Yesterday, I introduced you to the mysterious vaginal goo that enables those with vaginas to transform nearby men (and possibly even some women) into helpless zombie vagina slaves. According to some totally legit scientific studies summarized on the blog WOMEN NEED CONSTANT SUPERVISION, the hormone-ish lady chemicals called “copulins” act a bit like the magical midi-chlorians from Star Wars, turning ordinary women into Jedi masters of the vagina.
Also, they smell like butter.
If you haven’t read my original post on the subject, go read it now. Trust me, ladies, you won’t regret it.
Since writing yesterday’s post, I have done some additional research on the subject. So let me answer some lingering questions you gals might have.
I have had sex with my boyfriend many times, but I have not yet seized complete control of his mind, and he frequently exhibits annoying amounts of free will. What am I doing wrong?
Are you moving around at all during sex? While most sex-havers exhibit a strong preference for movement during intercourse, the most effective way to transmit your copulins into his brain is if both of you remain motionless. As WOMEN NEED CONSTANT SUPERVISION notes,
Through the process of coupling a female and male will lay relatively still without having sex with the penis inside of the vagina. The process may take up to 15 minutes and works faster and more efficiently when the female is on top of the male.
You may wish to distract your fella with some sports talk radio so that he doesn’t notice that you’ve stopped having sex with him and instead are lying atop him stock still with a slightly maniacal look on your face.
During this period the vagina injects up to 1/2 cup (100 ml) of the copulin fluid into the urethral opening at the tip of the penis, which is chemically attracted to semen, and will follow the semen down the shaft directly into the testicles.
Yep. Not half a teaspoon, half a cup. Apparently, penises are a bit like the Tardis, a lot bigger on the inside than they appear on the outside.
After 15 minutes of coupling the copulins will have entered the blood stream and traveled from his testicles up into the hypothalamus (a section of the brain that controls hormones) causing the male to become completely influenced by the needs and suggestions of the female.
And there you go, ladies!
In your last post, you said that copulins can also be transmitted in the form of a butter-scented gas, in order to ensnare nearby males. Yet none of the men I stood next to today started spontaneously doing my bidding. What’s up with that?
Be patient! Proper copulin transmission can take up to 15 minutes! As this totally legit real science website explains:
When a woman breathes, the movement causes minute amounts of copulins to become airborne. If she is stationary for an extended period of time, the copulins will eventually exist in the air around her; however, it appears to take some time for copulins to escape clothing fabric and actually become airborne.
But if you wait long enough, all the males in your vicinity will ultimately surrender to your Jedi vagina juice. WOMEN NEED CONSTANT SUPERVISION elaborates on this point:
Fifteen minutes is all it takes for copulins to take over a majority of the hypothalamus gland. … If you are within 3 feet of an ovulating woman or group of them YOUR polypeptides are being replaced at a rate of 5% a minute with THEIR copulins.
What if I don’t want any dudes sticking their icky man penises inside me? Can I turn a dude into a vagina zombie just by having him perform oral sex on me?
Yes! Just be sure to slather your basement area with baby powder before he starts heading downstairs. According to our totally legit science expert,
the use of talc (baby powder) on the vagina may facilitate copulins to becoming airborne. The copulins attach to the powder particles and are inhaled by the male, or enter the bloodstream via the eyes (which would explain why it works faster).
Gosh, David, I would love to transform every man around me into my helpless vagina slave, but how can I be sure this will work?
You don’t have to take my word for it! Listen instead to the totally real females who wrote in to this totally legit science page about copulins with their testimonials
Female: My husband is very happy now, and very helpful. … our marriage has become even better.
Female: He does all the housework, everything, and he is so happy about it! Its a miracle! …
Female: I use “power” words like the lady commenting here. I find it works wonders at keeping my boyfriend happy even long after we are “together”. Because with a word I can make him feel pleasure or pain, he sees me like a magic power, and has a…lot of respect for me always.
Wow. Can my vagina goo really give me that much power over men?
Yes, and more! According to this totally legit copulin expert, women can even command men who’ve been under their vaginal control for some time to stop thinking about things they don’t want them to — even GOLF!
If the female stated that he won’t think about golf anymore, and will instead think of her, the male will find himself incapable of thinking of golf while the copulins are present.
