Mod Note: The topic of this post is problems with the term “creep,” using “creep” in a non-gendered manner and creating a reasonable person standard for creepiness. The topic of this post is not feminism. Please take anything about feminism to the Open Thread.
There has been a lot of thought in the gendersphere about the word “creep.” I have a complicated position on the issue, insofar as I simultaneously agree with and disagree with everyone.
Creep is a term very often used in a kyriarchial way. In theory, it is non-gendered; in practice, it all-too-often is. Male sexuality is often viewed as predatory and degrading, which means that a man expressing his sexuality– even in a way that would be perfectly acceptable for a woman– is often viewed as “creepy” or “gross.” In addition, men are typically thought to be incapable of not wanting sex, which means that even gross invasions of boundaries by women are sometimes not recognized as creepy.
However, it’s problematic in way more ways than just gender. It’s a kinkphobic term; kinky people’s sexuality, even when safely, consensually and joyfully expressed, is often called “creepy.” It’s a classist term, because it’s often applied to people of lower or lower-middle classes who aren’t “respectable” (not to mention homeless people, who are almost universally considered creepy). It’s an ableist term, applied to people with, for example, autism and Asperger’s syndrome; strange facial tics and odd grooming habits, often considered creepy, may be a sign of a mental illness the person cannot help. Heck, I have a friend who has been called creepy for being trans, which makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.
Nevertheless, I do support the continued existence of the word “creep.” Very simply, we do need a word to express the concept “a person who makes other people feel uncomfortable or unsafe, especially in a sexualized way.”
Western culture encourages people of both typically male and typically female socialization to not firmly enforce their boundaries. Straight women are pressured to be nice, to be polite, to give him a chance, to not make a fuss. Straight men are told that having any boundaries around physical contact with women is unmasculine, since a real man ought to want sex with every woman who wants sex with him. Eliminating use of the word “creep” entirely removes one of our only ways of saying “this behavior violates my boundaries and is seriously Not Okay” with social approval.
Admittedly, we could choose a different word, less laden with baggage, to discuss people who make other people feel uncomfortable or unsafe, especially in a sexualized way. However, I don’t think that will solve the problem. People will just use the new term to shame people in an ableist, classist, kinkphobic, sexist and kyriarchial way, because guess what? We live in an ableist, classist, kinkphobic, sexist and kyriarchal society! Changing the word is a Band-Aid solution.
Ultimately, the solution is to end the kyriarchy. For a more… short-term… solution, the thing to do is to examine your use of the term. Obviously, in the moment, “this person is creeping me out” is as far as you need to go; if you feel creeped out or afraid, leave the situation, don’t sit there examining your use of the term for traces of ableism. However, it’s a good idea to look for patterns in whom you call “creeps.” Have you called every homeless guy creepy, including the one who was sleeping on the bench and not interacting with you at all? Do you think that people with facial tics, even ones they cannot control, are creepy? Do you think the sexualities of some people, such as men or kinky people, are inherently creepy? Do you not describe women doing creepy behavior as creepy? That’s problematic.
One critique that Hugh Ristik, among others, has made of “creep” that I think is actually valid is that it is a very vague term: creepy refers to any behavior that could make a person feel uncomfortable or unsafe. Unfortunately, nearly any behavior could theoretically make a person feel uncomfortable or unsafe. A survivor of horrific rape and abuse might feel uncomfortable or unsafe whenever a strange person talks to him or her, even if that person is just asking the time. That doesn’t mean the survivor has to keep talking to the time-asking person, or that the time-asking person should ignore the survivor’s negative body language, but it also doesn’t mean that no one should ever ask the time from anyone else.
Therefore, I propose the Reasonable Person Standard of creepiness. A behavior is creepy if it would make a reasonable person with only an average amount of trauma feel uncomfortable or unsafe, especially in a sexual way. Behavior that would probably qualify as creepy under this scheme includes:
- Continuing to talk to someone, especially a stranger or acquaintance, who has negative body language (closed up, frozen, shaking head, looking away, responding in monosyllables) or says they would not like to talk to you.
- Hitting on a stranger in an enclosed environment (such as a moving vehicle), a deserted area or very late at night.
- Telling a stranger how much you’d like to fuck them as your opening line.
- Sending a person you went out on a date with thirty emails and ten phone calls.
- Pressuring a person into physical contact (anything from a handshake to sex) they don’t want.
