Do women use certain terms to 'shame' certain types of men?

[Enzouk]

Just wondering about female perspectives on this. I increasingly hear women calling guys 'creepy' as a shaming tactic..generally I think that the women doing so do it only if they don't find the man attractive. Where as they will pander to a guy who is physically attractive to thrm they will hate on a guy who acts the exact same way who physically is not attractive to them. I have seen women do it in front of groups of friends in a sort of 'lets put this guy in his place' way. Thoughts? And what do you think of women who do this?

Also, i suppose on similar lines...are women more shallow than men with regards to physical attraction?

I haven't yet sex for ages. Would I like to? Sure! But I fit into the kind of description that I'm sure is at the bottom of pile of men's preferences. Therefore I don't see myself as entitled.

Same here. I have pretty much removed myself from the dating pool, because no one was interested anyway and also, I've just got better things to do. There are so many flaky men about and I just can't be bothered to kiss loads of toads on the off-chance that one of them might be a prince (by which I don't mean fantastically good-looking, but someone with a brain and education who can make me laugh and who I can learn things from.) I've got better things to do, like learn languages and do yoga and swim and garden and visit museums and read a good book and travel and meet up with friends. Yes I miss great sex (as will quite a few people in relationships,) but I don't miss mediocre sex.

And if men are similarly missing out, well, they could read a good book too, or go for a run, or do some voluntary work or something. Whinging about women not recognising their entitlement to sex is pretty much the least likely way to attract someone

I just popped in here to see what kind of things were discussed in this section. I haven't read all comments because frankly there's to many. What I get from the one I did is that alot of people that are just assuming that it's trying to force them in to conversation.

Now in my opinion there is nothing wrong with starting a conversation with someone. I will do it with both females and male. Having said that there is a diffrence between starting a conversation and the person being interested in said conversation.

Now if someone is not interested in the conversation and you keep trying to make them then that is creepy and the name is deserved but at the same time there are ladies out there who are just plain rude from the first word and will call you creepy just for talking to them.

The assumption here seem to be that if a man says more then two words to a woman he want in her pants which isn't true. I speak to ladies I don't find attractive too. Not everyone what to have sex with you.

And Op this was by far the worst place you could have posted this lol. Unless your just trying to wind them up

And there may be some men who feel entitled to sex but that is NOT the majority

" I haven't read all comments because frankly there's to many. "

But you'd like us to read yours?

Nope.

Attitude straight away there are 25 page have you read them all? If you read mine you would see I said that there is nothing wrong with starting a conversation it's creepy if the other person isn't intrested

Yup, I've read them all.

The creepiness isn't the approach, in my view. It's the sense of entitlement that may come with it. If there has been no invitation to approach, then that feels intrusive and may deserve short shrift.

If it's ambiguous, but the approacher responds to being declined by just walking away, not creepy. Awesome. Everyone can get on with their day.

If they persist, continue to invade the space of the person they are approaching, or become abusive, then they are creeepy.

And no, not everyone who approaches someone of the opposite sex wants to shag them. But given the OP was talking about nonsense like involuntary celibacy and how these nasty women are depriving men of the opportunity to stay in the gene pool, I'd hazard a guess that he is one of tje creepy ones. He's one of the ones where sex is the main aim of these random public approaches. He seems to lack your aocual skills, NRdad

Social skills

Oh Hillary, you've taken the bait! I've been sitting on my hands thinking no, no. ..

What's the betting it's OP's sockie, btw? ("Nrdad" - I mean really. Agenda for trolling a feminist space, much?)

Yay another man comes on to tell us how it is from a mans point of view

Without bothering to try and understand a women's point of view

What a great guy

I was going to say, "thanks, but no", Het, in response, instead of nope.

Given the context of a man barging into a conversation, admitting he hadn't been listening, pointing out that the conversation was in the wrong place but still suggesting women needed to be polite to unwelcome conversational intrusions from men, it was just too ironic for that!

"Someone said that 'all men arent supposed to be fathers' or whatever and thats sounds terribly like saying 'well if these guys arent attractive to women then so be it they dont deserve to pass on their genes'. That sound awful"

Why does it sound awful? Most males in nature never pass on their genes. Something like 75-80% of all males don't pass on genes I think.

So what? The earth still turns.

As other posters have said, the very reason patriarchy was set up in the first place, was to guarantee to human males what no other male in nature has: the guarantee of sexual access to a female, however unwilling the females are.

The very fact that most human males have had the chance to pass on their genes, is an anomaly in nature. The human race may have been very different if men hadn't enslaved women to ensure their own genes were passed on. For all we know, all sorts of genes have got through which have led to a higher proportion of lower quality men than would otherwise have been available to human females.

They also still seem to be dead set on 'attractive' being all about how someone looks - I'm guessing because that's how they rate women.

