Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

Talk:Creep shaming

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Fold into Misandry[edit]

This should be folded into Misandry, maybe Framing. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Misandry seems the place for it. The article as it stands should be retired. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 18:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, wait. Shaming could possible be expanded to include examples of shaming. I'll see about adding this, and a write-up on slut shaming. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 18:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe merge with shaming? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Also mention that the idea of shaming can be appropriated: some minorities and demographics are shamed every day and people hardly notice, but as soon as someone calls out, say, white males for something they think is wrong, suddenly it's a shame campaign. Thus the dichotomy of slut-shaming and trans-shaming and gay-shaming being very real things, yet creep-shaming, christian-shaming, white-guilting, and other less-legitimate appropriations of the 'shaming' idea. The former is social warfare used to 'keep them in their place,' where the latter is often used by people who have never been told off before feeling ashamed and confused when they finally are confronted about offensiveness they take for granted. It's an appropriation of the concept. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 21:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

2014 thread necromancy[edit]

Knight, you don't realize that your broad generalizations based on race and sex are precisely the bigotry you sarcastically seem to be railing against. Your racist sexist presumption that a white male for example can't possibly be a victim because he is a male and white. That's basically the tone of this entire article. Slut-shaming = wrong because to call any woman out on flagrantly sexual behavior is to be expecting her to be a virgin, no middle ground possible. Creep-shaming = perfectly OK because some guys actually are creeps, it's impossible that any woman could ever use negative words in a social circle to harm the reputation of an innocent person. This is so ludicrously biased. And I don't need the idiotic "I thought this was RATIONAL". This is flagrantly biased Wiki. It's obvious that the term was created to criticize the same "logic" that slut-shaming was created on. But because you're biased, and irrational, you take the biased position and even refuse to acknowledge its valid criticism of the double standard. Your Slut-Shaming "article" basically creates a giant straw man that any use of the term slut is to imply all men must dominate women and that women are expect to be virgins and always chaste. It's idiotic. It's ironically contrasted by the same article's words on shaming in general, but as Knight illustrated, you really are that stupid and blind you can read that shaming can be positive, so long as it's only applied to white men. So while you praise anti-slut-shaming because woman are so in danger of being repressed sexually apparently, this article is fitting the yang where you do nothing but further attack men in the article, and mock any sexual issues men could possibly have. Because apparently when it comes to sex, it's 100% about women. A man can not possibly have a problem. Patriarchy and all that. Glowing penis privilege I suppose. You're idiots. Creep shaming is not an actual problem, but it is a valid social critique (That there is a level of sexual behavior that is objectively inappropriate for women, and that by taking a radical "women can never do wrong sexually" approach by childishly referring to chastity as the sole example while intentionally ignoring reality you are encouraging irrational destructive social behavior for the sake of a bias towards women), and by your biased actions, you're clearly among those being criticized by the term. BiasedasshitWiki (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as it is. It's the first google result for the term and useful if you want to find out what the term means. If we merged it with the 'Misandry' article we would lose that. Also I've never experienced this as a man, and I'm fairly sure none of my male friends have either. I don't think it would be accurate to use it as an example of sexism against men --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The actual discussion is from 2012, this is just another case of someone stumbling on rationalwiki, seeing something challenging to their worldview, and going "TO THE TALK PAGE TO RECTIFY THIS INJUSTICE". The post you're replying to isn't actually related to the discussion of the merge.
To address the actual idiocy of the post: slut shaming is wrong because it judges people on their private sexual life that doesn't hurt anyone in order to comply with a fundamentally sexist impossible double standard regarding sexuality. "Creep shaming" is okay, because it's not about someone's private life, but about how they are actively hurting others. It's not that "some guys are creeps" but that "being a creep" is threatening and dangerous, regardless of gender, dumbass. Ikanreed (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh I see, I didn't check the dates before commenting. Well in that case I'm glad we decided not to merge. I think you've pretty much got it there. The only way I can imagine myself being creep shamed is if I were to do something... well... creepy towards a woman. You're completely right. Trying to stop women from defending themselves from being approached by potentially threatening men WITH AN INSULT is not really a significant issue. It's not like they are assaulting men who they find creepy, they're just telling them to back off. Although the definition of slut shaming is quite broad, I've known societal expectations surrounding female sexuality damage everyone from rape survivors to women trying to escape abusive relationships. I don't think they are even comparable things. I mean sure, I wouldn't exactly enjoy it if somebody called me a creep, but all it's really going to do is put me in a bad mood for a little while --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You're lying. Again your only means of arguing is building straw men. You imply that a woman's sexual behavior is "private" but not a man's. That is idiotic. You imply that a woman's sexual activity can't hurt someone, but a man's can. That is a lie. You imply, AGAIN that because SOME women are wrongly called sluts, slut shaming is wrong for ALL behavior, but because SOME men ARE creeps, ALL creep-shaming is OK. THAT IS FLAGRANTLY BIASED BULLSHIT.