- Hitting on people who are likely to feel pressured into saying yes, such as teenagers (if you are over the age of 21) or students or employees.
- Taking someone out on something that is not a date, which you plan on turning into a date.
- “Accidentally” turning up in the psychology class, coffeeshop or laundromat of the person you have a crush on.
- Only talking to people you want to fuck at a party.
- Poor social skills in general. (Have I recommended SucceedSocially enough yet?)
Et cetera.
In addition, I think there are attitudes that could probably be considered “creepy attitudes.” Viewing every conversation as a means to obtain sex. Thinking of potential romantic partners as games that if only you knew the secret code you could obtain. Being angry that you deserve sex with an attractive member of the correct gender and why is the universe not providing it. Some of these are totally natural attitudes (anger is natural when everyone around you seems to be in love and you’re still alone and lonely and if you died the only person who would notice was your cat, and that only as a food source); however, they are also not productive.
It’s important to note that this standard applies to people who are afraid of being creepy, not people who are currently creeped out. If your gut says “don’t trust this person,” don’t think “well, he hasn’t done anything on Ozy’s Creep List”; think “how can I communicate firmly to this person that I don’t want to talk to them/hug them/go home with them/get in their white van with the candy?” However, as a way to keep other people from being creeped out, I think my definition works the best.
About ozyfrantz
@AB
It seems I’m both more cynical about the world, and more equal opportunity about blaming people in that world. I don’t blame men, or women, or whites, etc. I blame everyone who supports it, and whatever color or bits they have, I don’t care.
Might be about being trans and seeing that injustice against men don’t make up for injustice against women, and in fact, only perpetuate the whole deal (and always have, since immemorial times, it seems).
Also, even if I didn’t date much (once in my life) as someone perceived to be male. I can be more sympathetic to a point of view I actually saw.
The fact that I gained massive social cred points by transitioning should tell you that men can be oppressed as men (I was asexual, so it wasn’t exactly homophobia – I’m also not exactly the image of feminity, even if I don’t qualify as butch).
@AB
I can understand what you mean . Maybe creep might be a useful term in the context of telling off guys who don’t know how to take “no” for an answer.
In the context of someone who has politely made an advance (one time) though, I think a polite rejection is the appropriate response.
In other words, let us use this term for those who deserve it. It would be better if women felt more comfortable saying “Sorry, you’re just not my type.”, and that answer were truly respected by men.
I think it goes the other way as well. I do suspect that a man who openly admits that he is actively looking for a wife is widely considered creepy. (Not to say that the effect is non-existent for women. Consider the term babies rabies).
Yes, but… The horse has already left the barn at that point. You are still a “creep” for failing to foresee that your presence would offend someone else, even if you recognize that and run the other way after the fact. If you make that offense a moral wrong, the only ethical lifestyle would be living in a small, tight-knight community that is isolated from the outside… Which is utterly unworkable these days, unfortunately.
I hate to say it, but when I display the body language you describe, it usually has nothing to do with whomever I’m talking to. For one, body language is culturally dependent. For another, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”. I might be looking away because there’s something I want to look at that’s away.
Define “hitting on”. What if innocent conservation is misinterpreted as “hitting on”?
* Pressuring a person into physical contact (anything from a handshake to sex) they don’t want.
An age difference of two years is excessive pressure? I have a bit of a problem with this. If you mean “if you say yes I can do X and Y for you with my wealth/power/age/whatever”, then every job you work at and transaction you agree to results in you feeling pressured. If I don’t go to work next week, I might not be able to afford rent, tuition, or a Yaesu FT-7900. If that is okay, than why is this a problem with personal relationships?
On the flip side, your point makes perfect sense if by pressure you mean “if don’t say yes, I will actively deprive you of life, liberty or property”.
Psychology class? I thought the whole point of a class is that you attend a set of regularly scheduled meetings. Why should I have to change my schedule to appease someone who feels uncomfortable when their discomfort is not my responsibility.
So, talking to someone who doesn’t want to talk to you is creepy, and not talking to people you don’t want to talk to is also creepy. This strikes me as a contradiction.
@Schala:
“It seems I’m both more cynical about the world, and more equal opportunity about blaming people in that world. I don’t blame men, or women, or whites, etc. I blame everyone who supports it, and whatever color or bits they have, I don’t care.”
