mr_engineer

'Creepy' has nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with how the other person feels about it. If the other person feels 'creeped out' by your behavior, you could smile at them and they'll still call you 'creepy'. And, 'toxic' behavior (that's legal) includes: Sexism, 'women belong in the kitchen' type rhetoric, Overtly controlling and disrespectful behavior, Aggressive and threatening behavior, lacking impulse-control (pointing fingers, shouting, fist-clenching) This need not be threatening to the other person, that's illegal, it could just be displaying uncontrolled aggression towards anything in front of women/children. Swearing in inappropriate settings Abusing power, hypocrisy Again, it's not the men themselves who are toxic, it's the behavior. You have to correct the behavior, not call 'men' or 'masculinity' toxic.

If you could define what 'toxic behavior' meant in a convincing manner, yeah, I would agree to ban it. In order to ban it, though, you do have to define what 'toxic' means first, in practice. If you're staying in the realm of theory, that word is too ambiguous. It's a catch-all term that can be thrown at anyone. That's why I want to ban the word. This is what I want to ban. 'Speaking against men'. Speak against toxic behavior, but why are you against men?! Why 'empower' ('enable' is the actual word) women to 'speak against men' and hurt men?

Do you agree with banning/tabooing the usage of these words?

Yeah, but you can't actually call someone the N-word, right? You will be penalized for that, right?! I mean, saying that 'don't unrightfully call men toxic and creepy' isn't going to do much, cuz everyone who uses these words is already being self-righteous. I prefer banning the words altogether, so that they have to come up with more constructive terms to talk about their issues. I don't want to fight anything/anyone. The words themselves are the wokeist illusion. So, if we ban the words, the illusion will break!

That's why you make your own life easier, by banning the words yourself. There is no point in calling someone 'creepy' or 'unlovable' or 'toxic'. Men have to unite against the usage of these words, we have to taboo them. They should be seen as the equivalent to the 'N-word' for Black people, because they are.

But calling them 'creeps' and 'toxic men' doesn't solve anything, right? You have to get to the bottom of why you felt 'creeped out' or what 'toxic behavior' the person (not 'man', person) was doing, so that you can solve something.

If this is not a personal attack, I don't know what is. You don't know jack shit about me and you're telling me that I'm being 'socially inadequate'. I don't trust you people to help me 'develop myself'. That's a lot of power I don't wish to give you people, because of the assumptions and personal-attacks. Right now, the point of discussion is about the ground-rules of dating-discourse. What I'm saying is that because 'creep' is an ad-hominem attack in bad faith, it shouldn't be a part of dating-discourse. What do you think of that?!

The reason I'm having this conversation is that I want to make a suggestion. And here it goes - If we just ban the words 'creep/creepy' and 'toxic masculinity' from dating-discourse, everyone's lives will be better. What do you think of this suggestion?

The fact that all of you resorted to personally attacking me, saying that 'I'm not going out and talking to women' or 'I'm not getting laid' or 'I'm giving my power away to women' or 'I'm socially inadequate' or 'I'm complaining', already tells me that I've won the argument. You people are saying any nonsense about me, just to deflect from the main points I'm making. I don't need your 'help', I never asked for it. Why should I trust what you have to say, when you're making these assumptions about me?! Why should I assume that you're being objective about other things, if you can't even be objective about me?! The reality is that you don't know ANYTHING about me. ANYTHING. I'm fully anonymous on here. Everything you're saying about me is assumed.

When you call someone this word, you're essentially saying that they don't deserve love, that they're unlovable. It's akin to the N-word for Black people, it's a sexist slur. My request to the mods is to recognize it as such and to regulate the forum for this anti-male sexism.

Yall can't resist personally attacking me, can you?!

Actually, I'm looking at whether you can come up with rational objections to what I'm saying, before I actually say these things to women. So far, I haven't seen any. Maybe I will say these things to women! It is.

Point taken.

Again, don't make this personal. This is an intellectual discussion.

Don't personally attack me on an intellectual discussion.

I'm doing R&D for exactly that, seeing how you respond to me saying 'how about we make this word a taboo?'. I'm looking at whether you have any rational objections to this rule!

Don't make this personal, this is an intellectual conversation.

Maybe women make the rules in getting laid. But, in relationships, men make the rules. Time to up our standards as men!

This is the textbook definition of 'narcissist' - A person who only cares about themselves and has no concern for others. When men creep-shame other men, we enable this rhetoric of 'you are unlovable'. The more we unite against this rhetoric, the more we will be able to leave behind unloving women, the more loving the mothers of our children will be, and the better future our society will have.

There's another word for it. It's called 'narcissist'. And narcissism is not illegal. It's normal, actually.

If men start standing up for themselves and stop putting up with being called 'unlovable', they will stop marrying unloving women. That's why.

Or, it means they aren't experienced enough. No, I'm not conflating anything. In relationships, your comfort-levels are your responsibility. If you feel uncomfortable with something in the relationship, are you going to demonize the other person and call them 'unlovable'? Right, it's not well-defined. This is why I think we need to stop using a word that tells people that they're unlovable. But, if those reactions involve calling someone unlovable, that's a red-flag, right?! I talk about the projection of 'uncommunicated intent' on this thread:

What if they don't say 'no', they just call you a 'creep'? And, what if they're doing this, not as an assertion of boundaries, but as an assertion of moral-superiority over you? To insult you deliberately? There are crazy people who are not okay with the narrative that 'the Earth is round'. Does this make the mainstream 'creepy', then?! You can't regulate everything you're not okay with, you can only regulate what's illegal. Manners are well-defined, 'creepiness' is not. How do you regulate it, then, in a way that's not hypocritical? Is there a systematic way to regulate it? Because if there isn't, you're telling someone that their authentic personality is unlovable. Is that okay to you? If you have a fear of heights, this is your problem, right?! Are you going to blame the builders for building high-rise buildings, for 'invoking that fear in you'? No, right?! You're going to learn to deal with it, right?! Same thing here.

I'll tell you why this word should become a taboo. It's because 'creep' implies 'scary individual' or 'unlovable individual'. Because fear is the opposite of love. So, in the name of love, let's taboo this word! This will also promote true femininity, which stands for love, not fear.

Incels generally call themselves that, whereas 'creep' is something that others call you because they're projecting their fears onto you. Fears that have been caused mostly by the media, by repeatedly reporting about school-shootings and rape-cases. And by horror movies.