# "Creepy men" at Walmart **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 27, 2019, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160 "2019-06-27T15:37:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/121 "2019-06-28T02:07:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It’s ain’t that unshaven “creepy” dude in the smelly overcoat that going to rape your daughter, it’s that “great guy” who is your daughter’s swim coach. Stats back me out- it’s not "stranger danger’ it is a man you know and trust. You should check your stats. I don’t know what stats you are referring to, but I knew the Australian data that gave rise to statements like that, and there was a mixture of wishful thinking and ‘Chinese Whispers’/Telephone. The ‘man you know and trust’ category somehow expanded to include ‘that creepy guy you see at Walmart’, and the new larger category was bigger than the 'stranger from a different part of town that nobody had ever seen before" category. But if you looked at the original data reports, the categories “coach or teacher” and “family member” together were still smaller than “all the other cases”. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/122 "2019-06-28T02:17:37Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > No doubt. Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. I’m inclined to believe a woman’s, any woman’s, account of something that actually happened to her. My working assumption would be that, unless and until \*proven \*false, the story is true. > > Stories about suspicious-looking people stalking Wal-Marts in the sticks seeking women and children to grab and throw into unmarked vans to sell them into sexual slavery somewhere? > > Grain of salt. 😕 But this thread is not about stories like that. This story is about a viral social media post referencing **women’s own accounts of things that happened to them** : > [@](#): > > If I see one more “I was followed at such n such Walmart by some creepy dude", I swear I‘m going to lose my shit. If yall women dont learn how to turn around in aisle 13 and ask a mf what his problem is,. Call the police while in the store. All this “I went up to an associate. I spoke to a manager.“ Tf. They dont get hazard pay for that mess. Go grab a can of green beans and smack the dude in the face. Spray him in the eyes with some cooking spray. Choke him with a belt from the accessory aisle. Anything. SOMETHING. Then post that. Yall act like you’re helpless. WE’RE NOT HELPLESS.” #repost > I mean I carry, but even if you don’t, you got a whole store of weapons at your disposal. Better beep bop, meep mop the floor with that man. In other words, AFAICT, the author of that post appears to be angered by seeing so many **first-person accounts** (like the three or four I’ve already quoted in this thread) from women being subjected to unmistakably intimidating, lewd and/or criminal behavior by creepy dudes in a Walmart. And she’s exhorting women (maybe not totally seriously) to fight back physically with the weapons at hand. This has nothing to do with _“stories about suspicious-looking people stalking Wal-Marts in the sticks seeking women and children to grab and throw into unmarked vans to sell them into sexual slavery somewhere”_. **This is about women’s own first-person accounts of experiences with creepy strangers.** You know, the sort of accounts that you yourself just said you’re inclined to believe are true, unless and until proven false. Shee-eesh. What with **DrDeth** imagining that the issue is advocating violence against innocent men just for **looking** creepy, and now **Saintly Loser** imagining that the issue is people making up third-person anecdotes about suspected sex-slavery kidnappers, I’m starting to wonder how many people even here on the Dope actually know how to read anymore. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/123 "2019-06-28T02:27:42Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > You should check your stats. > > I don’t know what stats you are referring to, but I knew the Australian data that gave rise to statements like that, and there was a mixture of wishful thinking and ‘Chinese Whispers’/Telephone. > > The ‘man you know and trust’ category somehow expanded to include ‘that creepy guy you see at Walmart’, and the new larger category was bigger than the 'stranger from a different part of town that nobody had ever seen before" category. But if you looked at the original data reports, the categories “coach or teacher” and “family member” together were still smaller than “all the other cases”. You know, i wasnt going to come back here, but this is so fundamentally wrong- and dangerous: > **[Why parents don't need to worry about ‘stranger danger’](https://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1137790/stranger-danger-is-over-tricky-people/)** > > 'Stranger danger' is over; it's time we taught kids how to identify and respond to 'tricky people' — most of whom are not strangers — instead. > **[Stranger danger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_danger)** > > Stranger danger is the idea or warning that all strangers can potentially be dangerous. The phrase is intended to encapsulate the danger associated with adults whom children