creepy guys have such confidence

Post Reply New Topic

uhhhh how would you know that?

I was not aware only buff guys can be good looking, and quite personally I don't find that to be good looking in itself nor do I find non-buff guys creepy. What exactly is your definition of a 'creepy' guy?

How dare people be offended at being labelled as potential stalkers or rapists.

Why is it that no woman seems willing to even consider the possibility that some women take this too far?

Why is it that every time a guy complains about being labelled that way, he is flooded with responses from women talking about those men who invade personal space, and make repeated unwanted sexual advances, despite the guys who bring it up clearly stating that they do not engage in those behaviors, and are called creepy even when they're sitting by themselves not bothering anyone?

Why is it that, when a thread is started about creepiness in the Women's section, men are told "this isn't the place for you to complain" but when a man starts one it's immediately packed with women saying the equivalent of "just shut up and live with it?"

Sick and tired of being labeled a b***h for finding repeated unwanted advances creepy.

i think we are all sick and tired of this argument.

Its kinda frustrating and I can relate to being almost there, acceptance wise, but due to appearing a bit off to most people, pushes me into creep classification.

Thats because creep in a societal definition, and is set by mechanisms outside of your control.

Like say cannabis prohibition. Now in Colorado and Washington acceptance of you as a weed user has risen considerably, yet nothing has really changed except public perception


I have mitigated my societally imposed creep status by now choosing to:

tilting my head slightly forward and gazing downward [by avoiding eye contact, no intimidation or eye communication could be construed] passers bye can look me up and down without me doing the same to them, so it is a submissive gesture

what i find is that when i do lift my head, many of those who have passed by without any visual acknowledgement from me, seek to connect with a hello, it adds mystique to your character, and makes you desirable!

aloof can be a power drama too, but it gives others less of a fright, than a full on stare from an autie

auties need to develop aloof anyhoos

The use of a bucket hat and sunglasses is recommended [as well as downward gaze] to avoid creep labelling. Women have the societal advantage of hair, to hide behind, and hat use and make-up and revealing clothes to draw the eye from a creepy female face.
But lets face it. Many aspie women get labelled creepy by their NT women peers so its not like a whole clear cut victim/perpetrator thing here at all

Scary monsters, super creeps, keep me running, running scared
(Bowie - Scary Monsters)

I think creeps are usually easier to pick out in real life because you have more things to observe, like their behavior, appearence, non-verbals, besides communication. It is also a bit easier to identify when a person is not really a creep but has some sort of mental condition or disability.

I do not really know, but would guess a new type of creep emerged with the internet. That is those who would not unwelcomely approach people in person, but are emboldened by the anonymity of the net.

I guess a guys concern, particularly someone on the spectrum, is getting mis-identified as a creep. And it can be tricky at times. The same exact thing can be fine, or not fine to say, depending on the exact situation and reading subtle signs, which may not be obvious online. The most basic step, which is engaging at all with someone (whether you should or should not) is easier to determine in real life I think. My impression also is that online has a general emboldening characteristic, not to all certainly, but I would guess to the majority to greater and lesser degree, so that contact attempts are increased. Conversely contacts are shut down easier too. I have for a while had the impression online is a very 'easy come, easy go' environment.

Ultimately 'creepiness' is in the eye of the beholder. And that is basically where it has to be. Like in many other things 'let the buyer beware'.

I just went through this thread, and I'll say one thing:

The way the law works in most modern countries concerning divorce and settlement and child custody, it's hardly based on gender discrimination. It's just that the law is sh*t and needs some big adjustments in order to be fair for all sides.

What's best for the child is to have the child live with a psychologically sane parent/guardian, not the parent who happens to have spent the most time with the child. As a lot of narcissistic mothers get to spend more time with their children than the fathers do, the law is absolutely ridiculous in this regard.

the parents should be sorting that out while they are still married - if the man is so wonderful he should be at home with the children. or even better, perhaps this hypothetically angelic male shouldn't be having children with such a clearly horrible female in the first place. simple, really.

It's not that simple. But please go on acting like these people don't exist in reality.

it really is that simple. people don't magically become angels or narcissists after the separation (when the custody arrangements are being made). if the man is happy having a crazy narcissist care for his babies during the marriage, then it makes perfect sense that he would be dealing with a similar arrangement after the divorce. if she isn't a fit parent then she shouldn't be at home with the kids - that is pretty obvious. if the other parent is better at the job, they should have arranged for that during the marriage.

EDIT: i used the same gendered pronouns as you kicked off with, but it can go either way. if the father stays at home, he gets custody, even if he magically becomes the narcissist after the divorce.

Some people just fall out of love or the problems are down to their redeeming features being non-existent as the years go by.

It's no one's fault when people divorce...it just happens.

I agree that the parent who has the kids most should get priority though...unless they are abusive.

Hyperlexian, you're not a teenager anymore. You should know better.

The reality is a lot of men or women who end up with narcissists don't realize something is wrong with their spouses until at a much later time and initially assume the children will be well off with the narcissistic spuse. And when they do realize something is wrong, it's too late to change anything for the positive. There are so many psychological factors at play here it's not as simple as "if A therefore it's A"

Wonderful people doesn't mean they must be intelligent or bright enough to spot narcissists when they see one.

Last edited by MCalavera on 10 Dec 2012, 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

But when it comes to covert abuse, the current law can't do much (if anything) about it.

hyper, you act as though people can just tell their partners "hey, get your s**t together" and expect them to actually do it.

Not all of the "arrangements" you talk about people coming to in a marriage are voluntarily entered into. In reality, very often people are forced into less than ideal arrangements when their spouses simply refuse to cooperate.

I've known more than one guy who had to work long hours, maybe a second job, not because he agreed with his wife that she'd stay home to care for the kids, but because she simply refused to work outside the home. Leaving him with a choice between standing his ground and hoping she'd compromise or paying the bills and avoiding homelessness for his kids.

Why should an arrangement like this, one that was not agreed upon but rather forced upon one partner, remain in place after the divorce? Especially when that forced arrangement may be part of the reason for the divorce in the first place.

Aside from all that, there is a huge difference between the intention behind laws and the way they are actually put into practice in the real world. For instance, there is not a single law on the books imposing harsher sentences on minorities than on whites for the same crimes, but we all know that that's exactly what happens. In the same way, there may be no laws explicitly giving preferential treatment to one gender in family courts, but that does not mean that it doesn't happen.

sure, it's entirely possible that there are isolated incidences of people suddenly becoming aware that their spouses are narcissists after the divorce, but in most of those cases i would question the judgement of the "angelic" parent. i would wonder if they were truly so blind or whether they are painting their spouse in a certain light in order to tarnish them after-the-fact. the timing is a little perfect for effecting a certain aim.

if the working parent is not sharp enough to spot a horribly narcissistic caregiver, then i would question whether they should be responsible for the child's custody. after all, they willingly left the child in the care of a parent who is supposedly quite bad, and they couldn't even spot any problems! i don't know if i would trust that parent to check out a daycare or interview a babysitter as they have exhibited poor judgement regarding the child's care.

that's essentially why the laws are set up that way - there is an understanding that the parents are fully capable of arranging the best possible circumstances for the children's care (while they are still married), and they will make good choices at that time. if they do not, that speaks volumes. many, many ex-spouses accuse each other of poor parenting after-the-fact when trying to sue for custody, and the courts ask them very similar questions - if your ex was so terrible, why was s/he allowed to be alone with the kids?

anyway i've made my point as clearly as i can - not much more i can say on this.