In the final stage of “copulin dominance,” the man will stop thinking these terrible golf thoughts altogether, even if his vaginal commander isn’t there to remind him not to think about golf.
Past communication has already established that the female doesn’t want him to play golf, and so the copulins allow only those thoughts that promote non-golf activities to reach the conscious level.
Ultimately, the vagina slave will turn into something resembling a zombie, sans rotting flesh and the overpowering urge to eat brains,
Females report that males at this stage, as copulins are transmitting, steadily become “dumber”, repeating themselves or the female’s words, slurring, or mixing words up. Late in the coupling, females state that the male will typically become incoherent and finally go silent.
Vagina zombification, complete!
Once a hypothalamus is flooded with copulins, the male brain is just sitting on idle, with only the bare minimum of thought process. In this state, the male is probably not thinking of anything at all, but any input from the female will become the male’s singular focus.
And she doesn’t even have to be there!
The female can plant ideas during coupling (later stages of the session) and the male will act upon them at a later date, completely convinced they are his own ideas … .
Boy, I’m really glad I decided to write this post!
Make that four internets, enjoy yours Pandapool!
@WWTH
“I just think we should be more concerned with our sense of safety than with the feelings of men. If anyone wants to think that’s misandry, I don’t care.”
1. Misandry. Does. Not. Exist. 🙂
2. We absolutely should be more concerned with our safety than the feelings of men. Men can survive getting their feeling hurt just fine, we can’t survive death. HOWEVER, it does not follow that we should NOT be concerned with the feelings of men AT ALL, just that feelings (for all genders) should be a much lower priority than safety concerns.
3. “Creep” is not used exclusively to describe boundary-violations. It also can be used as a general insult, much like “asshole” is.
I support women in enforcing any boundaries on contact they wish. I also support women in being Judgey Mc. Judgerpants, seeing as I am Judgey Mc. Judgerpants myself.
I do not support women in using “creep” as a tool to manipulate. That I *will* call shaming. Creep is not used exclusively to describe boundary-violations. It also can be used as a general insult.
4. Creep-shaming. Does. Not. Exist. 🙂
@katz
“The fuck? Are you saying it’s okay to call women bitches as long as they’re actually behaving badly?”
I’m saying that it’s used accurately when the woman is behaving badly. As for being “okay”, well I’m not going to comment on whether people should be offended or not.
“And I see you haven’t bothered to address the point many people made that “creep” is a word we use for people who violate our boundaries, and that the idea of “creep-shaming” exists to keep women from defending those boundaries, as evinced by literally every MRA-type who complains about “creep-shaming” being an obvious predator who women should stay away from.”
I addressed just that multiple times, in multiple posts.
Look, I think we’re talking past one another. You guys seem to be using a really narrow rule of thumb for exactly how creep is used, and in exactly which way. I don’t actually disagree with anything anyone said, it’s just that I see creep being used in many different ways, including manipulatively.
As I said I thought lanky yanky may have been playing gotcha. Creep was obviously the worst example to pull.
“I *think* mrex was saying that creep is a slur against men by route of insulting their manhood = saying they’re girls = less than.”
More or less.
“But I’m unclear as to how someone can call a man a thing that implies he’s girly without it being a term already associated with women.”
There’s more than one way to take away a “man card”. One way is to show a man is feminine by calling him slurs associated with women. Another is by showing that he’s not masculine in some way.
@mrex:
Man cards. Absolutely. Do. Not. Exist?
I mean—okay, “creep” can be used in contexts where it doesn’t actually apply, and it would stink to be on the receiving end of it. I can believe that there exist women who are petty and manipulative enough to drop it on guys they simply dislike, for reasons completely unrelated to their feelings of personal safety or boundaries. But literally any unflattering description in the world can be misused and unfairly applied to people.
When I was little, I got called “stupid”, because I *scored better on a test than another kid*. When I told the teacher what he had done, she put him in time out, so he called me “mean”. Both of those were completely inappropriately used. But this doesn’t make “stupid” an “academic-shaming” word, and it doesn’t make “mean” a “tattletale-shaming” word. The kid who was harassing me used those words in those ways, but “stupid” and “mean” are not now unspeakable slurs.