do not know. The phrase has found widespread usage and many children will hear it during their childhood. Many books, films and public service announcements have been devoted to helping children remember this advice. > Although there are other dangers such as kidnapping for ransom, the main threat with which stranger danger... H_owever, statistics by government and police bodies have shown that “stranger danger” killings of children are incredibly rare, and that the overwhelming number of cases of child abuse and murder were committed by someone who was known to the child. The Soham Murders in Cambridgeshire, where two 10-year-old girls were found dead two weeks after their disappearance in August 2002, are a notable example — the killer of the girls, Ian Huntley, was known to both of his victims, and his role as a local school caretaker perhaps portrayed him as a man with a position of trust, who would not appear to be a likely danger to children whether known to them or not_. > **[Criminology](https://books.google.com/books/about/Criminology.html?id=V1j5g8pvLxQC&pg=PA145&dq=%22stranger%2Bdanger%22#v=onepage&q=%22stranger%20danger%22&f=false)** > > This reader provides a comprehensive introduction for students studying criminology at undergraduate level. Not only does the book include 34 essential readings, but also editorial commentary with section introductions, study questions, and... > **[Who abuses children?](https://aifs.gov.au/resources/policy-and-practice-papers/who-abuses-children)** > > An overview of the current evidence on who is likely to be a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect > **[publications\_nsvrc\_factsheet\_media-packet\_statistics-about-sexual-violence\_0.pdf](https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf)** > > 130.92 KB > **[Statistics\_2\_Perpetrators.pdf](https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Statistics_2_Perpetrators.pdf)** > > 432.11 KB _About 90% of children who are victims of abuse know their abuser. 12,13 Only 10% of sexually abused children are abused by a stranger.12 Approximately 30% of children who are sexually abused are abused by family members. 12, 13_ [http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV26\_Revised%20Characteristics%20of%20Crimes%20against%20Juveniles\_5-2-12.pdf](http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV26_Revised%20Characteristics%20of%20Crimes%20against%20Juveniles_5-2-12.pdf) \*Perpetrators against Juveniles As figure 9 shows, in incidents where knowledge of perpetra‐ tors allows their identification as family member, acquaint‐ ance, or stranger, most offenders against juveniles (89 per‐ cent) are known to the victim (i.e., the offender is a family member or an acquaintance). Only 10 percent of the child victimizers in violent crimes are strangers, suggesting that while “stranger danger” may be an important concept in child safety training, it is far from sufficient. \* Please dont spread false facts. \*Stranger danger \*isnt even accepted any more: > **[Why Teaching Your Kids ‘Stranger Danger’ Is Dangerous](https://www.scarymommy.com/why-teaching-your-kids-stranger-danger-is-dangerous)** > > 'Stranger danger' can do more harm than good to a child. The biggest dangers are child abuse coming from their parents or someone else they are close to. > **['Stranger danger' lesson does more harm than good, warns charity](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stranger-danger-lesson-does-more-harm-than-good-warns-charity-10280789.html)** > > It calls for new message about recognising dangerous situations rather than people Now everyone can go back to completely misunderstanding my OP, and saying how great their “creepy radar” is and how men are creeps. 😛 enjoy! ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/124 "2019-06-28T02:36:57Z")
Back in the days when packs of Hare Krishnas roamed the airports, a smiling young man tried to give a flower to a young woman I knew. She got right in his face and growled, “FUCK OFF!” in a voice straight from The Exorcist. He fucked off right away. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/125 "2019-06-28T02:39:29Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In other words, AFAICT, the author of that post appears to be angered by seeing so many **first-person accounts** (like the three or four I’ve already quoted in this thread) from women being subjected to unmistakably intimidating, lewd and/or criminal behavior by creepy dudes in a Walmart. And she’s exhorting women (maybe not totally seriously) to fight back physically with the weapons at hand. We don’t know what the author of the post is angered by. She exhorts women who feel that they are being followed by a creepy guy to respond with force, armed force, and possibly lethal force (she says she carries, which generally means carrying a firearm). She does not give us the details of the stories to which she is responding. > [@Kimstu](#): > > This is about women’s own first-person accounts of experiences with creepy strangers.