If a woman is repeatedly cheating on guys, let's say has 5 boyfriends and none of them know it. And she gives 4 of them the clap from the 5th guy. And the guys find out and tell people to watch out for her promiscuous behavior, THAT IS SLUT SHAMING, and you are idiotically arguing that it is wrong. If you weren't, the the slut-shaming article should be amended and so should the creep-shaming article. Because as they stand, there's no middle ground, everything women do - off limits. Everything men do- potential danger.

To turn the example around. If a man is a perfect gentleman, but one particular woman doesn't like him, or wants revenge on him, and so she spreads rumors that he's a creep, that is creep-shaming, and again you are hypocritically arguing that it is OK, and you refuse to amend the wiki article which mocks even this possibility. In a further bias on your part, you refuse the term as a social critique of the fact that no amount of aggressive sexual behavior is wrong according to your articles, and your personal arguments, and yet no minimal amount of male sexual behavior isn't suspect and up for condemnation. You can't read what I've written here and use any kind of logic and rationality to claim you're not being biased or hypocritical. If you're stupid enough to think women can't hurt, I'll point you to many female sexual predators, if you think a man can't be hurt, I'll point you to male victims. Because as it stands, you're refusing that either could exist. BiasedasshitWiki (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably not rumours in your case --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you've made it clear you're afraid of hypotheticals wherein women are out to get you for no good reason. People can find whatever tools they want to that end. And you indicate a very low opinion of women in general, as if being sexist helps make your case that you face sexism. Sorry, dog. It's a lame argument Ikanreed (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that the thing is, in these cases, it's just, really, people being arseholes, and really, it's not related to what this article's discussing at all. But, you know what, it's midnight, I've got shit on tomorrow, and I'm not in the mood for this shit. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Push the envelope, watch it bendDolan.png 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Male tears.jpg - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Erm, the point is: Slut shaming is used to silence victims of rape. "You asked for it." It's wrong because nothing makes rape ever acceptable; no amount of "slutty" behaviour could do that. There is no excuse for rape. Even wearing a T-shirt saying "RAPE ME!" would not justify raping the wearer. Slut shaming is victim blaming. What kind of victims exactly are blamed for their misfortune by creep shaming? What are men called out as creeps victims of? (Except for the horrible, vile crime of being called "creep" by a woman, boo fucking hoo.) -- (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not the only reason slut shaming is wrong. You should be able to walk around nude in public for all I care, if that's what you feel most comfortable with, and not be shamed with "exhibitionist slut!" for doing so. Nullahnung (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Until this article is free of lines like "Needless to say, this is bullshit, since the implication is that, um... creepiness isn't bad, or something.", the deletion tag stays. This is grade A+ misandry material and if the article talked about blacks like that it would be gone faster than the speed of light for racism. -- (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, because males are just as disadvantaged in history and modern society as black people, right? Wait till you see our article on men's rights activism and misogyny. Blue Talk 07:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Lol, Blue, I remember when you went on this crusade about a year or two ago. So much of what you wrote was tendentious and embarrassing. And off-mission. You're a crank. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I skimmed the men's rights activism article and found nothing too much out of line (except the distasteful horse porn line). -- (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The article was written by multiple authors & falls within our site's missions. It isn't just going to be deleted because some random no-name drifter doesn't like it. Plus I don't think anyone will take you seriously as long as you keep using the word "misandry". Be specific about what you don't like about it & how you think it can be improved. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Less whining and more snark would probably be an improvement. One can whine at anything, but snark only works against stuff that is actually ridiculous. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page for this article it seems to attract multiple anonymous authors who share an almost identical opinion. How coincidental.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

