How to reconcile male and female perspective on creepiness

[The Pandector]

A creep is someone who makes WILFUL decision to act dangerous.

I wasn't aware this definition had been adopted by the forum participants.

 

[Human Avatar]

I never concerned myself about talking to other men. Now that I think about it, I don't talk to people altogether. Although in few occasions when people do start conversation with me, they would likely be men rather than women. But those occasions are few.

Ok this may be the problem .
Don’t think of women as different .
They are people .
I am not saying this about you but I have noticed lots of men look @ women as trophies ( rich men with models ) the examples and psychology of this is to much to list on here , also how women and men can commodify their appearance is everywhere , instagram, commercials etc etc .

This creates a problem . Especially for shy and socially awkward people . Including myself .

What I have learned is as hard as this is ignore all of this. Look at people as people . Even if a women is pretty who cares . They are a person. Practice your social skills and talk to them with respect and understanding as you would with anybody.

Being Autistic the odds are against us not being socially perfect and having all the tools necessary to have a conversation. Maybe it does not even have to be a conversation. A simple hello and goodbye is adequate.

Just try talking to men and women the same.

 

[Judge]

Now, what is the logic behind their response being the one of rejection?

You keep assuming logic is part of it all. It isn't.

A major reason why I have always been repelled by dating and courtship rituals. You'll never get the answers you need regarding human behavior as long as you approach it from a perspective of logic.

When I think of dating and courtship, I'm always reminded of my boyhood friend's sister Becky. She was an especially attractive teenage girl with no end to boys wanting to date her. So much so that the family never bothered to answer their phone.

So when the phone would ring, we used to laugh at how Becky would leap into the air and head for the stairs to get to the phone. She'd charge so hard down those stairs that you better not be in her way. And when she got to the phone, what does she do? She'd let it ring, and ring, and ring. And then she'd let it ring a little more.
Then she'd answer like she was bored and had no interest in talking to whoever called.

Games over feelings. Ritualized insanity. Call it what you want, but it sure isn't logical. Not with such means where the end is a lasting and mutually satisfying relationship with the love of your life.

 

[Polchinski]

Uh oh. I think I've offended. Apologies.

You didn't offend me. On the contrary, what you said is really interesting.

I stood in the back facing forward when the door opened and the four entered. Three stood to the side facing the dame in the doorway, who stood facing me. This ringleader hardly let the door close before asking directly if I was married. Widowed?

Oh wow. I didn't realize women view men they don't even know as potential suitors? I always thought they have to get to know the men first?

Are you saying that is the conversation women have about all men, but they do it behind their back? But then why didn't they wait until the elevator would work, so that they can get out and have that conversation behind your back?

Or are you saying women can't even be in the presence of a man before those questions are answered. So if they aren't stuck in an elevator, they would excuse themselves to the bathroom and ask those things to their female friends. But on the elevator they are forced to do that in front of you?

How old were you and how old were those women by the way?

 

[Polchinski]

If you decide to not take care of yourself and play by the rules everyone else is using, people are not forced to get out of their paradigm. And they don't have to respond to it, they can just ignore you.

Yes, they will get out of the paradigm. In fact, in two ways:

1) They will still "see" me poorly dressed. They can't "unsee" what they see

2) They will also ignore me, even though their paradigm is not to ignore people

So why would two wrongs make it up to right?

And you will stink and people will avoid you.

But what if I do take a shower, I just have unkept clothes. In this case I don't stink. So why can't they overlook the way I look?

 

[Mr. Stevens]

Uh oh. I think I've offended. Apologies.

Frankly, I think the premise of the thread is threateningly tongue-in-cheek; we will never reconcile male and female views.

Some of us don't even see things this way, though. I have no idea what "the" male or female view is.

 

[Polchinski]

I wasn't aware this definition had been adopted by the forum participants.

How about "creep is someone who is dangerous", without the word "willful" in there. Would you agree with this definition?

If yes, how can someone be dangerous without it being willful? Does that person have multiple personalities?

 

[LadyS]

So, as a woman, how would you explain why you would judge the guys intentions by their looks? I mean, wouldn't looks be genetics while intentions be a choice? Why would you assume that there is a relation between the two?

I never said that I judge a man's intentions by their looks. I don't speak for all women, nor do all those men on those forums speak for all men either. This is key in maybe your dilemma. Which is why I said "some".

So are you saying that its not looks that are creepy but "trying too hard" that is

Pretty much trying too hard is I'd say overall. Like I said before, when someone has made it clear they have an agenda and that they're only talking to you because they want something out of that interaction (before you even know who they are as a person), it can just catch someone offguard, especially if that woman isn't ready to reciprocate or is in a completely different mindset than you.

