One of the common descriptions of male behavior that I read on feminist websites is "creepy". If all else fails, describe the behavior as "creepy". It's a trump card.

Sorry, Jerry, but it IS creepy to have some person staring at you or your kids -- whether that person is a man or a woman. I've had both stare at me. Probably a redhead fetish thing. Either that, or I had the back of my skirt tucked into my tights or something. It creeps me the hell out.

But, in what's increasingly becoming an unfree society, in most disturbing ways, you don't have a right to not be creeped out. You have a right to do what I've done: Snarl "Stop staring at me," block their view with a newspaper, or walk away.

So if a dad/uncle/brother/friend waits for a girl outside of a bathroom/lockerroom/school, he's now a criminal?

Why not just put all men into prison and save some time? It seems that some women won't rest until the world is devoid of men.

Why not just put all men into prison and save some time? It seems that some women won't rest until the world is devoid of men.

It sure is starting to seem that way.

What's really criminal is the way common sense has been thrown to the wayside in the name of "protecting the children". We need to get rid of the career politicians that are pandering to these people in the name of securing future votes.

"I've had both stare at me. Probably a redhead fetish thing. " Sorry about that; I didn't mean to be so obvious. Seriously, this is taking the old concept of loitering laws, which are already of dubious constitutionality, and stretching them beyond all recognition. Heck, why should the law protect just children? Adult women get stared at too. Why aren't they protected? After all, we all know what this law is really about.

So my question is: Given all these new laws, if a six-year-old boy stares at himself in a mirror, who's the victim and who gets arrested?

And people wonder why I have no interest in helping a child who looks lost or perhaps in trouble. Not worth wrecking my life.

Probably a redhead fetish thing.

Hey, at least I didn't drool. I don't think. Did I?

Amy- did you know that right next to this blog item is an advertisement for "izapmen.com"? Irony.

We went out to lunch on Saturday to a nice restaurant. While I was in the men's room, a woman walked in with her young daughter, and said there was a line for the women's room, and walked into the men's room stall. Amazing that your link to Lenore's blog described that exact same scenario.

It seems that some women won't rest until the world is devoid of men.

I do wonder if these prohibitions are actually escalating the perception of risk, in a way that justifies even more onerous restrictions. That their evolution is self driving. People will forget why the original legislation was introduced, and assume that it was motivated by a well established pattern of behavior that warranted such laws.

For instance, few people will remember that anti-looking laws were motivated by a single incident in which a man was seen watching a public rest room. Similarly people won't recognize that prohibitions on photographing children were inspired by the desire to make parents feel more comfortable, not any demonstrated risk to children by photography. So when the next such proposal comes up, these assumptions inform their justification. They become predicates for the new law.

Norm is spot on with this...

Interestingly, what is being eroded is the idea of a "Public Place"... which means not a private place. If someone leers at you, you confront them, like Amy, and Me. I'se 6' tall and shaped like a bear, "are you staring at my daughter?" Boyo probably broke the sound barrier leaving...

But this is a larger issue that contains the idea that you shouldn't have to [or indeed can't] defend yourself, and you should leave it up to police enforcing some sort of law. The problem is that you can't enforce 'till something goes wrong, so the definition of wrong keeps broadening... until it touches everyday normal life.

This also contains the idea that you are not allowed to defend yourself and can get into trouble for doing so.

Each small step logical in itself, leading you to someplace you don't want to be.

In an interesting way, this is also an extension of the over protective parenting culture [to come full circle] where children are never expected to have to endure any bump, or learn anything, or take responsibility for themselves.

And we are growing whole generations for which this is the norm.

This is just scary. WTF are we coming to? I don't like it not one bit!!

If you really thought that someone was stalking kids with the intent of molesting them, wouldn't it be a better idea to put them under surveillance rather than warn them that you're on to them? That way you could actually stop them before they committed a crime against a child. By warning them, you're giving them the opportunity to escape and devise a better plan.

Like I said, no common sense.

Amy, I find the word "creepy" to be very vague.

Near as I can tell, it's "real" meaning has very little to do about sexual connotations, but when I see it used by many women / most feminists, it's always has sexual connotations and is played as a trump card.

