Oh. My. God. My brain was screaming "run away" after the first sentence. The bull about logging onto the dating site again slots this guy firmly into the budding stalker category.

If you continue dating (and you should) you'll certainly meet a few freak shows, cuz they're out there. The trick is to learn to recognize them quickly and run the other way. I'd suggest sticking a copy of your own letter on your fridge as a handy cheat sheet for the early identification of freak show-ism.

And please explain this: " .... I got a strange phone call and thought it was him, but it wasn't." How strange was it, exactly? And if it was really strange, and your mind immediately conjured up this dude - well, that's another big red flag.

Years ago I listened to a radio interview with the dance director of the Radio City Rockettes. Remembering the incredible precision of the girls dancing in the chorus line, I was astonished to hear him say that the girls do not actually touch one another. He explained that, although their arms are close, they do not actually touch because if they did, and one of the girls lost her balance slightly, it would throw off the whole line.

That has always seemed to me to be a good metaphor for close relationships -- to be able to dance in harmony with someone else, but without clinging. Before we seek or enter into such relationships, we must first learn to dance and keep our balance by ourselves.

but I don't think expecting a response before six hours pass is being overly needy.

I do. For instance, last night I started work at 8pm, finished after 1am. In preparation for that I was asleep in the afternoon. If you'd sent me a text about lunchtime, I probably wouldn't have had time to respond till after 2am, and then I wouldn't want to wake you - so you would get a response the next day. See how that works?

If it's something urgent or life-threatening, then fine, call repeatedly till I wake. But it had better be good. You're needy - face it. Needing a response to a "hello how are you" on the same day is a problem.

We had another date, and he asked for exclusivity, and even said he wouldn't mind if I got pregnant.

I literally have no idea what to say about this...my brain just shut down at the sheer horror.

Ltw,
The upper limit on acceptable length of time to return a text message is, in my experience, proportional to age. Older people think of it as similar to returning a phone call where it's ok to wait til evening, but high school & college kids routinely expect and provide much faster responses. The LW might be young.

Of course since both LW and the guy are total nut jobs, the text issue isn't that important to the big picture :)

he kept taking a half day to return texts

Pick up the damn phone, then. It seems that the advent of texting has made some people think it's less needy than calling, but I'm with Ltw: it better be a good or important text to get an immediate response from me if I'm otherwise occupied. If I'm working (back when I had a job, of course), you're not hearing from me until I have a clear break. And asking why he's not returning texts after two dates is pretty needy, too. And you did ask, LW, though you skip over that right to his reason for not getting back to you.

I'm harping on the LW here, and I do realize her date is possibly crazier than she is. But dumping the guy because he's slow on returning texts is insane. It's like you're going to stop attending KKK rallies because you don't have the white shoes to match.

If I'm working (back when I had a job, of course), you're not hearing from me until I have a clear break

I do the same. Unless it's time-critical - "what time are we meeting for dinner tonight" or important - "your mother is in hospital", I generally don't reply to personal texts while I'm at work (and when I actually turn up to the office I rarely have breaks - even my smoking breaks are either phone calls or thinking about a technical problem). I would much rather do that when I get home and have my feet up. It's part of the office focus.

Anonymous, people can expect faster responses all they like, but they're going to be disappointed - by me at least. Especially in these circumstances (two dates), anyone who expected that would get told gently but in no uncertain terms that I felt smothered and that it was too much. And I actually did so a few weeks ago, in very similar circumstances. Although to some extent the guy asked for it with his creepy declaration of instant obsession followed by weeks of inattention.

We had another date, and he asked for exclusivity, and even said he wouldn't mind if I got pregnant.

I worked out what to say about this - guys, imagine if you were on your second date with a girl and she said "it wouldn't worry me if I got pregnant"

That sound you hear is me running in the opposite direction...

We know that Amy has had a lot more correspondence with LW that we see here. In this case, I surely hope that is the case. The real issue here is LW's desperation to tie a male - any male - to her bedpost.

In the early days of dating, you need space. This has nothing to do with younger people expecting faster response times. How would you react if, after your first date or two, the other person was flooding you with messages and demanding hourly responses?

The guy may be a jerk, or he may be a normal guy trying to figure out if there is anything in LW worth having. Seen dimly through LW's desperate glasses, it's impossible to tell...

Holy shit.

I have three separate responses based on the possible age of the letter writer. Two out of the three are a bit mean. Sorry.

LW,

If, as has been reasonably suggested by Anonymous, you are fifteen or sixteen years old or so, take it easy. You simply have a lot to learn and will grow out of these perfectly natural feelings. Don't jump into anything until you've reached the point that you recognize these "why won't he call me" sort of feelings as an obstacle to your personal development, success, and freedom. It's hard to express the grave importance of such development, particularly for a young lady. Guys can have a crack at this sort of development a bit later, but girls can very easily get stuck in horrible situations before they get the chance to realize its importance. Keep your dating light and fun and as soon as you feel any pressure to alter your sensibilities, move on to a more light and fun guy. Talk to your father, mother, or some other trusted adult about the feelings you are having and really listen to what they say. They have a lot more wisdom than you give them credit for and they love you. You will see. If you fall into this age group, then please stop reading my post. Otherwise, feel free to press on.

