RE: Don't be a creeper

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

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

Message

LadyPact -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 5:36:43 AM)
<Sort of a fast reply.> I know this thread has pretty much run it's course. I want to throw a couple of additional things on it before we're completely done. One thing is rather small but I wanted to make a comment to those who (paraphrasing) labeled the OP as a rant. I'm used to "OP" standing for either original post or original poster. The original post on this thread is a title, two sentences, and the link. If that's a rant, I must be using the word in a much different way than most people. As to the link, I'm wondering a bit how many people read it? I'm willing to fess up here. When the thread was introduced, I didn't read much of it. There were a couple of reasons for that. First, due to certain positions in my employment background, it doesn't sit well with me when employers/managers/HR people don't do anything when a form of sexual harassment shows up in the workplace. (I'll skip that because it would definitely fall into rant territory.) Second, because I, and probably every other woman participating on this thread had a pretty good idea of how that thread was going to go. (Some of the men probably did, too.) We're not really blind to creepy people and most of us have experiences with our encounters. Back to the question. Did you read the thread? Very few of the comments related to people just looking/staring/leering. The majority were about touching, attempts to kiss/hold people, comments to/about sexually inappropriate advances, (don't care, it's not appropriate to walk up to someone you barely know and talk about how much someone would like to f^ck them) and other things that were way above what somebody does with their eyeballs. The terms 'socially awkward' and 'very lonely' came up several times and I wish I would have counted how many people said they didn't want to cause trouble. Some of what was on that thread went beyond my definition of creepy because if we're talking about cases of outright groping or stalking (one girl was followed in her car after her boyfriend picked her up from work) I consider that graduating to the next serious level. If groping is happening, we are beyond creepy.

NookieNotes -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 6:55:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze 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? I agree, to a point. However, a rapist is not necessarily a "more developed" leerer. There are many incredibly charming men who respect every boundary except that ONE... and they are much better predators, frankly, because no one would believe by their exterior behavior that they would do such a thing, after all, "He's such a gentleman." It is a range of behaviors. An entitlement/self-centered range. However, that is a VERY BIG pool. It includes things like emotional manipulation and stealing which are not precursors or closely related. IMO. Yes, we can train people what is OK, but just because leering is OK to someone does not mean they will ever learn that touching without consent will be learned. They MAY. But they may not as well. It's partially based on their own internal wiring as much as society. IMO, nothing behavioral is ever 100% nature OR nurture. There is a combination. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets 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] The problem with this graphic is that it is naturally assuming a progression. People don't work that way. Many men are likely to taunt without leering. In NYC (for example), it's a ritualized behavior in many neighborhoods. It's not a progression from one level to the next. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact As to the link, I'm wondering a bit how many people read it? I read it. That's why I thought it was odd to discuss how OK it was to leer or behave inappropriately because of clothing, when it's really so much more than that and clothing should have ZERO to do with it. shrugs

crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 11:43:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I know this thread has pretty much run it's course. I believe this is true. The thread, IMHO, started as a rant, progressed further than it needed to, and then, at this point, is in its death throes (as all such threads are wont to do), with nothing much having been accomplished, as far as I can tell (sigh). I, myself, until the very end, resisted linking "aggression" (i.e., rape) with "interest" (e.g., noticing) until the very end, where I was repeatedly informed that it's the same number line (i.e., apples to rotten apples more so than apples to oranges). <--notice-----look------leer-----/ ... /-----taunt-----touch-----rape-----> Likewise, I, myself, tried to postulate that the sheer NUMBER of men who NEED this thread is actually a very small percentage of men, including very visible well known groups of men (e.g., almost all low-class construction workers). I also tried to postulate that women seem to want to take absolutely ZERO responsibility for what men think about them. What I tried to postulate is that women do "things" that affect what men think about them: 1. They do things on certain days of the year that affect how men think about them all year round, and, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY... 2. What women do as a WHOLE affects men as a WHOLE! That I utterly failed to get any of these points across simply means either that I'm dead wrong, or that nobody is listening (both of which are distinct possibilities, either alone or in combination). Likewise, I NEVER said the corollary (even though it was assumed), which is that what MEN do all year round also affects how women think about men, in general, and that MEN need to take responsibility for THEIR actions too! I never said it was simple - but - I did postulate that it wasn't all that difficult to understand either. If we only WANTED to understand. The problem is really that this FORUM isn't the way to understand each other - because the argument has nuances and it has 50 years of combined experiences which are, at the same time, both different and similar for each of us. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact One thing is rather small but I wanted to make a comment to those who (paraphrasing) labeled the OP as a rant. I'm used to "OP" standing for either original post or original poster. I believe it is a rant, but, even if it isn't a rant, nothing inside the thread would have changed. It's like all those findome threads. It's like complaining about the weather. The way to change the weather is to understand the weather, and then have tools that you also understand that affect the weather. If you don't have both - you have a rant. Simply telling men who don't leer in the first place to stop leering (or taunting/touching/raping/whatever) is a rant. You have to get to the men who are doing the leering and raping; and, I daresay, most likely, they're not the ones reading this thread. Worse, I think the TOOLs suggested in this thread (e.g., sensitize men) are also wrong (or, at the very best, too rudimentary to be effective). That also makes it simply a (nearly worthless) rant (because nothing can be fixed with the tools used here). You don't stop war by sensitizing men about the horrors of war. I wish that would work - but - it won't. You stop war by understanding the underlying behavioral patterns and then realizing that war is just diplomacy (in all its ugly forms) by another means. So, you start using the tools of diplomacy (many of which are very ugly - but not as ugly as war itself is). I guess if the OP just wants to feel good about the rant, that's the same as complaining about the weather. Or complaining about war. So, as a feel-good device, the thread is fine. But as a start to a solution - it's not useful in the least because the wrong model is proposed (IMHO) to the wrong people (IMHO) and the solution is the wrong solution (i.e., "sensitize" the men who are the wrong men in the first place). You don't get World Peace simply by telling men not to fight each other. That's the wrong tool for world peace. I WISH just "sensitizing" men would work to garner world peace; but, as a tool, sensitizing men doesn't stand a chance. Especially sensitizing the wrong men. That stands even less of a chance. (Having said that, SOME MEN in this thread scare me with their stupidly stated ideas; but you'll note that I didn't respond to most of their issues, except to mock them, because they actually might be just the men you women NEED to knock some sense into!) quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Very few of the comments related to people just looking/staring/leering. I, for one, tried my damnedest to stick with the SIMPLE model of noticing/looking/leering and I tried like Hell to keep away from the malefactors of taunting/touching/raping. One, I believe, is natural interest in women versus the other which is, I believe, aggression towards women. I had a long and varied discussion with one of the members here in private about whether they are related or not, and whether the solution is related or not, and whether even the same men are involved or not. Like all ideas that beg solutions, I feel if we can't define the model and solution to the simple stuff ("interest" in women), we'll never make any headway on the more complicated stuff ("aggression" toward women). However, again, having said that, there is one overwhelming thing you women bring to the table, which is fear and experience in what I have little fear of and very little experience (I have only a small amount of experience in sex-related crimes, and that happened when I was very young and very stupid so it doesn't apply much here). So, we men (me included) have to take your points (all women included) a bit more seriously than we would otherwise take them, based on our OWN experiences (which pale in comparison to yours) at being sexualized and threatened. We just don't have anywhere near the experiences you have. Period. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I consider that graduating to the next serious level. If groping is happening, we are beyond creepy. I agree. I do NOT know if it's the same line that is traveled between "interest" in women (such as "noticing" "looking" and "leering" )when it goes to "aggression" toward women (such as "taunting" "groping" and "raping"). That is a fundamental question! Are they on the SAME LINE or two different lines? Are they the SAME MEN or different men? Without knowing that answer, we know nothing.

crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 12:38:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes clothing should have ZERO to do with it. It's easy to say that clothing should have zero effect on the way men respond to women, but, at the same time, we know that's impossible. In fact, we know at the same time that some women dress specifically to affect how men respond to "them". And, we know that some women dress on specific dates in a way that makes men respond to them on those dates differently than they would otherwise. I must be careful to point out at the same time that how we dress does not mean we should be hit on the side of the face with a baseball bat, even if our clothes cry out "hit me on the side of my face with a baseball bat please!". However, it's just plain wrong to NOT include how people THINK about each other BASED on the way they dress. You must include that into the model - because - it exists. Worse, the way women dress (overall!) factors HUGELY into what men think of them much more so than the way MEN dress factors into what women think of them. We can dispute whether or not this statement is true. It's a sad statement to make - because it confers some sense of RESPONSIBILITY on both women and men for why they think and act the way they do. But, if we can't agree on whether clothing "IS" a factor on how the sexes perceive each other, then we know absolutely nothing of how the model works. Simply saying clothing is not a factor, I believe, is like saying temperature isn't a factor in whether it rains or not.

