Creepiness

Post Reply New Topic

Ah, yes, I forgot how laws prevent things from happening. It's why murder and rape no longer exist! My bad! /Sarcasm

I think there are already laws against murder.

There are plenty of people—yes, that includes women—who won’t just respect the presumed rights of others if they think they’re powerful enough to get away with violating them to their own advantage. I sometimes wonder if I’m fundamentally broken for accepting so readily that something is off-limits. The ultimate law is the law of the jungle, and it grants you precisely whatever you can grab and defend by force—no less, no more.



I’d bet they’re fully aware of it, and that’s probably a big part of the reason they do it in the first place. Making others uncomfortable or scaring them shows who’s boss. Therefore, you’d be only stating the obvious, and they probably wouldn’t miss the chance to make a bit more of fun of you for it.

Are these things commonplace? How many people have you seen raped or murdered? How many times have you seen a woman killed for rejecting a man?

I've been sexually assaulted actually. So have a lot of women I know. So shut up. As for murder it happens every goddamn day, particularly in the US. And it happens so why the f**k are you trying to act like it doesn't?

I'm sorry, I forgot that you live in a country that has about twelve thousand murders per year. You forgot that I live in a country that has about 300 murders per year. Adjusting for differences in population that's four times as high. Down here we don't let guys like Elliot Rodgers have access to guns.

You do realize that rape and sexual assault aren't the same thing right? I realize that sexual assault is still a very traumatic experience for you but using bait and switch words doesn't help anyone. As you know, rape is defined as unwanted penetration, whether that is oral, anal, or vaginal. Sexual assault refers to any unwanted sexual contact, including fondling and molestation. Anyone who equates these two things is disrespecting rape victims.

Congrats I still know a lot of women who have been raped, including my own mother. And I don't think you get to speak for rape victims lol. Or sexual assault ones. I'm so sincerely sorry that me being molested when I was 5 years old and several other times throughout my life isn't good enough for your standards. Next time I'll try to get raped instead so you'll respect my opinions.

I'm sure there's no need for that. I give all opinsions due consideration. However, baiting and switching is dishonest. I have no respect for that kind of rhetoric. I would never presume to speak for anyone other than myself.

I could go on arguing this tangent but I'd prefer to return to my original point. Force of law can't and never will be able to entirely prevent murder from happening but it has a deterrent value. A potential murderer might reconsider when he thinks of the lengthy prison sentence he'll get. This deterance elimates all but a fraction of the murders that would happen if such impulses were left unchecked.

Last edited by RetroGamer87 on 07 Sep 2016, 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They were only jerks if they conceived of themselves as having been friendzoned.

Don't blame me, it's axiomatic.



And you do realise that being a bit confused because a girl turned you down with a sincerely insincere offer of friendship and so left you momentarily thrown is not the same thing as being too scared, for good reason, to directly turn down a man incase he turns on you?

Do you really want to dig this hole over a piece of unintentionally misleading (and possibly danger-avoiding) social etiquette?

That's not what you said. Forgive me for taking you literally.I hope you were being sarcastic. Calling your opinions axioms isn't much of an argument When did I equate those two things? Read my opening post. It wasn't complaining about girls turning me down. It wasn't complaining about girls at all. It was complaining about guys who shame other guys for being dateless.

Can we at least agree that's a bad thing?

I'm not confused if girls don't want to date me. They're just not into me. That's plain and simple. I get confused when guys speak in oxymorons such as - If you've never dated you're a creep but if you try to date that makes you a creep.

I'm not one of those guys who complains about friendzoning. You must be thinking of some other guy on L&D. I value my female friends. I like having them as friends.

Where I said:

it was part of a wider remark that went on:


I thought, given the final sentence, it was obvious from context that I was considering the two states as essentially the same, the difference being a matter of perspective. From this, I thought the implication that only jerks get 'friendzoned' because only jerks would choose to see themselves as 'friendzoned' rather than in the state of unrequited love was clear. I appreciate it's a nuance of language that was not distinct enough.

I was being ironically bombastic by referring to it being 'axiomatic', but I would hope my reasoning above might show why it's not wholly ironic.



As I understand, the thread had turned onto the matter of why women (sigh) 'friendzone'. Both racheypie666 and lidsmichelle observed that it was to avoid confrontation, lidsmichelle going on to talk about how situations can escalate and turn violent, so it's safer to be 'gentle'.

You then remarked 'If only there was a law against that', which suggested to me you were of the opinion it was quite safe for women to reject men in a more direct fashion than (sigh) 'friendzoning'. Now, given situations can and do escalate (nevermind the social/cultural instructions to girls to Be Nice), if we're going to have a hard and fast rule, are we going to go with the one that saves some men some confusion, or saves some women harassment and violence?

To answer your question, I took your sarcastic retort of 'If only there was a law against that' as implicitly equating the two (and then coming down on 'lessening men's confusion').

I hope that's cleared up any confusion there.

I think anyone who shames anyone for being dateless is an idiot, and as such has voluntarily revoked their 'be treated and listened to as a serious adult' card. As I said, it's comedy, and it's punching down. Post PC, it's a lot harder to punch down (you can, of course, make a fine career and rake it in as an anti-PC comic). You can't mock the gays. can't mock the women. Can't mock the ethnic minorities. But luckily, there's still (among others) the weird men to mock.