So can you tell me about the difference between intents of creepy guys and non-creepy guys, and why it correlates with looks?

How can I tell the intents between creepy and non-creepy guys? This is a confusing question as I'm not a mind reader. Again it doesn't correlate with looks.

And what if I know for a fact I would never act predatory?

Of course you know that yourself, but by putting yourself in a woman's shoes for second, like you've mentioned the telemarketer example, she won't know this the moment you approach her, even after a whole conversation. Takes time to get to know someone before they are comfortable.

--- If I don't approach women, then they don't talk to me because I don't approach them

--- If I were to approach them, it would be creepy since nobody likes to be approach by a stranger

So what am I supposed to do?

I think this is why online dating and in-person dating/networking events are a much better alternative. Here you have women who are actively openly looking for someone and they can also do this with the comfort of their own home (with online). When approaching random strangers you just don't know what they might be going through, thinking, or maybe they're casually dating someone else but won't say, etc. And like most couples I know, they've all met through someone they knew (i.e. a friend of a friend or family etc), not necessarily by being approached by someone in a random place.

But I say again, these are just my own opinions, I can't speak for all women and no one woman can. Don't ask for absolutes because you won't find any.

 

[Judge]

How about "creep is someone who is dangerous", without the word "willful" in there. Would you agree with this definition?

If yes, how can someone be dangerous without it being willful? Does that person have multiple personalities?

A "creep" can also amount to simply an impromptu epithet. Not a careful choice in semantics. Where a person may not even have a specific reason for someone not appealing to them.

"I don't know....they're just a creep!"

You're just thinking too hard about it all. Give your heart- and brain a rest. And loosen up that stranglehold you have on conditional reasoning. Not everything is exists in, or is considered exclusively in black and white terms. Something that could easily backfire when communicating with others.

 

[The Pandector]

You didn't offend me. On the contrary, what you said is really interesting.



Oh wow. I didn't realize women view men they don't even know as potential suitors? I always thought they have to get to know the men first?

Are you saying that is the conversation women have about all men, but they do it behind their back? But then why didn't they wait until the elevator would work, so that they can get out and have that conversation behind your back?

Or are you saying women can't even be in the presence of a man before those questions are answered. So if they aren't stuck in an elevator, they would excuse themselves to the bathroom and ask those things to their female friends. But on the elevator they are forced to do that in front of you?

How old were you and how old were those women by the way?

I stood in the back facing forward when the door opened and the four entered. Three stood to the side facing the dame in the doorway, who stood facing me. This ringleader hardly let the door close before asking directly if I was married. Widowed?

You said, 'Oh wow. I didn't realize women view men they don't even know as potential suitors?'

Can't tell your meaning. I wasn't talking about 'suitors.' Maybe 'target' would be a better word. A suitor has a different function in life.

No, I wasn't saying that women uniformly have these conversations, either in front of or behind out backs. Not sure where that came from. No, I didn't say or imply that women are unable to be in the presence of men without knowing the answers to those question. Again, not sure where that came from.


Interestingly, I received notices of various people finding my post either agreeable or funny. When I view that post now, there is no line of responses whatsoever. Not sure at the point of that, neither will I post a guess.

 

[Polchinski]

How can I tell the intents between creepy and non-creepy guys? This is a confusing question as I'm not a mind reader.

But in your earlier post you did mention that you can "evaluate their intents". Thats why I asked.

I think this is why online dating and in-person dating/networking events are a much better alternative.

I been on dating sites for many years. While in person I don't approach women, on the dating sites I do, very much so. Yet the vast majority of my messages don't get answered. It takes months for anyone to respond at all.

Which again makes me ask: what is it about me that gives off those vibes?

And like most couples I know, they've all met through someone they knew (i.e. a friend of a friend or family etc),

So are you saying my problem is that I have very small family and no friends?

When you talked about "meeting a partner through friends", were you talking about same-gender friends or opposite-gender friends?

If you were talking about opposite-gender friends, then I am back to my other question: why can't I make any female friends either?

If you are talking about same-gender friends, then could "this" be my problem: that I basically neglected the whole "male friends" thing, when actually this would be the first step to ever be introduced to any females?

 

[Polchinski]

You said, 'Oh wow. I didn't realize women view men they don't even know as potential suitors?'

A wow means a surprise. It doesn't mean anger. At least not when I use it.

In fact usually surprise is a good thing, since it gives me an opportunity to learn something new.

Maybe 'target' would be a better word.

Yeah, "target" was the word I was looking for.

So, to rephrase my question: I didn't realize women look at complete strangers as targets. How often does it happen?