AAkasha -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 1:11:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I also tried to postulate that women seem to want to take absolutely ZERO responsibility for what men think about them. What I tried to postulate is that women do "things" that affect what men think about them: 1. They do things on certain days of the year that affect how men think about them all year round, and, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY... 2. What women do as a WHOLE affects men as a WHOLE! Can you give your head a shake? Why should a woman have responsibility for what men think about them? I asked my husband about this. He said these are the type of men that have not evolved at all and are total slaves to their biology. My husband chooses to not make women uncomfortable no matter WHAT they are wearing. If women should have some responsibility for how men think about them, then women should dress in potato sacks and cover their faces, apparently. You never responded to my post about why women can dress as revealing as they want at alternative dance clubs and not have men looking, leering, staring or behaving rudely on ANY level, or why a woman would not have to look at her closet and go "Well I can't wear that because men won't have a normal conversation with me and I risk getting followed around." I asked my non-neandrathal husband for his theory why if I dressed slightly "cute" at a normal dance club in college I'd get creeped out by guys (or harrassed) but at an alternative dance club I went hundreds of times and never had a problem. He had this observation: Men in the mainstream, especially young guys (ie college aged like the ones at the clubs I went to) feel entitled and protected and champion their "rights" to treat women that way. It is their culture. Guys at the alternative dance clubs are the non mainstream, the shy, the loners, the nerds, the geeks, the ones not in a clique in high school, the ones not on the football team doing keggers and talking about who they banged. The alternative boys carry respect and understand boundaries of women and treat them as such. Even if a woman is dressed in a PVC mini skirt with duct tape over her nipples, these guys don't believe this entitles them to inappropriate behavior - since - after all - SHE must know better. There is a masculine culture of thinking guys just get to do whatever they want with women. And if he perceives a woman in a certain way, she must be asking for it. After all, she should KNOW his biology is telling him to behave that way. How about manning up and being a gentleman and not being a slave to your hardon? A woman is entitled to dress as she pleases, so long as it is legal, and not have to think, "Well, I am asking for it if I wear this...." Akasha

AAkasha -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 1:28:07 PM)
Here's an analogy maybe crumpets can understand. You openly admit you have aspergers. What if every time you went out in public, SEVERAL people called you a "retard." What if every time you went out in public, even if they did not verbally insult you, they treated you in a manner that was rude and inappropriate, but they justified it, because they feel that they are entitled, because of the way you behave. What if friends whispered to friends and cackled and pointed and giggled. Your fault, you opened your mouth and behaved in a manner to draw attention to yourself. Hey, if you don't want to be made uncomfortable, just don't talk and don't do anything in front of anyone that might set them off -- it is THEIR RIGHT to ostracize you. You ARE, after all, an oddity. And you CHOOSE to open your mouth and share it with the world. You should just stay home alone where you can feel safe and not be insulted or mocked, or, in extreme cases, beat up (in examples of school yards) And what if their reasoning for being inappropriate to you is that - well, it's human biology to ostracize the weaker members of the herd. It's natural and has been going on for centuries and in animal kingdoms it's totally normal. People don't treat you like a freak because it's not appropriate. You are taught as a CHILD what is rude and not acceptable. My husband told me it's futile to argue appropriateness with an aspie men's-right person with limited social skills and I am beginning to think he is right. Akasha

