Talk:Creep shaming/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 21 November 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

What

Is this article saying only misogynists think it's a shame to be a creep? --83.84.137.22 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not like this article. I think it should go away. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 16:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A confusing, unlikeable, sourceless stub? ORF WITH ITS 'EAD! --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it either. ^gnostic 16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, delete. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind it, even though it smacks of MRA. The recent WIGO:Blog about erection werewolves paints some relevance on the subject. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think an article regarding that myth (that men are uncontrollable creeps) is a better topic than 'creep shaming' - such a thing would be a side effect of that broader phenomenon.±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 17:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The mission is feeble in this one. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. This is a hot-topic in the feminist & MRA parts of the blogosphere of late, largely kicked off by this blog post by Jessica Wakeman in which a commenter used the phrase, and Wakeman's follow-up blog which explored the concept. Other bloggers have picked up on the issue.^{examples: [1][2]} It fits in with a lot of the issues we cover (feminism, MRA, rape culture, perceived discrimination, privilege, etc.) & I think it fits in with the missions. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification, please... it may fit with unwritten parts of the mission, but the only fitting things I see in the explicit statement on the main page are "crank," which seems like a stretch, and "authoritarianism and fundamentalism," which I see as even more of a stretch. If we are to continue covering issues such as feminism, MRA, rape culture, perceived discrimination, privilege, etc., then perhaps some adjustment to the mission statement is in order. There. I went two whole sentences without saying "mission creep." Oops, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No, this is very much on-mission as MRAs are pretty much universally cranks. Essentially, anti-feminism is woo; rampant strawmanning is a big part of it, which is what the MRA usage of the term is. EVDebs (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The term is sufficiently well-known among feminist skeptics that it needs an article. EVDebs (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is kept, it needs to be redone. I read it four times and I'm still not sure what its trying to say. --Revolverman (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you do have to be familiar with the overall context that the term comes from, and realize that the term is not the most logical thing MRAs have ever come up with. Basically the construction and context of the term is meant to imply that women aren't supposed to talk shit about guys who are assholes to them. It's entitled NiceGuyism used as a philosophical debating point. EVDebs (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sources were added and there's been some clean-up, so I withdraw my deletion tag.--TheLateGatsby (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Still Not Good Enough

I'm sorry, but this really needs actual statistics and studies. The question is not "Do women ever creep-shame" because they do [example]. The question is "How often does it happen?". And it's simply not rational to say "Hardly ever, but I have no way of proving it". Also, the unsourced "People who say this tend to be bitter, lonely misogynists" seems more like guesswork than a supported fact, but I suppose it's less of a problem due to the relative newness and obscurity of the whole thing. 86.46.36.65 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

See, i gotta say, bon, i'm not convinced "creep shaming" even exists. WE call you a creep cause you're a creep. not because it's the worst blow we can think or, or cause we are telling our feminist sisters to avoid you or anything. That is to say "one woman's creep is another woman's hero".--GodotBe informed. Vote. 21:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

By "you" I presume you mean "them", and not actually me. Right? Because your pronoun mix-up turns an innocent comment into an unwarranted insult. 86.46.36.65 (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think about it, the entire concept is nonsensical to begin with. If a woman tells someone that he's a creep, it means she wants him to go away. It doesn't really matter whether she sincerely thinks he's creepy or not -- she just wants him gone. It's a sign of profound assholism to ascribe any sort of ulterior motive to that; arguing the point only makes the creep look creepier. EVDebs (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a little difficult to tell from a short clip, but he kinda does come off as... a creep. Frankly, whoever came up with the title for that video has the dynamic between Demi, Britney, and this guy completely backwards. EVDebs (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? X Factor judges are mean & insulting to contestants (both male & female); that's part of the show's whole shtick. If you think that's the most sexist thing that's ever been said on X Factor, you're way off. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't really know the whole context. But I have to think Britney Spears of all people would have more experience dealing with creepers than most, so if she says someone's creepy, I'm going to take her word for it. EVDebs (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevant. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This article: Poe's law? 85.5.25.165 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting allegation. Care to elaborate? EVDebs (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 20:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is loaded with ad hominem attack.

This article is loaded with ad hominem attack.

If you can't discuss the topic without making these ad hominem attacks and name calling, maybe the article isn't really as fit for the rational wiki as you may like to believe.

