Great stuff. Great stuff. Love these posts. Takes me back to the stray anthropolopy class I accidentally wandered into for a semester as an undergrad in order to satisfy a gen ed requirement.

"Men who cannot let go choose women who cannot say no."-

I know that there will be women and even women's rights groups who will be upset by that statement but there is so much truth in it. As a survivor of an abusive relationship, I've spent a great deal of time (years) trying to figure out exactly what the attraction was on both sides. I'm not the same person I was then and I know that I would never tolerate even his earlier behavior now. That's not to blame me for his actions. Being harassed, stalked and abused is no fun and very hard to get out from under, but I think understanding the roles that all of us play in a relationship like that is key to breaking patterns of abuse. Most abusers have a predatory aspect to their personality. They don't pick out the smart, strong and emotionally healthy women or men. They go for the weak one who are lacking security and self-esteem, easy prey. So yes, men who cannot let go do pick women who can't say no.

Thanks so much, Spartee.

And as for women's rights groups being upset with that statement, they are standing in the way of women's safety. By admitting the truth, you can begin to address the realities of people's self-damaging behavior and maybe help them.

"I think understanding the roles that all of us play in a relationship like that is key to breaking patterns of abuse"

Exactly.

I encountered men who wanted to remate, and always told them that I did not personally know but two cases in my entire life where it was possible to remate once she pulled the trigger. Those two cases were admittedly attention getting maneuvers, rather than a true desire to divorce, at least that's what the women said.

Give it up; it's over.

And, from the man's viewpoint, he should understand she has proven herself not fit to be his mate, IF he is fit to be hers. (That might take some of you a while to get.)

The fact that women's rights groups would be upset by that statement has more to do with the fact that they will argue any statement that doesn't assign full blame to the stalker, abuser, or whatever he may be. I agree that it hurts women because it denies the woman the chance to figure out the full picture. Why did she attract such a person? What was she lacking? Why did she think certain behavior was acceptable and excusable. Discovering those things can be a big part of stopping something that escalates in a slow and gradual way and turns into something big and dangerous. The intention of the women's groups started out in the right place. An abuser is responsible for his/her actions, but understanding why they pick who they pick is a big part of future prevention. I think they are afraid that by acknowledging the victim's part, that they are assigning blame on the victim. The answers seem easier than they are because by acknowledging the role of a victim, you open the doors to all of the "but she deserved it" idiots. Its a fine line. At least, I think it is.

My former boss was stalked, by one of his female employees. I was one of the people who were involved in the deposition.

I of course could only testify as to what I saw at work, but some of those signs listed above were right there.

We all knew she had a "thing" for him. Once I was talking to him in his office, standing less than a foot from his desk. This woman came in to tell him some supposedly really important thing. I swear she muscled in between me and the desk so she could stand directly in front of me. All I could think of was a big labrador retriever pushing in for attention.

I also saw the cards and a couple of presents she sent him. She wrote that she knew they were meant to be together, and society's rules were forcing him to stay with his family.

There was more, of course. The ending was no big Fatal Attraction thing, though. The deposition was because she filed a sexual harassment suit against him! He showed me a letter she wrote him later. She said she only did it because he wasn't paying attention to her, and she knew it wouldn't hurt him or his business!

Anticlimactic ending, though. After she was fired, she transferred her obsession to another man, a friend of his. Shortly after that I got away from the whole mess, so I don't know how it all ended up. No bloodshed, as far as I know.

Sessions Presents, Songs to Stalk By! With:

Possession (kisses so hard, I'll take your breath away)

Every Breath You Take (Oh can't you see, you belong to meee...)

One Way Or Another (...where I can see you at all, find out who you call)

Turn Around, Look At Me (There is someone walking behind you) preferably sung like Peter Lorre

Knock Three Times (one floor below me, you don't even know me, I love you)

You're My Obsession (You're like a butterfly, a wild butterfly)

I'm the Only One (who'd drown in my desire for you)

And many more!

So there is a biological reason for stalking? Makes sense. Now if we could just figure out the biological reason for hairy nipples on men.

Who gets stalked? Personality traits of the stalkable, per Buss:

-extraversion, openness, agreeableness
-lack of "bodyguards"
-low physical formidability

The last of these seems worthless. Almost all women lack physical formidability compared to almost all men.

As for the second, so long as I am alive, my daughter need not worry about stalkers.

