Myths and Facts About Rape

[gollygee]

http://www.calcasa.org/34.0.html

It is all very interesting reading, but this part struck me as relevant today, as I keep hearing people say that rapists are always sociopaths or whatever.

Myth: Men who rape are “psychos.”

Much of the early research and writing about rape viewed it as a rare occurrence committed by insane men. The media at the time reinforced this viewpoint with sketches of men who raped that emphasized crazed expressions and bizarre lifestyles. This myth gives a false sense of security because most rapes are committed by acquaintances. It limits our understanding of the causes of rape. It allows us to ignore the connections between “normal” aggressive masculinity and rape.



Fact: Men who rape are mostly ordinary, everyday guys.

Only a tiny percentage of men who rape would be considered clinically insane by standard psychiatric criteria. It is these cases that are often highlighted by the media. The vast majority of men who rape are indistinguishable from your friends. Some may even be your friends! The major difference between men who rape and men who don’t rape is in their attitudes toward women. They believe that they have a right of sexual access to women whenever they please and therefore often don’t view what they do as rape. They typically view women with contempt and sometimes deep hostility. Women are seen as manipulative and needing to be “put in their place.” They believe the myths about rape. They have a firm belief in women’s rightful place as dependent, passive, and “in the home.” Women’s liberation and gay/lesbian liberation are very threatening to them. They believe men’s rightful role is to be in control, and they are often very jealous and controlling toward loved ones in their own lives. These attitudes are strongly reinforced by the popular media.

[Annces]

1. I think rape is also

linked up with our puritan culture, and taboos directed specifically against women. It encourages hostility toward women.

[NMMNG]

3. Quite true

Patriarchal religions do much to foster the notion that women are a root cause of sexual "sin", and encourage keeping them under control by any means necessary.

[Evergreen2U]

9. Agree with Buffy plus..

The patriarchal religions mostly all arose in the days when women were no more than possessions...and that attitude tends to still be there for many today. May influence some rape.

But then...there men who are just so insecure about themselves and their own sexuality that they do not relate to women as people at all and that is where the control factor enters into things...in my opinion. Need for control not directly the main reason for rape....but hate for women or rage at one's own weakness is.

It is sort of a puzzle to me...although have noted that some rapists had over controlling mothers. Perhaps there is some transference here?

[gollygee]

11. So it's the mother's fault?

It's got to be the fault of *some* woman, apparently. *sigh*

How many rapists do you know that well?

[Prophet 451]

14. "fault", no

The attitude of the parents (including the mother) can influence the child's attitude though, that's an essential truism of psychology.

That said, someone transferring rage from a domineering mother is unlikely to rape the victim, they're far more likely to commit assault and/or battery. There is such a thing as "revenge rape" but the usual victim for that is an ex-partner.

(I might not know much about rapists in particular but criminal psychology in general is a hobby of mine)

[mzmolly]

36. I think we need to move beyond Freudian explanations for everything.

http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/freud.htm

"Freud's notion that the child's relationship to the parent is responsible for everything from psychiatric diseases to criminal behavior has also been thoroughly discredited and the influence of such theories is today regarded as a relic of a permissive age in which "blame-the-parent" was the accepted dogma. For many decades genetic and biological causes of psychiatric disorders were dismissed without scientific investigation in favor of environmental (parental and social) influences. Today even the most extreme Freudian environmentalists would not deny the great influence of genetic and biological factors. The American Psychiatric Association's "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" (the latest edition of which is the DSM-IV), the official standard for diagnosing psychological disorders in the USA, reflects the universal adoption of the neo-Kraepelinian scientific-biological approach to psychiatric disorders, with its emphasis on diagnostic precision and the search for biological and genetic etiologies—largely ignored during the earlier Freud-dominated decades of the twentieth century."

As a Mother, I'd like to slap the sh*t out of Freud, I wonder what happened in my childhood to create such a "rage?" ;)

[Prophet 451]

42. I wasn't think of Freud

I'm British, Freud isn't viewed as the be-all, end-all of psychology here as he seems to be in the States (which doesn't mean the man had nothing worthwhile to say).

The point I was making was simply that the attitudes instilled and the models of personal interaction laid down during childhood are usually the ones which a person takes through life with them.

[mzmolly]

46. Partly. Societal attitudes about women are also a portion of the picture.

However, I would venture to guess it's more likely that a given rapist had a Mother who was passive/victimized?

[Prophet 451]

48. Possibly

The data on that is inconclusive but yeah, it's makes logical sense.

