looking vs ogling/staring, a primer for men

[geek tragedy]

Since there's obviously some confusion amongst a few men here at DU as to why it's considered rude to stare at women's body parts (or other men's too), here's a helpful guide to being a red-blooded, high t manly man without being a sexist/misogynist creeper.

1. How long would you stare someone in the eyes before it would be considered rude/threatening?

2. Assume she knows you're looking. How long before that gets uncomfortable?

3. Would you look that long if you were with your spouse/partner?

4. How long could a stranger, or a coworker, stare at your spouse that way before you would find it objectionable?

5. If you were alone with an unattractive man who's much bigger and stronger than you, how long could he stare at your body parts before you get uncomfortable?

Choose the shortest time from answers 1-5, and you will succeed in avoid being a creeper. Anything else, and you're taking your chances and very possibly making another human being feel uncomfortable or even threatened.

[Brickbat]

1. Anyone who says they're confused about this isn't looking for clarity.

They're simply stirring shit.

[geek tragedy]

3. Very possibly, but just in case even one of them is being truthful about their confusion,

this should help.

[Brickbat]

6. I salute your generosity of spirit.

[NoOneMan]

2. I wish I lived in a world where women wouldn't stare at my penis

If I wanted it stared at I would take up penis knitting

[geek tragedy]

4. try wearing pants. nt

[NoOneMan]

5. Do assless chaps count?

That could be the problem


And BTW, way to blame the victim for their outfits

[libodem]

8. Yeah, and I for one

Am sick of trying not to look.

[Jenoch]

119. This has always confused me,

aren't ALL chaps, by definition, "assless"?

[smirkymonkey]

139. LOL!

[Scootaloo]

151. ...Worst tea cozy ever.

[geek tragedy]

9. I don't know any women who say that looking at a person is the same as ogling them.

But the Seinfeld rule sounds like a good one.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

42. "You're supposed to just take a peek after a poke!" ....

[Orrex]

10. Does the time factor change if the ogler is licking his lips?

Please advise ASAP, because there's this dude on the other side of the office who's totally weirding me out.

[geek tragedy]

11. I dunno, did he just finish a hot chocolate? nt

[Orrex]

14. I wouldn't have thought so, but now you've got me wondering.

[Dash87]

95. Depends if he's a vampire

[Orrex]

98. Golly!

This gets more and more complicated.

[indie9197]

12. Do attractive men get to stare longer than unattractive men?

Just wondering about #5

[geek tragedy]

13. No, the point is to not flatter oneself as an excuse. nt

[politichew]

19. Yes.

Anecdotally, I've heard unattractive men called 'creepy' while more attractive men get a free pass for those same actions.

If how comfortable you are with being ogled at depends on how attractive the ogler is, your problem is that you're an asshole.

[geek tragedy]

27. 'anecdotally'

The same principle applies to sexual harassment at the workplace.

Assume the ogling is unwelcome, and you'll be doing everyone a favor.

[bettyellen]

129. I have seen men on the net seethe with resentment- that they can't "get away" with foul behavior

that more charming or powerful men seemingly get away with. (or the jerks women date- hey, they're jerks too!)

And these guys are the ones worried about being called creeps- yet they write so sadly about how they can't get away with being bigger creepers. Yeah, that's just brilliant.

[gollygee]

132. Wanted vs unwanted attention

If you think you have a right to give a person unwanted attention to the same level as someone else from whom that attention is wanted, your problem is that you're an asshole.

[treestar]

145. Possibly

Women are judged on that so what's wrong with judging men on it? Attractive women get more dates, so do attractive men.

Actually we end up with someone somewhat like us on that scale, so there's no point in staring at attractive women if you're an unattractive man. Such women get a lot of it and will be annoyed. But if it's a handsome man, they might be interested. See how it works? Why do men think it's a one way street - they get to do the choosing and the woman is supposed to be eager, even if he's overestimated his attractiveness big time.

[sir pball]

15. #4 is an inverse.

The longer they stare, the happier it makes me - TFMP (The Future Mrs. Pball) is a hottie, the world BETTER appreciate it! I'd be more offended by a dismissive glance than an ogle.

(Hi jury. 1. That's was tongue-in-cheek. 2. Well, actually, it wasn't - she and I have discussed this and we're both comfortable enough with ourselves that we're amusingly flattered when ogled/stared at, at least in a non-threatening fashion. And don't think you're going to get me quiet, I have no hides in the last 90 so if ya really want I've got one to burn.)