\*\* You know, the sort of accounts that you yourself just said you’re inclined to believe are true, unless and until proven false. I said that, yes. You have no reason to question my truthfulness in saying that. If a woman tells me (or says publicly, like, for instance, Christine Blasey Ford) that a man assaulted her, or aggressively pushed for sex, I’m going to believe her until given a very good reason not to believe her. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Shee-eesh. What with **DrDeth** imagining that the issue is advocating violence against innocent men just for **looking** creepy, and now **Saintly Loser** imagining that the issue is people making up third-person anecdotes about suspected sex-slavery kidnappers, I’m starting to wonder how many people even here on the Dope actually know how to read anymore. I have no idea what DrDeth imagines. I can assure you that I know how to read. I can also assure that I do not imagine the issue is people making up third-person anecdotes. I do think there’s an issue with people assuming that become someone “looks creepy,” that person must have ill intent, and the beholder is justified in taking some kind of action (violent action, if we’re to take the social media post that touched this whole thing off seriously) against said creep. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/126 "2019-06-28T02:45:26Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **Men creeping on strange women, on the other hand, is something that in real life happens all the time**. So when a woman reports that some creepy dude in a Walmart sniffed her hair or masturbated at her or pressed up against her or pinched her ass, the odds are that her story is accurate. Let me be perfectly clear. If some guy presses up against a woman, or pinches her ass, or jerks off at her (or pretty much anywhere except in the privacy of his own home), then that woman is perfectly justified in beating the living shit out of him and then calling the cops and having him arrested and publicly shamed as a sex offender for the rest of his life and imprisoned. I’m not so okay with the firearm stuff or actually killing him, but short of that, hey, he was asking for it. If he’s following her around, or even appears to be following her around, she’s justified in calling him on it and telling him to fuck off. In no uncertain terms, so that everyone hears it. Okay? We clear? But, if some weird-looking dude happens to be in the same aisle in a big store a bunch of times, that’s not conclusive proof that he’s doing anything wrong. So the beating the shit out of, etc. is \*not \*then justified. Follow me? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/127 "2019-06-28T02:54:33Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > We don’t know what the author of the post is angered by. Well, she explicitly **says** that what she’s angered by is reading so many online first-person accounts along the lines of “I was followed at such n such Walmart by some creepy dude”. And AFAICT, most such accounts are describing the narrator’s personal experience with some guy at a Walmart doing something seriously creepy, such as pressing up against her or groping her or following her out to her car or masturbating at her. > [@Saintly Loser](#): > > I do think there’s an issue with people assuming that become someone “looks creepy,” that person must have ill intent However, that doesn’t seem to be the same issue as the one in this viral post that the OP was complaining about, because the author of that post nowhere mentions anything about how anybody **looks**. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/128 "2019-06-28T03:03:18Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, she explicitly **says** that what she’s angered by is reading so many online first-person accounts along the lines of “I was followed at such n such Walmart by some creepy dude”. Which is not, itself, a first-person account. > [@Kimstu](#): > > And AFAICT, most such accounts are describing the narrator’s personal experience with some guy at a Walmart doing something seriously creepy, such as pressing up against her or groping her or following her out to her car or masturbating at her. I don’t know what “most” accounts are describing. That said, my post above (#126) was quite clear on what I thought would be the appropriate response to anything like what you describe. I think we’re pretty much on the same page. > [@Kimstu](#): > > However, that doesn’t seem to be the same issue as the one in this viral post that the OP was complaining about, because the author of that post nowhere mentions anything about how anybody **looks**. No. I mentioned that. My first post in this thread describes my experience with people who think someone is up to no good, and take action on that feeling. It was an accurate description of my experience. I’ll stand by that. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/129 "2019-06-28T03:06:45Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > But, if some weird-looking dude happens to be in the same aisle in a big store a bunch of times, that’s not conclusive proof that he’s doing anything wrong. So the beating the shit out of, etc. is \*not \*then justified. Nobody here is disagreeing with that. The point is that no evidence has been offered that anyone discussing this, including the author of the viral post that the OP was complaining about, is actually advocating any physical violence **against anybody who’s not doing anything wrong** , no matter how “weird-looking” he may happen to be. To recap: 1. All over the internet there are first-person accounts by women of having to deal with creepy guys in a Walmart who are inflicting on them behavior that is unmistakably intimidating, lewd, and/or criminal. 