These are comments by Kaleb Blake and Julie Gillis on the post “Creepy Behavior and the Difference Between ‘Attractive’ and ‘Attracted’”.
Kaleb Blake said:
“I think we should leave out the ‘attractive v. attracted’ dichotomy. What does your appearance have to do with your being a creep? Quit creeping on people. Read body language. Get over yourself. Have a sincere conversation. Quit being so predatory. That’s it.”
Julie Gillis added:
“Absolutely. I’ve met men who would score pretty high on the traditional attractiveness meter who were quite scary on a number of levels. I’ve met some men who were not who … were not.
“I’ve been approached by strangers in many ways, male and female, and experienced creepy socially weird behavior from both genders, and also not, I found no connection to whether or not I found them sexually appealing. In fact, I can remember occurrences where the good looking person was creepy and I felt sad about it because well, he was attractive.
“It’s much more about attitude and what that attitude brings to the interaction.”
Photo credit: Flickr / State Farm
About the Editors
Isn’t scary the closest synonym for creepy? In that case appearances are also linked to being creepy.
Like some people might consider an person wearing an black frost suit with an neoprene mask as creepy.
Of course people may get scared by the most strangest things. Like one time an person got scared because she saw the combination of an red plastic mug and an green toothbrush.
I’ve always thought the term creepy was used in contexts that have little to do with safety and more to do with an aesthetic and moral revulsion toward the idea of being sexual with a person.
Maybe saying to a stranger, “Pardon me, I think your attractive and I would like to have a purely sexual relationship with you.” would be something some women would consider creepy even though that judgment has nothing to do with their safety.
Maybe somebody would classify it as creepy because it was “socially weird” but I can’t feel that to do so is predatory or a threat to someone’s safety. Predatory is a very strong word and should only apply in cases which contain actual predation.
Also the claim that a person should read body language is a dubious claim for the simple fact that most people aren’t good at reading body language. Furthermore body language does not convey a person’s receptiveness toward a “pass” since a person can only make a “pass” prior to discovering her feeling about that.
As Zizek put it:
“A similar tension between rights and prohibitions determines heterosexual seduction in our politically correct times. Or, to put it differently, there is no seduction which cannot at some point be construed as intrusion or harassment because there will always be a point when one has to expose oneself and ‘make a pass’.”
“But, of course, seduction doesn’t involve incorrect harassment throughout. When you make a pass, you expose yourself to the Other (the potential partner), and her reaction will determine whether what you just did was harassment or a successful act of seduction. ”
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n06/slavoj-zizek/you-may
If empathy and the ability to read others were something that came naturally to people then very few people would claim that they never saw it coming when someone committed or attempted suicide. And just because a person does have a talent for reading body language it doesn’t mean that the person conveying it can do so effectively. That can be especially so for women who have a belief that they must convey their disinterest in a subtle way so as not to offend the man.
Thoughts?
“Also the claim that a person should read body language is a dubious claim for the simple fact that most people aren’t good at reading body language.”
“And just because a person does have a talent for reading body language it doesn’t mean that the person conveying it can do so effectively. That can be especially so for women who have a belief that they must convey their disinterest in a subtle way so as not to offend the man.”
Those are very good points.
Some people require the people who want to engage them to read body language, but some, like I for example, don’t. The first kind of people have no right to shame awkward people from engaging us in ways that we have no problem with or even like, by saying things that amount to: you should not approach strangers, unless you can read body language.
To tell those two groups apart the people who require others to read body language should wear signs which say something like: “If you want to engage me, you have to be able and willing to read body language.” or just “Beware, creep-shamer”.
“A similar tension between rights and prohibitions determines heterosexual seduction in our politically correct times. Or, to put it differently, there is no seduction which cannot at some point be construed as intrusion or harassment because there will always be a point when one has to expose oneself and ‘make a pass’.”
Well this depends on the attitude towards sex. If one sees sex as dirty and dangerous, then sexual advances are inherently problematic, but in fact somebody proposing you sex is offering a huge gift. In general most people require some familiarity and trust, before they feel comfortable tackling such vulnerable and intimate subjects like sex, but unless they have negative attitude towards sexuality, there is a way to propose them sex, without they seeing it as intrusion or harassment.