[geek tragedy]

17. Which is why there are 5 questions, with the shortest time period of the five chosen. nt

[sir pball]

20. I was being facetious.

I generally agree with the Seinfeld rule, glance or at best a second and a half.

Though I do think #5 could be read as a little disingenuous; it's going to obviously be an order of magnitude shorter than any of the others since it's set in private vs. public - I wouldn't want to be alone with a vaguely creepy, unattractive MOS for any time at all even if they weren't openly looking at me.

[geek tragedy]

28. being unattractive doesn't make someone creepy.

It could be just sitting in a conference room going over documents or something.

[sir pball]

30. No, it doesn't. I should have simply said "creepy"

I still think it's a different standard than the other 4 though, what would work as a passing glance in public could very well be taken far worse in private. I'd say it's a safe presumption that general standards of acceptable behavior are at least somewhat different for public vs. private settings.

[geek tragedy]

34. That can apply in public too.

For instance, a crowded subway car where the person is in close proximity.

[sir pball]

47. Meh. Since I was supposed to ask myself the questions...it doesn't.

I'm routinely crammed into very close proximity to a lot of people I wouldn't want to be alone with for any length of time at all while in public and it doesn't really affect me at all. My point is, the answer any reasonable person should come up with for #5 is "not at all; one doesn't even steal passing glances while alone." Which makes the answer "Not at all" even for public - which, while I'm sure some here would agree with, would be against the group consensus. I honestly know *I* act differently in public vs. private.

[geek tragedy]

48. maybe, though for it to be noticeable there has to be some duration beyond random eye movements nt

[Sheldon Cooper]

16. I'm sure that all these guys who claim they're just being appreciative of the beautiful female body

would shit their pants if this was done to them by a big potentially scary guy.

[geek tragedy]

18. Yup. Even if it's not scary but completely unwelcome nt

[Harmony Blue]

122. Nope

maybe that is your fear.

[RC]

22. How dare anyone admire beauty and attractiveness in public. Oh, the horror!

Especially when it is hard wired in the brains of everyone.
I look and when the person has gone out of my line of vision, so is any thought of them. Women do it also. I know because sometimes a women I am with will mention it. "Hey, look over there", and when I do, there is some sharp looking dude. I once knew a woman that would voice what she would like to do with whomever, in cases like this. Was I offended? No. Why? Because she was being honest. She was comfortable with herself. Comfortable in her own skin.
But that doesn't count, does it? Because that isn't an example of a short coming of a man, when women do it.

[LanternWaste]

25. It can often be bemusing not merely how often we rationalize our rude behavior, but also in how we

It can often be bemusing not merely how often we rationalize our rude behavior, but also in how we rationalize it.

[geek tragedy]

29. Being a disturbing creep is not hardwired into our DNA. And you conflate 'noticing' with 'ogling'

Ogling is not admiration, it's just creepy.

Staring is not admiration, it's creepy.

[RC]

38. But looking is hard wired.

And is part of our survival mechanism. One person's looking is another ogling. Some people are more sensitive to people looking a them than others. Most people can just ignore it. Some people seem to have a problem with it and others never notice people looking at them.

[geek tragedy]

41. Assume the person has a problem with being ogled. It's called 'respect.'

Ogling is inherently disrespectful, since it disregards any concern for the person being ogled. It's entirely selfish, and entirely creepy.

Ya, you can get away with it sometimes. So what? It's not a woman's fault if she objects to being ogled. It's the ogler's fault.

And, the point of this is how to avoid ogling. Looking is okay, no one is denying that. Ogling is not, and there is a difference.

[smirkymonkey]

141. I am kind of lucky in that I have never noticed being checked out, but have had other friends point

it out to me that I was being stared at or ogled, so I guess it never really offended me. I am sort of clueless in that way.

It is kind of a good thing now that I am getting a bit older because I don't notice any change, even though I am still fairly attractive for my age. There have been a few creeps, but for the most part the attention has been mostly respectful and flattering.

[MineralMan]

45. Looking at the people who are looking, it's easy to tell

who is just looking and noticing and who is ogling. The ogler gives him or herself away almost every time.

Anyone can spot someone who is staring at another person and thinking sexual thoughts. It's that slack-jawed intensity that tells the tale.

E.G.:



The guy in the photo is so going to get it from the woman in about 30 seconds. He is a moron of the first water.

[RC]

50. Most people are not that obvious.

[MineralMan]

51. So you say. I've seen lots of guys doing this.

They may not know they're obvious, but they are. I don't know about you, but I rarely think about my expression and how I look to others on a regular basis.