If you are an adult young woman, then for God's sake get some (drug free) therapy. You're clingy, insecure, needy, and you will make some man, as well as yourself, very miserable someday.

If you are an adult older woman, then maybe you have found your perfect match. Oh, and take some writing classes for fuck's sake.

> The next morning, he sent a somewhat angry text,
> observing that I'd logged in again on the dating
> site, and while I didn't owe him anything, he
> found it odd

Except - he would have needed to log in to the dating site himself to find this out.

Good God! I am I the only one who sees the Psycho shower scene running through my head? RUN FOREST RUN!! If this guy isn't currently off his meds and recently escaped from Arkham Asylum, then he is clearly an abuser looking for a new victim. He displays all the warning signs. LW, if you do wind up with this guy I foresee lots of emergency room visits, probably because you "walked into a door."

That being said, you have probably been a victim of abuse in your past, hence the need to repeat the cycle, and your overwhelming need for love. You won't find it with an abuser. Abusers don't love people. They love the control they have over them.

Been there, done that LW. Run fast and run far.

Angel,

The way you have portrayed the LW’s situation drips with unjustified bias. All we can reasonably assume given the details of the letter are that both the LW and this guy are incredibly desperate and needy. You then proceed to take a quantum leap of logic and declare that this means the guy is an abuser looking for a “new victim” and the woman is a former victim looking for a new abuser.

Such a conclusion isn’t only unwarranted given what little we know, it also suggests that there is nothing the LW needs to work on besides avoiding “abusive men”. Sorry, but from where I am standing, she has a bit of herself to work on as well if her typical dating habits include the following:

Meeting someone online.
Having a four hour conversation with them sight unseen.
Telling this person after one date that he was the “total package” and that she wanted to be exclusive.
Getting upset if this guy took more than a half day to respond to her texts.

The root cause of this type of behavior needs to be addressed and foisting all of the responsibility onto some unknown and unmentioned potentially fictitious past abuser isn’t all that helpful.

LW needs to stop watching so many romantic comedies.
Really, though, this is a pretty bizarre letter. I hope she's young, because if this is a 30-year-old writing... well... her cats will always keep her company.

@reality - i agree with your opinion about how angel has responded to this letter, but there are some things i disagree with.

for instance, my partner (of 3 years on monday!) and i met online.

we had tons of conversations online before we met in person and exchanged photos. it was over a month before we met in person.

our first date was quite intimate. it was the first time i'd let things go that far and i was 20. i do not regret it for a moment and it is one of the most beautiful memories i'll have to cherish for the rest of my life.

now, all that being said, my story is not the typical outcome, but meeting someone online and having 4 hour long conversations with them (sight unseen) does not make a person an unhealthy dater, however, it is obvious that LW is.

she sounds JUST like my sister who, through therapy, has discovered the root cause of her craving so much affection from men and she is 29. so, depending on this girl's age, she could either just need to grow up a little or start seeing a therapist. but definitely avoid this guy because not only is he stringing her along, he himself needs therapy.

Now you've done it! You've told the whole world about our little problems. I didn't return your calls because I was trying to assert my dominance. I'll respond when I AM GOOD AND READY to respond to your messages. We'll date when I AM GOOD AND READY to date. You'll get pregnant when I say you will. And for sure our relationship isn't over until I SAY IT IS OVER!! Got it?!!

"The bull about logging onto the dating site again slots this guy firmly into the budding stalker category."

I never understood why dating sites have that feature. Some don't, but those that do tend to show the last login and the time spent online.

I can attest it's discouraging when you go out on a really nice first date, where you seem to click, then log on and see that your date logged right after he got home. Of course, the catch is that YOU logged on too, so you can't really know if he is checking on you the same way. It's pretty typical to have your date's profile saved and the information is just there for both of you to see.

Most online daters, if they're honest, notice that, but that doesn't make them stalkers. The problem here is that he said something - made it a confrontation. That's such a red flag of being controlling, because whereas it is normal to feel a little insecurity when seeing your date logged on (and presumable was conatcing others right after your date), it isn't normal to believe you have any right to feel that way or demand an explanation.

"Holy shit" was my reaction too. The LW's idea of what constitutes a good relationship is so SNAFU'ed that if I were her therapist, I don't know where I'd start. LW, please: Lay off of the dating for a while. Do some reading and some thinking about what you really want from a relationship before you date again. And, while you're reading, Google "Cluster B personality disorders".

Frankly they both seem a little crazy. Perhaps they should stay together, if only to spare someone else the trouble of dealing with either of them.

Wow—both of you seem equally incompetent at the whole dating thing, and having a spine. Will it happen again? Probably.

@Reality and haikumoon, I may be wrong, and he may just be a budding psycho stalker, as is the general consensus, but if you read up on it, the first thing that an abuser does is immediately form an unwarranted level of attachment to the abused. They then move the relationship along at a rapid fire pace so that the abused doesn't have time to think, and the next thing they know, they're in a full blown relationship, and the abuser moves on to the next phase, isolation from friends and family. Also, guilt trips are a favored weapon of the abuser. As well Reality, if I am a little biased, it only goes to support my theory. After watching an abuser at work for 13 years and the resulting carnage, I have done much research and can spot 'em from a mile away. I stand by my original response because whether he's a psycho stalker, an abuser, or just a run of the mill freak, she still needs to run fast and far. However, I agree with you that she does need some help, and when she stops running, she should make sure it's somewhere in the vicinity of a licensed therapist.