I would say that this is true: that guys are sometimes"friendzoned" by women to avoid confrontation, embarrassment, and trouble.

Guys even "friendzone" women for the same reason.

Oh. I was confused by that before. My bad. Thanks for clearing that up.I thought that might be sarcasm Keep hoping. You lost me again.You're giving me too much credit. I didn't read that deeply into it.

Yes I suggested that women could reject men safely, implying that in the vast majority of cases they would not be murdered but I didn't see the comparison between the cost of freindzoning (chance of the guy getting confused) vs the cost of direct rejection(small chance of being murdered)

I didn't realize that lidsmichelle was saying she wouldn't directly reject a guy because she'd prefere to make an insincere offer of freindship because she believes it's safer that way. What I thought she was saying was that she believed there was no safe way for her to reject a man at all.

I realize that being murdered is more serious than being confused but honestly you have a higher risk of death everytime you drive your car than when you reject a suitor.Yes. Thank you for explaining. A large part of this argument resulted from misunderstandings on my part.It started off as comedy in the first half but for the second half it abandoned all pretense of comedy and became preachy (like the second half of MASH). They stopped making jokes and just started shaming.

Yet that's not the worst of it. The thing that bothered me most of all was that they gave self-contradictory advice (you must ask a girl out/don't ask a girl out). Shaming is one thing but shaming for doing two opposing things is ridiculous. They created a damned if you do/damned if you don't scenario.And I won't begrudge them that for comedy's sake so long as they keep their bigotry self-consist. If there's one thing that infurates me, it's inconsistancy (also preachiness thinly veiled under comedy).

Aside from that they can have their acceptable targets. For me to be offened by them poking fun at weird men would be just as foolish as Isaac Hayes being offended when Matt and Trey mocked Scientology. I'm not above poking fun at myself, ya know

Last edited by RetroGamer87 on 07 Sep 2016, 2:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I actually did mean that. I and other women actually have no way of telling how any given man will react to being told no. So yes, I do see any potential rejection or rebuke to strange (and some familiar) men as a gamble. I have personally been made to feel incredibly unsafe for rejecting and speaking out against men directly and so yes, I have every right to be cautious and expect the worst.

It saddens me that men have treated you this way. It saddens me even more that no bystanders came to your aid. You have a right to be safe when you're rejecting a man and even when you're speaking out against men directly.

If you associate with such boorish men then you're right, any form of rejection is a gamble. If you reject them directly you risk incuring their wrath from being rejected. If you turn them down some other way you risk incuring their wrath if they find out they've been decieved. I honestly don't know which of these is a greater risk.

There's no way I can no because I'm not a woman. I made the mistake of relying on my own experience when I've never had the experience of being a woman.

I hope we can stop all this arguing between men and women and come to a new understanding that both women and men face dangers from the oppisite sex. Women can't predict when members of the oppisite sex will turn nasty and neither can men.

Yes, it's about avoiding a negative reaction, be that awkardness, verbal abuse, harrassment or assault. Obviously if a woman has been through a sexual assault then their mind might go there quicker, but even if she hasn't, it's still a possibility she is aware of. I'm almost ashamed to say I've put up with sexual harrassment in order to get by at work and at college/uni, but I have, because the idea of confronting the men in question with an outright sexual rejection has sometimes seemed harder than just putting up with it. Usually I laugh it off, and work on putting them in 'the friendzone' (that word! ), because that way I can get on with my day. I don't think there are many women who haven't made that compromise at some point.

Actually, that's the only time I actively 'friendzone' men; when they make an advance that they know is inappropriate. My married, older boss hitting on me during a supervision ? I laughed, ignored it, and worked on treating him professionally and politely until he got the message (he still hasn't, actually, but it's improved immensely) - 'friend'zoned!




Yeah, the guys on that podcast sound ignorant, and incoherently so at that. Just like we've been talking about 'niceness' being part of what girls learn, I think this kind of bullying/disparaging, particularly regarding sex, is part of what boys learn. In my experience, most bullying comes from fear and insecurity on the part of the bully/bullies; guys more than girls are encouraged to be sexually active, to lose their virginity, to play the field etc., so in order to show solidarity to this masculine ideal, podcasts like these will gang up on dateless guys, who are seen as outside of that ideal. Gender roles are brilliant, aren't they? /Sarcasm

I think someone said it earlier but as long as you know you're not being conventionally creepy (not staring, not asking personal questions, not making unwanted physical contact, etc.), then you're on solid ground whether a woman rejects you or no. She might perceive you as creepy, but that might be informed by her personal context. I know it's harder for NDs to know you haven't done something socially inappropriate, but if you educate yourself on what is/isn't 'creepy', I wouldn't worry about what those podcasters think of you.



Sincerely now, can this be a thing? My god would my life be easier if people had conversations like this!
Also, Hopper, you are really cool Some very well (and entertainingly) made points.

What message? He already knows it’s inappropriate and blatantly chooses to do it anyway, probably because he also knows he can get away with it. You’re not telling him anything new.