So, by your reasoning, that 16 yr old who survived dismasting in the Southern Ocean is rather less likely to end up in a home for battered women.

I'll bet you are right.

> Almost all women lack physical formidability
> compared to almost all men.

But, but, but... You're missing the point. Y'know, Sun-Tzu (paraphrase in wiki ): "Therefore one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful."

Commenter Monica was talking about this here: People are looking for others whose psychoses neatly complement their own. (Drew Pinsky once went farther than that, saying that in most every case it's each other's weaknesses and character flaws that most attract us, even in the well-paired. If I ever become a serious student of human character... Y'know, books, insight, things like that... I'm going to look into this very carefully.)

It makes perfect sense to me that the extremely stalky guys, the really aggressive nutbars, would be able to read these attitudes in body language. Predation isn't about fighting.

I went out with a guy once who gave me the creeps and I broke off things almost immediately. He might have just been needy. He took me to meet his family and if he was seated by me, he always had his hand on my knee, or my shoulder, or my back. Always. If we weren't right beside each other and I looked his way, he would be gazing at me with this...smile. I guess you had to be there to know what I mean.

He was making plans for next week, and the week after that, and so on. We had gone to one movie, and he had taken me to his house to meet the folks. I broke it off over the phone cause I'm a weeniewoman sometimes, and I really didn't want to see him again.

The next time I saw the girl who had introduced us, she asked me what happened. The guy had called her and said "What did you say to her? She was crazy about me!"

As far as I know he never did anything else, so maybe he was just a little reality impaired. But still, something about him made me wish for a cross or a stake or something.

Oh, cripes, it's just like yesterday. Yep, I broke off things. Fingers, door handles, stuff like that. I think I'll just go sit down with my husband and watch Zombieland.

> maybe he was just a little reality impaired.

Yes.

That would be a lesser episode of a TV sitcom, but it could be a brilliant novel, if you gave it the effort.

Also, you're right about the lyrics thing. This echoes some conversation we were having here a week or two ago, where I quoted (paraphrased) Paglia: 'Things that nowadays are called rape used to be considered the most poignant expressions of love.'

It's difficult to recommend de Becker's books because they appeal to people who find too much drama in their lives... But if you're NOT a drama queen, his first book is a good airliner read, and makes the exact point P-pear's making. See also my comment of May 6, 2009 2:16 AM.

(See also the first comment of that stack, which STILL cracks my shit up.)

(Gosh, it's like everything's a circle, the same issues keep coming up over and over. Do we need new topics on this blog?)

(How 'bout that oil spill, ain't that sumpthin'? The woman who runs this video feed is apparently a computer genius in the Carolina mountains who's just really pissed off about it. She watches closely enough to know when the crews are taking long lunch breaks. And good for her!)

I enjoyed the remarks so much this weekend that I'm having a hard time taking anything seriously, plus I've been listening to some weird-ass movies all afternoon. (Listening, cuz I hardly ever really sit and watch a movie anymore.)

We went from Very Bad Things to The Hangover to Zombieland to There's Something About Mary, and now Team America is on. Fuck yeah!

With something good to smoke, it would all make sense. Oh, well.

ANYWAY...thanks for the suggestion, Crid. Everyone I know is a would-be writer, including me, but this one hadn't occurred to me. Now possibilities are flying around. Hmmmnn..I need a mental fly-swatter to smack some of them down.

Kristen, feminisims refusal to admit the part a woman plays in her abuse isnt about making sure no one can critisize her.Its about ensuring the need feminism to continue.
Imgine what would happen if abused woman were allowed to take stock of their situations and change the way they reacted to abuse.

Why feminism would have been succsessful and and would no longer be needed.

Sadly the greatest threat to womens independence and safty is their own "liberation" movement

Thank you for posting this.

"Sadly the greatest threat to womens independence and safty is their own "liberation" movement"

Well said, Luljp, well said.

This is especially true since women's "leaders" seem intent on creating as much hatred toward men as they possibly can -- exactly the kind of hate that "bounces." The trouble is, feminists hide behind other women's skirts -- and so it will be ordinary women who are on the receiving end of men's increasing and justifiable resentment and animosity. It is women more than men who need to tell all feminists (male and female) to STFU -- while there is still time to avoid the REAL gender war that is brewing.

Backlash? Susan Faludi ain't seen nothing yet -- bad times for all. "Independent"? How about "Alone".