Now, “stupid” can be reasonably argued to have ableist connotations, and I try to avoid it because of that, but “mean” is much more analogous to “creep/creepy”. It’s behavior-dependent. If I went around beating up other kids on the playground, it absolutely would apply to me. If I tattled on this kid with a false report, then I would be mean. But as things actually occurred, I would be justified in calling the kid “mean” for harassing me. Just because he misused it—after all, it is not mean to seek help from an adult when being bullied—does not entail that “mean” is a problematic word, or that I must be super careful about using it, because some bullies use it to say “I received consequences for hurting another kid.”
E-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y here will agree that it is wrong to wantonly disregard men’s feelings and say hurtful things to them. We all agree that men are human beings and ought to be treated with the baseline respect and dignity due to all human beings.
The existence of a handful of women who use “creep” to namecall otherwise perfectly innocuous men does not change the definition of the word, and shouldn’t affect how the vast majority of women are allowed to use it.
“Creepy” can apply to men or women alike, but it almost always gets applied to men, since a) the large majority of openly creepy folks are men (because men suffer far fewer social consequences for being creepy); and b) women are far more likely to feel threatened by a boundary-crossing man than men are to feel threatened by a boundary-crossing woman (because patriarchy). Even though creepiness is disproportionately committed by men and perceived by women, creepiness is not inherently gendered, and “creepy” is not a gendered slur. It is not an attack on masculinity, except to men who already see any critical term as an affront to their masculinity—and, well, there’s nothing I can do to help them not feel that way.
Of course we should be kind to one another. Of course we should be, on the whole, disinclined to hurt people’s feelings. But “creep/creepy” is super low-grade stuff that is necessary for women to identify early red flags of discomfort and threat. It is a concise, clear way to say “Something weirds me out and I don’t want to be near this person”. I don’t understand why there is an argument about it.
I mean, shoot, “creepy” doesn’t even have to apply to people. Being alone in the woods in thick fog can be creepy. That strangely face-shaped water stain in the ceiling can be creepy. Even ordinarily adorable cats/dogs can be creepy if they stare at things that aren’t there, or hover over you in your sleep, or appear unexpectedly at eye level in the dark.
Did you break your spine pulling this turd so deeply from your arse?
1. If patriarchy is about protection, then why do they keep, y’know, raping and murdering us? Oh yeah, because it’s about control and only control. They just use the protection thing as a straw to grasp when we call them out on it.
2. I’m going to need to see the dictionary you’re using here, because it might just be an MRA’s manifesto with “DICK-TIONARY” scrawled on the front. “Creepy” does not mean and has never meant “Man who isn’t sufficiently chivalrous” or “Man who isn’t sufficiently manly” – hell, the most stereotypically “Masculine” men tend to be the creepiest, because they see themselves as “Owning” women, because hello actual toxic masculinity. Words mean things, damnit.
Strewth, you might as well be defending a racial slur… Oh, no, wait, you did that too. Cool.
I don’t understand how if creepy is a general insult like asshole, it’s simultaneously a word specifically used to manipulate men. Sure, any insult can be used by an emotionally abusive person of any gender against any gender. But when manospherians talk about creep used as a shaming tactic they’re actually protesting the fact that we have boundaries and enforce them, so I don’t see why that was helpful to bring up.
@EJ “Man cards. Absolutely. Do. Not. Exist”
They do within the framework of toxic masculinity, which was the context of the post I was clarifying? I’m not saying that I, personally, believe in man cards.
My posts are meant to be taken in context of one another. They’re not going to make much sense if they’re read as standalone because I’m trying to avoid repeating myself unnecessarily. I honestly think we’re mostly speaking past one another.
A summary of this argument, from my POV;
1. Lanky yanky posts an MRA website detailing “female shaming tactics” and is critical of it.
2. In my POV, I make the (rather uncontroversial) remark that shaming men with creep, “be a man” etc, is shitty.
3. Others explain that “creep shaming” is a way to silence women, which is true, and which I agreed with. I explain that while using “creep shaming” as a tool to silence women is shit, shaming men with by labeling *them* as creepy is shit as well.
4. Confusion ensues. To be fair, I’m shit at writing, and always struggle with making myself clear, both in writing and in speech. Although, I think people are also assuming what my argument is before they hear/understand it. Which is how I’m getting weird arguments about “misandry”, saying that I feel that women should put man feels before safety, and etc. I didn’t actually say any of that, did I?