@ your online date: So. Not. Funny.

Angel that would all make more sense if he were actually pursuing her, or making any effort to maintain contact. But she's the one who is pursuing him. He has gone for weeks at a time without contacting her. She's the one who keeps initiating contact. He's certainly not escalating the relationship in the way you describe.

If anyone's behavior is stalkerish, it's hers.

"Weeks later, I got a strange phone call, and thought it was him. It wasn't, but he asked me out."

HuH? I've read this several time and still running into a contradiction, I hope it was a typo or editing thing, but with the rest of the crazy (mostly from him but some from her) in this letter I'm thinking not.

Lets see you got a strange phone call, ok I've gottern odd calls too.
I thought it was him.. You thought? did the person not identify themself? Caller ID came up with a different John Smith? A guy you haven't heard from in weeks and you think a call was him.
And the kicker, but he asked me out.
If it wasn't him on the phone how did he ask you out.... The only answer I can see is She called him.
I'm just picturing it. HI I just had a call all it was was a guy breathing heavy and what sounded like a cat being strangles. I thougt of you, want to go out tomorrow?"

I kind of say the deserve each other they are both crazy semi stalkerish people. Be together so the rest of us don't ever meet them. And please do not have kids.

Haikumoon,

I don’t want to give you the wrong impression that I am coming down on online dating or anything. I’m fine with that as a method to bring people together. I’m simply looking at the LW’s self reported behavior and noting that it is very bizarre when taken as a whole. Any one of those things could be brushed off (such as an initial 4 hour phone conversation), but when taken in aggregate it suggests a problem.

All that being said, I also don’t want to give the impression that I am defending the behavior of the guy in this scenario. I think he has a problem too given the described behavior. I’m simply not comfortable vilifying one of them and giving the other a free pass. The scenario suggests very bizarre behavior on both of their parts.

Angel,

Are you and I reading the same letter?

All you can offer this guy is the possibility of a downgrade from abusive psycho to psycho stalker? That doesn’t seem too charitable and also doesn’t appear to correspond to the facts presented in the letter.

Would you or anyone else generally describe a stalker in the following way:

“He stopped responding several days later. Weeks later, I got a strange phone call, and thought it was him. It wasn't, but he asked me out.”

Or,

“I heard nothing from him until two weeks later, when I mass e-mailed my new cell number.”

Or,

“The next day, we sent friendly texts, but he again stopped responding.”

The guy in this scenario has gone for weeks at a time avoiding this woman. She is the one who is bothered by the fact that he doesn’t respond to her. If that makes him a stalker then the definition you are using does not match the one in the dictionary.

The worst someone can say given the above facts is that he is a flake or that he keeps leading her on… but that doesn’t make him a stalker.

I agree that his behavior isn’t proper, but it is no worse or better than the LW’s behavior. For some reason you seem determined to give the LW a free pass while vilifying this fellow. He isn’t moving the relationship along at a “rapid fire pace” as you suggest, he is avoiding her. The details presented to us do not support your contention.

Made me think of someone I used to date. Back when computers were dial-up, I would send out some pictures to friends. Not wishing to wait for the sluggish process to conclude, and having nothing else to do online, I would shut off IMs and block myself on the Buddy List, then set the upload to log off automatically upon completion.

But my interested would be paramour would check the screen name listings on AOL, which would invariably show who was online with a red arrow next to their name, discover mine and send me emails demanding to know why I blocked him.

Needless to say, that didn't last.

Reality-this is what makes me think he's either an abuser or psycho stalker.

"I met a guy online, and after two four-hour phone conversations, he declared he felt a "deep connection." We had a romantic date, during which he made repeated declarations of his feelings. The next morning, he sent a somewhat angry text, observing that I'd logged in again on the dating site, and while I didn't owe him anything, he found it odd. This led me to (stupidly and prematurely) proclaim him "the total package" for me and say I wouldn't see anyone else."

Sounds like moving at a rapid fire pace to me, cause who the hell declares a "deep connection" over an 8 hour cyber chat? THEN goes on a romantic dinner as a first date? Seems pretty rapid fire to me. What makes me think he's an abuser is that after ONE (highly inappropriate) date, he's monitoring her activity and becoming angry with her when she doesn't seem "attached" enough. THEN he proceeds to wring a promise of exclusivity from her, and promptly disappears. Controlling much?

That's not to say she doesn't have any problems herself, and quite possibly she isn't a prior victim, but I think she must have chronically low self esteem if she puts up with that behavior, and actually encourages it.

"I got a weird phone call and thought..." business seemed to me like she'd made that up as an excuse to call him.

Bingo! It's the old Did you call me? call. I'd used that trick in High School.

The funny thing, when I'd first read that, I thought that she'd gone out with the strange caller. It seemed fitting.

For some reason you seem determined to give the LW a free pass while vilifying this fellow.

She's a woman, he's a man, that's all you need to know.
---

Honestly of the two of them, she seems the crazier. He may just be riding along hoping to get some. Or he may actually like her, but she's throwing up so many red flags that he's keeping his distance.