Maybe you aren't as rational as you would like to claim. ^{— Unsigned, by: 98.177.196.183 / talk / contribs}

Cool story bro EVDebs (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is stealing my lines. --Revolverman (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Blue (pester) 05:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Romantic creeps" vs "sexual creeps"

Something I feel this article needs to point out is that "creep" is not necessarily sexual. For example, being a person with OCD and BPD, when I fall in love with a woman, I tend to become a little bit obsessive (though I do try not to), and therefore, even if it isn't my dick talking, I tend to be labelled a creep, which, although true, is not really the same type of "creep" as mentioned in this article. I think that it should be brought up that there are creeps and then there are self-pitying, socially retarded, obsessive sods like me. Messiah of Doom ( For me, thou shalt fall) 12:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ya, that would pertain to the term 'creep', but not so much to the term 'creep shaming' as (supposedly) frequently used by mentioned men's rights activists. Sooo, don't need to put all the extra meanings of 'creep' in there, imo. Nullahnung (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Still, I do feel that is a bit unfair lumping the two together. Messiah of Doom ( For me, thou shalt fall) 21:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no lumping together in the article as far as I know. In fact, in my opinion, the article doesn't deal with the term "creep" at all. It deals with the term "creep shaming", which is a completely different term than "creep" and possesses a completely different context. All of this discussion about just the term "creep" is completely irrelevant. Nullahnung (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? If your behaviour makes women uncomfortable enough to comment on it, what difference does it make whether you regard that behaviour as "romantic" rather than sexual? Isn't this just classic "nice guy" syndrome? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't having 'nice guy syndrome' mean you feel a sense of entitlement? As in, "I think I'm totally nice to you, therefore you are not allowed to criticize me and you must give me what I want!" So no, that's not in fact what's going on here, if you read OP carefully. Nullahnung (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel this is a recycling of the 'rapist in the bushes' delusion. "I have these ~issues~ but they totally AREN'T the cartoonish crazy people who can't control their penises, ~my~ issues with women are different than that stereotype so it's a different ~kind~ of more ~legitimate~ creepiness that should be protected!" News flash, every single creepy guy thinks he is nothing like other creepy guys. There's no 'sexual creepiness' vs. 'romantic creepiness.' Women react to creepiness in caution response to possible molestation or rape threat, as conditioned by social realities. Realities supported by tons of data suggesting that women experience high risks of both sexual harassment and assault- especially from people they happen to know, rather than strangers. Getting creepy with someone you work with or know loosely? Yeah, you're threat #1. There's no difference. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 22:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you are committing the same mistake that Messiah of Doom is committing. You are somehow setting the term "creep" within the same context as the term "creep shaming", even though they are totally different and this article is only about the latter.

You might not realize it, Knight (nice name!), but the term "creep" is rather liberally applied these days among youths (used by both male and female). Typically you are at risk of being called a creep just because you sit in a corner every day looking at passers-by. Ridiculous, but true. (No, it hasn't happened to me, but I've been around such people.)

As for romantic creeps... it is no great jump to imagine someone sending a love letter and then getting called a creep because he looks unwashed.

However, this article focuses on MRA types who use the term "creep shaming", so all of this discussion about the term "creep" is actually completely irrelevant. Nullahnung (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I think it's you who is making a mistake here. Yes, somebody can be labelled a "creep" just for being unwashed or socially awkward, and no, that's not what the article's about, but it's not what the above comments are about either. Messiah of Doom introduced the subject of being called a creep specifically in the context of obsessive behaviour toward women he falls in love with. That's exactly what this article, and the whole concept of "creep shaming", is about. The distinction he seems to be making is between lovesick romantic creeps who are obsessed with somebody and (presumably) sleazy pick-up artist creeps who just want to get laid. My point is that - while there are some differences of psychology, motivation and attitude between these two models - the net result in outward behaviour & especially how the woman reacts to it is probably about the same: unwelcome attention that isn't reciprocated, makes her feel awkward, uncomfortable or even intimidated. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, you're probably right. Nullahnung (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I realize to some people this may be a touchy subject, but I suffer from moderate to severe social anxiety disorder as well as moderate OCD, and I get along fine with the majority of men and women I meet. I realize that having certain personality disorders can be a significant hindrance to social interactions, and I fully admit that social activity is much more difficult and exhausting for me than it is for many of my friends. However, I have yet to be called a creep, and I have friends and acquaintances spanning all walks of life. It takes an awful lot of extra work to get there, but I believe that the onus is on each individual to moderate his or her behaviour accordingly. - GrantC (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2013

