"People need to be very, very careful of who they pair up with" - I disagree.

When a goat and tiger are to be paired up, it is only the goat that has to be careful at choosing the tiger to pair up with. The tiger does not need to care much about the goat that it is pairing up. The only thing the tiger cares about is to choose a goat which does not make it look bad in front of the other tigers. And if by chance the tiger does end up feeling that it looks bad in front of the other tigers because of the goat, then it just takes it out on the goat.

And no amount of care by the goat can guarantee it any safety from the tiger - a moments anger(whether the anger is justified/unjustified is irrelevant) is all it takes for the tiger to finish off the goat(in a moment or over a lifetime) with no consequences to itself.

Oh my God...THE LADY OR THE TIGER???

Dubious interspecies animal husbandry aside, some people are way better at hiding their nutbagginess than others (I'm thinking of a friend from school who married his sweetheart. We all cautioned against it, but no one could really articulate why. Just a general sense of...wrongness. They're divorced now, she had some sort of mental breakdown and ended up (possibly?) cheating on him, then claiming the guy in question had assaulted her. This is a very serious accusation, and she backpedaled when he said they'd need to go to the police and press charges, so I have doubts that it's true. But if she had been just a little nuttier and had gone through with it, she could have destroyed one or more lives with her accusation).

Granted, some people really do morph into Mr. Hyde when they get dumped, but in general, I think there are readily available clues that point to whether someone is the type to go off the deep end - do they have a habit of eighty-sixing friendships over small slights? Are their reactions in proportion to events, or do they get really angry, really quickly, with little provocation? Do they lie to get what they want?

Hopefully this case gets resolved so that no one who is innocent gets punished for something they didn't do, although Gonzales' name will forever be out there in association with his ex's accusation.

Well, reading the article, apparently most of the best possible outcome happened (his record was officialy expunged, he got custody of the son).
The problem is the accuser suffers very little in the way of consequences. They can't charge her with false accusation because of a lack of evidence, but the lack of evidence against her alleged attacker didn't stop them from keeping him locked up for a few months.
What we think happened is irrelevant unless we're police detectives? What happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty and erring on the side of caution?

Hmm...just finished reading the story; I'm relieved that Gonzalez was released, although I do think that West should have the book thrown at her for making a false statement to the police, and whatever else she can be charged with. I also feel incredibly, incredibly sorry for her son, getting stuck with such a lunatic for a mother.

After reading it, it doesn't appear that Gonzalez knew her very well at all - despite having had a relationship with her and fathering a child with her. If that's not a lesson in what not to do in a casual relationship, I don't know what is.

Regarding people hiding who they are -- there are sociopaths out there who are extremely clever, but most people are not clever sociopaths. Nathaniel Branden, the therapist who specializes in self-esteem (and who wrote THE best book on the topic) told me once that people will tell you what they're all about if you're willing to pay attention.

I spent eight years alone because I listened, and then I met Gregg. After I met him, I looked on the dark side -- asking myself whether I was really into him, or I was just lonely, for example. (Eight years later, seems I was right -- really into him, was my conclusion back then...after careful consideration.) I also catalogued all his faults (which aren't many, but we all have some). You don't break up with somebody because they're funny and good in bed, yet that's what people focus on.

Also, part of what took me so long to find somebody was that I made character a priority; finding a man who was ethical. And then I listened, and made quick work of most men. An example I remember from those days was a guy who bragged about taking his daughter to an awards show in Hollywood and then returning the dress to Macy's. He actually bragged that he was unethical! Buh-bye!

Anyway, I can predict Gregg's behavior pretty much to the letter, and vice versa. I have never, ever done anything to hurt anybody I've dated, nor would I, and in fact, just got a little message from an old boyfriend in New York on Facebook. Not interested in him as a boyfriend, and haven't been since the early 90s, but I adore him and any guy I've dated for any amount of time. I help him with his girl problems and he, when my friend and Advice Lady partner Marlowe had a terrible thing happen to her via an EMS error, went down to Beth Israel hospital in New York in the middle of the night for me to assess her condition.

Basically, I might work to "beat manners into impolite society," but if you aren't shouting on your cell phone or littering in my neighborhood, I'm going to smile at you and be kind to you. If we dated and it didn't work out between us, I'm sure not going to try to do anything awful to you. People who know me at all know this about me. And people who are dating need to look for the important stuff -- like character and ethics -- and not just look to see that somebody's hot.

The problem, of course, is that false accusations can't always be proved to be false.

It's also not always clear that a false accusation was made with malice or merely out of error.

You can err on the side of too much caution and live your life in fear as well. Judging by the acceptance of the overreach of the TSA, I'd argue that that is a bigger problem.

that people will tell you what they're all about if you're willing to pay attention.

This is true, and surprisingly obvious when you observe people objectively. But we want people to conform to our image of them, and so avoid confronting the reality of who they are.

