![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You Creep!
Nov. 30th, 2010 04:15 amI've had several run-ins with events in the last year or so that charge different entry fees for single men, than for women or couples. I have a MAJOR problem with this, for a couple of reasons. 1) It's sexist. Mirriam Webster defines sexism as: 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; 2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. Differing price structures based on sex fits this definition exactly. It discriminates against men by penalizing them and rewarding women. The reason for the penalty is based on a stereotype that men are more likely to be "creepy" than women, and only men who are not "creepy" will be willing to pay the extra money. Which brings us to my reason number 2) It's bullshit.
I've heard this shit before, that men are creepy, and we have to keep the creepy men away so that the hot women will want to come and play. Sorry, but that attitude is awfully creepy all by itself. First of all, not all men are creepy and a lot of women are. Anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously not another woman who has been stalked by one of those predatory women who think that being a woman gives them a license to act all creepy themselves, because it's somehow not creepy when the person behaving that way has a vagina.
Seriously, have you people ever been to a male revue? That's what we call strip joints for women where the dancers are men - don't ask me why, probably something bullshit like women are more "classy" and would only go to something called a "revue" or some other shit like that. Anyway, the women there are loud and obnoxious. They take liberties with the male dancers by grabbing them and trying to remove their clothing (most male revues keep their dancers in g-strings) or putting their hands inside the mens' thongs. They shout obscenities and make wolf-whistles. They laugh raucously to their friends and graphically speak of what they would like to make the dancers do for the womens' pleasure. In short, the way these women act would get them thrown out of a regular strip club within seconds of entering. This behaviour simply would not be tolerated at a club with female dancers. Male patrons of strip clubs are FAR more respectful of the rules and the women who work there, and I'm including the objectification of strippers in the comparison. And no, the male dancers don't like it. Male sex workers in general have much less power, and options, than women in the sex industry. They also don't have beefy bouncers to come and throw out female patrons who are getting fresh.
Some people seem to have the mistaken idea that the way to deal with discrimination or poor behaviour is to behave just as poorly right back, and not even in a "see how much this sucks? How do you like it?" sort of making-a-point way. If a man ever treated these women the way these women treat their dancers, these women would throw back and clock him one (and then expect him not to defend himself because you should never hit a "lady", even when she's beating the shit out of him).
But, back to the point, men are not the only "creepy" people out there, and when women are creepy, they sure have the men beat in the creep factor. And to be a single female who is either bisexual, or sets off people's gaydar, let me tell you that being approached by one of these women is damned uncomfortable! These women don't know how to take "no" for an answer. They think all they have to do is keep flattering you and you'll come around. They think that because they're women, they automatically know what you need and how to please you. And they don't get how fucking creepy it is to have some strange woman pimp out her husband to you by trying to get you into a threesome because she/they have somehow decided that a woman doing the pimping is less creepy than the man doing the pimping. Look lady, I don't care what set of genitals you have, hitting on me in order to talk me into fucking your man while you watch (or fucking you so your husband can jack off) is fucking creepy. And continuing to do it when I've indicated my lack of interest is just rude. If a guy could get rejected or thrown out for doing it, then you shouldn't be doing it either.
It's also bullshit because charging extra money doesn't keep the creeps out, even if they *are* all guys. Let's see, you want to put on an event but you don't want guys who disrespect women and make them feel uncomfortable, so your method of achieving this is to charge them extra money? Have you been paying any attention at all to American hetero dating? Those men who have the biggest sense of entitlement about sexuality, particularly women's sexuality, those men who think women *owe* them sex, are the same men who think they can land a chick by waving around their wallet. These are the guys who think all women are impressed by big spenders, and being a big spender tells everyone that they are an Alpha Male who deserves all the pussy in the room. These are, by the way, the same guys who are often opposed to polyamory on the grounds that all the Alpha Males will get all the hot chicks, leaving only the dregs (lesser-desired women) left over for the Beta Males to fight over ... or they're the guys who are in favor of polyamory, if by polyamory you mean men having a harem of bisexual women but no other competing penises (OPP - the One Penis Policy).