But of course we aren't talking about black people here. We're talking about creepy gaslighting assholes who resent that women won't just jump into their laps. Since most men do not behave like that, it is no more misandry than the term "teabagger" is a racial slur against white people. EVDebs (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Why do we have BoNs slapping delete tags?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
BVecause the page can be edited by anyone. The question should be "Why do we keep having the same argument over and over again?" SophieWilderModerator 08:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Entitled shitheads wallowing in butthurt. I think they actually like being spanked because they get more butthurt to complain about. EVDebs (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible for somebody who makes templates to make one saying "read the talk page before commenting" or something like that. There are a few articles where the same arguments are made again and again and again and again on the talk page and it would save manpower (my favourite thing) to just leave them there under the template --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A formerly gross section heading by Proxima[edit]

One Men's rights blogger calls himself Jalon Cain (aka Aaron Sleazy). He admitted he chats up women because he " think that it sure would be nice to get your dick wet again." He doesn't care too much which girl/woman's vagina he gets it wet in so long as she doesn't lead him on and disappoint him later. If she's not interested he wants to find out at once so he can hit on a different (skirt/pair of female pants). From his resentment I guess he gets disappointed often. Sometimes it may be the woman's fault, women aren't perfect. Most women turn against men who just want them for one thing, sex. Most women and most men like to be appreciated for more than their sexual availability. Aaron Sleazy gets treated like a creep because he is a creep. The absurdity of creep shaming. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel that this may be somewhat of a strawman, as that only really refers to PUAs using the term. Saying that's what every single person who ever complains about it ever is saying is kinda stupid. Pretty much all the arguments are still stupid, but you can't really just address one of the arguments then be like "lol owned". But you know what, never mind. I guess that's a pretty good analogy of that particular argument. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER But flies will lay their eggsDolan.png 12:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Verbal Abuse[edit]

I think it should be mentioned that creep shaming is a form of verbal abuse and that's a reason for men to stay away from those who call them creeps. It seems relevant to the issue of why creep shaming is seen in a negative light by many men.