Uhm. No. The answer to “a woman finds me creepy” is not “she must just not like sex.”
The problem is that is some guys (Some, not all, not the majority, just the creepy ones) can’t acknowledge the simple idea that a woman you talk to is not required to interact with you. Depending on the woman, she may have a head full of her own problems, work, family, relationship, the grocery list, whatever, and she really doesn’t have time — and shouldn’t be required to make time — for every person who wants to get her to focus on them to the exclusion of anything else. “Stop everything and receive my pitch!”
It is no more rude to be uninterested in a guy trying to hit on you than it is to be uninterested in someone trying to preach their religion at you uninvited, or sell you something, or get you to take a flyer. Whatever you want her to stop her mental life and concentrate on you for, a woman has no obligation to do more than avoid you. There are very few first attempts at conversation that seem creepy, and very few legitimately awkward attempts at conversation that seem creepy. Most of the women I know find it easy to be kind to awkward. (Here’s a hint: awkward does not involve insults.)
Creepy is that entitled anger that comes out as soon as the woman indicates disinterest. Creepy is feeling frustrated, and entitled to it, because a random woman won’t talk to you. Creepy is acting as if she should feel privileged that you deigned to notice her, and when she doesn’t, you get angry/aggressive/abusive. Creepy is acting as if a woman is being rude to you simply by treating you as one of the thousand strangers she passes every day, just because *you* have decided unilaterally that you two are supposed to be closer than that.
Your attraction (man or woman) does not impose obligation on the object of your attraction, not beyond the basic civility due a total stranger. The myriad ways of acting like it does is what makes a creep.
“Uhm. No. The answer to “a woman finds me creepy” is not “she must just not like sex.””
You have pulled that one out of your socks. If you want to criticise or oppose something I wrote please cite what you mean. You might have misunderstood me, right now I don’t even know if we disagree on the central topics.
That said,
“The problem is that is some guys (Some, not all, not the majority, just the creepy ones) can’t acknowledge the simple idea that a woman you talk to is not required to interact with you. “
It might be true, that a woman is not required to interact with somebody who talks to her, but a man (and most certainly I) is required to react politely to people talking to me in public, like at least say “Sorry, I have no time.”. The situation being what it is, I have gendered expectations when it comes to interactions with strangers, so I personally am not angry at women who refuse to react politely (or at all) to a polite stranger engaging them, I just don’t think they want to be equal to men.
Well this depends on the attitude towards sex. If one sees sex as dirty and dangerous, then sexual advances are inherently problematic, but in fact somebody proposing you sex is offering a huge gift. In general most people require some familiarity and trust, before they feel comfortable tackling such vulnerable and intimate subjects like sex, but unless they have negative attitude towards sexuality, there is a way to propose them sex, without they seeing it as intrusion or harassment.
Someone offering sex is offering a huge gift, you said, and unless they think it’s dirty there should be a way to offer it to them without them finding it offensive.
Is that not “women who turn down sex no matter what my pitch just think sex is dirty”? You said it in convoluted sentence structure, but then you also said a woman who refuses to engage with you is signalling her less-than-equal status to the world, so I’m not sure how much faith I can put in any good intentions on your part. The words “willful blinders” is coming strongly to mind.
garnetmantle:
“Someone offering sex is offering a huge gift, you said, and unless they think it’s dirty there should be a way to offer it to them without them finding it offensive.
Is that not “women who turn down sex no matter what my pitch just think sex is dirty”? “
No.
I don’t understand how you come to those conclusions, it is as if you are reading some subtext which frankly bisn’t there. If I offer somebody any sort of intimacy, there are two responses I have no problem with: “yes” and “no”. It is not about if a woman turns down sex, but about how. If a woman reacts with “Eeeww, gross!” or with “Are you trying to rape me, you creep?”, then I do have a problem with that. Btw I am not saying that it is always OK to offer sex, but that there must be a way for a guy to offer a woman sex (maybe after getting to know her better) in a respectful way and such that she accepts or decilnes the offer in a respectful way.
“….then you also said a woman who refuses to engage with you is signalling her less-than-equal status to the world…”
This is not true. I said nothing about less. Now please stop reading things into my text which aren’t there!