Charging single men extra for an event that features sex with other guests? You might as well put up a neon sign that says "Poser Alpha Males With Entitlement Complex Welcome Here". You have just tailored your event for exactly the kind of person who thinks he is god's gift to women and who will prove it by coughing up the extra dough. Creepy men and willingness to spend money are not mutually exclusive. And in my experience, they quite often go together. You people really ought to hear what these types of guys say about girls when those girls aren't within earshot, as I do by working alongside these types of men. Trust me, giving a guy a chance to flaunt his money is NOT a good filter to keep out creeps. And creeps will go to great lengths, including living beyond their means, to "prove" their worth by flashing the cash. That's partly what makes them creeps.
And finally, "creepy" is all a matter of perspective. Who gets to be the judge on who is "creepy"? What if your version of "creepy" happens to be something that I, as the female who you, as the event producer, are trying to attract, happens to find exciting and alluring? What if I'm just overly sensitive and looking for creeps, thereby guaranteeing I'll find one somewhere, even if it's all in my head?
I was once at a party where there was casual nudity. There was a clothing-optional swimming pool and a sex-positive, nudist-friendly guest list. One girl I knew was hanging out at the party topless, among many other girls at the party. She started talking to a guy who was at the party. They were not strangers, as this was just a party and not a public event, so they had overlapping social circles and knew each other. Anyway, this girl started to feel creeped out and decided that she was just not comfortable with him staring at her breasts, and began to avoid him.
Well, this guy had absolutely no idea what she was talking about, when he found out about it later. He had no memory of singling her breasts out of the sea of breasts in that living room. In fact, he doesn't actually find her all that attractive. He has a rather narrow "type" for women, and you could argue that being shallow makes one creepy, but that isn't the point in this case even if it were true. He only finds a very specific range of physical attributes attractive, and this woman did not fit into that narrow range. So he didn't think he would have been staring at her breasts even without his realization simply because he doesn't find her breasts worth staring at.
So, was she mistaken? Should he be banned from parties because a girl once found him "creepy"? Or should he just be charged a fee to "prove" that he isn't creepy?
I keep hearing that charging single men extra money is an effective method of keeping the creepy guys out. Bullshit. I want evidence, and not anecdotes. I suspect there are several reasons why some people insist on defending this method.
A) It's always been done this way, and if it didn't work, people would stop, therefore it must work. Bullshit. Lots of things have "always been this way" and turn out to actually be ineffective.
B) Confirmation Bias - We have a really bad habit of only seeing what we want to see. It is common in the medical profession that nurses and other hospital staff really do believe that hospitals are busier on nights with a full moon, yet statistical data analysis of number of patients and type of cases show ABSOLUTELY NO difference between full moon nights and any other night.
C) Protecting The Satus Quo - those exact same creepy guys I mentioned above who are likely to be attracted to this sort of pricing structure have a very good reason for wanting to keep things the way they are: it keeps the competition down. When the culture encourages a rivalry-based social structure, keeping the numbers of rivals low increases the chances of success. In a culture that discourages male bisexuality or homosexuality, having too many men means having too much competition and not enough resources (women) to go around. So the straight men have a vested interest in keeping the male population low. Creepy!
D) But women make less money than men, so we should charge different rates! Yes, I actually heard this once as a defense. Bullshit. If financial concerns were the real reason, then charging on a sliding scale based on financial status, or even a fucking student discount with college ID, is a much more fair and effective strategy. If, as the claim goes, women make significantly less than men, then just by coincidence, more women will happen to qualify for the need-based discount than men, and that would be fair. But, although we still have lots of room for improvement, this is no longer the 1950s, or even the 1970s. The wage gap is closing, and in some very specific circumstances, has even reversed.