@Kootie
” Being alone in the woods in thick fog can be creepy. That strangely face-shaped water stain in the ceiling can be creepy. “
Yes, and you’re ironically proving right here that “creepy” is about a feeling of anxiety, and not inherently about boundary violations or behavior. I mean, yes boundary violations are by definition anxiety-provoking, but neither fog nor water stains can violate your boundaries. But yet they’re still creepy.
Labeling your feelings is OK, acting on your feelings is OK, labeling another person based on your feelings of anxiety and not a pattern of behavior tends to be very problematic.
Let’s take the example above; a man invading a woman’s personal space because he’s hard of hearing. It’s not a boundary invasion until boundaries are actually put in place. It is completely asinine to assume that other people have the same sense of personal space as you do, so to say that a man is “violating your boundaries” before he even realizes that he’s actually “in your space” is false. If you make it clear to him he’s in your space, and he ridicules, shames, or ignores you, well *now* he’s violating your boundaries, and yes, deserves a shaming.
Which is why I say creepy can be ableist and racist. If a man doesn’t have a good sense of what an “acceptable” amount of personal space is, either because he’s from a culture with different rules regarding personal space or because he has trouble understanding social rules, he’s going to be unfairly labeled and shamed.
Again, this does not mean that women shouldn’t set boundaries, or heed their feelings of discomfort. Their feelings aren’t wrong, but labeling a man’s character *is*.
” It is not an attack on masculinity,
Disagree. I think ideally “creepy” wouldn’t be an attack on masculinity as toxic masculinity would be gone, but I think in the world we have now, it is. A “creepy” guy is a “bad” guy in our world. A man that’s failing to be either respected by, or chivalrously respectful of, women.
@SFHC “If patriarchy is about protection, then why do they keep, y’know, raping and murdering us? Oh yeah, because it’s about control and only control. They just use the protection thing as a straw to grasp when we call them out on it.”
Well men don’t rape and murder in toxic masculinity, do they? They’re either falsely accused, or the woman somehow “forced” the man to do it, because all men are “nice guys”, right?
Of course it’s a contradiction, it’s meant to be a contradiction, so that women can’t win at it. Describing something doesn’t mean you agree with it.
“Strewth, you might as well be defending a racial slur… Oh, no, wait, you did that too. Cool.”
Wasn’t defending it, I was more assuming that the dude in question may be Jewish himself and therefore not using it as a slur. Which, once I thought about it, was a stupid assumption to make, because even if he was Jewish, he wasn’t a Jewish girl, so of course it’s a slur.
Brooke already took me down on this. I was wrong.
@mrex:
I agree with you that toxic masculinity advances the notion that a man card is a thing which can be rescinded. On that, yeah, we see eye to eye. I disagree with you on the matter of creep shaming: I’ve never seen a man called a creep who wasn’t acting, well, creepy.
(That’s a lie. I have seen a man referred to as a creep by a woman who used the term as a synonym for “man who earns less than the median wage but who nonetheless believes that he is human”; however it was relatively apparent to everyone within earshot that this is the context in which she meant it, and it was also apparent to everyone within earshot that she was an asshole, so I don’t think it can be regarded as relevant here.)
Being creepy isn’t in the eye of the beholder. It’s a form of behaviour which can be fairly objectively described. I’ve seen men be creepy to women. I’ve thought back and recognised cases where I was acting creepily. I’ve seen women be creepy to women, men be creepy to men, and women be creepy to men. It’s a thing and people need to stop thinking that it’s okay.
Saying someone is acting creepy is labeling a person’s behaviour
Saying “you’re acting/being creepy” is not the same as “labelling the person” as in “You ATRE creepy (and will always be)”.
Conflating “X is doing something creepy” with “X IS creepy and I’ll make sure they’re treated as the HUGE UGLY CREEP they are” is a bit of a stretch.
Having a stranger invade my personal space, rejecting them, and then turning to my friends and saying “jeez, what a creep” without knowing if it was due to an invisible disability is somehow insensitive, but it still is not “labelling the person”.
“Labelling the person” would apply, IMHO, if I continued to see that person, or I find about their disability, and calling them a creep nonetheless, no matter their behavior, and making sure everyone knows what a creep they are because that one time they invaded my personal space.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/degrassi/images/d/d4/Stop-you-right-there-real-housewives.gif
Boundaries are in place, even if they haven’t been verbally expressed or acknowledged.