I agree Alberich. Garnetmantle’a response toward you seems to have nothing to do with what you actually said.
To me, Creep is:
(1) The guy on the subway who “accidentally” touches your hand when you are holding on for dear life to the bar above your head…and then winks at you as you leave to get off the train…YUCK!
(2) The guy on the commuter train who makes a big move to sit in the seat opposite you…and while you start to doze off, he slowly starts to bump your feet with his …or reaches over to adjust his shoe and “accidentally” touches your leg….and then when you suddenly move and start to get up like you are going to report him to the conductor, he suddenly bolts and gets the hell out of there!
(3) Perverted, inappropriate behavior with strange women on public transportation…UGGH!
Kaleb:
“Quit creeping on people. Read body language. Get over yourself. Have a sincere conversation. Quit being so predatory.”
Who are you talking to?
Julie:
“It’s much more about attitude and what that attitude brings to the interaction.”
It’s about both persons attitudes. If you fear men, then in general any man will seem scarier. If you hate men, then you wil be more willing to see them in a negative light. If you don’t respect the other, you will likely behave badly towards them.
Passing judgement on others is an easy way, to deflect any guilt one might have had for the failing of an interaction.
I have no issues with that. I have a number of comments in the other thread pointing out as much. All any of us can do in our daily lives is observe, assess, act, and then reassess based on new info. I choose to interact with the maximum amount of kindness I can while still looking out for myself. And if I react and am proven wrong, I should own up and apologize. So too should the person who has encroached, even if accidentally, realizing that perhaps it’s not about them, but still it’s a kind thing to acknowledge your impact.
Nothing pithy for me to say about this. Just yes, yes, and yes. Nothing like the sweet sound of the voice of reason at long last. (Hey, I agree with you, so that must mean that you’re reasonable…)
@wellokaythen amen. And thanks Julie.
I don’t understand how one can argue with my “quit being a creep” stance, but long behold…
“So too should the person who has encroached, even if accidentally, realizing that perhaps it’s not about them, but still it’s a kind thing to acknowledge your impact.”
Yes, but everybody well intentioned with a conscience, will do that (at least to themselves) and feel bad for causing distress to someone else. But you can overdo this. A woman you approach might be triggered by innocent little things like your scent, your accent or the exact words you use, because they remind her of someone who raped her. So let us say a man has made this experience, he obviously feels bad, because he doesn’t want to further traumatise the nice lady. I think him feeling guilty for something he couldn’t reasonably foresee, does nobody any good. It is a fallacy to judge a decision, which was made with incomplete information, by using information which was only available after the decision was made. So a man politely approaching a woman, should not indulge in his natural feeling of guilt, if he accidentally triggers her (assuming he took reasonable precautions not to). On the other hand a man whistling (or other rude behaviour) at a woman should feel guilty, even if she smiles back at him.
I can easily see you counter with saying, that one has to read body language, to determine what behaviour is appropriate, with which I partially agree, it is good to use all available sources of information to make the encounters pleasurable. But some questions arise:
1.Are people able to effectively read body language? Hence is the expectation that strangers read your body language correctly realistic?
2. Communication is a collaborative effort. How much responsibility for the transfer of information does an emitter have and how much the receiver?
3.Are people speaking understandably and unmistakenly in their body language?
4.As there are people, who expect people who engage them to read body language, and there are others who have no such expectations, like I, how can a stranger tell to which group the person they encounter belong?
5.You have no right to shame people from interacting with me in ways I like (or don’t mind) and I have no interest in forcing you into interactions that cause you distress. How do we indicate our different requirements to interactions with strangers?
6.In my experience the best predictor of what behaviour people expect from a stranger is gender. Women need to be treated more carefully, at least when you are a man. If true, what does this mean for gender equality?
Yes, but everybody well intentioned with a conscience, will do that (at least to themselves) and feel bad for causing distress to someone else. But you can overdo this. A woman you approach might be triggered by innocent little things like your scent, your accent or the exact words you use, because they remind her of someone who raped her. So let us say a man has made this experience, he obviously feels bad, because he doesn’t want to further traumatise the nice lady. I think him feeling guilty for something he couldn’t reasonably foresee, does nobody any good.