I know how I'm dressed, and whether my hair is neat, but my facial expression. I don't give it a thought most of the time.

A guy who is leering or ogling is more obvious than you'd think. Just ask any woman.

[Orrex]

90. That's both circular reasoning and the fallacy of confirmation bias.

A guy who is leering or ogling is more obvious than you'd think. Just ask any woman.

Leering is, by definition, an overt behavior, so your circular statement amounts to "Obviousness is obviously obvious."

A stronger formulation would be "Some guys who are ogling are more obvious than they might realize," but the assertion itself is weaker. Further, it's entirely possible (indeed, quite likely) that many men and women are able to leer/ogle in a non-obvious manner.


The fact that you aren't particularly conscious of your own expression has no impact on how conscious others are of their own.

[MineralMan]

91. You know...I don't really care.

I'm not engaging in a closely-monitored philosophical discussion here. If one starts, please let me know, and I'll change my posting diction.

[Orrex]

93. I would think that you'd want to be able to back up your assertions, or maybe not.

Maybe you're one of those people who likes to issue proclamations, expecting us all to acquiesce to your sovereign wisdom or whatever. You're as free to state your opinion as anyone else, but if you're trying to make a serious or convincing point, then you should to do a little better than giving up and saying "I don't really care."

[MineralMan]

96. You seem eager to tell me what I should and should not do yourself.

I think that what I will do is what I always do, and post as I please. There is a disclaimer in every post of mine, in the signature line, that explains that what I write is my opinion. I do not believe I need to restate that for every post within the body of the post. I expect nothing from those who read my posts, and certainly not acquiescence with anything at all. For my standard disclaimer, please see the signature line below:

[Orrex]

100. Well, all right.

Someone could equally assert the opinion that they're not "ogling/leering" when they stare at someone else, and if we're content to leave it in the realm of opinion, then we have little basis for criticizing that person.

In a discussion of this type, when "the eye of the beholder" is really the essence of the issue, I'm inclined to rely less on opinion and more on aspects that can quantified more objectively.

YMMV

[MineralMan]

103. You can post any opinion you can imagine.

I promise that I'll always take it as your opinion, unless you're posting someone else's words or are carefully documenting your sources. I consider any original posting on DU to be the opinion of the writer. I have chosen to make that clear in my own posts by including that disclaimer in my signature line.

My opinion carries no weight, has no authority, and should never be taken as any sort of instruction that anyone should feel forced to follow. It's merely my opinion, and stating my opinion is why I post on DU.

I will rely on you to post as you see fit, and hope you will understand that I will do the same.

[Orrex]

108. It's possible to post a logical argument that isn't based on opinion

Certainly I don't expect my opinion to sway anyone on its own, but when participating in a logical argument, one's opinion doesn't necessarily enter into it at all. In fact, "that's your opinion" would be a pretty feeble rebuttal in that case.


Also, regarding signatures: I almost never bother to read them any more because their small typeface and pale gray font don't show up well on my phone or monitor.

[MineralMan]

110. Well, I appreciate this continuing conversation, but I'm afraid

I have other things to do just now.

[Orrex]

111. LOL. Yeah.

I was trying to think of a way to get out of it that wouldn't make me look crankily dismissive.

Thanks for drawing it to a neat close.

[Whiskeytide]

94. Now you've done it....

... we're going to need some rules about the proper etiquette for ogling oglers!!

[MineralMan]

97. No ogling is required. A quick glance tells the tale.

[MattBaggins]

32. It's hard wired into muh brainz

Epicest epic fail of all time.

[xulamaude]

35. +1

[RC]

49. Being animals, we have a lot of epic fail hard wired in our brains.

[MineralMan]

52. And being rather intelligent animals, we can control a lot of that

hard-wiring in our brains when it suits us. Yup.

[MattBaggins]

55. No

You may have faulty wiring you can not overcome, but please don't speak for all of us.

[geek tragedy]

63. yet most of us manage to overcome that . . . nt

[Harmony Blue]

134. I didn't realize you are

anti-science

Not surprised.

[MattBaggins]

137. I have a degree in Biology and working on a Nursing one

I got the Science down there little fella.

[Harmony Blue]

138. Apparently you don't understand

evolutionary biology but that is okay.

[MattBaggins]

146. OK

Bless your little heart child

[NuclearDem]

64. Naturalistic fallacy.

That's how it is in nature, so that's just how it should be.

