Epistemological violence in America

Is it unethical to check someone out? How about doing so repeatedly over a long train ride or if you are stuck in a waiting room with the person? I think most of my friends, perhaps most other people more generally, would say, "No." But why then do we look away from a person when they return our look or devise clever schemes to scope the person without their becoming aware of the fact?
Here's one such scheme that someone I know created: As you are walking into a room, you notice someone attractive. You continue walking to the place in which you are ostensibly going to stand, such as a bar. Then you slowly do a full 360 degree turn looking over the entire room, turning slow enough that you can ogle the attractive person but continuing on your arc, not stopping, so that the person believes you are merely scanning the room.
Now, I imagine my friends might believe that slack-jawed rubbernecking isn't wrong per se; you just look like a creep if you get caught doing it. But what I don't know or understand yet is how one would separate creepiness from wrongness, or why one would need to create schemes if the action wasn't questionable. That is, can we create definitions of these two ideas that don't overlap somewhere? Or, isn't part of saying that something is wrong a way of saying that someone shouldn't do it? And isn't saying that someone is creepy or sleazy a way of saying that he or she does something that he or she shouldn't do?
I've been thinking about how most people have to form some relationship to their desire to ogle during their life. This is probably also true of being gawked at, especially but not exclusively for women. Perhaps, as we grow to accept these urges as biologically driven, we flatly place them in an amoral space. Girl- or boy-watching isn't wrong and isn't right. It just is. But this falls prey to the is-ought fallacy, the idea that just because something is or "naturally" is that makes it OK. Yet, even if something is biologically determined, we still have to determine our ethical relationship to it, even if that means fighting undefeatable feelings.
Probably, the need to question gape-induced slavering becomes more acute when it comes to "locker room talk." Some guys feel the need to completely describe a woman's assets down to last detail, marking T&A with imaginary dimensions (e.g., "shelf like a fucking tank"), and just panting and drooling and saying "Oh, Man" at each other, like a pack of boobs. Other dudes are contented with a remark that a woman is beautiful, pretty, or cute. Still others pass the whole affair over in silence, or just cluck or giggle nervously when others try to force the speech. Prolific locker room talkers might argue Freud-style that repression builds nothing good, and you just gotta like let it out, man, or the shit builds up. I don't know if we have much evidence for this. Perhaps, just the opposite is true: that the talking encourages the looking, and the looking, the talking. But in the end, we are always left alone, flying through urban transport systems and malls and doctor's offices and gyms, gripping our seats or putting sweaty palms in our pockets, left with something that our mind tells us is begging for our stare.