NookieNotes -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 1:49:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes clothing should have ZERO to do with it. It's easy to say that clothing should have zero effect on the way men respond to women, but, at the same time, we know that's impossible. No. It's not. That's the point I am making. YOU choose what you consider an acceptable level of interaction, and if you treat a complete female stranger more sexually than you treat a complete male stranger, then you are making that choice. I choose to treat people as humans, first, myself, until I find out how receptive they are to more (or less). quote: In fact, we know at the same time that some women dress specifically to affect how men respond to "them". Which doesn't matter. YOU CHOOSE HOW YOU TREAT PEOPLE. Are you allowing women to train you, then complain about how you behave? Your call, I guess. quote: Simply saying clothing is not a factor, I believe, is like saying temperature isn't a factor in whether it rains or not. I did not say it is not a factor. I said you using it to excuse behavior is illogical, and horrible. Just as using apparent wealth, racial background and religion to determine whether to treat someone with dignity are also heinous. quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha Here's an analogy maybe crumpets can understand. You openly admit you have aspergers. What if every time you went out in public, SEVERAL people called you a "retard." What if every time you went out in public, even if they did not verbally insult you, they treated you in a manner that was rude and inappropriate, but they justified it, because they feel that they are entitled, because of the way you behave. What if friends whispered to friends and cackled and pointed and giggled. Your fault, you opened your mouth and behaved in a manner to draw attention to yourself. Hey, if you don't want to be made uncomfortable, just don't talk and don't do anything in front of anyone that might set them off -- it is THEIR RIGHT to ostracize you. You ARE, after all, an oddity. And you CHOOSE to open your mouth and share it with the world. You should just stay home alone where you can feel safe and not be insulted or mocked, or, in extreme cases, beat up (in examples of school yards) And what if their reasoning for being inappropriate to you is that - well, it's human biology to ostracize the weaker members of the herd. It's natural and has been going on for centuries and in animal kingdoms it's totally normal. People don't treat you like a freak because it's not appropriate. You are taught as a CHILD what is rude and not acceptable. My husband told me it's futile to argue appropriateness with an aspie men's-right person with limited social skills and I am beginning to think he is right. Akasha And a perfect example. Brava!

LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 2:16:13 PM)
quote: an aspie men's-right person with limited social skills Unfair, seriously, he never said HE does it and a few times said he doesn't think it is right if guys do it... He was arguing the point why some guys do it and if you go back, he also is the one who said NOTHING a woman ever does justifies rape, unlike some knuckle draggers who came on and claimed that women are responsible if they get raped, and not the men who do it...

PeonForHer -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 3:42:37 PM)
quote: You openly admit you have aspergers. What if every time you went out in public, SEVERAL people called you a "retard." Christ's sake, Akasha - that's a bit near the mark, isn't it? There's no need to chuck grenades to make your point.

crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 6:42:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes No. It's not. That's the point I am making. YOU choose what you consider an acceptable level of interaction, and if you treat a complete female stranger more sexually than you treat a complete male stranger, then you are making that choice. What you're saying is how you want it to be. That's nice. But if it isn't actually that way, then what you're saying is merely a rant. That's still nice. What I'm trying to build is a model of what is (and what is happens to be something ugly). Because what "is" happens to be ugly, the model MUST explain the ugly stuff of what IS actually happening. If we ignore the ugly stuff of what "IS" happening, then we don't have a working model. We merely have a useless rant. A working model MUST include the ugly stuff (because that is what IS). You can't just throw out the ugly stuff because you don't like it. Unless all you want to do is rant. [image]https://i.imgur.com/C6eTg.jpg[/image] PS: Please insert sarcasm font on all images!

crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 6:44:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Christ's sake, Akasha - that's a bit near the mark, isn't it? There's no need to chuck grenades to make your point. You'll have to quote her because I put her on iggy about halfway through this thread. I just don't have the thigh muscles that some people here have for wading through her bullshit.

crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/7/2015 6:50:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes I did not say it is not a factor. I said you using it to excuse behavior is illogical, and horrible. Just as using apparent wealth, racial background and religion to determine whether to treat someone with dignity are also heinous. My entire goal is to build a working model. Meaningless platitudes have zero merit in explaining the current model of how things actually are. A working model of something that women find UGLY must (by definition) have something ugly imbedded in that working model. If you throw out all the ugly things in the working model, you no longer have a working model. What you have is a meaningless rant. I can't imagine a working model that does NOT include what men think of women. And, I can't imagine a working model of what men think of women that is absolutely devoid of the things that women do. Sure, it's ugly stuff. But how are you going to describe something you find ugly, without ANY inputs that are ugly in and of themselves? Then, you make a HUGE LEAP OF FAITH to define a solution! Men should do this, or men should do that. Huh? You don't even understand what is going on, and you're already proposing a solution? [Reminds me of the octane discussion, where a dwarf shoves octane in a broken engine and swears the magical elixir fixed the engine (all without understanding a damn thing about either the engine or the octane).] If the solution were as easy as you imply, there would have been no need for the OP's initial rant in the first place. What is really happening is VERY UGLY. ..........Ugly for the responsibility women have in how the model works. ..........And just as ugly for the role that men play in how the model works. We both have to understand what the model is before anyone can define what the solution should be, and, most importantly, we have to agree there are some mighty UGLY factors which play a role in why the model is what it is. I am trying to explain to you, the model, as I see it. You are welcome to try to clarify this model. Or, to define your own model. However, if your model is devoid of any responsibility whatsoever from women, then your model is MUCH PRETTIER than mine is. Because my posited model is admittedly UGLY. ..... I feel women play a role .... and I feel men play a role. Clearly, my proposed model includes RESPONSIBILITY for actions by both men and women. If the moment I explain how (I feel) this ugly interaction actually works, you go ballistic on how YOU WANT IT TO BE, and, if what you want to be has ZERO responsibility assigned to women, then that is a very nice rant. It really is a beautiful rant. I have to hand it to you - it's quite a wonderful rant. [color=#123456=But, it's not a discussion of the model of why things are the (ugly) way they really are. [image]http://guidance4men.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/silhouts-of-women.jpg[/image]