[mzmolly]

50. Thanks for the respectful discussion.

:hi:

[Prophet 451]

51. lol, no problem n/t

[timtom]

59. As a lifelong member of this American Culture

I have always regarded Freud as an overrated fantasist.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but, to me, psychology is bunk.

[Prophet 451]

60. Disagree

Psychology isn't bunk so much as people tend to claim too much for it. Like any "soft" science, much of psychology is theory. Some of it is definatly true (abused kids tend, on average, to grow into abusers themselves), a good portion is crap (Frued's theories that virtually everything was sexual).

Criminal psychology is a hobby of mine and there, it's a mixture of statistics and patterns. For example, I can tell you certain characteristics which most serial killers share (to pick one at random, most were sexualised very early in life) and so, it's logical to use the working theory that the same will hold true for most serial murderers and in most cases, it does. However, it is also a learning process because there are some who simply don't fit any of the available data.

Any psychologist who would tell you that psychology knows all the answers to human behaviour is simply lying but nor is it entirely bunk.

As for Freud, he was a fantasist. A few of his theories still stand up to scrutiny (i.e. the whole concept of the subconscious mind which Freud invented) but a far larger number have been debunked (or at least, made extremely doubtful). That said, his lunacies did inspire others to invent teh field of psychoanalysis purely to be able to argue with him.

[timtom]

61. If the definitions and categories

of abnormal psychology, for instance, didn't get "redistricted" every few years, I wouldn't have....well, yes I would, because I'm a smart-ass.

But, I was helping my daughter prepare for her abnormal psychology exam yesterday, and the categories within just schizophrenia itself are so muddy and indistinct (except for paranoia) that I'm left with, "So what?"

My daughter is bipolar and has been institutionalized and heavily medicated. It was so debilitating to her that she said the hell with this. She now regulates the drugs she takes, and has only mild episodes and is functional enough to have been actively finishing her degree.

Personally, I don't think Erikson is bunk. Fairly accurate and useful, too.

[mzmolly]

33. Some accountants have controlling Mothers as well.

Some rapists have controlling abusive fathers, some rapists come from what appears to be "normal" homes. We have a societal problem, not a "Mother" problem.

[uppityperson]

38. Some rapists drank milk as children. Perhaps there is a correlation here?

Some rapists drive Toyotas. Some rapists have pets. Some rapists wear blue. Some rapists are bald. We could play this game a long time.

[laylah]

53. Interesting hypothesis

Evergreen2U re: transference of their anger towards their mothers. That would make sense in some cases. Welcome to DU :toast:

[Cabcere]

2. Kick

:kick:

[uppityperson]

4. This bit says a lot...

"Some may even be your friends! The major difference between men who rape and men who don’t rape is in their attitudes toward women."

Some men who rape are nuts. Some just assume that whatever they want, regarding sex, they can get. Rape is violence and control. Some are my friends. Or rather were.

[happyslug]

5. Do you understand Insanity?? To be ruled insane is extremely high.

For example if you think you are Napoleon, but know what you owe and know you real heirs, you are compete enough to make a valid will.

For Criminal behavior to be ruled "insane" it is NOT just that you are thinking unlike most people, but so off the wall that NO ONE would think that way.

My point is this finding means nothing, Insane people are NOT most people, it is a very small percentage of the population. Such insane people are generally locked up somewhere, mostly your local institution. Thus the population of such people is quite small.

Now, that means people who have severe mental problems are generally NOT insane. Since such people are NOT insane, they are therefore "Normal". The people you hear of committing various crimes, are NOT insane, even if suffering from severe mental problems. This means this statistics is meaningless. It excludes most people who commit such crimes for, even if suffering from severe mental problems. My point is simple, most people who commit Rape, suffer from Mental problems, but not to any where near insanity. This means this study is worthless, it is like saying most people who plead insanity are NOT insane for most Juries do not find such people insane (District Attorneys always give in on clear cases of insanity, the insanity defense is only used where there is no other defense possible and the DA thinks he can convict the Defendant no matter what the Defense presents).

I notice this is address in the articles but ignored by posters on this thread, but I had to make my point. Most people who Rape have low esteem for women, which is a mental problem, but does NOT make that person Insane.

[gollygee]

6. "Most men who commit rape suffer from mental problems"

back that up. I don't buy it. Some men are misogynist assholes who think they're entitled to a sexual partner whether one offers herself up or not.