Looks can matter, but how that person is - their interests and personality are way more important. A bad personality can render good looks completely unattractive, and a good one can make a downright hideous bloke irresistible.

The thing i dont get is how long do these women being approached have to be polite to these men they dont really want to talk to for before its deemed acceptable to say they arent interested. As from where i see it your not going to be happy unless they sleep with everyone who aproaches them as it wouldnt be fair would it. So in other words you believe women shouldnt have a choice well not goid looking ones anyway as i cant see many guys lining up for a less attractive woman but thats different as they dont count as people do they?

They also still seem to be dead set on 'attractive' being all about how someone looks - I'm guessing because that's how they rate women.Looks can matter, but how that person is - their interests and personality are way more important. A bad personality can render good looks completely unattractive, and a good one can make a downright hideous bloke irresistible.

That's because they very, very, very obviously do not have, or, most importantly WANT to have a good personality. Acquiring a good personality would mean to let go of their entitlement and become completely different persons, in which case finding a woman to fuck would not be their top priority anymore.

But even they are clever enough to know that accusing women of shallowness will fly, while accusing women of having standards regarding personality ... will expose them as the entitled jerks they are.

What they actually mean is that women should not have any standards whatsoever.

I think it's quite telling how many of these men are jealous of these stereotypically attractive men who women don't tell to fuck off, while on the other hand they rate women out of ten for their looks and don't think they should settle for a less "attractive" woman. Why then should attractive women be expected to settle, by that reasoning?

If you have such a shallow value system, you should expect that you don't make the grade for attractive women if you're not yourself attractive. If it's natural, what's the point in fighting it? I have to say that it's not my value system at all, but it's the whole reason why these men are so petulant.

Although I always like to take science journalism with a giant pinch of salt it would seem women have far outstripped men in their reproductive success:

www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool

So if this mythical patriarchy was created to ensure every man got the opportunity to pass on his genes it did a piss-poor job of it!

Nevertheless, fair play about creepy guys they unquestionably DO exist, and I can understand your frustration. Maybe the rest of us guys could do a better job of keeping them in line!

No one deserves or has a right to pass their genes on by reproducing, just like no one deserves or has to win the lottery. Luck of the draw.

If we're going by the law of the jungle then biological organisms will do their level best to procreate by fair means or foul, and I am sure the the foul methods all ethical beings would object to.

So I don't think you can just apply the human concept of 'fair' in one context and not the other.

Not being entitled to another human being's body has nothing to do with "the law of the jungle". It's a simple respect for other people's rights and bodily autonomy.

As you coyly allude to, anything else is rape or coercion.

"As from where i see it your not going to be happy unless they sleep with everyone who aproaches them as it wouldnt be fair would it. So in other words you believe women shouldnt have a choice well not goid looking ones anyway as i cant see many guys lining up for a less attractive woman but thats different as they dont count as people do they?"

Quite. With the added sting that if an attractive woman does sleep with every man who asks, she gets called a slut and is treated with contempt. It's a no-win for anyone female, this game.

Yes but if the central premise is "some men suck at socialising the crap ones will get shot down, twas ever thus and they can go do one" isn't really going to address the problem. Nothing changes.

Granted reading through the thread you guys have put up with some asinine points from my betestacled brethren, let me clear. On this issue I'm 100% on your side. Freedom of association is a basic human right, and included within that right is the implicit freedom to NOT associate.

I am also a full subscriber to the notion of property rights of which the first and most crucial pillar upon which the whole concept stands is self ownership. Any rape or coercion is a clear violation of this, and in fact I'd go further and say that if any man (or woman) has sex under false pretenses when were the full facts of the matter known, like say lying about marriage or relationship status that is a form of fraud, causes emotional distress and we as a society should take a sterner position on.

My goto thoughts on this issue, and forgive me I haven't given it much thought is that maybe boys and girls should be encouraged to socialise with one another at an earlier age, and we all make allowances for the less socially gifted, and perhaps allow them to improve.

Coupled with that I agree the sense of 'entitlement' amongst some men is abhorrant, but there are a wide variety of women who feel 'entitled' to a man's resources. Neither of which attitude helps with friendly social cohesion. Note I am not making the case that women are as bad as men or there is precise parity in those attitudes, men may indeed be worse as an aggregate, I'm saying I don't know. What I WILL say is there are perceptions to that effect, which need correcting.

I can pop onto an MRA forum and see a load of butthurt men whining about how women are (unfairly imo), and find much the same here. There has to be a happy medium between the two where people are mostly courteous to one another.

Dear god that was wordy, and made me sounds like I am trying to be more intelligent than I am! I am really not!! I'm a bit of a spanner at times, so apologies for that and thanks to anyone who takes the time to read it. I'll try to moderate my tone better in future.

" isn't really going to address the problem. Nothing changes."

But what exactly is the problem? I'm bad at chatting to men I fancy, that's a problem I need to fix, not society.