Also I suspect that the pregnancy question was something she brought up, not him. She probably asked whether he wants kids some day, he said yes, and she took that to mean that he 'wouldn't mind' if she got pregnant. As in, she's contemplating an 'accidental' pregnancy.

Angel is as crazy as the LW!

Since when is a romantic restaurant 'highly inappropriate' for a first date? By that logic, every man in America is an abusive psycho. Doesn't being abusive require that you actually abuse someone?

"Honestly of the two of them, she seems the crazier. He may just be riding along hoping to get some. Or he may actually like her, but she's throwing up so many red flags that he's keeping his distance."

That's the funny thing. He probably is an abuser. I agree with Angel's analysis of his initial behavior, but even abusers don't like to be out-crazied.

Either that, or he's got a lot of women he's stringing along. You see that frequently with online dating. A person seems really interested, but then someone hotter shows up in their inbox and they disappear for awhile to pursue that. Everyone prioritizes their potential dates. Sounds to me like he's keeping her in his back pocket, and the sad thing is that she's letting him.

Manipulators like challenge. It's no fun when someone just serves themselves up to be abused.

I think the guy is someone used to stringing women along. The whole "deep connection" thing is something only a young, inexperienced woman would fall for, I think. And yeah, saying she got a strange call and then used that as an excuse to call him sounds about right. She's young, excited about a new possibility and then finds reasons to try to get closer.

But the guy is a player and she's not seeing it. She's in denial about it and I actually think her looking at the time he's taking to return texts is sensible. I mean, if a guy is crazy in love with you, they're going to get back to you quickly. If they don't they're either on the fence or on the way out.

The standard she's using--a few hours--doesn't seem strange to me. I'm someone who hates the phone and only checks for messages at the end of the day. Most people know that email is a better way of reaching me. So, when it's my doctor's office or some other official sort of thing, and the person contacting me has my email address, it's not unusual for me to find a voice mail message at home AFTER they've emailed me.

These are just office people doing their job, trying to reach me in time to tell me an appointment's been changed or cancelled or something. And, I get it that they email me if they don't get called back (by phone) in a couple of hours. I don't think THEY are stalkers, just determined to get a message to me.

The LW sounds either young and inexperienced or just inexperienced and vulnerable because she'd like to meet someone. This guy has undoubtedly figured that out about her, hence his power-shifting behaviour.

I don't think any of this is as sinister as some of the other posters are making out. She's just feeling her way through her feelings and his weird (and let's face it, game-playing) behaviour.

She's right to want to dump him. All the red flags are there.

I think the guy is someone used to stringing women along. The whole "deep connection" thing is something only a young, inexperienced woman would fall for, I think. And yeah, saying she got a strange call and then used that as an excuse to call him sounds about right. She's young, excited about a new possibility and then finds reasons to try to get closer.

But the guy is a player and she's not seeing it. She's in denial about it and I actually think her looking at the time he's taking to return texts is sensible. I mean, if a guy is crazy in love with you, they're going to get back to you quickly. If they don't they're either on the fence or on the way out.

The standard she's using--a few hours--doesn't seem strange to me. I'm someone who hates the phone and only checks for messages at the end of the day. Most people know that email is a better way of reaching me. So, when it's my doctor's office or some other official sort of thing, and the person contacting me has my email address, it's not unusual for me to find a voice mail message at home AFTER they've emailed me.

These are just office people doing their job, trying to reach me in time to tell me an appointment's been changed or cancelled or something. And, I get it that they email me if they don't get called back (by phone) in a couple of hours. I don't think THEY are stalkers, just determined to get a message to me.

The LW sounds either young and inexperienced or just inexperienced and vulnerable because she'd like to meet someone. This guy has undoubtedly figured that out about her, hence his power-shifting behaviour.

I don't think any of this is as sinister as some of the other posters are making out. She's just feeling her way through her feelings and his weird (and let's face it, game-playing) behaviour.

She's right to want to dump him. All the red flags are there.

Let's put together a check list to spot 'abusers'..

1. Takes you out to a nice restaurant on the first date.
2. Has long talks with you on the telephone
3. Does not have long talks on the telephone, in fact he refuses to call you!
4. sends sms
5. doesn't send sms quickly enough
6. Avoids you unless you persistently stalk him.
7. Tells you that he's feeling a deep connection.
8. Is looking for someone to have a relationship with.
9. Tolerates needy and manipulative behavior, because that's just how women are.
10. has a penis

Sorry for the bad grammar and double posting above. That's what happens when people keep coming into my office and spoiling my fun!

Funny, Moo. But none of that is what we're going by. What is a red flag for an abusive/controlling personality is the fact that he became upset that she logged on to the dating site, after their first date, apparently bullying her into naming him the one and only, plus the rush to intimacy ("he wouldn't mind if I got pregant?" on the second date?).

This guy could even be married. He's wanting it fast, so he's telling women exactly what they want to hear in order to speed things along. When she didn't go to bed with him immediately after the "deep connection" and "have my baby" conversations, he moved on. But she, being desperate and apparently insecure, couldn't let it go. Often, women who have been played can't admit it and just keep trying to believe there's something there, which would prove they weren't being played.

Lovelysoul - to quote Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady, at least if my imperfect memory serves...

"By George, I think she's got it!"