Boundaries are not the result of an interaction, they are personal limits.
It is asinine to assume everyone has the same boundaries, just as it is completely asinine to pretend there is absolutely no way to get a more or less accurate idea of someone else’s boundaries.
Just like rights, and needs, you may not know those specific to the person you’re dealing with, but you do know the universal rights, and needs, and possible boundaries a person can have.
It is not ableist to enforce one’s own boundaries when being invaded, even if the person invading them is doing so unwillingly as the result of a disability.
mrex: The fact that “creepy” can apply to inanimate objects shows that it doesn’t depend on the innate character of the person/thing exuding creepiness. That’s why I brought it up. I don’t have to think my ceiling is actually possessed to find a face shape on it creepy. I don’t need to know that a guy has bad intentions to think that he is behaving in a creepy way. In fact, I’ve had to counsel some of my male friends—who are delightful men—when they’ve unwittingly done something that freaks women out.
Because there are lots and lots of men who *are* creepy on purpose, it means women can’t afford to try and discern where the creepy behavior comes from before deciding that they no longer want to interact. This, of course, really sucks for the men who do creepy things accidentally, but it also really sucks for the women who have to constantly be on alert because you never know when a run-of-the-mill creepy guy is going to reveal himself to be a dangerous predator (or even just an unpleasant turdwaffle who likes making women uncomfortable). The problem here, though, lies with the turdwaffles, and not with the alarmed women.
Anyone, even the sweetest person, can be creepy without realizing how problematic their action is. Creepiness is, in the technical sense, a reasonably minor offense. But it happens in a toxic culture where creepy ish is happening all. the. time, and can easily escalate, and so women need to have the freedom to respond to it without being policed on whether or not it was creepy enough to count as being creepy, or whether or not it came from a truly nice person, or whether or not it is mean to say that someone has freaked us out.
Compare it to rudeness. Telling someone “You’re being rude”, or saying, “Some rude guy on the subway stepped on me and didn’t even apologize”, is not shaming. It’s not saying that they are the worstest human being of all time and ought to be shunned by all. It’s saying that they violated social boundaries in a way that was annoying/angering. Saying “You’re being creepy”, or “Some creep on the subway was LITERALLY breathing down my neck” is no different, except for the added dimension of feeling unsafe.
Saying that someone with a disability is creepy *because* of their disability is a whole other ball of wax. That is super wrong and ableist. But with a stranger, you can’t make your perception of their creepiness contingent on whether or not they might have a disability that you don’t know about—especially when someone can have that disability and also be a dangerous human being.
I’m all for being slow to judge someone’s character. I think it’s good to have patience with people being awkward. I’m a fan of forgiving someone for making a sincere mistake. I care a lot about accommodating people with disabilities. None of this is undermined by being able to talk frankly about creepiness, or to remove oneself from the creepy person/situation.
Bull-fucking-shit. Whether or not boundaries are verbalized or not does not change the fact that the boundaries EXIST. And while one can’t expect everyone to have the same boundaries and expectation of personal space, there’s a certain amount of personal space that has been culturally agreed upon to be respected unless told otherwise by that specific person. You can’t grab someone’s breast and then go “Ah, you can’t call me a groper, you never SAID that your boobs were off limits!”
If some people have more extreme boundaries than others, no, you can’t expect other people to automatically know that, but you also can’t expect the people with boundaries to not be defensive when their boundaries are violated.
Or, to put it more simply: If you step on my foot, I need you to get off my foot. If you didn’t MEAN to step on my foot, I still need you to get off of my foot. If I didn’t tell you that I don’t like people stepping on my foot, I still need you to get off of my foot. If you’re blind and you couldn’t SEE my foot, I still need you to get off of my foot.
Not to mention that it can apply to women and girls, too.
“Saying someone is acting creepy is labeling a person’s behaviour”
Saying someone is acting creepy = labeling a behavior.
Saying someone is creepy = shaming with a label.
“It is not ableist to enforce one’s own boundaries when being invaded, even if the person invading them is doing so unwillingly as the result of a disability.”
Never said it was ableist to enforce personal boundaries, I said it *can* be ableist or racist if a woman (or a man) assumes out of hand that someone is using different boundaries than them because of malevolent intent rather than simply having a different sense of appropriate boundaries.