I don't believe this changes the tone of the article because the original tone was informative and this change does not make it any less informative than it had been. Forces (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe creepy men should stop behaving creepily towards other people. They would be far less likely to be called a "creep" at that point. More to your point, calling someone out for creepish behavior is not "verbal abuse." It's telling the truth. If you can document a widespread pattern of the term being used other than as a response to creepy behavior, you might have a chance of getting that edit in. TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Being truthful doesn't mean it's not verbal abuse. Calling an overweight person a fatass is verbal abuse even though it is true. Your advice is certainly pertinent, and I suggest that you add your advice to the article. However, that is a separate issue from what is being argued. Forces (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, your two points in the edit majorly contradicted each other. First you wrote "creep has actually no meaning, so being called a creep means nothing!", but in the other section: "Wah! Being called a creep is verbal abuse!". You can't have it both ways! Either being called a creep just means the persons calling you that doesn't like you, or being called a creep is verbal abuse. It can't be both at once.
More importantly, you miss the point of the concept. It isn't about insult slinging, the same way that slut shaming isn't. It's about stigmatizing certain behaviour. In case of slut shaming that's wrong, because there is no reason to have that behaviour stigmatized. In case of "creep shaming," we do talk about behaviour which definitely should be stigmatized, though. That's why the concept of "creep shaming" is invalid, a pure MRA invention. Octo8 (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you CAN have it both ways. Telling someone you don't like him/her can very well be done in a verbally abusive manner. Nullahnung (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that creep has no meaning, I said it means 'a detestable person'. Being called a detestable person is certainly verbal abuse, so I don't see the contradiction. I don't know what MRA stands for, so please clarify what you mean by it. Forces (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not "creep shaming." That's being mean. Words have meanings. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Calling someone a creep is both creep shaming as I understand it, and being mean. Creep shaming and being mean are not mutually exclusiveForces (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
(EC)It is true, what he said, that always saying the truth is needlessly hurtful. However, one could argue that in the case of creepiness as defined in the article (which is "propositioning people one desires sexually persistently or disrespectfully") the target of such creepy behaviour may feel threatened and has a right to call it out so that the sexually loaded propositioning may stop "Please realize that you are being creepy. Please stop being creepy." Nullahnung (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Saying that you feel threatened by someone is not verbal abuse. Calling someone names is. There is a fine line between being assertive and abusive. Perhaps this distinction could be made clearer in the article. Calling someone creepy or a creep is clearly name calling, but saying "I feel that you are infringing my personal space" is an assertion of personal rights.Forces (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
When someone feels threatened or their personal space is being invaded they typically don't have the composure to be polite and we should be understanding of that. Nullahnung (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should be understanding of people who are genuinely frightened. However, calling someone a creep is being aggressive rather than assertive. I feel that aggressive behavior should not be encouraged and we should advocate the use of assertive rather than aggressive methods to defend their personal space. Forces (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
White-knighting in defense of creeps. You most be a real hit at parties. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Using thought-terminating cliches like "white knight" is incredibly lazy and every time I see it I cringe. Next time bother to reason. Nullahnung (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. "Choosing to argue to defend creeps against being called out for their creepiness is, to me, indicative that you have made poor political choices. You must be a real hit at parties." TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
EC Calling an overweight person a "fatass" is abusive. Calling an obese person "obese" is a factual description, and relevant in, say, a medical context. In a similar vein, calling someone a "creep" if they have earned it by behaving in a creepy manner, is entirely a factual description, much like calling a racist a "racist." TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Verbal abuse is the use of words to attack an individual. Certainly calling someone obese in a medical context is not verbal abuse because it does not constitute an attack. However, calling someone a creep in a social situation is almost certainly an attack. Forces (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Not if they're being creepy it ain't. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
So it's not an attack to call someone an idiot for accidentally spilling coffee on your lap? It amounts to the same thing. Forces (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
No. Because that was an accident. It is, however, reasonable to call someone an idiot for, say, making a lame and completely irrelevant comparison between someone having an accident and someone behaving in a creepy manner.TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It is possible to behave in a creepy manner unintentionally just as it is possible to spill coffee on someone's lap unintentionally. Forces (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You keep telling yourself that, champ. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
People are not always aware of how they come across to others. Forces (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A basic amount of self-awareness is kind of expected of mentally-healthy adults in society. If a guy asks a girl if he can buy her a drink, and she says "no," it is not unreasonable for him to understand that the answer was "no," and that to persist would be to come across as a creep. Because to persist is to be a creep. If you want to argue that men who persist after a first "no" actually lack the self-awareness expected of mentally-healthy adults, you might have a case. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are taking a very specific instance of creepiness and saying that all creeps have to do this in order to be seen as creepy, which is twisting the facts. The fact is that merely commenting someone on their looks "I like your hair" can be seen as creepy. The man making the perceived creepy behavior is often not aware of how he is coming across and he may think that he is behaving in a perfectly acceptable manner. I stand by my previous statement that creepy behavior is not necessarily intentional. Forces (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments on an individual's appearance are creepy. You should know that. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Who decides what's an appropriate comment? You? I think it's perfectly appropriate for a stranger to tell me that he likes my hair. Some women don't. You can't expect everyone to be the same. Forces (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Who decides what's an appropriate comment? You? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by junk? Because that was your only explanation for deleting my contribution. Forces (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Didn't you learn this stuff growing up? If Sara, my friend of many years, gets a new bob, I can probably say, "Hey, I like the new do.Looks good." If I am introduced to a woman at a party and within minutes of meeting her I say "you have the most beautiful eyes/hair/figure/etc", I'm probably being a creep. It's pretty basic stuff. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Just because you have more social experience doesn't justify assuming that everyone has equal social experience, or that it's appropriate to abuse those who have less social experience than you. Forces (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You're assuming things about me. The level of my personal social experience is not relevant to my argument about what it means to be a basically self-aware human being. Someone who does not understand how to behave around others needs to take responsibility for their own behavior, and instead of focusing on, as Dan Savage puts it, their hurt fifis, go out and learn how to be a respectful and respectable person in the world. The onus is on the person being a creep, not on the person calling them out for it. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The "onus" is on both the creep to stop being a creep and also on the verbal abuser to stop using verbal abuse. "Creepy behavior" - a subjective term in itself - does not justify verbal abuse Forces (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
(EC)Well, first of all it's not just a matter of social experience. There are all too many people out there who think they have some sort of godgiven right to be creeps towards women. Secondly, because that is so, women have to endure creepers all too often in their lives. So, why should they put up with any sort of creepiness? You lament the poor creeps; try looking at it from the other side for a moment. Octo8 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Firstly people who believe that it is their right to make others feel uncomfortable have attitude problems. Women can file for sexual harassment and the court can deal with these cases individually. However, it is not proper to take issues into your own hands and use verbal abuse as a way of retribution or vengeance against those who have made you uncomfortable. You are authorized to take appropriate measures to protect yourself, and are allowed to use reasonable levels of force, but this depends entirely on the situation and what you perceive as creepy, the court may find is entirely normal behavior. I have never suggested that women put up with creepiness, I have merely suggested that they refrain from verbal abuse and not cross the line from assertiveness to aggression. Forces (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"Forces", you are missing the point. "Creep shaming" is not about directly responding to a particular individual's behaviour by calling him a creep. "Creep shaming" is used to describe any complaints that such behaviour is unacceptable - not complaints to a given individual about their behaviour, but general complaints addressed to the public. The "term" is designed to dismiss such complaints by creating a false analogy with slut-shaming. MRAs will consider shouting "fuck off, creep" at someone covered by the term, but they don't limit it to that. Clear(er) now?--ZooGuard (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no problems with "Creep shaming" in principle, as I understand it to be "using shame to stop people from acting like creeps", as long as it is not done abusively. I would consider "fuck off, creep" to be verbal abuse, but that is a disagreement with means rather than ends. I only consider verbal abuse to be an inappropriate method of achieving the ends, and that other methods might be better, although my arguments have failed to persuade anyone. Would you agree that saying "fuck off, creep" is verbal abuse? Forces (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
No without a clear definition of "verbal abuse" and a list of that definition's implications. Of course, dealing with definitions risks playing the redefinition game.
As for that particular example, I would consider it a perfectly appropriate response in some situations.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
One definition of verbal abuse is "Verbal abuse is the use of words to cause harm to the person being spoken to." from What is your definition of verbal abuse? Does verbal abuse require the intent to cause psychological trauma?
In which situations would you consider the use of "fuck off creep" to be appropriate and not verbal abuse? Forces (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, Forces. If you can live by the principle "don't be aggressive, be assertive", that you have synthesised here, then good for you, you deserve some respect for that, imo. But don't expect everyone else to do it too. Some people undergo an unfair amount of trauma and if they want to deal with it via aggressive language, then that should be their good right. How about you set an example yourself in your own life and people around you may follow you, instead of preaching here on RationalWiki to a bunch of strangers. Nullahnung (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Forces, you need to stop doing something[edit]