Unlike your statement that not everything can be criminalized, indeed, many people (mostly feminists) do advocate criminalizing "creepy" behavior. Behavior that by using the word creepy means they don't actually have to discuss just what was so horrible about the behavior, or how it intruded on anyone's rights. And if they don't literally mean to criminalize the behavior, they certainly use it to justify their own obnoxious, rude responses to it.

The urban dictionary seems to agree: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=creepy

Compare that definition with the traditional definition (one link per blog, so I'll let you find the traditional definition.)

And that's why I call it a feminist trump card.

Um, ... if I seem a little overly sensitive to the label creepy, then, um, hey look shiny object over there!

Jerry, I just checked Urban Dictionary myself, and every entry was preceded by a script-generated ad link that read "Buy creepy mugs, T-shirts, and magnets!" I had no idea that creepiness had gotten so popular. The ad-link irony is fruitful today.

Creepy is in the eye of the beholder and these days for some people, just an odd look gets them riled up. With feminists, they dress up sexy and then get upset when someone they don't like takes a gander.

I think SwissArmyD has it right. The problem is a lack of self-reliance and we as a people are being driven to complete sheeple status, reliant on government masters for everything.

"With feminists, they dress up sexy..." Sio

They do? Where?

So when do we get the story of the guy arrested for watching his own kids?

Touche Swiss. There are some in disguise though. :)

These moves to ban looking, and photography, and unrestricted interactions with kids, arise from a similar rational to that which supported racial segregation in the South. Then it was white women who were assumed to be at risk. So Black men were prohibited from being in their presence, except for certain formalized roles and relationships. Even though rape of white women by blacks was very rare, the measures were justified as being necessary to make these women feel safe. Their own prejudices justified the restrictions, despite being untrue and irrational. You can see evidence of this thinking in the writings of the Suffragettes, which promoted the idea the the 'women's vote' would be a bulwark against the tides of inferior races seeking to rape the nation.

Amy:

What Lenore Skenazy says and what the Maine statute in question says are two different things. Any curious reader can read the statute for himself or herself here: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec256.html

In order to convict a person for "visual sexual aggression against a child", a prosecutor must prove all of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1) Criminal capacity. The actor is aged 18 or older.

2) Criminal intent. The actor acted with a purpose of:

a. arousing or gratifying sexual desire; and/or

b. causing affront or alarm (applicable only to the act described in 3) a. below).

3) Criminal act. The actor:

a. exposes his or her genitals to a person under the age of 14 or causes that person to expose his or her genitals to the actor; or

b. intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person under the age of 14 . . . under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from such visual surveillance.

You quoted Skenazy as saying:

"Oh darn! You mean we couldn’t throw him in jail for just standing there, giving us the willies?"

Of course not, and you can't under the Maine statute Skenazy criticizes. The prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt criminal intent. In the case of a peeper, that's proven by (ahem) observable sexual excitement, masturbation, possession of child pornography, etc.

In addition to criminal intent, the prosecutor also has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor intentionally saw the uncovered private parts of a person. A pervert staring at a pubescent girl's covered breasts and drooling doesn't count. Neither does said pervert staring at Amy and creeping her out because s/he has a thing for redheads.

Finally, if the prosecutor can prove both intent and surveillance, he must prove that the actor saw the other person's private parts in circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe he or she was safe from such surveillance. Your kid is at a nude beach, and the pervert can look all he wants without committing a crime. However, if your kid is in a bathroom and the pervert has climbed up to look through a window, he's in trouble. If the pervert is next to your son at a urinal staring at your son's penis, well, that's a gray area. Somehow I don't think it's an imposition on me to avoid looking at other people using the urinal.

A jury can't rightly convict someone without proof of all of these elements. So in general I think this legislation is well-crafted to achieve a legitimate end.

Amy said: "It's very dangerous -- it means that any of us can be arrested on any trumped-up charge at any point."

If you have a bad prosecutor, defense lawyer, judge and jury, you'll have a bad outcome regardless of how well the law is written. The New Jersey bill you blogged about was truly awful-- an example of legislative laziness and incompetence that can't possibly survive judicial scrutiny. The Maine statute isn't comparable.

"Visual Sexual Agression" W T F?

Dale:
The example of the boy in the bathroom when a young girl walks in, sees him (likely it's urinals lined up side by side without partitions.. I know my schools were when I was a kid), then yells at her to leave upsetting her, seems to fit 1, 2b, 3a. Which is just F-ing stupid, but likely technically the way the law can be applied.