This guy has player written all over him. Those of you blaming the LW (and I haven't been nice either), remember how it is when you're really into someone. I still don't agree with the 6 hour text response rule, but I understand that sometimes things like that are the silly little things that stand in for a real problem - like that he's stringing her along. And she can feel it.

"he wouldn't mind if I got pregnant?" on the second date?

And that still blows my mind. Wow.

This is a good example of why women shouldn't be allowed to serve on juries when men are the defendants.

Ladies look at the behavior that the LW has admitted to, and ask yourself whether she seems credible. Is it likely that she'd giving Amy a candid and accurate account of what's gone on - or more likely that she's presenting his and her behavior tendentiously. Even a perfectly sane and reasonable person tends to gild accounts of their behavior, and this LW doesn't seem especially sane. You haven't seen this 'angry' SMS, in which he acknowledged that she doesn't owe him anything. None of your are privy to their conversations, so at this point, whatever red flags you're perceiving are of your own imagination.

Moo, Amy generally participates in extended correspondence with her LWs and publishes an edited version which, as far as she can tell, is reasonably accurate. I tend to trust that, despite one fight where I disagreed completely (sorry about that one Amy!). Most of us regular commenters admit when we're speculating and need more info to know for sure. Sometimes we get it and sometimes we don't. But the source information is fairly trustworthy.

This isn't a court. It's a discussion about how to live your life. And yes, to some extent it's an opportunity to judge people. But most of the comments are well intentioned.

Angel,

I encourage you to please take a step back from your own personal experience as someone who has been abused and look at the described scenario objectively.

A guy who tells a girl on a 4 hour phone conversation that he feels a “deep connection” isn’t trying to move their “relationship” forward at a rapid fire pace… it is a guy who is just trying to say what the LW wants to hear in order to get in her pants. This is not honorable behavior by any account, but it also isn’t criminal.

Then you criticize where they went on a first date? Please keep in mind that YOU are the one who has imagined it to be a “romantic dinner”… the LW only says it was “romantic”. For all we know they went for a moonlit walk on the beach, or for an afternoon stroll through the park. It is romantic simply because the LW says it was romantic, that doesn’t mean it was a candlelit dinner at a four star restaurant. We simply do not know what they did on date one. You then take the liberty to call this date “highly inappropriate” when you honestly have no idea what they actually did on this date and who made the suggestion of where they would go and what they would do.

Furthermore, why isn’t it appropriate for a first date to be described as “romantic”? I think it would be fairly common for couples to describe their first date as romantic, I know I would… not romantic in the sense that valentines day or our anniversary are romantic, but romantic nonetheless.

Lastly, exactly what evidence do you have that he forced a promise of exclusivity from her? He sent her a needy, insecure, and over the line text message… to which she responded by telling him that he was the “total package” and only wanted to be with him. That doesn’t sound to me like a coercive scenario. Normal people do not do things under duress because of a text from someone that seems upset.

I agree with you that her self esteem is probably really low. This also makes her a target for men who know what to say to string along a person with low self esteem. But generally speaking, men who string along women with low self esteem ALSO have low self esteem and are using the interest of the woman as an ego boost.

As Amy says, these two are not emotionally healthy people. However, this isn’t a story of an abusive domineering man taking advantage of a weak and helpless woman. It is a story of two insecure, needy, awkward individuals who found each other on the internet.

Reality and Moo:

Methinks you're men. May I ask, would my response still be bias if I were a man stating the same opinion? And if so, would it work for or against my argument?

And likki likki, try to play nicely with the grown ups, K? No one is insulting anyone else's opinion here.

Angel,

Why should it matter what my gender is in terms of the validity of my statements?

Does the accuracy of what I have said change depending on if I am a woman or a man?

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. You are viewing the LW's letter and our conversation through the lens of gender bias.

I submit to you that it simply doesn't matter. The facts are the facts and these do not change depending upon the gender of the person we are talking about.

I honestly do not care what gender you or anyone else here is. I only care about the arguments being made.

I think ie nailed this one.

Reality makes some valid points. The more I think on this scenario, the more convinced I am that LW is the one pursuing this "relationship."

It is quite likely that her date was looking for an excuse to bail right after the first date, so he made like he was disappointed and upset that she logged on the dating site. Good excuse to get rid of her. It's not the way he should've handled it, but, when I was online, I found guys often didn't know how to just say, "I don't see us as a couple, but I enjoyed meeting you." So, sometimes, they'd find some lame excuse like that. The fact he texted her and didn't call seems to back up my theory.

However, LW, sensing him pulling away, declared, right then and there, that he was "the one" and she would see no other. At that point, he didn't know quite what to do. She'd called his bluff!

I mean, LW has shown manipulativeness a couple of times here. She mass e-mailed him and also faked a strange phone call just to have contact. What's more, she's so disturbed by his distant behavior that she's writing Amy. Most healthy women would accept this guy either isn't interested or was just playing her and move on.

I'd say lovelysoul was spot on with this one.