If we're talking a nightclub with a $10 cover charge, claiming that women make less than men and so deserve a discount is bullshit because this is far too small of a fee to make that much of a difference (besides, the women will most likely end up with guys buying drinks for them anyway). A weekend retreat with fees in the triple digits or more? That's something to be reasonably concerned about the financial status of the attendees. And plenty of events give need-based discounts and "scholarships" to attendees for just this reason.
E) Only men who are committed to The Lifestyle will be willing to pay the extra money. Bullshit. I've already gone into the main reason why being willing to spend money has nothing to do with being "committed to The Lifestyle" or, even if one is committed, does not prevent one from being "creepy". In fact, there's not even anything preventing a "creepy guy" from getting a wife (or a partner for the evening) that will give him the couples discount so he won't even *have* to pay the extra fee to prove his "commitment". Paying extra doesn't prove someone is more committed to The Lifestyle, it proves that they A) have disposable income and B) think they can buy some snatch.
Meanwhile, men who refuse these sorts of events are not necessarily refusing because they are not "committed to the lifestyle". Often, the reason is that either the cost of this event is not in the budget, or they are conscientious objectors to discriminatory practices and refuse to attend on ethical grounds. Coincidentally, these are exactly the sorts of men you should WANT at the event, since they are respectful, egalitarian, and make conscious and deliberate decisions, particularly those involving ethics. I happen to be able to name a handful of men just off the top of my head, who have actually refused to attend an event on just these grounds. Your event is poorer for the loss of such quality men.
F) We need an equal distribution of men to women or we need more women than men. That's awfully heteronormative, but if you are hosting a sexual event for heterosexual people, I can see why this might be an issue. I happen to feel that people who are bothered by mixed orientation groups are creepy because of their homophobia (which happens to be reason #3 why I have a problem with sexist pricing structure), but that's my personal perspective (I address perspective further down) and also why I just don't go to those sorts of events. But I still don't think that higher cover charges is the answer. You need to ask yourself, why is there a gender discrepancy? Is it really because of the creeps? Again, I address that further down. Is it instead because this activity just isn't as popular with one gender as it is with the other(s)? Well, offering an incentive to the population you're trying to attract seems to be the solution here. This can include "ladies drink free" or "free t-shirt for ladies" or some activity that is specifically aimed at the population you're trying to attract like a contest or entertainment that your target demographic seems to like. I still think this is sexist, but I'm willing to concede this point and I think offering incentives to attract an under-represented demographic is much less offensive than penalizing an entire gender with higher fees on the basis that some of their number might deserve it.
So, if charging a higher fee isn't the method for keeping "creepy guys" out of an event, what is? Well, there are a couple of points here. First of all, if the event producers create an atmosphere that is unattractive to the sorts of people they wish to keep out, they will find that the majority of Those Types won't want to come anyway. The Woodshed, here in Orlando, is a great example of a sexually charged location that charges everyone the same price and manages to keep out the "creeps". How? I suspect it's the friendly, family-style atmosphere that does it. I know it sounds a little weird to be calling a kink club a "family-style" venue, but it's true. The people there feel like family. The owner is warm and welcoming and everyone knows everyone else. If you're new, the staff will give you a tour, and they'll keep checking back with you throughout the night to make sure you're doing OK and to answer any questions. Because everyone knows everyone else, and everyone fosters a sense of community, if you don't play nice, word gets around and you won't be able to find anyone to play with at all. And that keeps the creeps at bay.
Frolicon is another example of a sexually charged event that does not have a discriminatory price structure and keeps the creeps to a minimum. It's more like Dragon*Con for sex and kink, than a regular dungeon with a regular clientele. But it still feels warm, inviting, and like "family". People watch out for each other there, and there is a lot of respect for all the attendees. And, much moreso than the Woodshed, this is explicitly a venue you can attend with the expectation of finding someone *at the event* to have sex with *at the event*. And yet, there is no price discrimination to encourage gender-balancing, and no event-sponsored expectation or encouragement that all their attendees be "fit" or "attractive" (yet another beef I have with events that use sexist pricing, but that's a correlation, not a result of or reason for sexist pricing).