I'd learned this the hard way, by dating crazy / damaged women. Things would blow up and when I looked back on their behavior, I had to acknowledge that they'd actually been very candid about their lunacy. I just didn't want to believe them.

Word, Pablo. You read my story did you? Thankfully, I got off that train about 10 years ago . . . . hope you did too.

"It's also not always clear that a false accusation was made with malice or merely out of error. "

The difference is mens rea and the law already tries to distinguish the two in every category of crime, with some exceptions.

There is a difference between saying something that turns out to be false and knowing at the time what you are saying is false. This is usually not hard ot prove either way. In this case it's pretty hard to keep a straight face amnd say that the accuser cuould have believed this one her self at any time.

If you are interested in the false rape accusation problem there is a lawyer who runs a blog on it, the False Rape Society.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
He has compiled quite a rogue's gallery over there. Women, and some men, make these accusations for the flimsiest or wickedest of reasons. Recently a law student accused someone of rape to justify to her family why she was failing at law school. Girls make up rapes to cver for being out too late at night. Then there was the women who threatened to get a litle girl to accuse a little boy she was raping, of rape, so he wouldn't tell anyone she was raping him. You can imagine how real victims of real rapes feel about this kind of thing.

Because the penalties for FRAs are so loght, and because so often it is difficult to find out if an accuser has accused before, due to rape shield laws and what not, someone at A Voice For Men has started keeping a database, with pictures and all, of false rape accusers. Paul Elam runs that place and you can ask about it there.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/

And Pablo, there is a blog devoted to the kind of thing you are describing, Dr. Tara Palmatier's blog at:
http://www.shrink4men.com/
It deals mainly with high-conflict personalities and the men who get involved with them, out of her clinicial practice, I think. It's worth the time to go back a few months on her posts. Note how the behavior she describes really isn't gendered; there are men who do exactly the same shit.

The difference is how society reacts, how the criminal justice system is set up to deal with this kind of thing. That definitely is gendered. It's a major form of discrimination.

Why do people assume she is crazy and not just an opportunistic criminal.
Scummy/evil? yes. Criminal? Yes Crazy? No.

Unfortunately it is too easy a cop out to say choose wisely, beware of crazies. Because it is a system that is in place that in a divorce, dv or child support that routinely, ties the hands of one party, and hands the other one a club and then says play nice.

IS she crazy? I don't think so.
Why do others think so?
Because she lied? people do it all the time.
Because she tried to twist the law for her obvious benifit and revenge agaist an ex? Cold and calculating but not crazy.
Yep she took it furthur than most would, but that is just thoroughness, not craziness.
That she thought she could get away with it? Well she partially did, and almost completely did.

The system is so biased, that it is seen as easy pickings. And a society that says " You go girl! And all men are pigs who deserve what they get."

Thanks it is one of my pet peves, that when a guy is accused/convicted of a crime, he is assumed to be bad or evil. But a woman commits the same crime she is assumed to be manipulated by someone or crazy, and therefore not responsible.

I see in this case and many others women who are opportunistic and vengeful and not crazy, which is not something you can spot easily and avoid.

People may tell you exactly what they are like or the opposite of what they are like, but it has to seem like a problem to you for it to make a difference.

This is why it SOUNDS easy to spot someone who is going to wreck you, but I'm not so sure it is. Paying attention to what they DO, independent of what they say is a good first step... but how far do you take it without a context? If an S.O. asks you to bring her the salt even though it's closer to her than to you, should that signal that she is going to be an entitled queen for whom nothing you do is good enough? Remebering that everyone is on their best behavior when courting? Is it just a quirk that when out she orders a meal just so with lots of exceptions? Is it a bad thing when she changes her mind about stuff that effects you, and when does it cross the line? When she claims she wants to stay in rather than go out when you have put a ton of effort into making plans? Is it mor important if she seems ill in that case or if she jumps your bones all night. How many times can it happen before there is a problem...
And then what if it's something BIG, like she has decided she wants to stay home with the kids rather than go back to work? How big a fight are you willing to start? How much does it actually matter to you? Especially when at first it's just going to be for a year or two till the kid can go easily to daycare.
And then after a year or two she really want to have another kid...

You can look and look and look, and sometimes you will see a problem coming. And sometimes the little problems you saw, the ones that never really bothered you that much, hide a monster behind them. A monster that doesn't stop when a reasonable person would be expected to stop.

I think that is probably the most insideous problem, and difficult to see. Where everyone will flake or freakout on occasion, or get jealous once in a while, can you always spot the person that at some point or in some case is going to take it to the nth degree?

I fully accept that I chose my mate poorly, and will continue to pay for it... but I'm not convinced that, knowing what I knew then, I could really have forseen where it would end. Too many things were relatively normal, until they weren't.

I think we all have a framework to survive that has reaonable limits on behavior. A little jealous insecurity is pretty common, but it may take some years before there is some kind of Big Deal where the little green monster becomes a Big Green Monster, and suddenly your officemate that she swapped recipes and stories with MUST BE YOUR SECRET MISTRESS BECAUSE SHE'S PRETTY!!!!111!
Um, what?