Forgive me Reality, I thought you were the one who brought up bias in the first place. Your comment of "I encourage you to please take a step back from your own personal experience as someone who has been abused and look at the described scenario objectively." suggests your own bias, as I never ever said I had been abused myself. I said I had seen the resulting carnage of an abusive relationship. My question of gender bias resulted from your own assumptions, as did the assumption that you were a man. I only asked if I had been a man, if you would be so quick to assume that I was abused, or that I was biased. Also, I wonder why you are arguing my point so very vehemently? The experience I had with abuse was from a distance, and led me to research the subject quite thoroughly.On what are your opinions based?

Angel,

It is possible I misunderstood what you were saying when you said the following:

"After watching an abuser at work for 13 years and the resulting carnage, I have done much research and can spot 'em from a mile away."

From this statement of yours I thought it was a reasonable assumption that you were the one involved in the abusive relationship and were the one on the negative end of it. Let's be honest, most people do not tend to observe the intimate details of another persons relationship for over a decade including the beginning stages (the part you were professing to be an expert in noticing the signs of).

For example, if this was your parents relationship, how would you know how things materialized at the beginning to utilize that knowledge for the LW's situation?

If this was a close friends or family members relationship then it would be fair to say that most people don't get so involved in other peoples relationships to be fully aware of what is going on over the course of 13 years.

The most logical conclusion I could come to was that you were speaking from personal experience, otherwise what you said didn't make much sense to me. If I'm wrong then I'm glad you were not abused, but I'm also then dubious about your claim of expertise about noticing the first signs of an abuser from "a mile away".

As for this part of your statement:

“I only asked if I had been a man, if you would be so quick to assume that I was abused, or that I was biased.”

The bias I am noticing has nothing to do with whether or not you are a man or a woman. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that given zero evidence you are declaring this fellow to be either an abusive psycho or a psycho stalker.

Nothing Amy has said or is written in the letter gives any credible evidence to support this contention. You are claiming this person is a criminal sans any evidence. That is the bias I am talking about and it doesn’t have anything to do with what you have going on between your legs.

My position on this matter and any issue is always based upon what the evidence is. I try very hard not to make up “facts” in my imagination, and I don’t concoct fictitious scenarios in order to vilify one party while excusing the other.

To get to the heart of the matter, how do you justify your assertion that this guy is a “stalker” when all of the evidence we have indicates he is avoiding this woman for weeks at a time until she initiates contact with him again?

It is by virtue of the fact that you have drawn the exact opposite conclusion that logic would suggest that I suspect that your opinion on this issue is a matter of personal bias and not reason.

If you can convincingly show me based upon the evidence at hand how he has "stalked" this woman I'll reconsider my own views.

Reality;

I really don't feel the need to defend my opinion, as it is my opinion and I never claimed it was fact, but since you asked.....

"The most logical conclusion I could come to was that you were speaking from personal experience, otherwise what you said didn't make much sense to me"

My, this doesn't say much for your logic. You assume that there could be no possible circumstance in which a child would be able to witness the birth of the relationship of their parents. To answer your overly personal question, a child would see the birth of such a relationship if they were adopted after they were at the age of reason. I could go into more detail to further explain, however, it's none of your business. Further, I never said he was a criminal. You said criminal. I said he was PROBABLY an abuser.

"My position on this matter and any issue is always based upon what the evidence is. I try very hard not to make up “facts” in my imagination, and I don’t concoct fictitious scenarios in order to vilify one party while excusing the other."

I find it ironic that you would accuse me of "criminalizing" him without evidence, but in the same breath make this comment. I thought we were reading the same letter? If I have no evidence, how can you? You have no access to the correspondence between the LW and Amy, no personal conversations with the letter writer, and neither do I. Yet you claim to make up your mind based on what the "evidence" is while I am concocting fictitious scenarios? Wonderful logic.

And Reality, get a sense of humor. In this context, you can take "Psycho Stalker" to mean a scarily unbalanced individual. I thought this was pretty clear, as I also termed him a run of the mill freak, but maybe in your zeal to attack an opinion, you missed it.

:D

"If you continue dating (and you should) you'll certainly meet a few freak shows, cuz they're out there. The trick is to learn to recognize them quickly and run the other way."

Another much harder trick is to learn to recognize when you're the one being the freak show.

I think Robert is spot on that lovelysoul is spot on with this one:

'Reality makes some valid points. The more I think on this scenario, the more convinced I am that LW is the one pursuing this "relationship."'

"I don't think expecting a response before six hours pass is being overly needy"

I do - wow. WTF. I seldom respond in under six hours to text messages, not even if it's my wife. I run a business, when I work, I work really hard and am extremely busy, it's basically like air-traffic control, I am submerged and it can easily be ten or more hours before I can respond to things like text messages .. I look only long enough to mentally classify as emergency or unimportant. I also don't pay that much attention to my phone, I don't jump like one of Pavlov's dogs every time it makes a noise. Hell, sometimes I forget it in another room and don't realize the whole day. Writing messages on a silly tiny phone keypad is really honestly painful and slow and I really do not derive enjoyment in having long conversations via text message. My friends (and wife) know me and understand this and don't feel hurt if I don't respond. You need to understand people differ. Sure it could mean he is not interested in you, but it could also mean he's just busy with work - that you figure out from other clues. But here's a tip, no normal man is going to enjoy being with a woman who whines that he didn't jump and respond quickly to a text message, because that's just unpleasant to be subjected to. Rule one, be pleasant to be around.