[happyslug]

8. Depends on your definition of "Mental problems"

"Mental Problems" includes the inability to interact with other people. That is the problem with most Rapist, they can NOT interact with women on anywhere near a "Normal" way. That is included in my definition of mental problems, which it should be.

[gollygee]

10. "Can't interact with women on anywhere near a normal basis"

I'd just call that "misogynist". Sadly, lots of people without mental problems fit that, IMO.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Well, there you're looking at date rape vs. violent rape (which do occasionally overlap)

Date rape is about sex and power. Violent rape is just about power; the sex is only there because of the humiliation/conquest aspect.

[gollygee]

28. I don't see any difference

rape is rape.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Absolutely correct. Sociopaths are not insane. They are quite sane.

They're also scary as hell. All people with antisocial personality disorder should be scooped up and stuck on an island far, far away from everyone else. Let them deal with each other.

[tavalon]

27. Sadly, here in America, we let them ascend to the highest office of the land

[BadgerLaw2010]

7. For perspective, Jeffery Dahmer wasn't "insane". It's a meaningless distinction.

You can have people who are chock full of psychopathic, sociopathic and other seriously abnormal and unpleasant behavior who would never be considered so far gone that they couldn't follow the law or didn't know what they were doing.

[Occam Bandage]

22. Right. If you are aware you are raping her, you are not insane.

[ThomCat]

12. Kick and Recommend!

Rape is an everyday occurance perpetuated by guys don't think that what their doing is rape. x(

It's warped how far we've heard people to do define rape as "just sex."

[Prophet 451]

13. I don't follow

From a technical point of view, rape is sex without the consent of the other party, surely?

I think I must be misunderstanding something here.

[ThomCat]

29. Rape is a violent attack.

The sex is secondary to the attack. Sex is the method, the weapon, but the point is that it's a violent attack.

Attacking someone with a baseball bat is not playing baseball.

[Evoman]

15. I once saw a survey done of college aged men

that said that 60% percent of them would rape a girl if they could get away with it. And that's the ones that admit it.

Men are fucked up where women are concerned. I'm almost tempted to say that a majority of men are capable of rape if they think they can get away with it.

I'm sure glad I'm not a woman, but I despair for women. They shouldn't have to put up with this bullshit.

[Occam Bandage]

21. I've seen many references to "surveys" saying that,

running from 15%, 30%, 35%, 60%, 75%, and basically every number between. I've seen it sourced to several colleges. I've never actually seen any such survey as a primary source. I'm sure something exists out there, and I'd love to know what the real number is. Does anyone have a link?

[Hippo_Tron]

57. IMO, the number is probably in double digits somewhere but not 60%

I've met a few guys who openly talk about how they are going to get a girl so drunk that she's basically passed out and then have sex with her. Needless to say, I don't stick around to talk to these guys for very long. That said they're few and far between.

When I'm with a girl I ask before going any further and always understand that no means no. I can't fathom how some people think that no means yes, but they must have been taught quite differently than I was.

[eridani]

16. The problem is some men's sense of entitlement, which is reinforced culturally

--to the point where it requires positive effort for men to turn their backs on it. I have yet to meet a woman who thinks that just because she is horny, she is entitled by natural law to have the assistance of another human being to deal with it. I don't see that changing unless the world can no longer make D batteries.

[mzmolly]

17. Rape is yet another form of male entitlement supported by our society

in insidious ways.

Part of the problem is summed up above > They have a firm belief in women’s rightful place as dependent, passive, and “in the home.” Women’s liberation and gay/lesbian liberation are very threatening to them. They believe men’s rightful role is to be in control, and they are often very jealous and controlling toward loved ones in their own lives. These attitudes are strongly reinforced by the popular media.


We have obvious reinforcement of the "women are objects" shit by the media daily. And, of course it's nothing new. Does anyone remember "Luke and Laura" of General Hospital? That storyline was all kinds of wrong, and I had no clue when I was glued to that show as a teenager. I skipped school to watch the wedding with friends UGH! It's disgusting/disturbing that there wasn't more of an outrage at the premise of that relationship.



From WIKI

Luke Spencer and Laura Webber Spencer are fictional characters and the signature supercouple on the American soap opera General Hospital. Luke is played by Anthony Geary and Laura was played by Genie Francis. Despite having been raped by a drunken Luke, Laura would later fall in love with him. Though other supercouples came before them, Luke and Laura are the most well known outside of the soap opera realm, and are credited with defining the term "supercouple," which caused other soap operas to copy the successful formula.