NookieNotes -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/8/2015 3:54:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes No. It's not. That's the point I am making. YOU choose what you consider an acceptable level of interaction, and if you treat a complete female stranger more sexually than you treat a complete male stranger, then you are making that choice. What you're saying is how you want it to be. I'm saying how it is for me. And for many other people I've talked to about this issue. So, are you saying that you believe you (or the collective you) are incapable of simply treating people as human beings above their sexual and clothing characteristics? quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets What I'm trying to build is a model of what is (and what is happens to be something ugly). Because what "is" happens to be ugly, the model MUST explain the ugly stuff of what IS actually happening. I know what is happening. That's obvious. There is a difference between explaining and excusing. You are excusing. Explain: Some men have been raised to believe that they have a right to a woman's body when she displays it in public. Excusing: Women show off their bodies, and men can't help reacting. See the difference? quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets If we ignore the ugly stuff of what "IS" happening, then we don't have a working model. We merely have a useless rant. A working model MUST include the ugly stuff (because that is what IS). You can't just throw out the ugly stuff because you don't like it. Unless all you want to do is rant. I'm not ranting. Most of this doesn't actually bother me. I am bothered by VERY few creepers, and I don't mind being catcalled. It tells me exactly where such people stand on the social skills ladder. I find it amusing, and know that they are not a good match for me. Win-Win. I am speaking TO YOU. To your communication about this issue and your excuses on behalf of men everywhere. To show the flaws in your logic in HOW youa re going about it. Nothing more. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets [image]https://i.imgur.com/C6eTg.jpg[/image] The thing I find interesting about this image (sarcastic or not) is that it actually makes my point. In this case, you are looking at the BODY LANGUAGE of the human, while not changing the clothing AT ALL. Because the clothing is not what matters. smiles quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Christ's sake, Akasha - that's a bit near the mark, isn't it? There's no need to chuck grenades to make your point. You'll have to quote her because I put her on iggy about halfway through this thread. I just don't have the thigh muscles that some people here have for wading through her bullshit. I quoted it, in it's entirety. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes I did not say it is not a factor. I said you using it to excuse behavior is illogical, and horrible. Just as using apparent wealth, racial background and religion to determine whether to treat someone with dignity are also heinous. My entire goal is to build a working model. Meaningless platitudes have zero merit in explaining the current model of how things actually are. plat·i·tude ˈpladəˌt(y)o͞od/ noun a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful. As I am the only one who has been making the statement (until Aakasha) that YOU can choose your behavior regardless of what other people choose to do, I doubt it's been used too often int he general sense to be a platitude. Again, let me give you examples: How things are: Some men cross boundaries of social acceptability when interacting with women, especially on a sexual/romantic level. Platitudes: Women should be more tolerant and pleasant. Men are actually giving them the compliments they are fishing for when they wear those clothes. It's right for women to smile as often as possible. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I can't imagine a working model that does NOT include what men think of women. And, I can't imagine a working model of what men think of women that is absolutely devoid of the things that women do. Here is where you are missing my point entirely. By classifying my points to you as ranting, or dreaming of what I wish for, you are missing the key pieces of logic. You are saying what men think of women, sure. And that's OK. I can say the same things. However, you are using it to excuse the behavior, instead of simply describe it. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Men should do this, or men should do that. I'm not talking to MEN. I'm talking to you. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets You don't even understand what is going on, and you're already proposing a solution? I understand exactly what's going on. I've lived it all of my life. The issue is, YOU don't understand what's going on. Just as so many women have told you over and over in all of your mansplaining threads. You don't understand, and you don't learn from others' points of view, because you are unwilling to give them credence. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets If the solution were as easy as you imply, there would have been no need for the OP's initial rant in the first place. I never said it was easy. I said it is simple. And there are many simple things (I'm pretty sure you can agree with me on this) that are not yet a part of common usage for a myriad of reasons. But again, I'm not proposing a solution for everyone... Because that would be the end result. The solution is to teach everyone to be masters of their own fate and take personal responsibility. I am simply talking with you about the points you make, and how illogical they are to explaining what's going on from the male side of things. Even other men I know do not see it the way you are explaining it. And men on this forum have also told you you are wrong. So women have explained you are wrong. Men have explained it. And yet, you have decided you know better than every single one of them what their personal experiences and motivations are. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets If the moment I explain how (I feel) this ugly interaction actually works, you go ballistic on how YOU WANT IT TO BE, and, if what you want to be has ZERO responsibility assigned to women, then that is a very nice rant. So, you call the way I write to you ballistic? How so, exactly? Have I ever called you names? Raised my voice in my replies, except when quoting your own words? I don't feel ballistic. https://youtu.be/LetJHQ_V05o?t=4m14s smiles quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets But, it's not a discussion of the model of why things are the (ugly) way they really are. Ah. Well, that's easy. If that's all you're looking for. Men and women both are raised to feel entitled and to do what they want, and take no personal responsibility. They grow up listening to their parents, major authority figures, characters on TV, and peer groups making excuses. Children, being the ultimate perfect little sociopaths, watch to see what works and what doesn't. When an excuse works, they emulate it, without regard for truth. Because what they are after is not truth, but something that will get them out of trouble. And children, being the ultimate perfect little sociopaths need to be taught compassion and interacting in a group. When this is not done responsibly, you get excuses like: She was dressed like a slut. He said he loved me. He used me for sex. She got pregnant so I'd marry her. And so on. The point I have been making to you is one you have touched on in your own attempts: WHAT is the progression? You making the excuses about how men react to how women dress is the symptom. Not the cause. And it's a symptom that can be applied to so many maladies that it's useless as a diagnostic tool. Is it simple ignorance? Is it maliciousness/shaming? Is it hormones? Is it a mistaken sense of chivalry/appreciation? And you are saying that it is up to women to try to not provoke that, but also interpret it correctly if we do somehow provoke it. I suggest that there are two parts of responsibility: 1. Treat strangers as humans deserving of respect, no matter their skin color, apparent social status, sex, clothing, etc. 2. Teach people how you deserve to be treated by simply correcting them without rancor, when feasible (and understand that sometimes it is not desirable or feasible, so it's best to ignore it). And this is for MEN AND WOMEN. Equally. But again, this is a solution for the core issue. Not a medication for universal symptoms. Anyway, say what you will from here on in. I'm done, unless you and I suddenly meet eye-to-eye on a part of this. Maybe reading what Aaakasha said, even if a bit close to the bone (Is it? I'm curious how sensitive you are) might help make my point. smiles Just so you know crumpets, I respect your ability to discuss these things and to extrapolate, if not your basic postulations.