Damn it, knew I shouldn't have commented. Look, I understand that there are similarities, and that I'm a fucking psychopath, but, as Weaseloid says, the difference is between "pick up artist" guys, and then there's fuckers like me. There's the kind of guys who go to clubs or dances or whatever and try to get women to fuck them, which I'm pretty sure is the kind in this article, whereas I've never even had a conversation longer than 5 words with a girl that I've been infatuated with. And I'm sure you'll all be pleased to know that, yes, I am in the process of getting help. Messiah of Doom ( For me, thou shalt fall) 08:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

[trolling] 101.165.71.7 (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

101.165.71.7 is probably a troll. Please ignore. Nullahnung (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. He/she is kind of right in some parts, though. Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle 09:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, everyone. I just realised how much of a tool I am, and have been, and I would like to apologise to everybody who I've intimidated or offended. Sorry. Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle 09:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh stop it with the self-deprecation. There's no need to apologize, you haven't offended anyone (apart from that one IP, but that troll doesn't deserve any attention...). Nullahnung (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a separate article about "creeps" rather than just "creep shaming". Also, I've never actually been called a creep by someone else. Just putting it out there. Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle 10:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, then stop labeling yourself as a creep! Nullahnung (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

can someone please clarify?

I am not entirely sure what a 'creep' actually is, beyond someone vaguely unpleasant for some reason AMassiveGay (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what "creepy" is? You can pretty much call anyone a creep who creeps you out. Nullahnung (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

that doesn't really clarify anything. It is entirely nebulous. Plenty things 'creep me out' or make me uncomfortable without actually being creepy. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult because the term is so subjective. What is the threshold of "creeps me out" at which point I should call someone a creep? That's really for everybody to decide for him-/herself.

Here's a definition from thefreedictionary: "(Slang) An annoyingly unpleasant or repulsive person." Pretty vague, right? Generally you can safely call someone a creep if creeping you out is a main feature of that person. Nullahnung (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

the term is a meaningless insult then. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically, in this circumstance, it means somebody whose desires, whether sexual, romantic or platonic, make a woman feel uncomfortable, such as the kind of guys who use bad pick-up lines on a woman in a club who is obviously not interested. Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle 11:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

the subjectivity of that still makes the word worthless AMassiveGay (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. "Creep" is a term that only has meaning in context. Messiah's definition misses the point that what makes someone a creep is situational; it also requires a lack of respect and/or awareness of personal boundaries. Creepiness is what causes someone else to be afraid of you; what makes someone a creep is that they either don't realize this, or don't care. And yes, from a certain point of view, it's subjective, but that doesn't excuse you from trying to avoid being one. EVDebs (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And yet still no clarity on what creepiness or what a creep is. I have heard the terms used to describe sexist, misogynist behaviour, to describe someone sucking up to the boss, to describe general dickishness, and to describe people who just appear odd and socially excluded. As far as I can see it little more than a vague or subjective insult that slightly more polite than calling someone a prick. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I just find it bizarre that creep and creepiness are being discussed like they are valid and accepted academic terms with clear and universally accepted definitions. It reminds of of conversations I've had on whether it is better to called a prick or cunt AMassiveGay (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You want it spelled out? A creep is someone who does not respect someone else's personal boundaries and either does not know they're doing it or does not care. That's as straightforward a definition as you're going to find of the term. EVDebs (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

my point is that it is one definition of many and it is still little more than a vague term of abuse flung at people no matter how justified you feel in throwing it. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Pray tell under what circumstances someone might be called a creep when they are not acting creepy, and how often would it happen? EVDebs (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

the vast majority of Timex I heard someone called a creep in real life is some one sucking up to someone. Slightly less frequently, used go describe someone thought of as weird. The suck up one is quite common, often said jokingly. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither one really deviates from the definition I gave above. Saying it as a joke, well, that's not to be taken terribly seriously. But if someone is being weird, that kinda does fall under the umbrella of "violating social boundaries", inasmuch as they're behaving in a way that is seen as abnormal and possibly threatening. The circumstance I anticipated was if someone was trying to pull a con on someone, but that's clearly an abuse of the term and isn't especially common. EVDebs (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Since, as it has been pointed out, the meaning of creep is subjective/not clear, does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have a seperate section, or even article, regarding the definition of creep? Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

you might as well have an article on what an arsehole is, if we had an article on what a creep is AMassiveGay (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We do. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 21:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but (in my opinion) even a separate section in the article would be helpful. Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not convinced that this doesn't exist