You do not have the basis to conclude that I am not equal opportunity about blaming people. Equal opportunity is not the same as equal distribution. I have experienced certain types of injustice more from certain groups than others, often due to in-group/out-group mechanisms, but this does not make me an unreasonable person, or less of an egalitarian. Most of the people who made me feel inadequate for not living up to their demands in the area of flirting and romance were male. But most of the therapists who abused me were women, while most of the people who’ve helped me were men, and believe me, I don’t blame the women any less.
But in this context, my perspective is going to be on situations concerning the word ‘creep’ because that happens to be the subject of this thread, and in that context, my experiences are with men trying to invalidate my feelings of discomfort, just as certain people have done in regards to my AS, portraying themselves as well-meaning and reasonable and demanding to be judged only in that framework, while denying it to others.
Hugh Ristik, for instance, has previously made claims that women’s needs are inherently more confusing and diverse than men’s, and are therefore objectively harder to understand for everyone. It’s little different from therapists claiming that I shouldn’t expect people to understand me because I didn’t make sense, but that it was a fault in me whenever I didn’t understand anyone who was normal, because they were all so reasonable. It’s impossible to defend yourself against, because it’s basically people who don’t understand you, share none of your experiences, and can’t empathise with you, saying that their lack of understanding is nothing but the reasonable consequence of you not being understandable, while feeling free to blame you for any lack of empathy you show them.
“Might be about being trans and seeing that injustice against men don’t make up for injustice against women, and in fact, only perpetuate the whole deal (and always have, since immemorial times, it seems).”
Injustice against men have nothing to do with it. If you want me to tell some stories about women doing bad things which have nothing to do with the topic, or things that were unfair to men in ways that do not relate to the topic, just ask. Don’t assume I have none, or see none, just because I do not consider them to have much bearing on the topic I’m discussing. And perhaps you could do me the favour to try to look at more people’s posts with the same scrutiny as mine.
But in the concrete discussion, we’re talking about the word creep and whether it’s OK to use it, and in that context, it is a lot more relevant to discuss to which degree believing yourself to be reasonable and having good motivations justifies making accusations of thin skin and overreactions towards people who are bothered by your behaviour.
And in that context, the most relevant of my experiences have been the high levels of blame I have experienced both as an aspie and as a girl, and the assumptions of normalcy/reason I have seen many guys and NTs make almost without thinking, leading them to conclude that they deserve to be judged on their motivations alone (since that will surely be understandable just from their actions alone), but that they can not be held responsible for not understanding the actions of others.
@ AB
It’s not that odd, given that the behaviour of the people who agreed with her caused Clarisse herself to become upset.
It’s always frustrating when people agreeing with us for all the wrong reasons. I think it was Amanda Marcotte who pointed out in one of the links in the OP that ( I’m really, really paraphrasing) the immoral people who read Thorn’s article will hear what they want to hear and then use that which they hear to endorse their own immorality. She was definitely correct. Life’s full of examples: Stalin advocated Communism, Toquemada advocated Christianity, Charles Manson (or at least someone in his group) was evidently a Beatles fan. “You can’t just feed the poor; think of how many criminals will get a free meal,” doesn’t feel like a sound argument to me, even if you could divorce it from the classism, but I do recognize the difference between food for the stomach and food for the mind. Still, if ‘creep’ is weaponized into some morphic, unattainable meter for masculine sexuality rather than a way to empower discourse used to curb toxic sexuality, I will have been wrong to defend it and I can count myself as an ally for everyone who would prefer the word to operate as a simple slur. Is there such a thing as too much truth? The right truth at the wrong time? Or does wrong=wrong and that’s what I am now? Adversity makes for strange bedfellows; I’d be amazed if there weren’t times Noah and Ozymandias don’t go to bed feeling like they’re covered in leeches because of the their good (very good
) work on this blog.
“The way I read the original article: people might want to reflect on their own personal use, and possible abuse, of the term and how the word is so frequently used in a gendered way that we may very well be creating, or have created, a masculine-gendered sexual pejorative (similar to ‘slut’ and a modern day equivalent to ‘masher’ or ‘cad.’)”
You do realise the major difference in these words?