There are plenty of events that manage to host sexy fun times for attendees with a minimum of creepitude without the need for sexist pricing, so I call bullshit on anyone who says it's necessary. And yet, I think any attempt to eliminate the creeps entirely is doomed to fail. First of all, as I mentioned above, who gets to decide who is being a creep and who isn't? It's all about perspective. I told the story above about the girl who thought the guy was being creepy and the guy had no idea what she was talking about since he didn't actually do what she thought he did. There are women who prefer, nay, expect, men to treat them like "princesses" and open doors and bring flowers and stuff. That's the worst possible approach to deal with me. Some women really like to be complimented on their appearance. If you take that approach with me, especially if you're a stranger, I'm gonna think you're a creep. Some girls really like a take-charge kinda guy, and others think that's domineering and offensive. Some girls prefer to be the one in charge, but other girls think guys who like the more submissive role are weak and creepy. There's a reason why guys complain that they can never figure women out ... because WE'RE NOT ALL THE SAME PERSON and what approach works for some, won't work for others. There is no magic formula to avoid being creepy every single time, without exception. The best you can do is go in with the best of intentions, treat people like individuals, and try to get to know someone before acting on any assumptions you may have made about them.
But second, these are events where you can show up, expect to meet someone there for the first time, and fuck them there, that night. This is not a situation that is designed for enabling long-term relationships built on mutual trust, common interests, and shared values. I'm not saying that it *can't* happen, but when you're looking for a relationship like that, usually a handful of conversations have to happen where you discuss philosophy, life goals, history, favorite movies, and whether you're a dog or a cat person. When the bulk of your conversation is "you're hot, wanna fuck?" you can't really expect to find people who are looking for a soulmate at this particular event. If that does happen, it's coincidence, not event design.
People at these kinds of events are here to have sex (or play, or beat someone, or be ordered around, you get the idea). It is not unreasonable to expect to be sized up and evaluated on superficial criteria when a person's goal is to find a sex partner in a limited amount of time. This is exactly *why* I don't go to swinger parties and the like, in spite of my strong voyeurism - I'm not interested in fucking people I just met. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or with people who are into that, I'm saying that *I'm* not interested in it. I don't go to libraries looking for someone to waltz with me, I don't go to the movies looking for a quiet place to read my book, and I don't go to swinger parties expecting to engage in political debate or philosophical discussion. I don't go to nightclubs that have a reputation for being "the place to go" if you want to get laid that night either. I tend to go to goth clubs or ballroom dance clubs because there is very little expectation of me going home with anyone I've danced with that night.
But trying to keep out people who attend an event (the purpose of which is to get the attendees laid) who are running through the guest list to find someone to have sex with, is sort of defeating the purpose. He (or she) may give one of the attendees the "creepy vibe", but he may be exactly what some other attendee is looking for. If you just want to make sure people are behaving respectfully, then define "respectfully" and post the rules. "No" always means "no". In fact, assume *everything* means "no" unless it's a clear and unambiguous "yes". No touching unless invited. No sitting on the furniture without some sort of fabric between your ass and the upholstery. No talking in the quiet room. No peeing in the hot tub. Things like that. And if someone has a specific complaint about a specific guest, come to the moderators and let them handle it. Repeated infractions will result in expulsion from the event, and possibly banning from future events. Plenty of events make it work without discrimination or faulty assumptions.
Really, I think clear posting and enforcing of the rules, and developing an atmosphere that encourages the type of guests you want and discourages the type of guests you don't, are much more effective ways to keep out "the creeps". I also think it's important to understand that "creep" is a matter of perspective, and the whole purpose for the event is likely the kind of thing that you really ought to expect certain behaviours that might be "creepy" under other circumstances. "Hey baby, you're hot, wanna fuck?" is creepy from the guy following you down the grocery store aisle, but it should be expected if you go to a sex-with-strangers party. Asking to be one's sex partner, and asking on the basis that one likes the way you look, is to be expected, but so is backing off when you say "no". Charging single men a higher price won't keep out the guys who don't understand "no", but throwing them out and refusing them entrance in the future will.
