I don't really understand what you're saying. You seem to agree it is unfair if a man calls a woman a "bitch" or a "slut" or a "gold-digger" just because he's mad at her or wants to push her away. And you seem to agree that calling a man a "creep" is much the same thing. And you seem to think calling a man a "creep" is justifiable because we can't always expect people to be fair and sometimes if you're exhausted and upset you have to resort to dirty tricks. So do you believe the same thing about calling women bitches or sluts or gold-diggers?
My own (relatively unconsidered) opinion on this is that people have a right to express their opinions of people, but not to express false facts. I would be pretty okay with a guy calling a girl he didn't like "a bitch", because bitch pretty much just means "a girl I don't like" and is pretty much 100% opinion. His friends then can adjust their opinions of her based on the evidence "This guy seems to really dislike her". I would be much less okay with him calling a girl he didn't like a "gold-digger" just to make her feel bad, because that's slander - for example, if he has no evidence that she is after money, then it would be slanderous to call her a gold-digger. If you call someone a gold-digger, you really should be prepared to give some evidence, or at least have some yourself. "Slut" seems kind of in between, in that it has both a "factual" meaning as someone who sleeps around, and is a general term of abuse.
I would be prepared to call that fashion designer in your example a creep. He seemed to be trying to pressure her into giving sexual favors she didn't want (appearing in a skimpy outfit). That seems pretty close to the definition of creep. But since creep has a definition, it's a little more like "gold-digger" than "bitch" in the example above - although I would place it closest of all to "slut" since it has both the factual meaning and the opinion meaning possible.
There seem like a lot of ways to preserve the paint function while being less unfair. For example, I would be much more comfortable with "Bob creeped me out" than "Bob is a creep".
no subject
My own (relatively unconsidered) opinion on this is that people have a right to express their opinions of people, but not to express false facts. I would be pretty okay with a guy calling a girl he didn't like "a bitch", because bitch pretty much just means "a girl I don't like" and is pretty much 100% opinion. His friends then can adjust their opinions of her based on the evidence "This guy seems to really dislike her". I would be much less okay with him calling a girl he didn't like a "gold-digger" just to make her feel bad, because that's slander - for example, if he has no evidence that she is after money, then it would be slanderous to call her a gold-digger. If you call someone a gold-digger, you really should be prepared to give some evidence, or at least have some yourself. "Slut" seems kind of in between, in that it has both a "factual" meaning as someone who sleeps around, and is a general term of abuse.
I would be prepared to call that fashion designer in your example a creep. He seemed to be trying to pressure her into giving sexual favors she didn't want (appearing in a skimpy outfit). That seems pretty close to the definition of creep. But since creep has a definition, it's a little more like "gold-digger" than "bitch" in the example above - although I would place it closest of all to "slut" since it has both the factual meaning and the opinion meaning possible.
There seem like a lot of ways to preserve the paint function while being less unfair. For example, I would be much more comfortable with "Bob creeped me out" than "Bob is a creep".