I've been called a creep by a girl who had been my friend for a year prior, right after admitting that I had a crush on her. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you see, I think this article doesn't necessarily refer to personal instances where the word "creep" is used- certainly, it is often used in cases where it wouldn't really apply, such as yours. I think the article is talking about how MRAs sometimes tend to think that "creepy" behaviour is okay. That said, I personally don't think that it is any more necessary to call somebody a creep than it is to call somebody a bitch. I would personally prefer it if instead of just saying "you're a creep", people could say "Your behaviour makes me uncomfortable because…"- just insulting somebody only serves to upset them, without them understanding why what they were doing was wrong- as seen with the MRAs, or even my own posts on the page from when I first joined the wiki. Anyway, TL;DR- you're not a creep. That wasn't "creep-shaming" as this article refers to it. People should be nice. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Impurity is the secret} 04:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The wheres, whens, and hows of your telling the woman in question about your feelings for her could easily have played into her seeing it as a moment of creepiness, as could her understandings of the nature of your relationship at the time. TeenageWasteland (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. Did she say why she found you creepy, or did she just go "Fuck off, creep"? In what context was it- the "when"s "where"s and "how"s? You see, here's the thing. If she just went outright and called you a creep without explanation, all that does is hurt your feelerings, without actually helping anybody do anything. I'm not saying that "creep-shaming", in the MRA sense, exists, or that creepy behaviour is fine- I'm just saying that being mean about it and not saying "don't do X because…" is not the best way to handle it. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Deserved doom shall be unto you} 04:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

At the time, no, she didn't. I later read her blog and found that she had said some very hurtful things about me, although I don't remember the details (this was years ago). As for the situation: it was high school, the last day of the school year, and I had liked her for a long time, but didn't think it would ever work out between us, so I never made a move. But she was graduating soon, and I didn't want to never see her again without ever admitting how I felt, so I told her that I had a crush on her. I thought of it as a mild, non-threatening thing, because (I thought) it was obvious I didn't expect her to reciprocate, given the circumstances. I just didn't also expect her to lash out at me like that.

I don't know how MRAs behave in real life. I do know that if it's anything remotely like how they behave online, then yes, it is creepy. But the fact that many MRAs are genuine creeps does not mean that creep shaming doesn't actually exist. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I want to reiterate: I didn't say "I've always been madly in love with you!" or anything like that, which while not actually creepy as I understand the term, is certainly overwhelming, and would make a negative reaction understandable. I simply said "I have a crush on you." Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people don't deal well with being told about a crush directly, I imagine. It is generally smart not to mention that openly until a few dates afterwards, and maybe it will be guessed at inbetween. Of course the difficult part is actually getting a date. Nullahnung (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Again: it might make someone a little uncomfortable, sure, but not worth blogging, long after the fact, about how horrible someone is. At least in my opinion. But it doesn't matter. I've all but given up on romance anyway. I don't want to whine too much about that, lest this conversation end up too familiar. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Relation with Slut Shaming

I think the true relation is that:

a good male prospect isn't supposed to to be denied it's right to reproduce (or express his sexuality), unlike a "creep" who fails despite his effort.

Being " slaved of their genitalia" doesn't imply the women's rejection.

The word "creep" might work at the same level of "slut" because they hurt the core of gender interaction, and at the same time tells us, what the opposite sex despise the more in its partner. men despise rejection/women availability. or they just show us what they prize Men approval/ Women exclusivity. ^{— Unsigned, by: 190.154.104.9 / talk / contribs} 14:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fold into Misandry

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. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 21:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

2014 thread necromancy

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 bend} 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.) --84.151.148.203 (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)

Deletion

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. --178.202.206.202 (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 (is useful) 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. ħuman 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). --178.202.206.202 (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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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?" Sophie^Wilder 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

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. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Don't read look every behind second you word} 12:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)