[Orrex]

92. Good call. Further...

Being natural creatures, nothing humans do can be unnatural. Therefore it is natural to leer. Therefore it is also natural to not-leer.

"Natural" is a term of elastic meaning and is conscripted into the service for all kinds of agendas. The word itself is not objectively positive or negative and is simply a label of propaganda. It shouldn't be taken as a means to justify nor condemn.

[MineralMan]

23. Frankly, I don't think those who are saying they can't tell the difference

are not being truthful. I think everyone knows the difference. Some, however, apparently think they have a right of some kind to peer at others lustfully.

And that, I think is where the difference between a look and a leer. If you're looking and thinking about the sexual desirability of the other person, then odds are you're leering/ogling.

Noticing a person and even thinking that person is somehow striking in appearance is fine. But, the second it becomes, "I'd sure like to...," it has gone too far, and is probably making that person feel uncomfortable and making you look like some pervy moron.

When I was in the business of selling mineral specimens to collectors, my wife and I shared an office suite. Along with my website business, I also had a showroom. Along with the specimens, I had a few pieces of jewelry that incorporated mineral crystals of various kinds in unique settings. A jewelry designer I knew created them, using specimens from my stock and we split the profits. So, a few people would wander in from time to time to see what I had.

One day, a woman and some of her friends came into the shop area of the office suite. The woman was literally strikingly beautiful. No two ways about it. Clearly, anyone would have noticed her appearance and I'm no exception. Later, my wife commented on her appearance to me, making the same observation. Anyhow, I asked her how I could help her and, while talking to her, I noticed her eyes, which were an unusual shade of blue.

She said that she was looking for a piece of jewelry that would be different from what she could find in the jewelry stores, and I immediately knew which piece in my shop was the one. I had a necklace with a large, hexagonal prismatic crystal of aquamarine set in white gold. Its color was as close a match to her eye color as possible. It was a rather large pendant, and hadn't found a buyer, probably because of its size. But it was a pretty amazing-looking piece of jewelry. So, I went and got it and showed it to her. She bought it instantly, because it was, in fact, uniquely suited to her.

And that was that. I didn't leer at this woman, think about having sex with her, or any such thing. Instead, I looked at her so I could find a way to meet her requirements for a purchase. She was still strikingly beautiful, but that's just her good fortune. My good fortune was in having a piece of unique jewelry that matched her eyes. Good luck all around.

[geek tragedy]

26. one prominent test for pedophiles

was to show them various photos of men, women, and children on a computer screen, and ask them to rate each according to how sexually stimulated it made them feel, and then click to move on.

Except the test data of most interest wasn't the rating, it was how long they took to answer--the longer they paused on the image to look at it . . .

[ismnotwasm]

31. They're not

Every body flirts, interacts, admires, There is a huge difference between a fun part of human interaction and creepy leering.

[MineralMan]

39. Yes. We all notice other people.

Sometimes, we are struck by someone's appearance. But, leering or ogling is just plain rude. You're right. People flirt, interact, and admire others. In a passing situation, where there is no personal contact though, the only thing that is really acceptable is just noticing someone's appearance. In the rare case where there is subsequent eye contact, a nod and a pleasant smile are the only appropriate responses, I think.

Standing there gap-jawed and following an attractive person with your eyes is tantamount to stalking, in my opinion. I see attractive people wherever I go. They get a glance, but that's all. There will be another attractive person along shortly.

[Iggo]

24. Good luck.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. If you can't speak politiely to the person that you are looking at -

you might be a Pervy Creep.

[K.O. Stradivarius]

36. I wear mirrored sunglasses all the time

That way, the object of my attention never knows I'm ogling her, and my wife (when she's with me), isn't any the wiser either.

[geek tragedy]

37. Cool story, bro nt

[K.O. Stradivarius]

43. I'm almost tempted to purchase a set of Google Glasses

if and when they come out in a mirror finish and record my sightings.

I'm just a bit concerned of looking too much like a geek if i did, though.

[geek tragedy]

46. there's a reason the term 'glasshole' exists nt

[rrneck]

40. But what if a beautiful woman

accompanied by a large strong man was directly in front of you and your spouse on a crowded subway car and she had a big booger hanging out of her nose?

If we used your criteria and settled on a length of time, would you find that determination acceptable? If not, justify your decision.

What, exactly, are we supposed to be thinking when we look at other people? Do you have a way to determine what those thoughts are and how to regulate them?