By then chosing well is long since over and like a ball and chain there is no escape. Could you have foreseen it if the situation never arose before?
You can see it's a bad thing if a person must always get their way, and is unreasonable about it... but if you are a naturally giving person, the question may never come up...

until you actually need something from them, and they say "it's not my problem, do it yourself."

20/20 foresight can be striven for, but it's never as perfect as hindsight.

Hopefully you don't find that out the way the boyo in question did.

SwissArmyD, I think you totally nailed this one. Unfortunately there are a lot of personality disorders, character quirks that are mildly annoying at first and fall into the general catagory of no one is pefect, and then there are people over time who have behaviors that get worse to the point of unbearable.

I have a cousin who married a woman who had a few minor quirks, mostly extreme shyness. Over 20 years it morphed into a type of paranoia where she refused to let anyone but him and their two kids in the house.

Sometimes quirky remains just a little quirky and other times it evolves into bat shit crazy. Almost as hard to predict as which social drinkers will become alcoholics under the right set of conditions.

but I'm not convinced that, knowing what I knew then, I could really have forseen where it would end. Too many things were relatively normal, until they weren't.

That's a valid point. Something that I do think is true of women, more so than men, is that they can change very dramatically over time. There seem to be a few distinct turning points for women that men don't experience, or experience as severely. Such as when they start to show their age a bit, when they have kids, and menopause. I've known a few women who've really gone off the deep end in response to these sorts of events.

Anyway, I can predict Gregg's behavior pretty much to the letter, and vice versa.

I just got back from a business trip to France. I was talking to a Swiss man who sat next to me at a restaurant in Paris and he was surprised that my husband didn't mind that I take all these business trips all over the world without him, because conferences are such notorious hookup locations. I was amused because my husband and I know each other very well and we just don't worry about that sort of thing. I've been hit on at conferences but why in the world would I screw up a great thing for a short-term reward?

"Thanks it is one of my pet peves, that when a guy is accused/convicted of a crime, he is assumed to be bad or evil. But a woman commits the same crime she is assumed to be manipulated by someone or crazy, and therefore not responsible."

Yeah. Mary Winkler. Andrea Yates. Look, look; find a man somewhere to pin the blame on, preferably the murder victim himself, or their father. Humans have free will; but women are less that human, by this standard.

People blame this on the influence of feminism, but that misses the point. There was a time when the feminism called itself the radical notion that women are human. There was a time when it derided the chivalry you point out. Then it backslid into victimology, the damsel in distress - the notion of "rape culture" and "male privilege" and the whole entitlement princess package of gendered special pleading. It has become the Lady's Auxiliary of the Patriarchy.

That's not the end of the story of feminism; there are lots of very hopeful things starting to happen, at least in on-line feminism, but that is where the center of gravity is at present.

I'm sick and tired of "feminism". Why not just treat a human being the same, regardless of sex? How about "humanism"? By making a point to differentiate, you simply get the behaviors you *say* you are trying to avoid.

Why not just treat a human being the same, regardless of sex?

Because sex makes different human beings.

In other words, Men and Women are different.

DrCos wrote: "The problem is the accuser suffers very little in the way of consequences. They can't charge her with false accusation because of a lack of evidence, but the lack of evidence against her alleged attacker didn't stop them from keeping him locked up for a few months."

In this case, the man could have sued her in civil court. Of course that takes money, but the standard of proof in civil court is "a preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Because sex makes different human beings.In other words, Men and Women are different.

So, we should get preferential treatment because we are women? That puts the lie to the whole "Equality" thing, doesn't it? Not "equal treatment" but "special treatment".
I call BS, it Should be the same if you are a male criminal or a female criminal, period.

Thats the funny thing about launguage Kat, "treat people the same" does not neccisarilly equal "equal treatment"

You probably meant it that way, and it just got lost in translation.

"In this case, the man could have sued her in civil court. Of course that takes money, but the standard of proof in civil court is "a preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You mean slander? I don't know the law, and certainly not for that jurisdiction, but that is almost certainly not available to him.

This is the problem. The accuser made a false statemtn to police. That is going unpunished. That leaves her free to do it again, and the victim that next time will have no record of her previous crime to use in his defense.

"For the record, I believe those who can be proved to have made false accusations of rape against another person should be made to do the time the person they falsely accused would have done. "

Why? When you destroy a man's life with a false accusation of rape, you probably arguably in most cases do more harm than the average rape (sorry, not to belittle the terribleness of rape, but imagine the trauma for a moment not only of going through a false rape accusation, possibly ending up in jail as a rape accused, losing your job and probably the ability to ever get a proper job or have a meaningful career ever again, and for the rest of your life until the day you die having many people "still believe you did it", and thus possibly even the ability to ever have a normal relationship again), therefore you should have an even harsher sentence than a rape sentence.