Also it implies that after you send a message, you're literally sitting checking it every few minutes, waiting for a response. That's a little creepy ... especially for someone you just met. And what are you, unemployed? You need to do something to keep yourself busy if your mind is that bored that text messages from these men are all you're thinking about. Get a job, do some volunteer work, get a hobby, do some exercise or gardening or *something* ... it's healthy to have some diverse interests and things to keep your mind busy, and it also helps you meet people and keep a balanced perspective, and keeps you less clingy.

"Before we seek or enter into such relationships, we must first learn to dance and keep our balance by ourselves."

This is generally true, though I think people today take it a bit too far, to the point of it being what I call a "mini-religion". Nobody can ever be 100% like this "ideal", so some people may feel guilty for not attaining the ideal 100%, which can be counterproductive, but there is a percentage of clinginess below which it is unhealthy, and rather, there is a "healthy range" of independence, e.g. 70% to 90%.

"To get to the heart of the matter, how do you justify your assertion that this guy is a “stalker” when all of the evidence we have indicates he is avoiding this woman for weeks at a time until she initiates contact with him again?"

I agree with this completely - if he is a stalker, he certainly wasn't stalking her. Frankly, both the LW and the men in her letter sound somewhat unbalanced to me. None of them sound psycho or deranged (at least there is no evidence thereof), probably just normal people who need to learn that this aspect of their life is very out of balance. Get out more, get some friends, get hobbies etc., and learn to be OK with yourself.

Also what the hell is this:

LW: "Now, I'm ending it for sure, but I'm reticent to date anyone else for fear this will happen again.
--Bitten"

You had what for all intents and purposes amounts to two bad dates over very short periods (I am assuming these are two different guys you are talking about, it's a bit unclear), and you are now "reticent to date anyone else" for "fear this will happen again" and call yourself "bitten". WTF? Do you realize how absurd that is?

You weren't crushed or hurt or mistreated after painful long-term relationships in which strong feelings had been developed or kids had been had and years were wasted. You weren't cheated on, you weren't ... anything really ... you are calling yourself "Bitten", with pain writ large across your forehead and crying "how can I ever go on! oh, the drama!" because ... wait for it ... one guy you had one date with stopped calling you, and another is taking more than six hours to respond to text messages. How can you go on, the pain of what these cads did to you must be unbearable, you must find the strength somehow.

Dates are just dates. Keep it light, and remember the motto: "They can't all be gems".

It's perfectly normal to expect to have to go through loads of dates, including some real disasters, before you find someone that is right for you. Can you really not handle the rejection of one bad date? Don't take dating so seriously, just enjoy it and have fun, keep it in perspective, a date is just a date, most of them won't be great, but just have fun, and laugh about the ones that didn't work. I wish someone had told me that when I was a teenager.

Angel Says,

“I really don't feel the need to defend my opinion, as it is my opinion and I never claimed it was fact, but since you asked..…”

Unfortunately your opinion in this matter isn’t exactly the same as your opinion on whether or not you enjoy chocolate cake.

This matter isn’t subjective, it is objective which means that ones opinions need to be backed up by facts and evidence. You don’t simply get to dismiss all those things and say “well it’s my opinion, so it’s valid”.

An opinion on an objective matter that has no evidence to back it up is invalid.

Now before getting back on topic I want to address something else first:

“To answer your overly personal question…”

I never asked you a question, I am not really interested in your personal life, all I am interested in is the facts as they relate to the LW.

You have been trying to promote yourself as some sort of expert on abuse and brought your personal life into this as a means to basically say that you don’t need facts to support your claims because you know an abuser from “a mile away”.

Sorry, but you still need facts to make such claims. I asked you for some and instead of providing any you simply tried to declare yourself an expert based upon something you apparently observed as a child.

No offense, but watching someone fall out of a tree doesn’t make someone a physicist.

“I find it ironic that you would accuse me of "criminalizing" him without evidence, but in the same breath make this comment. I thought we were reading the same letter? If I have no evidence, how can you?”

You are making a criminal out of this person without any evidence. I have made no claim regarding this issue whatsoever beyond saying that we have no evidence to suggest that he is.

All this means is that I am following the generally accepted legal practice of treating people as if they are innocent until they are proven guilty.

I am giving BOTH the LW and this guy the benefit of the doubt. You on the other hand are only giving the LW the benefit of the doubt.

Truth be told the evidence we do have gives us a much better case to say the LW was stalking him rather than it being the other way around. However I don’t believe she is a stalker either. My opinion is that they are both just awkward, desperate, low self individuals, neither of whom is a criminal or violent.

If you cannot see that you are giving one of these people the benefit of the doubt and not the other, I don't know what else to say.

Whatever you say dude, this seems just a little too important to you. Why is it you can't accept that this is the way I think about it, and leave it at that? Why is it so important you be right? I believe I'll let you have the last word, and do what I do with my husband, "Yes dear!!!" as I have better things to do then argue with a massive, underfed ego like yours. (By the way, you never answered any of my counterpoints.....)

:D

"Weeks later, I got a strange phone call, and thought it was him. It wasn't, but he asked me out."

Oh now I get it, she used the 'strange phone call' as a premise to contact the original guy to find out if it was him. So it's one guy. The wording sounded to me more that the person who made the 'strange phone call' asked her out.