[geek tragedy]

44. Staring is disrespectful and rude, regardless of whether its merely rude and disrespectful

or whether there's an additional dimension of sexualized creepiness.

Behavior and thoughts are two different things. The latter is entirely your business, the former not so much.

[rrneck]

53. Define "staring".

We all think we know what it is, but it's really subjective.

The specific conditions under which "staring" becomes rude involves a set of criteria too large to be easily quantified by anyone outside of direct experience. The problem with discussions like this is that they depend on the assumption of "sexualized creepiness" or aggression or any other motivation that best suits the critique rather than any attempt at an accurate examination of the motivations of the behavior in question. We could churn through competing scenarios all day if you want. Your evaluation of George Clooney looking at you "that way" would be significantly different from your response to the same stare from the Son of Sam. Mix and match the principles in the analogy to suit yourself.

The length of time one person looks at another has less to do with it than what the person doing the looking is thinking. So complaints of "creepy staring" are really complaints about what people think when they stare. The only useful purpose of such discussions is to reinforce preconcieved notions about the attitudes of others.

[geek tragedy]

54. No, it's actually simple enough that most people learn it in childhood. nt

[rrneck]

56. Really?

No, you don't learn it in childhood. You relearn it every day by interacting with a wide range of people under a wide range of circumstances.

"Male gaze" is an ideological construct, nothing more. There is no a priori amount of time one person should look at another, or why. Assumptions to the contrary have more to do with the establishment of ingroups and outgroups than any understanding of human interaction.

[geek tragedy]

58. children are taugh to not stare

Virtually every man alive can avoid ogling a woman's body parts if he puts his mind to it. Those who profess an inability to avoid ogling are actually just choosing to do so.

[rrneck]

72. What's your point?

Rude behavior is rude. Everyone agrees on that, so why are we having this conversation? Edification is impossible without some sort of criteria. Before it was staring, now it's ogling. Well, ogling is staring with intent. How are we to apply your standard in the real world? It's impossible, so there must another reason for this discussion.

The underlying function of the concept of the "male gaze" is not that men look at women, or that images of women are presented to the public, but to give an ersatz criteria for why a woman is being looked at. It assumes motivations that may or may not be there, and it can safely do so because verification of those motivations is impossible. It assumes the motivations of an entire class of people based on the narrowest of criteria to force a foregone conclusion.

[geek tragedy]

74. Because we have idiots out there--including on this website--who insist

that women like being ogled, that men have no choice but to ogle, and that if women don't like being ogled they should wear a burka.

[rrneck]

78. Yes, they're out there.

Somewhere. Ogling. Oh my.

If someone here feels that women like being ogled or wear a burka you should have this conversation with that person. But you didn't do that did you? Instead, you indulged in an exception fallacy.

An exception fallacy is sort of the reverse of the ecological fallacy. It occurs when you reach a group conclusion on the basis of exceptional cases. This is the kind of fallacious reasoning that is at the core of a lot of sexism and racism.

[geek tragedy]

79. Um, wut?

About what group am I drawing conclusions?

[rrneck]

88. Read your own OP.

"looking vs ogling/staring, a primer for men"

[geek tragedy]

89. read the first line of the post:

Since there's obviously some confusion amongst a few men here at DU as to why it's considered rude to stare at women's body parts

[rrneck]

118. Well, yeah, it's different.

We can't make much of a distinction. I mean, you're not trying to write the Great American Novel here. The only distinction that can be made is that the subject line of a forum post is much like the headline in a news article, which is to say it is designed to attract attention. But in your case it could just be a bit of shorthand.

But what if you were specifically trained in the use of language to express certain ideas, and not only were you trained to do that, but your livelihood depended on it. And what if you had an assortment of peers and editors to assist you in the expression of those ideas through a process of criticism and development? What would we say then of that niggling distinction?

Precision in language becomes much more important when your reputation and bank account are on the line. If you're an expert, you give careful thought to exactly what catchy phrase you use. What then are we to make of the phrase "male gaze"? Like I said, it is an ideological construct more effective at obfuscation than explanation. When geek tragedy does it, it's an oopsie. When Laura Mulvey does it, it's to provide a foil for the creation of an ingroup against an outgroup, the membership of which can be interpreted according to the dictates of the ideological construct.

[Matariki]

57. Also, if a woman is out in public assume she is attending to her life

and just wants to get from point A to point B and not make a 'date' with every asshole guy she passes on the way.