I've heard this shit before, that men are creepy, and we have to keep the creepy men away so that the hot women will want to come and play. Sorry, but that attitude is awfully creepy all by itself. First of all, not all men are creepy and a lot of women are. Anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously not another woman who has been stalked by one of those predatory women who think that being a woman gives them a license to act all creepy themselves, because it's somehow not creepy when the person behaving that way has a vagina.
Seriously, have you people ever been to a male revue? That's what we call strip joints for women where the dancers are men - don't ask me why, probably something bullshit like women are more "classy" and would only go to something called a "revue" or some other shit like that. Anyway, the women there are loud and obnoxious. They take liberties with the male dancers by grabbing them and trying to remove their clothing (most male revues keep their dancers in g-strings) or putting their hands inside the mens' thongs. They shout obscenities and make wolf-whistles. They laugh raucously to their friends and graphically speak of what they would like to make the dancers do for the womens' pleasure. In short, the way these women act would get them thrown out of a regular strip club within seconds of entering. This behaviour simply would not be tolerated at a club with female dancers. Male patrons of strip clubs are FAR more respectful of the rules and the women who work there, and I'm including the objectification of strippers in the comparison. And no, the male dancers don't like it. Male sex workers in general have much less power, and options, than women in the sex industry. They also don't have beefy bouncers to come and throw out female patrons who are getting fresh.
Some people seem to have the mistaken idea that the way to deal with discrimination or poor behaviour is to behave just as poorly right back, and not even in a "see how much this sucks? How do you like it?" sort of making-a-point way. If a man ever treated these women the way these women treat their dancers, these women would throw back and clock him one (and then expect him not to defend himself because you should never hit a "lady", even when she's beating the shit out of him).
But, back to the point, men are not the only "creepy" people out there, and when women are creepy, they sure have the men beat in the creep factor. And to be a single female who is either bisexual, or sets off people's gaydar, let me tell you that being approached by one of these women is damned uncomfortable! These women don't know how to take "no" for an answer. They think all they have to do is keep flattering you and you'll come around. They think that because they're women, they automatically know what you need and how to please you. And they don't get how fucking creepy it is to have some strange woman pimp out her husband to you by trying to get you into a threesome because she/they have somehow decided that a woman doing the pimping is less creepy than the man doing the pimping. Look lady, I don't care what set of genitals you have, hitting on me in order to talk me into fucking your man while you watch (or fucking you so your husband can jack off) is fucking creepy. And continuing to do it when I've indicated my lack of interest is just rude. If a guy could get rejected or thrown out for doing it, then you shouldn't be doing it either.
It's also bullshit because charging extra money doesn't keep the creeps out, even if they *are* all guys. Let's see, you want to put on an event but you don't want guys who disrespect women and make them feel uncomfortable, so your method of achieving this is to charge them extra money? Have you been paying any attention at all to American hetero dating? Those men who have the biggest sense of entitlement about sexuality, particularly women's sexuality, those men who think women *owe* them sex, are the same men who think they can land a chick by waving around their wallet. These are the guys who think all women are impressed by big spenders, and being a big spender tells everyone that they are an Alpha Male who deserves all the pussy in the room. These are, by the way, the same guys who are often opposed to polyamory on the grounds that all the Alpha Males will get all the hot chicks, leaving only the dregs (lesser-desired women) left over for the Beta Males to fight over ... or they're the guys who are in favor of polyamory, if by polyamory you mean men having a harem of bisexual women but no other competing penises (OPP - the One Penis Policy).