Enforcing and sticking to boundaries is healthy. Mind-reading and labeling someone as something bad based on a culturally ambiguous behavior is shit. And yeah, the same thing could be said about any insult that means “this person is a piece of shit”, including “asshole”. It’s the character assignation and the shaming that’s wrong, not the feelings of discomfort, or the enforcement of boundaries.
“Boundaries are in place, even if they haven’t been verbally expressed or acknowledged.
Boundaries are not the result of an interaction, they are personal limits.”
I think it’s more accurate to say that boundaries exist before they’re expressed (verbally or nonverbally), but that they’re not in place yet because the other person has no clue what they are. Yeah, part of becoming socially adept is being able to guess what a boundary is likely to be, and most people get really good at this. But, for various reasons, including race, SES, individual personality and past experiences, and etc., misunderstandings are inevitable. Sticking with proxemics , unless someone is literally a mind reader, they’re not going to instinctively know where another’s boundary for personal space is. Sure, some personal space boundaries are clearer than others, for example getting within inches of a stranger’s face should be a pretty obvious no-no. But, on the other hand, there is literally no distance that is a universal violation of personal space, (some people, on a neurological level, have literally *none*), so assuming out of hand that someone else is *intending* to violate boundaries (ie. Is a creep) is shit.
@EJ “. It’s a thing and people need to stop thinking that it’s okay.”
I disagree that “creepy behavior” isn’t subjective.
However I completely agree that choosing to behave in a way that makes others uncomfortable is wrong.
@Catalpa
‘You can’t grab someone’s breast and then go “Ah, you can’t call me a groper, you never SAID that your boobs were off limits!” ‘
Well no, it’s not exactly ambiguous when they’re doing something against the law. I mean, I LOLd, but you’re pretty obviously missing my point, eh?
“Or, to put it more simply: If you step on my foot, I need you to get off my foot. If you didn’t MEAN to step on my foot, I still need you to get off of my foot. If I didn’t tell you that I don’t like people stepping on my foot, I still need you to get off of my foot. If you’re blind and you couldn’t SEE my foot, I still need you to get off of my foot.”
Do you honestly not see that we agree? 🙂
“If some people have more extreme boundaries than others, no, you can’t expect other people to automatically know that, but you also can’t expect the people with boundaries to not be defensive when their boundaries are violated.”
On top of it when women do clearly articulate their boundaries its called “having her ‘bitch shield’ up” and seen as something that needs to be broken through. PUAs have dozens if not hundreds of techniques to break though “bitch shields”.
Y’know, I’m going to flip this around. You keep saying that “Creepy” is ableist, but…
What if the violated woman in this situation is autistic?
To add on to SFHC — or what if she’s been traumatized by a man and is uncomfortable with an interaction widely considered socially acceptable? Is she not allowed to say that a guy was being creepy if her (unstated) boundaries aren’t the social norm? Does she, while on edge about what could’ve happened, have to carefully pick exactly what words to use so as to make it clear that his intentions may’ve been benign? Can she just tell her friends “ugh, this guy on the subway kept trying to talk to me and it was creepy”? Or does she have to say “so I know it’s a normal thing, but this guy on the subway kept trying to talk to me and I found it very off putting”? And, the most important question here, are you seriously saying her friends would justified in saying that no, they can’t put on tea until she acknowledges that his behavior was perfectly normal and she’s the one with the problem?
Yeah, sure, from his point of view it’ll be “but everyone talks about the weather, wtf?”, but quite frankly, no one gives a shit. He can go about his day not having talked to her, where, whether a standard social norm or not, she’s shaken up by it.
That got long, oops.
@Argenti
“Is she not allowed to say that a guy was being creepy if her (unstated) boundaries aren’t the social norm?”
Alright, around we go again.
1. A woman, man, person, is allowed to enforce any boundaries they have, have any feeling they have, etc. “Social norm” or not.
2. What is shit is a woman, man, person, using emotional reasoning based on a single event to label a person’s character.
Didn’t we discuss my agoraphobia before? On a particularly shitty day we could be riding the subway together, you could simply look over at me, and because I’m fucking nuts, I would be creeped out. Perfectly valid on my part to have whatever feelings, perfectly valid for me to not interact with you because of my feelings, but not perfectly valid to call you a “creep” because I feel creeped out around you.
