slut shaming is. Remember the case where the woman spoke out while the pill should be covered in health care as not every woman uses it for contraception but there are medical benefits and there was this outrage that the women just want to fuck and they are all sluts...




crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/6/2015 2:18:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
I didn't take the numbers as gospel but as an attempt to illustrate his way of thinking.


This is correct that the numbers are not absolute; they're there just to start building a model.
In order to fix something, you have to understand how it works.
And, you have to use the appropriate tools, which again, you have to understand how they work.

You can't just throw "octane" at a broken motor and expect that to fix it.
You have to understand how the motor works; and you have to understand how octane works - before you can do anything intelligent with either one.

A key question to understanding is to ask what percentage of men (rough numbers) are we talking about in the OP's original rant are acting inappropriately, and how?
[image]http://cdn.collarspace.com/attachments/120515/18840624-952D-4AC4-9A00-D287DB8BF0461.jpg[/image]



dreamlady -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/6/2015 9:50:56 PM)

There, fixed it for ya.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Oh fucking bullshit. No woman is responsible for a man's fucked-up perceptions. This line of argument infantilises men.

And of course we wouldn't want to infantilize men by NOT pointing out or by NOT holding men accountable for every time they MUST be INTENTIONALLY leaving their fly open for us wimmens to see the gape in their plaid (or polka-dotted) boxers.

God forbid we continue to infantilize the plumber who goes around exposing his butt crack INTENTIONALLY on every service call he makes in our homes.

These male wardrobe malfunctions could not possibly be accidental now, could they, and yet most of us on a cross-gender basis just choose to look aside and are able to resist the impulse to stare. How dare these men flaunt themselves in public, the shameless hussies! [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
The creepy moniker is something women utilise to exert power over men they don't desire. Period. There is no explicit justification for it because it's a tool, not a reality.

Speaking from personal experience, much? [:D]

Btw, it works both ways to a lesser extent in terms of a potential physical threat to one's safety. Unwanted attention from a leering woman can give a guy the creeps.
I had a friend who felt uncomfortable in the workplace around a female manager (in another dept.) who would make remarks about his body and got all in his personal business about how were things between him and his live-in girlfriend going, making damn sure he knew that she was interested in him like a piece of meat. So yes, he did feel sexually harassed BECAUSE he wasn't interested and didn't find her attractive. He didn't want to tick her off because she could have adversely influenced his upward mobility if she had wanted to out of spite.

DreamLady

Edit - inserted words



Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625