Calling someone who behaves like a creep a "creep" is not verbal abuse, and to do so is to cheapen the term and to disrespect people who face actual verbal abuse. As long as your argument is based on this canard, there's nothing you can say that can be taken seriously. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it verbal abuse to call an autistic person who behaves creepily a creep? You may argue that the example is a bit extreme, but it happens often in reality. Forces (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The first bunch of posts in that thread: "I haven't been called a creep to my face either" "I don't recall being called a creep to my face" "haven't called a "creep" in my face" "I can't specifically recall being called a creep." To qualify as "verbal abuse," I think someone has to actually, you know, SAY SOMETHING. TeenageWasteland (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the fact that many members have been called equivalent terms such as "freak", "psychopath", or "evil". Would you agree that being called a freak, a creep, a psychopath or evil is verbal abuse? Forces (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"Freak", "psychopath" and "evil" are not equivalent to "creep" in the meaning that's used in this context.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
They are equivalent when used with the intent to cause psychological trauma in the same way that "fatass" and "fatso" are equivalent. Forces (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between a taunt by someone who is targeting you or dissmissive of you, and the kind of retaliatory language that includes "fuck off, creep". And because you seem to have diffculty grasping that, the inevitable question: are you on the spectrum?--ZooGuard (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I can easily imagine a socially vulnerable guy being made fun of by other people - when he tries to reach out, those people respond with "fuck off creep" because they know that is what hurts him the most. They first pretend to accept him then they reject him with harsh language thus causing maximum psychological trauma. In response to your question, I have not gone for a test so I don't know, to the best of my knowledge I believe that I am not autistic. Forces (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
What you are describing is a bit of a different usage of "creep" and has been discussed in an above section of this talk page (to sum it up, people who are just socially awkward in general being called creeps are not actually the subject of this article, the subject of this article are assholes who continue to persist in their propositions despite the initial rejection). Nullahnung (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
And I can easily imagine a socially vulnerable girl being repeatedly harassed, unable to retaliate and questioning herself because she's been brought up to avoid confrontation and not respond with "fuck off, creep". And, if she dares to complain or retaliate, being met with a "I am/he is autistic" to make her feel bad about feeling bad in the first place, for maximum psychological trauma. Now what?
Anyway, your hypothetical scenario is irrelevant to the topic of this article, or even to the hypothetical "unintentional creepy behavior" you were defending below.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I was saying that the socially vulnerable guy is in fact autistic and acts like a creep unintentionally. Also your example of the girl being unable to respond with "fuck off creep" does not make sense because there are other methods of assertion. For example she could say "You are making me feel uncomfortable, please cease and desist in your behavior". Forces (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The problem is that "call" has multiple possible meanings in different contexts, and it seems that the ambiguity is tripping people in this discussion. What do you mean by "call them a creep"? To their face? Complaining that so-and-so behaves creepily towards you to your friends? Saying that so-and-so "is a creep" to your friends? As a general rule, people who are aware that someone is on the spectrum will probably have that in mind when communicating with that someone. But there's also the fact that people on the spectrum are completely capable of being assholes in the same way neurotypical people are, and being autistic is not a "get-out-of-jail-free card".--ZooGuard (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I used the example of autistic people to highlight causes of unintentional creepiness to TeenageWasteland who does not seem to understand that people can unintentionally act like creeps. Forces (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: Yes, I intended "call them a creep" to mean "call them a creep to their face". As in, "fuck off, creep".Forces (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I retract my previous statement that creep shaming is a form of verbal abuse. I had not understood the concept of creep shaming. Whilst I still object to the use of verbal abuse in creep shaming, I can understand why some think it is not relevant to the article. Forces (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