[hfojvt]

59. hmmm

1. looking somebody in the eyes, requires more proximity than other staring

2. she's never supposed to know you are looking. But at the same time, she cannot know I was looking for, say, five seconds without having been looking at me the whole time. So who is doing the staring?

3. have never had a spouse/partner so that question seems moot. Obviously, once one has a spouse/partner/serious SO then the rules change.

4. eat your heart out guys

5. not sure why attractiveness makes a difference, and that just seems like a slippery slope argument.

[geek tragedy]

60. some guys have convinced themselves that women like to be ogled by good looking guys

and that if a woman resents being ogled she's a superficial hypocrite because if that guy looked like George Clooney she'd be grateful instead of offended.

#5 is intended to remove that excuse/talking point.

[zappaman]

61. Everybody do The Creep!

[geek tragedy]

62. one of my favorite musical shorts from SNL nt

[Humanist_Activist]

65. Actually I had a funny habit as a kid that lead to many embarrassing moments...

when bored, I used to daydream a lot, the issue is this, it was kinda like JD on Scrubs, but instead of looking up and tilting my head, I usually just looked straight ahead or slightly down, eyes open, but not really seeing anything in front of me. This was habitual until I was about 13 or so, I guess, I kinda grew out of it, or I'm less bored now, whatever.

But I have had people ask me what I was staring at as a result, and what was really on my mind were dinosaurs, what Lego creation I was going to build after I get home from school, or how I'm going to beat The Legend of Zelda. For a slightly socially inept kid, it was not a plus for my life, gave ammunition to bullies, etc. I tried really hard to only "space out" after looking at a wall or something innocuous, but sometimes that didn't work.

Just thought to chip in with a funny story.

[geek tragedy]

66. I had trouble in job interviews--I thought I was giving the "I'm taking

this conversation very seriously" look when in reality it was the "creepy, almost disturbing stare" look.

[Humanist_Activist]

68. How about the coincidental glances that happen...

those are the weirdest, like you glance at this woman at a club or something, and she's glancing back, but when you look again, she is too, its like your synchronized, so gives the appearance of staring, but not really. Then you both get uncomfortable and ignore each other the rest of the night.

[geek tragedy]

70. that's unfortunate.

if two people bust each other sneaking a peek, there's probably some conversations that should occur . . .

[Humanist_Activist]

71. More like, "yeah I'm checking her out...wait is she checking ME out?"

Then you look away because you were "caught", then you glance back to make sure she was checking you out, then see her sneaking a peek too, and boom, instant awkwardness. Of course, I could be over thinking things, I was also younger and stupider, but hey, now I'm spoken for, so no regrets now.

[geek tragedy]

75. mutual awkwardness is a very genuine experience nt

[Spirochete]

69. I just casually look

Never get dirty looks or attitude from anyone.

The binoculars annoy some of them, though...

[Humanist_Activist]

73. Telescopes! That way you don't have to be anywhere near them...

you'll never get caught with the tripod setup on the boardwalk next to the beach!

[Bennyboy]

127. Ding a ling.. Ogle from the comfort of your own home.....

:Buys tower condo in San Francisco:

[Humanist_Activist]

128. No, what you do is build a big observatory on top of a building, that faces towards the beach and...

not towards the sky, see, simple!

[U4ikLefty]

153. You win the thread

[Shivering Jemmy]

76. 3 and 4 seem to presume some kind of sexual exclusivity arrangement between spouses

I don't know if people in non-exclusive relationships should be scored higher on the creeper factor just by default.

I think the rest of the questions are on target.

[geek tragedy]

77. I anticipated that not every question will provide an answer

for every person. Indeed, some people are into swapping/sharing/swinging, so obviously that wouldn't apply at all to them.

[Shivering Jemmy]

81. gotcha

and not quibbling with your broader point at all.

[Humanist_Activist]

80. another story of awkwardness from High School, and why guys should only glance and never stare...

Sitting behind the lead cheerleader in Trig, I stared, a lot, I'll admit it, I was also, in my defense, 16 or so, and she was HOT. She also never caught me because I was directly behind her, and those chairs didn't have a complete back so I got a full view, as it were.

But you know where this cocktail of ever raging hormones, teenage awkwardness, and classes only being about an hour long? Yep, difficulty in standing, and it was pretty much an issue throughout all my years of high school. Then again, thinking back on it, staring at a cheerleader for an hour a day may have helped, but certainly wasn't 100% necessary for me to embarrass myself.

I also was quite an expert in shifting my trapper keeper in strategic ways to hide my, uhm, libido.