Awareness -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/8/2015 5:50:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady 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\|] What the fuck are you talking about? Men ARE held responsible for these things and not only do women hold them accountable, they attempt to shame them for it. Sometimes publicly. Foolish woman, you've just supported my argument. Ye Gods, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. No wonder I'm so bored with this place, there is a dearth of people here who can actually think. quote: 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] Oh look, a woman attempting to exert power by trying to shame a man with the creepy moniker. You just supported my argument again. Christ, you're scoring a bunch of own goals today. Oh look, I can't be bothered. Clearly you're not bright enough to keep up. Go play with the sad sacks who match your IQ level.

dreamlady -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/8/2015 6:48:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady 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\|] What the fuck are you talking about? Men ARE held responsible for these things and not only do women hold them accountable, they attempt to shame them for it. Sometimes publicly. Foolish woman, you've just supported my argument. <snipped rest of inane comments> Foolish man, your "argument" continues to go as unsupported as a jockstrapless athlete. You never had a legitimate argument. You were merely sputtering your unsubstantiated disagreement. I call bullshit that men are held "responsible" for DELIBERATELY leaving the restroom with their fly unzipped or unbuttoned. (Don't let the sarcasm italicized CAPS or eyeroll emoticon whoosh past your head again. . . Btw, I've pegged you for a paisley man -- yanno, that paramecium-looking microbe pattern. [:)]) Is that how women in New Zealand behave? Because I have never once seen a woman shame a man for a wardrobe malfunction. His embarrassment would be his own. Even wives, girlfriends, female relatives and female friends make a joke of it; we mostly don't say anything and wait for another man to discreetly inform the UNINTENTIONAL offender. Joke. You do know what that is, don't you? Not that this would be of any interest to you - since the world does not revolve around you and your opinions and beliefs - but I can recall a couple of embarrassing incidents and on both types of occasions, it was another woman who was kind enough to inform me of my faux pas. Perhaps you are mixing up helpfulness with shaming, which says more about you than anything else. One is decidedly not revealing. That pesky stray strand of toilet paper stuck onto the bottom of one's (high-heeled) shoe that trails along as we walk out of the ladies room. The other was back in the '80s/'90s when women still wore hose. It's when the back flap of your (suit) skirt gets tucked inside your pantyhose so that all within view can catch a glimpse of your pantied backside.[&o] quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady 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] Oh look, a woman attempting to exert power by trying to shame a man with the creepy moniker. You just supported my argument again. Christ, you're scoring a bunch of own goals today. <more inanities snipped> Give me a freaking break. Sense of humor -- got one? to go along with that big red target you have painted on your back. [sm=lol.gif] DreamLady

Awareness -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/8/2015 7:23:00 PM)
Oh dear. You really don't know when to quit do you? Let it go. You're babbling incoherent nonsense and I have no intention of explaining the obvious to your pedestrian intelligence.

Awareness -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/8/2015 7:30:55 PM)
The main problem here dude, is that you're trying to argue logic with a set of creatures whose only point of reference is their own subjective set of 'feels' about any situation. They cannot meet you half-way because they're incapable of responding to logic, reason and genuine discussion. Even the concept of 'leering' is inherently subjective. To leer is to make a face with malign - sometimes sexual - intent, but to leer is also to entice. So, you have your good leering and your bad leering and the difference is all in the mind of the beholder. Making eye contact with a woman for 3 seconds is not leering, no matter what the fruitcakes of the world may say. And that's the other problem. Women who cling to deeply-cherished beliefs about the terrible nature of men are just telegraphing their own deep-seated issues. You can't expect rationality from the mentally ill.

LadyPact -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/8/2015 11:17:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness The main problem here dude, is that you're trying to argue logic with a set of creatures whose only point of reference is their own subjective set of 'feels' about any situation. I actually think part of the "main problem" is that the discussion is way too caught up in trying to focus on what people do with their eyeballs, rather than the wider subject of what comes out of a person's mouth, getting to close in someone's personal space, their hands, and a few other choice things. quote: They cannot meet you half-way because they're incapable of responding to logic, reason and genuine discussion. Even the concept of 'leering' is inherently subjective. To leer is to make a face with malign - sometimes sexual - intent, but to leer is also to entice. So, you have your good leering and your bad leering and the difference is all in the mind of the beholder. If a person's attempt at "enticing" is met with a response of "leave me alone" that isn't heeded, exactly how long/how many occasions is it still cool to continue? That's part of the problem, right there. Somebody's interest in another person, either sexually or socially, is not a free pass on their behavior. The other part of that is we, as human beings in society, know that retaliation for being rejected still happens often enough that it is a concern. The next time there's one of those neat threads about why women don't answer their email around this place, see just how many females list their reason as a simple 'no thank you, not interested' kind of response gets them all kinds of venom in return. I hate to break this to you. That's not just an email thing. That happens in real life, too. quote: Making eye contact with a woman for 3 seconds is not leering, no matter what the fruitcakes of the world may say. And that's the other problem. Women who cling to deeply-cherished beliefs about the terrible nature of men are just telegraphing their own deep-seated issues. You can't expect rationality from the mentally ill. I realize it's a long thread. I don't recall any of the females on this thread or in the reference link saying any of these instances were three seconds long. That's other folks trying to minimize incidents like the ones given in the random discussion from reddit. When you've got cases where someone has told the other person to leave her alone multiple times, and he still keeps approaching her to where she has to have people escort her to her car, that's a flipping problem. When you've told someone you are not interested in them and they touch other people without their consent, that's another problem. When you have multiple people complain about a guy who approaches a number of women when they study at the library or come too far into their dorm when delivering their food, that's a problem. The fact that some folks want to blow those kinds of things off is exactly why there is a problem.