EC -->I know very little about autism and will not make any statements that rely on an understanding of the condition. In the thread above, I argued clearly that I was talking about the behavior of mentally-healthy people. If you can produce actual research--not a chat board, but actual social-scientific research--that says that people with autism are targetted as "creeps," then that is something worth considering. I will point out that you did not mention autism in any of your edits to the article, and so I'm not entirely sure how it's relevant this discussion. TeenageWasteland (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
People with autism are not the only ones who are unaware of when they are being creepy. Mentally healthy individuals may also be unaware that they are making someone else uncomfortable. When you make someone uncomfortable unintentionally, would you like them to say to you "fuck off creep" or "you are making me uncomfortable, please stop"?Forces (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Mentally-healthy people need to take responsibility for their own behavior. Given the choice between sympathizing with and advocating for the pwerson who is the victim of creepy behavior and the hurt feelings of someone who gets called out for their bullshit in a strong manner, I have to go with the former. The guy being called out should 1. grow a pair; 2. learn to be a man; and 3. conduct himself accordingly in the future.TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That is a false dichotomy. The use of hurtful language is not the ONLY way to make someone aware that they are acting like a creep. The choice is not between whether to make someone aware of their creepiness using hurtful language vs not making them aware at all, the choice is between making them aware of their creepy behavior using hurtful vs non-hurtful language. Forces (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as you withdrew your argument that we are talking about a form of verbal abuse, I guess I don't have to reply to this argument about verbal abuse. TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Verbal abuse is basically the same as using hurtful language. But you don't have to reply to this argument, I've decided that advice on avoiding the use of hurtful language doesn't really belong on rationalwiki after all. Let's focus on the bigger picture. Forces (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
What you seem to not be understanding is that you're trying to tell women that they should underplay their reaction when they perceive a potential threat. Under that circumstances, complaining that someone's language is inappropriate increases the perceived threat level. In a situation like that, there are precious few ways to deescalate the situation other than walking away to begin with. Complaining about the way someone complains when you should cut your losses and leave could potentially mean that not even leaving will really fix the situation. EVDebs (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There seems to me a troubling assumption that anyone called 'creep' is unambiguously a 'creep', that they have unambiguously over stepped the mark and are 'creepy'. To say that it is justified to brand someone a creep because of a perceived threat does not mean that this perception is accurate or that this is an appropriate response. It is entirely reasonable that either party, the creep or the creeped, might innocently misread the situation or either party may just be arseholes. I am of the opinion that 'creep' is a term of abuse, not an especially egregious one, but abuse none the less. I find much of the debate on this page bizarre in the way it presents a vague term of abuse as a clearly defined academic term, and treating its subjective application as objective fact. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The debate on this page is a waste of everyone's time, as is quibbling over the meaning of 'creep' and whether it constitutes verbal abuse. What is defined as creep shaming (mostly by MRAs etc.) doesn't necessary have to involve using the word 'creep' at all, just as slut shaming doesn't always involve using the word 'slut' and queer-bashing doesn't always involve using the word 'queer'. The basic concept of 'creep shaming' is something like: rejecting someone's sexual advances in a way that shames him for making these sexual advances.
Now, whether a guy's sexual advances are inappropriate, and whether the way woman rejects these advances is inappropriate, are things that can only be meaningfully judged in context, depending on what they say or do. However, many (perhaps most) of the situations where "creep shaming" is cited (bearing in mind this whole concept originates in MRA and similar circles) are ones where a man's sexual advances have been presumptuous or even predatory (i.e. creepy) and have been unwelcome. The accusation of creep shaming flips this around, framing the woman as the aggressor and the man as the victim. Tone trolling about 'creep' being verbal abuse serves a similar purpose: deflecting attention away from the man's behaviour & making it all about how the woman reacts. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thinking it through, Forces did appear to not get the central tenet of where the accusation of creep shaming comes from, and thus was doing something like tone trolling, intentionally or not. I think we've wasted a lot of time here, yep. Nullahnung (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The point here is that people who think "creep shaming" is a thing are trying to rules-lawyer social interactions. It doesn't work like that. EVDebs (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeating references[edit]