Charging single men extra for an event that features sex with other guests? You might as well put up a neon sign that says "Poser Alpha Males With Entitlement Complex Welcome Here". You have just tailored your event for exactly the kind of person who thinks he is god's gift to women and who will prove it by coughing up the extra dough. Creepy men and willingness to spend money are not mutually exclusive. And in my experience, they quite often go together. You people really ought to hear what these types of guys say about girls when those girls aren't within earshot, as I do by working alongside these types of men. Trust me, giving a guy a chance to flaunt his money is NOT a good filter to keep out creeps. And creeps will go to great lengths, including living beyond their means, to "prove" their worth by flashing the cash. That's partly what makes them creeps.
And finally, "creepy" is all a matter of perspective. Who gets to be the judge on who is "creepy"? What if your version of "creepy" happens to be something that I, as the female who you, as the event producer, are trying to attract, happens to find exciting and alluring? What if I'm just overly sensitive and looking for creeps, thereby guaranteeing I'll find one somewhere, even if it's all in my head?
I was once at a party where there was casual nudity. There was a clothing-optional swimming pool and a sex-positive, nudist-friendly guest list. One girl I knew was hanging out at the party topless, among many other girls at the party. She started talking to a guy who was at the party. They were not strangers, as this was just a party and not a public event, so they had overlapping social circles and knew each other. Anyway, this girl started to feel creeped out and decided that she was just not comfortable with him staring at her breasts, and began to avoid him.
Well, this guy had absolutely no idea what she was talking about, when he found out about it later. He had no memory of singling her breasts out of the sea of breasts in that living room. In fact, he doesn't actually find her all that attractive. He has a rather narrow "type" for women, and you could argue that being shallow makes one creepy, but that isn't the point in this case even if it were true. He only finds a very specific range of physical attributes attractive, and this woman did not fit into that narrow range. So he didn't think he would have been staring at her breasts even without his realization simply because he doesn't find her breasts worth staring at.
So, was she mistaken? Should he be banned from parties because a girl once found him "creepy"? Or should he just be charged a fee to "prove" that he isn't creepy?
I keep hearing that charging single men extra money is an effective method of keeping the creepy guys out. Bullshit. I want evidence, and not anecdotes. I suspect there are several reasons why some people insist on defending this method.
A) It's always been done this way, and if it didn't work, people would stop, therefore it must work. Bullshit. Lots of things have "always been this way" and turn out to actually be ineffective.
B) Confirmation Bias - We have a really bad habit of only seeing what we want to see. It is common in the medical profession that nurses and other hospital staff really do believe that hospitals are busier on nights with a full moon, yet statistical data analysis of number of patients and type of cases show ABSOLUTELY NO difference between full moon nights and any other night.
C) Protecting The Satus Quo - those exact same creepy guys I mentioned above who are likely to be attracted to this sort of pricing structure have a very good reason for wanting to keep things the way they are: it keeps the competition down. When the culture encourages a rivalry-based social structure, keeping the numbers of rivals low increases the chances of success. In a culture that discourages male bisexuality or homosexuality, having too many men means having too much competition and not enough resources (women) to go around. So the straight men have a vested interest in keeping the male population low. Creepy!
D) But women make less money than men, so we should charge different rates! Yes, I actually heard this once as a defense. Bullshit. If financial concerns were the real reason, then charging on a sliding scale based on financial status, or even a fucking student discount with college ID, is a much more fair and effective strategy. If, as the claim goes, women make significantly less than men, then just by coincidence, more women will happen to qualify for the need-based discount than men, and that would be fair. But, although we still have lots of room for improvement, this is no longer the 1950s, or even the 1970s. The wage gap is closing, and in some very specific circumstances, has even reversed.
If we're talking a nightclub with a $10 cover charge, claiming that women make less than men and so deserve a discount is bullshit because this is far too small of a fee to make that much of a difference (besides, the women will most likely end up with guys buying drinks for them anyway). A weekend retreat with fees in the triple digits or more? That's something to be reasonably concerned about the financial status of the attendees. And plenty of events give need-based discounts and "scholarships" to attendees for just this reason.