DesFIP -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/11/2015 12:30:24 PM)
If you're capable of not leering at a coworker in a sweater that clings to her body at the office, then you are capable of not leering at a waitress in a sweater that clings as sweaters do, bringing you your lunch. Or the strange woman walking down the street to get herself some lunch. And if you weren't capable of restraining yourself at the office, you would be unemployed. So claiming that it isn't your fault that you are acting inappropriately is bullshit. If you can do it 8 hours a day, you can do it after work and on your days off. With that said, my son and his cousins and their friends learned this a lot easier after they were leered at an catcalled in a gay summer resort. One ten minute experience of being on the receiving end taught them. Several of them are ADHD and one is an aspie. So I assure you that it's learnable. And having learned to behave appropriately, the aspie is on his second long term relationship. My son, ADHD, is on his third. And he's only 22.

crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/14/2015 8:24:31 AM)
I'm very sorry I haven't responded to the threads nor even logged in recently, because CollarSpace and CollarChat have recently implemented a hideously complex login procedure for those of us who understand our privacy (which includes this idiotic almost undecipherable captcha EVERY time I click a button!). SO, I'm hitting captcha after captcha after captcha, just to read and respond to a post such as yours. [image]http://cdn.collarspace.com/attachments/121415/2605CD85-8809-4359-9778-95AC923E5D111.jpg[/image] Instead of actually adding SSL encryption (which all such sites other than CollarSpace/CollarChat do), they make it miserable for anyone to have any privacy while on this site (if you only knew what I know, you'd be worried for your safety). Anyway, I respond, but it's so painful to respond now that they implemented this idiotic system (instead of doing what they should do, which is what every banking/finance/personal site on the planet does), that I won't be responding all that often in the future (some may say that's a "good" thing!). :) quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes So, are you saying that you believe you (or the collective you) are incapable of simply treating people as human beings above their sexual and clothing characteristics? We all have to understand something critical, which is that we treat "people" with respect at all times. That means different things to different people. For example, if I saw a movie star, I would (hope that I would) just look away, not giving him or her a second thought, but, many people fawn all over that movie star. I once did go to a park where Jimmy Carter gave a speech, and, well, I gave him some respect (I listened attentively to what he said, for example). If I speak to a professor, I always address them by their title, just as I would a Domme who asks me to do so. Having said that, we also have this "concept" of the group. - kids <== We give kids the benefit of the doubt, for example, when they say silly things - parents <== We give parents the benefit of the doubt, for example, when they extoll the virtues of their kids - grandparents <== We give grandparents even more of the benefit of the doubt, when they tell their kids how to take care of their grandkids - coworkers <== we treat coworkers slightly differently than we do, say, the president of the company, or our most valued customers - garbagemen <== we are polite to the garbagemen, but, we generally don't elicit discourse on world affairs with them - neighbors <== we exchange pleasantries, for the most part, but we don't ask them what that slapping noise was we heard coming from their bedroom last night - salesmen <== we smile and nod as they try to sell us their wares, but we don't believe a word they are saying - repairmen <== we listen to them as we try to trust them, but then we watch them like a hawk watches over its prey, because they're almost all lazy & almost never do the job right <-- ask me how I know - convicted pedophiles <== we stay away from them and we tell our kids to stay away from them - accountants <== we learn to never exchange too many pleasantries with them because they charge us for every minute <-- again, ask me how I know etc. But, now, let's get to the good stuff... - men who are wearing a uniform <== if we meet them on the street, we may address them as "sir" or "officer" and we'll be rather polite for the most part - men who are wearing priestly vestments <== again, we may defer extra specially politely to them - men who are looking like hobos <== um, I mean homeless, as the politically correct term - we may simply avoid them like we'd avoid the plague - men who are dressed like drug pushers <== again, we'd likely avoid any contact with them - men who are dressed in suits <== we might ignore them but we'd assume they're professional - men who are dressed in Hawaiian shirts, shorts, carrying a camera <== we might treat them as we treat transient tourists, perhaps asking if they need directions etc. Do you see that we treat people partly on who they appear to us to be (as a whole), and upon what they appear to be to us (as an individual)? [image]http://stockfresh.com/files/i/iofoto/m/18/5601_stock-photo-nerd-and-sexy-woman.jpg[/image] Women, as a whole, have already established what they appear to us to be. Women, as a specific person, is who she appears to be to us. These are universal ways we all deal with people. You might not like it. You might think it's not PC. But it is what is, and what always will be. [image]http://cdn.collarspace.com/attachments/121415/5211A67D-C3C4-4536-BE7F-079A379335731.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625