Originally, critics of the soap opera genre panned the unlikely pairing, as very few (if any) rape victims fall in love with their rapists. However, the duo became wildly popular in spite of Luke's past misdeed. They wed on November 16, 1981, with 30 million viewers tuning in. <1> The episode was the highest-rated hour in soap opera history. They were married for two decades and had two children. Even today, their union still has a presence in Port Charles. On internet message boards, the couple is often referred to as "L&L" or "LnL" (for Luke and Laura).

[Occam Bandage]

18. "Fact: Men who rape are mostly ordinary, everyday guys."

Um, no. Not really, no. The repeat-offender rates for rapists would suggest that it is not simply "ordinary guys" raping. There's definitely something there. I'm sure a good number of them are antisocial personality disorder. I have never read a single study correlating "normal male behavior" and rape. I have never read a single study correlating "fear of women's liberation" and rape, nor with a belief in "right to sexual access." Nor can I see evidence that pro-rape attitudes are "strongly reinforced" by the popular media.

This is just misandrist fearmongering.

[BlueIris]

23. "Nor can I see evidence that pro-rape attitudes are 'strongly reinforced' by the popular media."

'Kay, well maybe that's because you've never looked. At all.

There are so many things wrong with the rest of your post I'm not even going to touch it. (Also because thinking about its content makes my skin crawl.)

[Occam Bandage]

24. Well, I suppose that as an alternative to evidence, one could suggest that evidence exists.

Also, as an alternative to counterarguments, one could suggest that counterarguments exist.

On edit: "The media objectifies women which leads to rape" is not actually a counterargument to my skepticism of the claim that media objectification of women leads to rape. So please don't start down the circular-reasoning path.

[oscarmitre]

25. Many rapists - and I mean non-aquaintance rapists

started out as flashers. It's why I find no amusement in depictions of flashers as harmless, dirty old men.

[ThomCat]

31. When I was a volunteer in college at a support organization

for rape survivors a whole lot of women friends confided in me instances of date-rape, and I was very aware of guys I know who bragged about encounters that sounded a hell of a lot like date rape.

If you're only looking at the most severe rapes that get the media attention and court convictions then you're missing the vast majority of rapes.

It really is a whole lot of regular guys who commit the majority of rapes, and that's not misandrist fearmongering. It's misogynistic b.s. to dismiss rape as a minor abberation committed only by rare people with personality disorders.

[mzmolly]

37. Hear hear!

:toast:

You are a class act ThomCat.

[Triana]

56. Thank you ThomCat! (n/t)

[mzmolly]

32. I think the fact that they "appear" ordinary is the point.

http://www.barcc.org/thefacts.html

[Swamp Rat]

26. k&r

:(

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. since you are not blaming the victim, i wonder how much mileage this thread will get

facts are so boring.

[musette_sf]

34. K+R n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomCat]

39. I would agree that a huge number of unwanted children

were the result of rape. I'm sure in the long run every one of us has ancestors who only existed because of rape, and we might not have to go too far back to find the first such person. :(

I've heard that during pogroms it was not uncommon for jewish women to be raped as the families were being violently driven out of town. Raping and pillaging is so common in war that it's a clique, and wars both large and small are constant. During any major violence women are the frequent targets of extra violence in the form of rape.

But it's at the smaller scale, at the social level, where I think most rapes occur. I'm hoping that rape is decreasing in frequency as more men respect women as equals. But the downside to that would be that it means rape must have been even more common in the past than it is now, and we know it's still an epidemic now.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blueraven95]

41. so, are you saying it's okay?

I'm not sure I follow. Yes, rape has caused many pregnancies to occur. But that doesn't make it acceptable.

[joshcryer]

43. Fact: Women are property in the vast majority of the world, except for a few civilized places.

You'd make good use of your property if you were taught to do so.

If you look at primitive tribes women were never treated as such (see the Aka for the prime example).

[happyslug]

45. "Property" is a broad term, and only given its present meaning in the last 500 years.

And that definition was first invented in the Middle ages in Europe. This is the near absolute property right people think as normal today. Prior to that time (and in most of the world till the late 1800s) various areas had different definitions of Property. Women, where viewed as "property", came under these other definitions. These included rights to the property that survives any transfer of the property.