E) Only men who are committed to The Lifestyle will be willing to pay the extra money. Bullshit. I've already gone into the main reason why being willing to spend money has nothing to do with being "committed to The Lifestyle" or, even if one is committed, does not prevent one from being "creepy". In fact, there's not even anything preventing a "creepy guy" from getting a wife (or a partner for the evening) that will give him the couples discount so he won't even *have* to pay the extra fee to prove his "commitment". Paying extra doesn't prove someone is more committed to The Lifestyle, it proves that they A) have disposable income and B) think they can buy some snatch.
Meanwhile, men who refuse these sorts of events are not necessarily refusing because they are not "committed to the lifestyle". Often, the reason is that either the cost of this event is not in the budget, or they are conscientious objectors to discriminatory practices and refuse to attend on ethical grounds. Coincidentally, these are exactly the sorts of men you should WANT at the event, since they are respectful, egalitarian, and make conscious and deliberate decisions, particularly those involving ethics. I happen to be able to name a handful of men just off the top of my head, who have actually refused to attend an event on just these grounds. Your event is poorer for the loss of such quality men.
F) We need an equal distribution of men to women or we need more women than men. That's awfully heteronormative, but if you are hosting a sexual event for heterosexual people, I can see why this might be an issue. I happen to feel that people who are bothered by mixed orientation groups are creepy because of their homophobia (which happens to be reason #3 why I have a problem with sexist pricing structure), but that's my personal perspective (I address perspective further down) and also why I just don't go to those sorts of events. But I still don't think that higher cover charges is the answer. You need to ask yourself, why is there a gender discrepancy? Is it really because of the creeps? Again, I address that further down. Is it instead because this activity just isn't as popular with one gender as it is with the other(s)? Well, offering an incentive to the population you're trying to attract seems to be the solution here. This can include "ladies drink free" or "free t-shirt for ladies" or some activity that is specifically aimed at the population you're trying to attract like a contest or entertainment that your target demographic seems to like. I still think this is sexist, but I'm willing to concede this point and I think offering incentives to attract an under-represented demographic is much less offensive than penalizing an entire gender with higher fees on the basis that some of their number might deserve it.
So, if charging a higher fee isn't the method for keeping "creepy guys" out of an event, what is? Well, there are a couple of points here. First of all, if the event producers create an atmosphere that is unattractive to the sorts of people they wish to keep out, they will find that the majority of Those Types won't want to come anyway. The Woodshed, here in Orlando, is a great example of a sexually charged location that charges everyone the same price and manages to keep out the "creeps". How? I suspect it's the friendly, family-style atmosphere that does it. I know it sounds a little weird to be calling a kink club a "family-style" venue, but it's true. The people there feel like family. The owner is warm and welcoming and everyone knows everyone else. If you're new, the staff will give you a tour, and they'll keep checking back with you throughout the night to make sure you're doing OK and to answer any questions. Because everyone knows everyone else, and everyone fosters a sense of community, if you don't play nice, word gets around and you won't be able to find anyone to play with at all. And that keeps the creeps at bay.
Frolicon is another example of a sexually charged event that does not have a discriminatory price structure and keeps the creeps to a minimum. It's more like Dragon*Con for sex and kink, than a regular dungeon with a regular clientele. But it still feels warm, inviting, and like "family". People watch out for each other there, and there is a lot of respect for all the attendees. And, much moreso than the Woodshed, this is explicitly a venue you can attend with the expectation of finding someone *at the event* to have sex with *at the event*. And yet, there is no price discrimination to encourage gender-balancing, and no event-sponsored expectation or encouragement that all their attendees be "fit" or "attractive" (yet another beef I have with events that use sexist pricing, but that's a correlation, not a result of or reason for sexist pricing).