This reference is in the article twice:

I think there's a way on Wikipedia to make the same reference get referred to in multiple locations of the article, but I don't know how to do it or if it's possible on RW. Help? Nullahnung (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Help:References #Repeating_references WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Nullahnung (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Article should expand viewpoint[edit]

It is indisputable that some people called "creeps" and similar are simply socially awkward and don't know etiquette. Those are the people the evil MRAs defend, and the articles exclusion of them implies that they, in reality, have bad intentions. The usage of the word "creep" towards a socially awkward person attempting to reach out is incredibly destructive and I find it unacceptable. The article needs to look past its feminist agenda (don't even deny it) and acknowledge that MRAs might, maybe, just once, have a point. Note that the word, or similar, is never thrown at women. For reference, I'm an egalitarian, and I am not sympathetic to either MRAs or feminists.-- (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a white male who doesn't exactly side with either feminists or MRAs. I've been called a creep countless times and every time I hear it I wanna run away and curl up into a ball and die. The fact that society is okay with people being called creeps makes me feel like I don't belong here. Not here as in rationalwiki, it's obvious I shouldn't be here. I mean in society.
When I hear the word creep what goes through my mind is stuff like "I am not ok. I shouldn't be talking to people. I'm a piece of shit and shouldn't be part of society". There's no way for me not to feel those things, and I don't doubt that "sluts" feel a similar way. I already don't have friends, why do you have to make me feel like I'm a disgusting person just because you don't wanna talk to me? Is it really that hard to brush people off politely? If I kept pestering a girl and she didn't know what to do and called me a creep, I guess it's understandable.
I use what little time I spend outside trying as hard as I can to act normal just because I don't want to be thought of as creepy. I actually avoid conversations with girls when possible just because guys don't use those kinds of words as often. Also they will usually tell me why what I'm doing is weird if they do call me something. I don't call people names other than "dick", "cunt", or "asshole". Stuff that doesn't mean anything other than people's junk and people who don't care about other people's feelings.
And no, I actually don't have anything better to do than to comment on a talk page of a random wiki responding to something posted 4 months ago. I'm guessing that's somehow creepy too somehow. -- (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Not saying that the specific use MRAs is using is in any way accurate, but could the article please do more to clarify how this is different from the very real phenomenon of some men often being falsely portrayed as "creeps", or more bluntly, molesters for being merely adjacent to the topic of sexuality? To clarify -- the way MRAs predominantly use the term is clearly flawed, and is meant to silence women for complaining about inappropriate treatment, but the article (and this talk page) seem to both conflate and gloss over an actual, toxic mentality that is itself a symptom of the patriarchy...which undercuts the message of the article itself. Hell, I can attest from experience that you can be treated as a creep and social pariah for being stridently non-adjacent to sexuality (i.e., identifying as asexual and not attempting to flirt with women at all.) Not wanting to step into a whole hornet's nest with the analogy, but while there is absolutely a huge problem with women being forced to interact with people who make them uncomfortable (and this is definitely the more serious issue here), there is also a countercurrent of, well, "false creep accusations" -- and they're much more universal and insidious than their namesake.
More specifically, the article does a shit job of differentiating the two -- the reddit quote (which, if you dive into their post history, is from an anti-MRA, anti-bigotry feminist) that is cited is explicitly in response to a man in no way attempting to flirt or come on to another women in any way whatsoever, but simply being present. By falsely conflating that with "sexual frustration" and "flirting", the article is being extremely dishonest, and totally cutting its argument off at the knees.
There's also the rather disgraceful bit of virgin shaming, which is just...for fuck's sake, you're criticizing men for being inappropriately forward, while simultaneously criticizing them for not trying hard enough? What in the actual fuck, article? (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Anything? Should I also mention the disbelief implied with "Another common criticism by men is that there is no equivalent of "creep" that can be applied to a woman", which is...look, this is a documented fact, to the detriment of both men and women. I can point y'all to many a forum for mothers/daughters who are intensely frustrated that the illegal, abusive, and sometimes pedophilic antics of older female relatives get nary a glance from the authorities because of patronizing sexism.
Also, is there any way at all that the article can base itself around someone other than Wakeman, who is just...Jesus Christ, a terrible pretender to being feminist. She's condemned male victims of abuse and tried to defend female abusers, for Christ's sake, she's the living embodiment of the caricature the right tries to paint the feminist movement as, to the point of severe Poe's Law. I understand if she's involved with the history of the term that needs to be recorded, but can we have a bit less, I guess, uncritical regurgitation of her? She's the opposite of a reliable voice for feminism. (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Article's definition of "creepiness" and how it's defined.[edit]