I’m not talking about beating himself out of guilt. I don’t think that helps anyone either. When I have a moment that goes south with someone, and I’m not sure if it was me or them, I usually have a feeling of …”Ick, that didn’t feel good. I hope I didn’t harm that person.” If I can ask, I do. If I don’t, I go over the interaction once, think about it etc and then move on.
It is a fallacy to judge a decision, which was made with incomplete information, by using information which was only available after the decision was made. So a man politely approaching a woman, should not indulge in his natural feeling of guilt, if he accidentally triggers her (assuming he took reasonable precautions not to). On the other hand a man whistling (or other rude behaviour) at a woman should feel guilty, even if she smiles back at him.
I’m finding myself unclear here.
I can easily see you counter with saying, that one has to read body language, to determine what behaviour is appropriate, with which I partially agree, it is good to use all available sources of information to make the encounters pleasurable. But some questions arise:
1.Are people able to effectively read body language? Hence is the expectation that strangers read your body language correctly realistic?
I’m not sure if I’m being idealistic here, but I think yes, the vast majority of people read body language, cues and tones reasonably well. Otherwise I don’t think society would work out well. We have hundreds of non verbal interactions in a day. If the majority of people couldn’t read it, we’d have chaos. I think there are of course misfires. THat happens. this link discusses how people do indeed read cues relatively well.
2. Communication is a collaborative effort. How much responsibility for the transfer of information does an emitter have and how much the receiver?
I think I’ve been pretty clear that both carry responsibility. I’ve also been clear that in many of the “creep” cases I’ve read or experienced, their is little collaboration, and a lot of encroachment past limits. That is what I think is creepy, or rude, or whatever word you’d like to use.
3.Are people speaking understandably and unmistakenly in their body language?
I can’t answer that question. That’s a general question about “people.”
4.As there are people, who expect people who engage them to read body language, and there are others who have no such expectations, like I, how can a stranger tell to which group the person they encounter belong?
You can’t. I hold by my belief that all of us read body language to some extent, vocal cues, physical cues and facial cues. You have no expectations that anyone would observe you with their eyes and ears and not read your cues? Ever? That’s fascinating.
5.You have no right to shame people from interacting with me in ways I like (or don’t mind) and I have no interest in forcing you into interactions that cause you distress. How do we indicate our different requirements to interactions with strangers?
This is obviously a constant negotiation in the moment, and takes place over venues like this yes? Where people come together to discuss the ethics of communication, norms in a culture, and how they change.
6.In my experience the best predictor of what behaviour people expect from a stranger is gender. Women need to be treated more carefully, at least when you are a man. If true, what does this mean for gender equality?
That’s interesting. I’ve found race and culture to be as good a predictor as gender. Age too. I see this like a four dimensional chess game, more than some kind of binary. Do you think that being asked to respect boundaries either set non verbally, or in the case of not reading those well, verbally means someone is “treating someone carefully?” I’d say it means respecting the persons limits because you see them as an equal participant in the communication. To me that means, hey make your approach if you think that’s the right thing to do, but don’t get your panties in a wad if you get turned down or told to stop.
Julie,
thank you for the detailed response.
“When I have a moment that goes south with someone, and I’m not sure if it was me or them, I usually have a feeling of …”Ick, that didn’t feel good. I hope I didn’t harm that person.” If I can ask, I do. If I don’t, I go over the interaction once, think about it etc and then move on.”
(emphasis added by me)
That’s the point, you move on. But some people aren’t able to move on, when they think they have harmed omebody. I think that some people need the advice to be less considerate of others. Mainly for their own good, but also, so they can effectively interact and connect with other people.
“I’m not sure if I’m being idealistic here, but I think yes, the vast majority of people read body language, cues and tones reasonably well.”
That is a great divide between us, there is little use in discussing this further without digging deep into psychology.
“… I’ve also been clear that in many of the “creep” cases I’ve read or experienced, their is little collaboration, and a lot of encroachment past limits. That is what I think is creepy, or rude, or whatever word you’d like to use.”