And I’m sorry, but I *don’t* believe that you wouldn’t be insulted if I called you a creep.
I think the crux of this argument is this;
“a. Saying someone is acting creepy = labeling and discussing a behavior.
B. Saying someone is creepy = shaming the person with a label”
MRAs say A = B, therefore women can’t discuss creepy behavior because we’re “shaming” men if we do. Which is false, because A != B. Feminists in this thread are *also* saying that A=B, therefore Feminists can’t discuss using “creep” to shame, because we’re shutting down discussion on “creepy, troubling, behaviors” if we do, which is also false, because A != B.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/wuimp.gif
What the hell are you trying to say.
Listen, I’ve been called a creep for liking and doing a lot of things, like reading an encyclopaedia of serial killers out in the open, which I accept because, yeah, that’s creepy. I’ve been the creepy kid, I still am creepy. There’s nothing wrong with being creepy in the context of liking or doing weird things because “creepy” is subjective. Some people think liking horror movies is “creepy”, some think BDSM is “creepy”, some think collecting Precious Moment figurines is “creepy”. Calling someone “creepy” just for doing something everyday isn’t shaming the person doing something the person considers creepy.
But I’ve never been called creepy on hitting on people, I will tell you that. I’ve had people creep on me but certainly have never creeped on anyone. This is the kind of creeping people think you’re talking about.
If the person is calling someone “creepy” to shame, yeah, that sucks, but it’s still subjective. It’s like how not everyone is gonna want to be your friend or want to hang around you because they just don’t like you. They aren’t doing it to be malicious they just don’t like you and don’t want to be around you. You can’t force people to not think certain people are creepy just because it isn’t nice to think someone is creepy. That’s just not how humans work.
@Mrex
I’d like to point out that website is called “Women Need Constant Supervision”, with the header helpfully explaining “women need constant supervision but they mask this truth with their constant need for attention”. The article deserved mockery, a guy who is remarkably terrible at making functional arguments claims that feminists use insults to shame him because they’re incapable of debating his truth bombs.
From that article:
You keep trying to sell creepy as “character assassination” and I’m still not buying because I don’t believe false or unfair creep accusations is a social problem. Sorry, I don’t believe hurting someone’s feeling by criticizing their poor behavior is so devastating that we have to closely police that criticism.
Back when I read reddit’s CreepyPMs, there were always posters who raged when they believed someone’s behavior was unfairly labeled as creepy. These posters were remarkably similar because they all made endless excuses for creepy behavior and had zero sympathy for the people on the receiving end of that behavior. They could only sympathize with some guy they don’t know and his desire for girlfriends and sex, and felt outraged that the behavior of a guy they identified was being judged in anyway. I haven’t seen a creep shaming argument that doesn’t hand wave away the idea that people can be judged for the effect of behavior on other people and/or minimize those effects, while acting as if the being called creepy is completely devastating and a grand injustice.
. How exactly do they use it to manipulate?
Ah, I see what you mean a little bit clearer now, mrex. I still disagree, though. Many women keep an eye out for red flags and creepy behavior because we live in a society where male-on-female assault is depressingly common, and rarely ever addressed in any significant fashion. Where we are taught from a young age to ‘not get raped’, etc.
Giving some random dude who is displaying creepy behavior the benefit of the doubt is DANGEROUS. So a lot of women assume that guys who display boundary violating behavior are likely to violate more significant boundaries if given half a chance. Is it unfair for people who have innocent intentions? Sure, but it’s also not fucking fair that we always have to be on the eye out for predators, lest we be victimized and then told “well why didn’t you act more suspiciously around him?”
To extend my foot standing analogy, if someone stands on my foot I’m going to yell “ow fuck! Get off of my foot!”, and I’m not going to care what intentions the foot stander had. If men are known for commonly and purposefully standing on women’s feet, and foot-standing is known to preceed, I don’t know, getting your pockets picked, then it’s not beyond the pale for me to assume that the foot stander could have likely did this on purpose and intended to rob me, and wanting to get away from the person that displayed the warning behaviors. I wouldn’t know for sure if that was the case unless I stuck around long enough for them to do so, but why the hell would I do that?
Also, if it’s mainly a matter of women talking to their friends about complete strangers who will likely never be seen again, then what does it even matter if the women think of the poor innocent dudebro as a creep? Will it make any fucking impact on his life at all?