2. A woman makes a social-media post saying how angry it makes her to read first-person accounts by women along the lines of “I was followed at such n such Walmart by some creepy dude”, and urging women to aggressively confront or get physically violent with the “creepy dude” who’s frightening them in that situation. The post goes viral with a lot of enthusiastic approval. 3. Because the author of the post doesn’t explicitly specify exactly what behavior on the part of said “creepy dude” justifies the response she’s recommending, some men jump to the conclusion that she’s advocating violence against innocent men merely for **looking** “creepy”. 4. Some men persist for three pages of a messageboard thread trying to get other posters on board with their indignation about the issue that they’ve jumped to the conclusion about, but which nobody AFAICT is demonstrably in support of. 5. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/130 "2019-06-28T03:08:18Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > Which is not, itself, a first-person account. 😕 It’s a first-person account of her reading other women’s first-person accounts. Are you saying that she should disbelieve those first-person accounts, or that we should disbelieve hers? Edit: Wait a minute, I think I may see the problem here. Are you perhaps mixing up “first-person account” with “in-person account”? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/131 "2019-06-28T03:15:12Z")
Missed edit: That is, are you interpreting “first-person account” to mean something like “somebody recounting their experiences in a face-to-face conversation with someone they know”? ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/132 "2019-06-28T03:16:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 😕 It’s a first-person account of her reading other women’s first-person accounts. Are you saying that she should disbelieve those first-person accounts, or that we should disbelieve hers? The “chain of belief,” for want of a better term, is getting a bit stretched. Obviously, it’s a first-person account of her reading first-person accounts. It’s hard to argue with that. I mean, it’s a tautology. But, someone says, “I read a first-person account of creepy behavior, and here is my response, which advocates extreme violence,” and I must believe that the story said person cites actually says what she says it does, or justifies the response she advocates? No, not really. Look, I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me. I’m pretty sure that essentially we’re in agreement. I cited some personal experience which leads me to believe that some people react to vague feelings that something wrong is going on exactly as if something had actually happened. Having been on the receiving end of that, I’m not at all comfortable with that. I think that’s pretty understandable. That’s too close to the Bush doctrine for my comfort. That’s all. What are you taking exception to? Seriously, ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/133 "2019-06-28T03:17:56Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Missed edit: That is, are you interpreting “first-person account” to mean something like “somebody recounting their experiences in a face-to-face conversation with someone they know”? A first-person account is someone saying “x happened to me,” not someone saying “someone told me x happened to them,” or “I read a story online about x happening to someone.” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/134 "2019-06-28T03:27:55Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > What are you taking exception to? Well, for one thing, that you’re not paying enough attention to the distinction between “someone who thinks that there’s imminent danger of a pedophile kidnapping a child”, which is something that almost never happens, and “someone who thinks that a creepy dude is being lewd/threatening/criminal at her in a public place”, which is something that happens all the time. In other words, your personal experience with being falsely suspected of being a pedophile child-kidnapper is not really very relevant to accounts by women of being followed by creepy dudes in a Walmart. > [@Saintly Loser](#): > > But, someone says, “I read a first-person account of creepy behavior, and here is my response, which advocates extreme violence,” and I must believe that the story said person cites actually says what she says it does, or justifies the response she advocates? Nobody’s saying that you “must believe” that her response is correct or that her reporting is accurate. It’s taking all our time just trying to get you and some other posters in this thread to realize that it’s not particularly reasonable to believe that she’s advocating violence against innocent people **just for “looking creepy”**. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/135 "2019-06-28T03:32:55Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, for one thing, that you’re not paying enough attention to the distinction between “someone who thinks that there’s imminent danger of a pedophile kidnapping a child”, which is something that almost never happens, and “someone who thinks that a creepy dude is being lewd/threatening/criminal at her in a public place”, which is something that happens all the time. My concern is that some seem to think that “being lewd/threatening/criminal at her in a public place” (or anywhere else) should purely be a subjective determination made by the person who perceives him or herself to be the object of such lewd, etc. behavior. You know, in the eye of the beholder, like that. I disagree. I don’t think you’ll persuade me otherwise. And, by the way, the social media post that set off this whole thing only mentioned “following,” not masturbating, rubbing up against, etc. You seem to be saying that I’m expanding the discussion past the original bounds (which is absolutely true – so what? That happens in discussions). But so are you. If I’m moving the goalposts, so are you. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/136 "2019-06-28T03:40:12Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, for one thing, that you’re not paying enough attention to the distinction between “someone who thinks that there’s imminent danger of a pedophile kidnapping a child”, which is something that almost never happens, and “someone who thinks that a creepy dude is being lewd/threatening/criminal at her in a public place”, which is something that happens all the time. I’m well aware that they are very different things. > [@Kimstu](#): > > In other words, your personal experience with being falsely suspected of being a pedophile child-kidnapper is not really very relevant to accounts by women of being followed by creepy dudes in a Walmart. True. And, by the same token, the experience of women being followed (assuming they are in fact being followed, and not just seeing some dude shopping for the same stuff they’re shopping for) is not very relevant to my personal experience with being falsely suspected. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Nobody’s saying that you “must believe” that her response is correct or that her reporting is accurate. It’s taking all our time just trying to get you and some other posters in this thread to realize that it’s not particularly reasonable to believe that she’s advocating violence against innocent people **just for “looking creepy”**. Well, she’s clearly advocating that women use extreme, even lethal, violence against men who are following them. Even if the (unnamed, unquoted, uncited) women are right about being followed, there are more appropriate responses than bashing someone’s face in with canned goods, or shooting that person (that said, once a creep touches a woman, all bets are off, he’s asking for whatever he gets). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/137 "2019-06-28T03:43:29Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > My concern is that some seem to think that “being lewd/threatening/criminal at her in a public place” (or anywhere else) should purely be a subjective determination made by the person who perceives him or herself to be the object of such lewd, etc. behavior. Who, specifically, is advocating for that position? I don’t see anybody arguing for it in this thread, or in the viral post that spawned it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/138 "2019-06-28T03:49:26Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > Well, she’s clearly advocating that women use extreme, even lethal, violence against men who are following them. Nowhere does she say that “following them” is the **only** thing these “creepy dudes” are doing that the women object to. Again, you’re jumping to the conclusion that the woman who wrote the post, or the women whose accounts she’s responding to, are probably overreacting to innocent behavior on the part of men who don’t deserve such an extreme response. What I keep having to point out is that that’s a conclusion you’re jumping to, not one necessarily implied by the words of the post in question. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/139 "2019-06-28T03:50:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Who, specifically, is advocating for that position? I don’t see anybody arguing for it in this thread, or in the viral post that spawned it. Ok, fine, forget it. I read a bit of that into the viral post that was the subject of the OP. You don’t. I don’t think we’re going to have a meeting of the minds on this. On the rest of it, I think we’re actually closer that you believe. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160/140 "2019-06-28T03:53:19Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nowhere does she say that “following them” is the **only** thing these “creepy dudes” are doing that the women object to. Well, you got me there. She doesn’t say that “following” is the **only** thing these guys are doing. I absolutely concede that point. There is, in fact, an infinite number of other things that she doesn’t say. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-men-at-walmart/836160.md?page=8)