[MineralMan]

99. Ah, yes. Secretly re-arranging one's generative member

was a useful skill in high school, as I remember. A necessary skill, as well. Given the spontaneity of embarrassing random arousals, it was a skill we all had to learn.

My first real girlfriend in high school, outspoken always, said, early in our relationship "That thing's going to get you in trouble some day."

[Humanist_Activist]

104. I find it funny how ignorant many women, are about how...

little control we have over arousal in many cases, even now, in my mid-30s, if my jeans rub me the, ahem, right way, it rises to the occasion, even if I don't want it too and don't get me started on morning wood, which is still a recurring and annoying problem, and something I've suffered since I was about 14 or so.

[MineralMan]

105. Actually, I believe it is a matter of considerable amusement for most women.

I think you may be underestimating their knowledge of such things, really. That girlfriend I mentioned was only 15 when she told me that. I suspect such information is sometimes discussed among girls and women, privately. I do not know that for certain, of course. I do have a sister, though, who is a year younger than I am. I'm pretty sure she knew about such things, early on.

[Humanist_Activist]

106. I don't know, I think some of them suspect it, but frankly...

particularly in our culture, very few ask men about it, due to prudishness, I've been, for lack of a better term, grilled by girlfriends and female friends about this issue before, so that's where my bias comes from. They all pretty much thought we had full control over it at all times. Even on the internet this ignorance is displayed times a 1000.

[MineralMan]

109. I don't know about that. When I turned 13, way back in 1958, my

parents gifted me with a book of the period on adolescence and sex education. Rather primitive, it was, and far from disclosing answers to all of the many questions I wanted answered, it did explain spontaneous arousal and related matters pretty clearly. The book wasn't just for boys, so I'm assuming that girls of the time also got the same book. At least enough of them did to pass the information along to others.

I learned more from the "Facts about Marriage" book my parents had in the bookshelf. That book contained answers to most of my questions, along with useful tips and suggestions I did not have a chance to try for some considerable time after I read it. It was very enlightening. It's surprising how frank some educational materials in the 40s and 50s were. My mother was somewhat alarmed when she saw me reading that book but, in her typical way, just shrugged it off. The book was there, and I was a voracious reader, so she wouldn't have been surprised. She said, many times, "I think that book might be a little too mature for you." When I continued to read whatever book was in question, she'd just shrug.

[smirkymonkey]

144. Women go through the same thing. I admit that I am guilty of ogling, but I try not to be obvious

about it. I think, however we get a vibe when someone is doing it to us. I happen to have a thing for someone at work that I cannot take my eyes off of when I think he is not looking, however I can tell when he thinks that I am not looking he stares back at me. It doesn't offend me. I understand that it is just how attraction works. I can't really control it - my desire just overcomes me.

[KitSileya]

82. Can't someone post that cartoon of the woman being harassed

In all the panels except the last where her husband ignorantly claim that he would be complimented if women did that to him. I have it on my laptop, but I only brought my iPad with me now.

[arcane1]

83. It's a shame it has to be spelled out like that. I suspect some are just being obtuse.

At least I hope that's the case.

Be polite, not rude. The end.

[geek tragedy]

85. Thank goodness you are not representative of men. I will be even more thankful

if MIRT doesn't let you get to double digits.

[cthulu2016]

86. You really outed yourself with #3 and #4

[geek tragedy]

87. Devastating rejoinder. nt

[liberal N proud]

101. What's "unatractive" have to do with it?

[geek tragedy]

115. It's a common dodge/fallacy amongst certain men that women are superficial and don't object

to creepy stares/ogling/leering from good looking men, so the problem is those women not the men because how is the man to know if the women will be grateful for him ogling her breasts?

So, remove that fallacy/excuse from the equation. Also, for bisexual men this avoids the other dodge of "if a hot guy ogles me it's my lucky day, so there I've proven that women are superficial when objecting to creepy stares."

[Harmony Blue]

102. This list is a joke

that is all because all of this is subjective.

[geek tragedy]

113. Yes, the point is that men should place themselves in the shoes of someone who might

object to the ogling in order to see if they're being rude/making women uncomfortable without knowing it.

[redqueen]

107. It's rude to stare.

This has been simply considered common sense for ages.

[geek tragedy]

114. And, after "no hitting" and "sharing" one of the first lessons children learn nt

[Shivering Jemmy]

121. I've avoided a lot of problems

simply by not making eye contact. Staring at someone just makes eye contact more likely. So "don't stare" is just a corollary of "don't make eye contact" for me.