I basically agree, but notice that there is a huge difference in the meaning and connotations of the words “creepy” and “rude”.
“You have no expectations that anyone would observe you with their eyes and ears and not read your cues? Ever? That’s fascinating.”
That was a bad choice of words on my part. Of course I expect people I encounter to read body language to some extent, like I expect the people I meet in Germany to speak and understand German, but I don’t require that anybody who engages speaks or understands any specific language, I try to find a common one.
“This is obviously a constant negotiation in the moment, and takes place over venues like this yes? Where people come together to discuss the ethics of communication, norms in a culture, and how they change.”
I don’t see a consensus being reachable, I don’t want anybody who wants to engage me, not doing that because they are awkward or can’t read body language well and I will not move from that position. The problem lies with you wanting people to have additional skills when they engage you. Different people require different approaches.
“Do you think that being asked to respect boundaries either set non verbally, or in the case of not reading those well, verbally means someone is “treating someone carefully?”
When I say “women have to be treated more carefully” I don’t just say you have to respect there boundaries, but as you usually don’t know the boundaries of a stranger you have to guess, and in my experience women have clearly stricter boundaries then men. So if I get to know a woman, I wouldn’t be offended by her hugging me friendly, but I would never initiate a hug myself unless I know her very very well and am sure she wants me to. This makes our interaction an unequal one.
You are welcome. I answered in plain text and kept your answers in bold (my originals in italics).
“I’m not sure if I’m being idealistic here, but I think yes, the vast majority of people read body language, cues and tones reasonably well.”
That is a great divide between us, there is little use in discussing this further without digging deep into psychology.
But you just said below that you do expect people to read cues and body language as Germans would speak German. Can you elaborate?
“… I’ve also been clear that in many of the “creep” cases I’ve read or experienced, their is little collaboration, and a lot of encroachment past limits. That is what I think is creepy, or rude, or whatever word you’d like to use.”
I basically agree, but notice that there is a huge difference in the meaning and connotations of the words “creepy” and “rude”.
“You have no expectations that anyone would observe you with their eyes and ears and not read your cues? Ever? That’s fascinating.”
That was a bad choice of words on my part. Of course I expect people I encounter to read body language to some extent, like I expect the people I meet in Germany to speak and understand German, but I don’t require that anybody who engages speaks or understands any specific language, I try to find a common one.
As do I. And I don’t beat myself up if I can’t find it, but I do try to find that common one, and cut people slack if I sense a miscue. I don’t freak out if someone hugs me. If I don’t like it I ask for it to stop. I am quite clear that I don’t particularly like the word “creep” for the same reason I don’t like current usage of the word “retarded.” Most use of it is petty and can be used for cruel purposes. I also don’t like the words “bitch” or “slut.” I try to be precise if I’ve experienced something predatory and truly socially inappropriate.
“This is obviously a constant negotiation in the moment, and takes place over venues like this yes? Where people come together to discuss the ethics of communication, norms in a culture, and how they change.”
I don’t see a consensus being reachable, I don’t want anybody who wants to engage me, not doing that because they are awkward or can’t read body language well and I will not move from that position. The problem lies with you wanting people to have additional skills when they engage you. Different people require different approaches.
I’m confused. Of course people require different approaches. I’m not requiring anyone to have any set of particular skills in order to talk to me. I’m actually extremely open to most interactions and have numerous ones each day, both verbal and non verbal and some are “perfect and easy” and some are not. I don’t…shut people down as a general rule. Unless someone is taking extreme liberties with me (following me, ignoring requests to stop touching me or talking to me, using foul language with me, trying to touch me sexually in a non sexual enviornment) I’m pretty much live and let live. Which I’ve stated several times actually.
“Do you think that being asked to respect boundaries either set non verbally, or in the case of not reading those well, verbally means someone is “treating someone carefully?”
When I say “women have to be treated more carefully” I don’t just say you have to respect there boundaries, but as you usually don’t know the boundaries of a stranger you have to guess, and in my experience women have clearly stricter boundaries then men. So if I get to know a woman, I wouldn’t be offended by her hugging me friendly, but I would never initiate a hug myself unless I know her very very well and am sure she wants me to. This makes our interaction an unequal one.