Slavery is one of the best examples of this. While Slavery as it existed in the American South was brutal (Some people call it the most brutal form of Slavery ever), it was the exception to what a slave was. Historically, slaves had rights, even rights to sexual activities independent of their masters. In fact Roman Slavery changed so much that by the "Dark Ages" the Latin Word for Slaves had to change. Servus, latin for Slave, had by the 7-8th Century AD become Serf, a freeman to all but his master, but who had rights to the land he was on AND limits on what his master could do. The Serf was more a private in the Army then a Slave, he had duties, but his "master" owned his duties. It had become a two way street.

Do to this change, when new Slaves came back into Europe, they had to be given a new name. Since most of them were Slavs in the 7-8th Centuries, this wa the basis for the new name for people who had little or no rights. Even this changed within a couple of hundred years as the rights of these new Slaves became more and more like the Serfs.

Another example is the term "Indian Giver" in the US. This is derived from the conflict between Colonial America and its absolute ownership of property, if transferred in form of payment of gift, and the Indians definition, if property was given was sold or given, which included a right to re-claim if needed. Thus an Indians gift was NEVER absolute, while the white expected all gifts to be absolute. You must understand this very different definition of Property and who owned "property" when reviewing other cultures.0

Women, even when viewed as property, had always been treated with more Rights then even serfs had. Their Husbands had certain duties to these women (Which can include having sex with the woman ON HER DEMAND, the some Jewish Torah list such rights). Being viewed as the property of your husband did NOT mean he could do with you as he saw fit, he had duties to perform including making sure she had a good place to live and raise her children (and remember most people married someone who was in their home area, thus the woman's father and Brothers could see HOW her husband was treating their daughter/sister and this was a big check on how much you could do (Her family may have to pay his family for killing him, but such killings had to be handled by the elders of the Tribe anyway).

My point is, where women had been viewed as property, it was NOT the absolute ownership we have today. Their parents still had "Rights" to them. Their Children had "rights" in addition to her husband and his family. This was a tremendous check on men abusing their wives.

[joshcryer]

63. I think you pick case examples that don't reflect the overall norms.

Tribes would take one anothers females for procreation. Kill the men, take the women, leave the children, etc. As civilization grew "moral obligations" may have become "the norm" but that's still quite absurd. You have the argument that "African American slaves were treated better than their free counterparts," because "they were property and the owners wanted to maintain their property," yet we still see unending brutality, and indeed, in the case of females, rape.

What you are referring to is property in the possessive sense, that is, the original conception of the word. If I'm no longer possessing something it is no longer my property, this is how the term originated. However, females as possessive property ended shortly after the neolithic period, when women were more seen as objects for procreation and child rearing than those with equal duties. Their value as common producers *ceased to be*, and we don't see it occuring again until the industrial age, with the suppression of females as public participants in progress. Women were not allowed to do any of the specialized tasks that men took for granted since the advent of agriculture. No engineers, no math, no chemistry, no astronomy, no political status, no nothing. There are only a *few* exceptions to this rule (Lesbos), but overall, it is really how things were. As primitive societies women had equal footing, they knew all the technologies necessary to survive, and partook in the hunt as equals with the men (see the Aka for the best example).

So while you might want to say "oh they had it good" (this is just me being silly), the reality is that they were not equals, and that indeed, they were property, despite the "moral obligations" that the society invented for itself.

Frankly any male that would refuse sex is deficient. The rule probably was inacted similar to other moralistic rules. If a guy can't get it up something is wrong with him, etc. Don't think that these rules aren't for the benefit of Man and for the suppression of freedom for women. If a male cannot provide for his female, then he's not a good person to do business with, etc. Ways to covertly maintain the status quo while placating the masses at the same time. It's all very cute really.

Women are, were, and continue to be property for the last 10k years. This needs to be recognized before it can change.

[happyslug]

44. How, most rapist do NOT ejaculate, so do such women get pregnant?

It has been years since I read the Statistic, but I believe it was over 90% of rapes do NOT involve ejaculation (and if memory serves me rights, over 98% of the cases).

On the other hand most men spend the time to get themselves and their sexual partner aroused (and given that men, one of the few male creatures without a penis bone, NEED so much arousal by his sexual partner, arousal caused by his partner's actions).

Rape has little if anything to do with procreation. It is a way to attack women (and other men) in a way to "put them in their place". The "thrill" of rape is NOT the sex act, but the attack part. Thus your statement is stupid. Men to get aroused enough to "shoot his load" hard, needs a willing partner who works with him to get him to ejaculate into her. This is the chief reason omen dress in a sexy provocative way, to tell their man their will help him get off.