No, I didn't say or imply that women are unable to be in the presence of men without knowing the answers to those question. Again, not sure where that came from.

The reason I had that thought is because they didn't wait for a few hours it took to get out of elevator. So is it really THAT urgent that they have to know it now, not even the next day?

 

[Polchinski]

A "creep" can also amount to simply an impromptu epithet. Not a careful choice in semantics.

Yeah, but if this particular term is so widespread, there is got to be something to it.

 

[The Pandector]

How about "creep is someone who is dangerous", without the word "willful" in there. Would you agree with this definition?

If yes, how can someone be dangerous without it being willful? Does that person have multiple personalities?

I am not in the business of defining words for this forum. You posited that definition. I stated, without rancor, my friend, that I wasn't aware that definition had been adopted.

You ask what I would say? I would define a creepy person as one who creeps. IOW, one who's behavior seems to shield secret motive. Notice that I would not be one to assume that a creep was dangerous. Possible, but not probable. But, that's just me.

 

[Judge]

Yeah, but if this particular term is so widespread, there is got to be something to it.

There are any number of coloquial terms used with multiple meanings. Regardless of what a dictionary may specify. In fact there's another thread about the word "okay" which touches on that. Where people are looking for concise explanations where there are many as a colloquialism. Something that isn't particularly endearing to those of us on the spectrum, but it clearly beyond our control.

The word "creep" is really no different. Often used in a worthless and nebulous fashion. A poor way to express contempt for a particular person. Sometimes for no particular reason either. And for a very few it may even have positive connotations.

Above all, no it is not logical.

 

[The Pandector]

Some of us don't even see things this way, though. I have no idea what "the" male or female view is.

So true, Mr. Stevens. But I've noticed that both men and women are significantly more baffled by one another's behavior than they are by that of their own sex. I have to think that has to do with significantly different ways of seeing thing.

I'm watching, trying to learn about my new neural compatriots. I think I see the same thing happening between NT and ND. Views on morality and integrity, for instance, seem to fall into something like groupings differentiated by their takes. I wouldn't have said 'the female view,' but might have thought to say 'the female point of view.'

In the end, it all gets shot down because generalizations-even accurate ones-have gone out of style. I've always been a late submitter.

 

[Polchinski]

I would define a creepy person as one who creeps. IOW, one who's behavior seems to shield secret motive.

Thats an interesting thought. Because then this "would" explain why nice guys would be "creepy", since they are hiding their motives.

But then again, words do change meaning over time. For example the word "gay" used to mean "happy" but now it means "homosexual".

So what is everyone else's input? What is the correct definition of "creepy"? Is it "the one who creeps", or is it "someone dangerous", or is it something else entirely?

 

[LadyS]

But in your earlier post you did mention that you can "evaluate their intents". Thats why I asked

I can usually tell but that's irrespective of their "creepy factor", whatever that is. "Creepiness" has nothing to do with understanding intent.

So are you saying my problem is that I have very small family and no friends?

When you talked about "meeting a partner through friends", were you talking about same-gender friends or opposite-gender friends?

If you were talking about opposite-gender friends, then I am back to my other question: why can't I make any female friends either?

If you are talking about same-gender friends, then could "this" be my problem: that I basically neglected the whole "male friends" thing, when actually this would be the first step to ever be introduced to any females?

I think as @Judge has said, you're too dead set on relying on logic for understanding your problem and expecting too concise of an answer for which there is none, I'm afraid. But I do think in general, if one wants to increase their chances of a relationship, increasing their social circle size isn't too far-fetched of an idea to begin with, and yes that includes male friends too.

Although I do have a few female single friends who have enormous social circles yet cannot find anyone themselves. So, again, there really isn't a single solution for any given problem.

 

[Judge]

So what is everyone else's input? What is the correct definition of "creepy"?

In terms of informal colloquial speech, there really isn't one.

You continue to seek and covet concise, absolute answers to complex questions. -Where they don't exist.

 

[Polchinski]

A poor way to express contempt for a particular person.

Contempt for the person is the other thing I have problem with. It is fine and well to express contempt to what that person DOES. But it is wrong to express it for the person as a WHOLE. Why assassinate their whole life and whole being just because of what they did at some point?

And by the way, this "character assassination" might be part of the reason why they misuse the word "creepy". Because if everything about that person, ALL aspects of their being are inherently corrupt, then they MIGHT AS WELL be sexual predators. If ALL negatives are always go together, then sure: you can call them creeps, or you can call them bank robers, or you can invent some other label: they are all of the above.

But since I don't like the concept that "this person is inherently contemptible", I want to draw the lines and be specific in the "charges" that are being layed.