In my personal practice I err on the side of caution with both genders (or ages, races etc) until I know that person well. I have met a lot of people that say, “Oh I’m a hugger.” and grab me prior to me giving any indication I’m into that. Those are nearly always women actually. I don’t mind hugs actually, but I always find it funny when it happens. Women can ignore cues too. I’m not sure that the frame of “equal” in interactions is even the right frame to use. Until you intimately know someone, and even then, all interactions are subject to subtle negotiations. My husband of nearly 20 years often doesn’t want a hug if he’s in a bad mood. So I don’t give him one. To make him hug me or to push him or whine about it would be deeply insensitive to him.
Julie,
“But you just said below that you do expect people to read cues and body language as Germans would speak German. Can you elaborate?”
Obviously I should be more careful with my words. I expect almost everybody to understand some body language, but I don’t think that you can rely on people getting the right message from body language. Body language is often not that overt, often ambiguous and the recipient’s biases can influence what he is able to see. For example a guy with very low self esteem will be confident in the signs of contempt and disinterest he sees and doubt the signs of interest he receives.
” Most use of it is petty and can be used for cruel purposes. I also don’t like the words “bitch” or “slut.” I try to be precise if I’ve experienced something predatory and truly socially inappropriate.”
I fully agree with you here.
“As do I. And I don’t beat myself up if I can’t find it, but I do try to find that common one, and cut people slack if I sense a miscue.”
“I’m confused. Of course people require different approaches. I’m not requiring anyone to have any set of particular skills in order to talk to me.”
Then I don’t understand what the discussion is good for. With the well meaning clueless types, you can clear up the miscommunications; the predatory types will not listen.
“In my personal practice I err on the side of caution with both genders (or ages, races etc) until I know that person well. I have met a lot of people that say, “Oh I’m a hugger.” and grab me prior to me giving any indication I’m into that. Those are nearly always women actually. I don’t mind hugs actually, but I always find it funny when it happens.”
In my experience women are way easier offended, by friendly but forward/intimate behaviour than men, so I adjust my behaviour.
” I’m not sure that the frame of “equal” in interactions is even the right frame to use.”
As I see it women get a kind of privilege in social interactions due to them being more vulnerable, more afriad and (maybe consequently) easier offended. I am not saying that this is wrong, I am saying it is a thing. This kind of privilege has its drawbacks, as vulnerability isn’t really a positive trait, but it seems like most women think of it as important and natural. For example the question if you have to interact with strangers in public. I would say I do, I have heard/seen many women say they don’t have to. I think there is a gender difference, which implies that to a certain extent gender roles are wanted by both men and women. And this is something to be considered in feminism/masculism, not to impose a society on people that doesn’t suit them.
It also does not require a woman to dislike or fear all men for her to find a particular man creepy.
“Failing at an interaction” — That’s an interesting phrase. If a person does not wish to have an interaction with you, there isn’t a failure there, or at least not the one you’re referencing. There is one person, trying to avoid someone, and another person failing at initiating an interaction. Just because a man speaks to/provides attention to a woman does not mean the two of them are then in a conversation. (And the reverse.)
Decent people try to be civil to everyone, even when they’re tired or upset or distracted or uninterested. Sometimes they’re too tired or upset or distracted by things *that have nothing to do with you* and they fail.
But civil does not mean “you have made me an object of interest and now I am required to focus my attention on you.” It means being polite, avoiding unwanted interactions politely when possible, and avoiding them impolitely when there is no other way. A creep = someone who refuses to allow people to avoid them unless subjected to rudeness, which they can then feel victimized by.
You don’t understand, an interaction is not failing if it is very brief, because one person is not interested, but if the situation discomforts at least one of the involved beyond the usual acceptable discomfort of dealing with people.
@Alberich
When I said “Quit creeping on people. Read body language. Get over yourself. Have a sincere conversation. Quit being so predatory,” I was referring to any and every person who won’t take no for an answer–dilligent creeps. I just don’t understand why it’s so hard for people to read body language and accept that some people simply aren’t that into you. I’m not taking a dig at any specific gender here, just the person at the bar or club or work or wherever who won’t accept “no” and suffer from such high narcissism that any “no” means “not yet”–predatory creep.