My point Sex to procreate is a two way street, it is two people working together to get the man to get the woman pregnant. These two partners also need to have sex to show to each other both will work together on other things other then sex (Such as raising Children). Thus sex is MORE than procreation, it is two people showing each other they can work together.

Rape violate BOTH RULES. Given ejaculation occurs so rarely, it is rare for enough semen gets into a woman to make her pregnant (It can happen but rare, please note a man need NOT ejaculate to get a woman pregnant, he spills sperm while his Penis is hard, but it is a very small amount, the big source of sperm is the ejaculation which rarely occurs during a rape). The second problem is Rapist attack women when they can NOT when she is most likely to get pregnant. Given she can only get pregnant 3-4 days out of every 28 days, his attack has less than a 16% chance of occurring when she is ovulating. Given both restriction, getting a woman pregnant through rape is rare (But possible) but is so rare you can NOT count on it as a way to maintain a species.

[joshcryer]

64. I don't buy that one bit. Please find supporting evidence.

I just spent the last 5-10 minutes googling. Males frequently orgasm during rape. There's lots of semen going around proving that case. A lot of women submit. Many. Thousands. Millions. But it's still rape when women submit when they don't want to. I think you're making this some sort of narrow issue when it's a bit broader than it is.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue-Jay]

49. WTF? Nobody is going to refute that absurd statement?

You guys are slipping.

[Prophet 451]

52. Already reported it n/t

[Blue-Jay]

54. I'm on "The List"?

*sigh*

[Prophet 451]

58. There's a list? n/t

[Triana]

55. Misogyny...(part of the attitude of rapists...along with that sense of "entitlement")

Misogyny (mi-soj’e-ne) n. Hatred of women; a person who hates women. - mis’sog’y-nist n. - mi-sog’y-nis’tic or mi-sog’y-nous adj.


Characteristics of a Misogynist


Do any of these characteristics sound familiar?



If you or someone you know has four or more of these characteristics, we encourage seeking help to deal with the issues that have created these characteristics. Behaviors don’t come out of a vacuum, there are reasons (not excuses) for this behavior, and it can be dealt with.

· A Knight In Shining Armor, “I’ll save you.”

· Zeros in on a woman; he chooses her.

· Extremely possessive, always wanting to know where you are; who you’re with.

· Obsessively jealous, even of your women friends.

· Has first class spending habits; always wanting more.

· Can’t stand criticism; always on the defense.

· Exciting, fun, charismatic.

· A product of a dysfunctional family.

· Had a poor relationship with his mother. He had an abusive or passive father.

· Has a distorted view of reality.

· Uncomfortable with feelings; contemptuous of other’s weaknesses.

· Has problems with authority figures.

· If you share a secret with him it may be used against you.

· Threats of withdrawal if you don’t comply, “If you really loved me, you would…”

· Makes fun of you, calls you names and inflicts little digs; hostile humor.

· You feel awkward and incompetent around him; controlled.

· Embarrasses you in public or flatters you then cuts you down when alone.

· Is nasty behind the wheel and feels that others’ mistakes are directed toward him.

· Wants or demands undivided attention; you are to be available when he wants you.

· Cruelty may be directed toward animals

· Has a dual personality (Jekyll/Hyde).

· Has grandiose behavior; is cocky, controlling, self-centered.

· Is preoccupied with sex and is sexually controlling.

· Is competitive; must always win; his way or no way at all.

· As a child, he enjoyed playing with fire; more than curiosity.

· Was or is involved in a violent sport. (What is he doing now?).

· Comes on too strong.

· Believes in the traditional stereo-type role modeling and roles.

· Is an habitual liar; he twists facts to make it look as if he were the victim.

· Has extreme mood swings (extreme high to low).

· Takes no responsibility for anything; blames others/things/circumstances for his behavior.

· Treats you rough at times; twisting your arm, grabbing, shoving.

· Is nice to others, but treats you badly; shows no respect.

· Steals, uses people, cheats them out of their money; always borrowing, never pays back.

· Professes to be religious then attacks your religious beliefs.

· Gives gifts then demands favors.

· Makes jokes and puts women down in front of you then ridicules you for being upset.

· Encourages pity from others; convinces you to feel sorry for him for all he’s had to endure.

· Constantly cuts down your family and friends; isolates you. You must account for your time.

· Very impatient and when he gets angry will destroy property; usually yours.

· Overly sensitive and sulks when he doesn’t get his way.

· Tells you everything to do; what to do, how to do it, when to do it; what to wear

[BlueIris]

62. Great list! nt