I will admit that sometimes my friends find this disconcerting.

[Jester Messiah]

112. No one who needs these instructions will heed them.

Would it not be preferable to focus on controlling one's own reactions & behavior, rather than attempting to control that of others?

[OnlinePoker]

116. Women, for the love of god stop wearing shirts with writing on them

On more than one occasion, I've been reading what is on a woman's t-shirt only to look up to see her giving me a dirty look. I wasn't even aware I was looking at their breasts at the time, just reading what was written there.

[geek tragedy]

117. OFFS.

[OnlinePoker]

120. ? n/t

[Harmony Blue]

123. Shirts?

How about shorts with writing on them haha?

[OnlinePoker]

124. I haven't seen those, to be honest.

But I do the same on guys t-shirts and get pretty much the same reaction. I guess in this information age, I might be missing out on some vital data or something. It's weird that I don't see the body behind the message, though.

[grahamhgreen]

152. I keep trying to read what's on the back of those "PINK" short shorts, but I

still haven't got past "P", lol

[Lizzie Poppet]

125. FWIW, I believe I can "tell the difference."

To me, the difference between rude, disrespectful ogling and a polite "check out" is pretty obvious. I have no problem with the latter, either. As many have pointed out, there's some pretty powerful biological evolution going on there. The difference lies in when a guy understands when to break off the glance. I might also point out that when I catch a guy maintaining the gaze a bit too long and he breaks it off with an embarrassed, sheepish expression, I can find that attractive as hell.

The ones that keep leering or (worse) spout some cheese ball line? Enjoy your right hand, loser...

Oh, and geek tragedy, I like that rule of thumb in the OP. hit.nail.head

[liberalmuse]

126. It's pretty obvious.

And it's a fine line in most cases. But there are those men who are so obviously lascivious that you can't really blame us women for being grossed out. Then again, there are those men who manage to seem outwardly appreciative and respectful, who might be thinking really nasty thoughts, but at least they've mastered not showing it and making women feel uncomfortable and worse, violated.

I think the answer to all of the questions above are >5 seconds, unless you are engaged in a two-way conversation.

I forgot this:


Most men already know exactly what is and is not appropriate.

[hughee99]

130. I guess this may be helpful, but as I've been reminded on several occasions...

It doesn't really matter what I think about this. It doesn't matter what I think is an acceptable time, what matters is what the "subject/victim" thinks is acceptable. If I'm okay with 2 seconds, but my "victim" thinks 1 second is the limit, I'm a creep. If I think 1/2 second is fine, but my "subject" thinks 1 is the limit, then I'm not. No one thinks they, themselves, are a creep, so whether one is or is not is a judgment made by others. In the end, you're always "taking your chances".

[geek tragedy]

131. one misunderstanding does not make a person a creep.

But you are correct that a person is always taking a chance when their eyes linger anywhere but the eyes.

[hughee99]

133. It really depends on the person. I've seen people labeled all sorts of things

after being viewed for just a few seconds... I'd like to think everyone is given the benefit of the doubt as long as they seem to be putting in a good effort, but I'm sure that's not always true. As far as "just the eyes" goes, many people find eye contact with a stranger very creepy if it lasts long enough, and that's regardless of gender.

A person is always taking their chances.

[Harmony Blue]

135. Exactly it is subjective

each person's feelings and comfort level varies.

[tjwash]

136. Yes - there is a difference between casual eye contact and the piercing stare of a psychopath.

Unfortunately - I can also see by a lot of the responses on this thread, that there are some guys that really do not get out that often.

Fortunately - internet message boards are not indicative of society as a whole.

[Blue_Adept]

140. The real trick

is to just watch porn in the comfort of your home instead of ogling in public. No harm, no foul.

[geek tragedy]

147. Unless pr0n trains or conditions one to view women

in a certain way.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. "Hai, Doggy!"

[panader0]

143. Why is this "a primer for men"

I've been "ogled" by women many times. I feel so abused!

[grahamhgreen]

148. Even more simply,

look them in the eyes, if they return your gaze, smile, if they smile back - go talk to them. If they reject you, walk away. If they engage you, ask them out, for a number, or not.

But if they shame you or publicly humiliate you, laugh, walk away and count your blessings.... These are the worse kind of people.

[geek tragedy]

149. Actually,

yes.

Cheers

[grahamhgreen]

150. Uh-oh! We're in trouble now, lol;)