“I think we should leave out the ‘attractive v. attracted’ dichotomy. What does your appearance have to do with your being a creep? Quit creeping on people. Read body language. Get over yourself. Have a sincere conversation. Quit being so predatory. That’s it.”
We need to get rid of this mindset that if you don’t like something, than it must not to be true.
I’ve seen attractive men do things that gained them favor with woman, that on this very site would make them out to be “creepy”.
Attractive men can do things that gain them favor with women–how would that make them creepy? I don’t see your point here, William…
What does appearance have to do with being a creep? This:
If I may be so presumptuous as to boil down all the examples here into a tasty syrup of truth, the common definition of “creep” is somebody who treats you like an object with which to fulfil their desires, who doesn’t modify their behavior to take into account your feelings, desires and boundaries when interacting with you.
If a man approaches a woman with romantic intentions and she finds him unattractive, she will try to impose a boundary almost immediately by saying no, showing disinterest or just showing a lack of interest. Thus, the unattractive guy has the opportunity to transgress a boundary to become a creep almost immediately. If a man approaches a woman and she DOES find him attractive, it’s quite possible (even likely) that her desires parallel his and there won’t be any boundaries for him to transgress, so there’s no chance for his latent creepiness to show.
Also, I read an article a few days ago about how arousal weakens women’s disgust response. If she finds him attractive, the woman he approaches therefore might also gloss over any minor boundary violations that would otherwise cause her to think of him as a creep.
“If I may be so presumptuous as to boil down all the examples here into a tasty syrup of truth, the common definition of “creep” is somebody who treats you like an object with which to fulfil their desires, who doesn’t modify their behavior to take into account your feelings, desires and boundaries when interacting with you.”
I think you are correct to be so presumptuous. In order to have a discussion you must start somewhere even if those assumptions are wrong. I think that the first part of the definition of creep “somebody who treats you like an object with which to fulfill their desires” is correct. I don’t think that safety is the general meaning of that term.
I think the second part of your definition, someone “who doesn’t modify their behavior to take into account your feelings, desires and boundaries when interacting with you,” is more problematic. While it is true that someone who did this could be called a creep only with the first part of the definition is a necessary condition to be called a creep and the second part of the definition does not follow from the first.
“Creep” is a problematic discourse because it relates to assumptions about what constitutes treating a person as an object and what does not.
Some possible “creeps” under this definition could include:
A guy asking a stranger point blank for sex.
A guy asking for a one night stand with somebody they are friends with.
A guy asking for a one night stand with a complete stranger he does not know.
A guy attempting to befriend a person he has only recently met with the intention of having a one night stand.
A guy asking a stranger for a one night stand who he is very recently befriended but has not had a prior intention of having sex with.
A guy doing any of the above but without picking up on some specific form of nonverbal flirtation that would indicate that it was welcome.
A guy looking to develop a sex buddy, friend with benefits, or “booty call” relationship with a stranger.
A guy looking to develop a sex buddy, friend with benefits or “booty call” relationship with a current friend.
A guy looking to befriend a person with the prior intention of forming as “sex buddies”
A guy who attempts to form such a relationship with the above but without some prior nonverbal flirtation that would indicate how welcome it would be.
A guy looking for only short term relationships.
A guy looking for short term relationship.
A guy who does any of the above but who uses explicit language about his interests.
A guy who does any of the above but who does not use explicit language about his interests.
A guy who does any of the above but just a little bit too soon. etc. etc. etc.
Of these “creeps” the only one where there seems to be at least some partially significant degree of agreement over is the idea of asking a stranger point blank for sex. Every other “creep” is in undefined territory with a lot of overlap of opinion or a lack of clarity over what those opinions are.
The problem is that in our culture men are expected to take the initiative and make a pass of some kind without necessary foreknowledge with regard to whether she sees such a pass as a violation of her dignity and is hence “unwanted” Thus “creep” seems to consists of two parts 1. an actual or perceived violation of dignity via “objectification” and 2. a violation of a persons perceived right not to be bothered by people who do 1. The problem arises when people insist that 2. should always respected even though men can not know a woman’s feelings until after he has made a pass.