There are plenty of events that manage to host sexy fun times for attendees with a minimum of creepitude without the need for sexist pricing, so I call bullshit on anyone who says it's necessary. And yet, I think any attempt to eliminate the creeps entirely is doomed to fail. First of all, as I mentioned above, who gets to decide who is being a creep and who isn't? It's all about perspective. I told the story above about the girl who thought the guy was being creepy and the guy had no idea what she was talking about since he didn't actually do what she thought he did. There are women who prefer, nay, expect, men to treat them like "princesses" and open doors and bring flowers and stuff. That's the worst possible approach to deal with me. Some women really like to be complimented on their appearance. If you take that approach with me, especially if you're a stranger, I'm gonna think you're a creep. Some girls really like a take-charge kinda guy, and others think that's domineering and offensive. Some girls prefer to be the one in charge, but other girls think guys who like the more submissive role are weak and creepy. There's a reason why guys complain that they can never figure women out ... because WE'RE NOT ALL THE SAME PERSON and what approach works for some, won't work for others. There is no magic formula to avoid being creepy every single time, without exception. The best you can do is go in with the best of intentions, treat people like individuals, and try to get to know someone before acting on any assumptions you may have made about them.
But second, these are events where you can show up, expect to meet someone there for the first time, and fuck them there, that night. This is not a situation that is designed for enabling long-term relationships built on mutual trust, common interests, and shared values. I'm not saying that it *can't* happen, but when you're looking for a relationship like that, usually a handful of conversations have to happen where you discuss philosophy, life goals, history, favorite movies, and whether you're a dog or a cat person. When the bulk of your conversation is "you're hot, wanna fuck?" you can't really expect to find people who are looking for a soulmate at this particular event. If that does happen, it's coincidence, not event design.
People at these kinds of events are here to have sex (or play, or beat someone, or be ordered around, you get the idea). It is not unreasonable to expect to be sized up and evaluated on superficial criteria when a person's goal is to find a sex partner in a limited amount of time. This is exactly *why* I don't go to swinger parties and the like, in spite of my strong voyeurism - I'm not interested in fucking people I just met. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or with people who are into that, I'm saying that *I'm* not interested in it. I don't go to libraries looking for someone to waltz with me, I don't go to the movies looking for a quiet place to read my book, and I don't go to swinger parties expecting to engage in political debate or philosophical discussion. I don't go to nightclubs that have a reputation for being "the place to go" if you want to get laid that night either. I tend to go to goth clubs or ballroom dance clubs because there is very little expectation of me going home with anyone I've danced with that night.
But trying to keep out people who attend an event (the purpose of which is to get the attendees laid) who are running through the guest list to find someone to have sex with, is sort of defeating the purpose. He (or she) may give one of the attendees the "creepy vibe", but he may be exactly what some other attendee is looking for. If you just want to make sure people are behaving respectfully, then define "respectfully" and post the rules. "No" always means "no". In fact, assume *everything* means "no" unless it's a clear and unambiguous "yes". No touching unless invited. No sitting on the furniture without some sort of fabric between your ass and the upholstery. No talking in the quiet room. No peeing in the hot tub. Things like that. And if someone has a specific complaint about a specific guest, come to the moderators and let them handle it. Repeated infractions will result in expulsion from the event, and possibly banning from future events. Plenty of events make it work without discrimination or faulty assumptions.
Really, I think clear posting and enforcing of the rules, and developing an atmosphere that encourages the type of guests you want and discourages the type of guests you don't, are much more effective ways to keep out "the creeps". I also think it's important to understand that "creep" is a matter of perspective, and the whole purpose for the event is likely the kind of thing that you really ought to expect certain behaviours that might be "creepy" under other circumstances. "Hey baby, you're hot, wanna fuck?" is creepy from the guy following you down the grocery store aisle, but it should be expected if you go to a sex-with-strangers party. Asking to be one's sex partner, and asking on the basis that one likes the way you look, is to be expected, but so is backing off when you say "no". Charging single men a higher price won't keep out the guys who don't understand "no", but throwing them out and refusing them entrance in the future will.