Is completely at odds with what actual academic studies have concluded. Especially the "The term 'creep' describes effectively when someone has overstepped someone else's boundaries and may make it hard to avoid reflecting on the impact of this behavior" nonsense claim.

Yes, it's extremely convenient to redefine a commonly used slur with a long and documented history of being used against social undesirables as "we're just talking about people who do this [outrageously awfully bad thing that it is social kryptonite to even try to disprove you even did]". It's like accusing a romantic rival of having STDs -- it doesn't matter if they have a clean bill of health, the fact they even have to refute the accusation is going to torpedo a lot of social relationships, not even just romantic ones. So the guy who got called a creep for liking ravens, or the lady who got called a creep for liking taxidermy, is understandably peeved at people going around trying to say that the original stupid insult against them was actually a very valid accusation of being a sexual predator.

It doesn't help, either, that the article relies on quotes from actual defenders of domestic abuse, someone whose own article complains about, essentially, being "mean, crazy, bitch-shamed", correctly pointing out that "The problem is when they’re used as catch-all terms, as potshots that are just supposed to hurt because they are dismissive. It’s a default setting for you not have to deal with what a lady has communicated — whatever that might be." For crap's sake, find a more reliable source to hang this whole article on.

The citation to the goodmenproject already on the page even goes into the fact that a lot of the drama behind "creepshaming" and "anticreepshaming" is because it is a very othering snarl word, but instead of acknowledging that, the article treats as universal that "creep" means only this one thing, that people being accused of creeps definitely did that one thing, and that they only object because they want to get away with continuing to do that one thing.

Which is bullshit. And the fact that it's bullshit is pretty much the entirety of the drama. The majority of people being called "creep" have nothing to do with anything sexual or have even actually done anything in the first place, and this attempt to imply that by being called a creep they've been credibly accused of being a sexual predator is (for obvious reasons) the reason people get upset at the accusation. Yeah, there's some actual predators upset at being called predators, but they are by far the minority of the people upset at being accused of sexual impropriety by the attempted redefinition of the insult, and it's silly to pretend otherwise. (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The article also directly contradicts itself, first defining being a creep as being some form of sexual predator, and then claiming "These misogynists also appear to believe that a woman trying to avoid a man she considers a possible threat is worse than the prospect of a guy not being able to pursue a woman."
Come freaking on. Even by the article's own definition, being publicly labeled a sexual predator is a lightyear away from just "not being able to pursue a woman", and that the article keeps insisting it's a male-only insult, even claiming a Quora citation to "Another common criticism by men is that there is no equivalent of "creep" that can be applied to a woman." when that article explicitly says the opposite. (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) claims their definition of creepiness is what multiple studies say, but the reference is to one study published in the minor (albeit peer-reviewed) journal New Ideas in Psychology, which itself disputes previous widespread notions of what constitutes creepiness. So what is the scientific consensus, if there is any? My guess is there is not much widely agreed that is relevant. --Annanoon (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
BON, did you even bother to Google and find the abstract of this study (or even read what you linked)? Sexual threats are a big part of the "creepiness" motif even in the *summary* of the article. I see nothing wrong with the entry (particularly since it concerns the typical socially clueless manosphere twist on these sort of things.) Soundwave106 (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Interesting. So do you think flirting with someone after they've expressed disinterest is creepy? How about groping someone? What about getting someone wasted then trying to fuck them? Any of that creepy in your books? I'd really like to get an idea of where you draw the line on social interactions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Y'all can quit your whining about ableism and "creep shaming," I put that disclaimer in the article. Oxyaena Harass 19:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Creeps and flirting - Needs help[edit]

I think this section needs help. It says there's a difference then doesn't explain it. Zero (talk - contributions) 19:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)