I realize many major differences in these words. I think what’s most important is my proposed similarity. ‘Slut’, which once simply meant a woman who was slovenly, or low class (there’s even a little evidence that it was gender-neutral if you go back far enough) but it was subsequently sexualized and then maliciously and indiscriminately applied as a slur. It could be used against: a woman having sex outside of marriage, being attracted to people of different race, aligning herself with a particular political movement, dancing, wearing the color red, and so on, ad nauseam, and regardless of what her actual sexual experiences are down to and including the number zero. The word exists as nothing more than a verbal whip to keep women moving in the “right” direction. Even if one argues that words that sting should exist, ‘slut’ can be picked up by anyone and thuggishly used to attempt drive people anywhere. I’d rather not help make creep into another word like that so I do think people who contribute to that deserve being spoken to. Even if the word ‘creep’ is already there I would not equate it to ‘slut’ outside being gendered sexual pejoratives and that they could be abused. ‘Slut’ has had centuries of being warped into something toxic, ‘creep’ may not even be there, yet, and it’s why I’d never advocate the former.
Notice the moral difference between these sentences: “I’m so sorry I called him a creep. Now that I’ve found out what a nice guy he is, I feel bad for having compared him to the kind of guys who grope you without permission” and “I’m so sorry I called her a slut. Now that I know she’s a virgin, I feel bad for having compared her to the cheap whores who sleep with men on the first date”.
In the first case, the speaker is expressing that a genuinely hurtful behaviour, groping someone without permission, is unacceptable, and that it is OK to speak badly about those who engage in, it which is something most of us can agree with. In the second, the speaker is expressing that it is wrong for women (but most likely not men) to have casual sex, and that it is OK to shame them for engaging in it. That makes it a much more clear-cut case of being wrong and oppressive.
The first sentence has also accused its target of a genuinely hurtful behavior if ‘creep’ means groping someone without permission. (It doesn’t; groping someone without permission would make you a creep, all creeps are not necessarily unpermitted gropers.) The second sentence’s accusation is less serious because it’s something most of us can’t agree with. Assuming good faith of the speaker in both statements, the first sentence was a charge and may make the speaker guilty of defamation, the second is an expressed opinion and while you could make a case for defamation the speaker is primarily guilty of being insanely insensitive and misogynistic. All of this would argue a case for even more discretion in the use of the word ‘creep,’ not less. So:
“I’m so sorry I called him a creep. Now that I’ve found out what a nice guy he is (a subjective defense), I feel bad for having compared him to the kind of guys who grope you without permission (an objective offense)” and “I’m so sorry I called her a slut. Now that I know she’s a virgin (an objective defense), I feel bad for having compared her to the cheap whores who sleep with men on the first date (a subjective offense)”.
The first sentence sets up the perfect scenario for Witch-hunts, Mccarthyism, Insquisitions, etc. I can’t really endorse that but I don’t think it’s what people are trying for. Let me try something else:
Notice the moral difference between these sentences: “I’m so sorry I called him a creep. Now that I’ve found out what a nice guy he is, I feel bad for having compared him to the kind of guys who do not bathe frequently” and “I’m so sorry I called her a slut. Now that I know she’s a virgin, I feel bad for having compared her to a woman who promised somone sexual favors if they would promote her interests over the interests of someone who genuinely deserved such favor”.
Our respective speakers have very different internalized definitions for these words. That’s why external definitions are important. There does not, and should not, have to be a presumption of malice on the part of the creep to allow for the emotions of the creeped out. It’s why Ozymandias post is that much more important; she’s establishing a definition (w/ props to Hugh Ristik) that seems very helpful, reasonably restricted, but largely open while providing a list of scenarios that fit into this definition rather neatly. I posted the dictionary definition, because it was vague, a complaint I noticed a lot of people having with the word; Ozy’s definition isn’t. People should know that what they want a word to mean isn’t what that word means until the general consensus overrides the original academic intent (i.e., until the Urban Dictionary trumps Webster’s). Regardless, Ozymandias doesn’t control general consensus, NSWATM doesn’t control general consensus, and there has been a theory forwarded that right now the general consensus seems to lean towards your earlier suggestion of Creep (n): Someone who wants to hurt you; esp. sexually. If that’s true the word should be used even more judiciously not less. If it just means Creep (n): Someone who makes you feel uncomfortable, or unsafe; esp. sexually then one’s feelings define the creep and not the potency of which harmful specter one evokes with the word (e.g., rape, molestation, nose-picking, pencil-thin moustaches, etc.).
tl;dr More ‘creep’s, less ‘slut’s. (I never thought I’d type that.) Slander is still bad. The OP was great.