Agree with Reality @ 9:47 PM.

Angel,

Stop trying to cast yourself as some sort of a victim of a conversation.

You stated something that was unable to be demonstrated and I called you on it.

That is all there is to it. It isn't personal, it isn't "important to me", and it isn't about respecting your right to have any old opinion that you want.

I've made it very clear that I am willing to alter my perspective if you were able to present a convincing case and instead you keep focusing the conversation about yourself (now you are talking about your husband for example).

This conversation isn't about you, it never was about you, and your refusal to focus on the topic relating to the LW and actually explain how you have come to the conclusion that the guy is an "abuser" or a "stalker" is what I am having an issue with.

Those words have actual meanings. Those meanings are serious and should be taken seriously. When you just toss them around without any regard for the facts you cheapen those words. As for your "counterpoints" I'm pretty sure I addressed anything substantial you had to say regarding the actual topic. Believe it or not I have been attempting to ignore whatever personal things you bring into this conversation.

In any case, I am not a bully here and you are not being bullied here. You made a claim, I called it into question. That is pretty much all there is to it.

"Another much harder trick is to learn to recognize when you're the one being the freak show." lol

I think what she is saying is that she's afraid to go out on dates because she's learned she can't guage someone's true interest.

Welcome to the club, LW! That's how dating goes for everybody. Some people are really good at seeming interested on a first date, then they act cool or totally disappear afterwards. Some guys are just hoping to get laid, so they'll be very attentive until it's clear you're not that kind.

I learned I could never truly know how a first date went until the next day or two. If it went really well, he'll send a nice text or, better yet, follow up with a pleasant phone call and plan another date.

A good date doesn't get followed up with an angry text or avoidance. No matter how much it may have seemed that you were clicking at the time, the date was clearly not as meaningful to him as it was to you.

Let it go. But don't give up. Just learn that you can't get overly excited on a first date. Believe me, some people can give Oscar worthy performances because few are going to say, straight out, "Oh, I'm disappointed. You're not what I expected."

You'll do that too. You'll act friendly and nice throughout the date to be kind. And some men will believe there's more between you than there is. It's easier to be on that end of things, rather than face rejection, but anyone who dates gets a fair measure of both. You have to be a big girl.

@Angel--

I'm a woman and I'm about to blow your mind...I disagree with you vehemently and agree with Moo's timeline.

The guy pulled away within, what? 12 hours? The psycho letter writer kept going. So, you clearly cannot "spot em a mile away."

You are one of those scary, scary women who make men distrust *all* women, and I'm asking you to stop. Stop reading books like "The Gift of Fear" and "Women Who Dance with Wolves" or whatever it was called. Purge everything you learned from your favorite Women's studies professor from your brain.

Angel, I have been on numerous dates and chatted with many men casually. My spiel is always the same "Don't want kids, don't want to get married again (not bitter, just not doing that again), like to pull my own weight financially, hate the mall and most other shopping, like lots of space so give lots of space." Know what? The vast majority of men don't believe me. Because, apparently waaaaaay too many women impersonate women like me at first and turn into women like you later. Know what else? I don't blame the men a bit for being jaded. I actually agree with Moo when he says that women shouldn't be on juries when men are on trial, because I've always said I wouldn't want a jury of my peers (women) because soooooo many of them are irrational.

Also, Angel, if you think men are such abusers and women are so innocent, I have a challenge for you. I want you to go volunteer at a women's shelter. I want you to see first hand how many of those women are angry, hard, mean, psycho, button pushers. I want you to feel like you maybe want to smack them across the face too. Because you will, oh, you will. I want to be there when one of the "victims" threatens to beat you. Because it will happen. And you will start to understand. You will understand how the woman who started the first women's shelter became disgusted with the very people she was trying to help and realized that most of them are *not* innocent victims, that they are horrible, shrill, mean harpies whom Gandhi would have screamed at right back. They start it, Angel, many times by hitting first for no reason.

Do it Angel. I dare you. Because hopefully you will see how your "victim" was likely complicit in her abuse, hitting the accelerator on her own personal "racecar on red," even taking her "abuser" from a good mood to bad by deliberately pushing his buttons. And then I want you to admit that she pushes your buttons too and makes you very angry too. I know she does, because I've watched it too.

Wow, MissFancy. Generalize much?

MissFancy, I am a woman and I was with you until your bizarre defense of domestic abuse. It doesn't matter if buttons are pushed. That's no excuse to hit someone.

I own a marina and, yesterday, I was walking the docks and passed by a boat and saw a woman sitting there with her face totally black and blue. Her boyfriend was sitting with her, and I asked what happened, and she said, "He did it". He immediately said, "no she fell", but she silently mouthed to me that he did it, and motioned with her eyes, but then, perhaps out of fear, she corroborated his falling story. I could tell by the injuries that she didn't slip and fall, but I know from experience that getting her to file a complaint or have him arrested is unlikely. I tried to get her to walk alone with me, so I could convince her to get help, but she refused.

I get tired of that, of the weakness DV victims show, and they are usually heavy drinkers (at least at my place), so these are not healthy people, but I despise the abusers a lot more. Your attitude is scary.

LovelySoul,

"It doesn't matter if buttons are pushed. That's no excuse to hit someone."

While this is absolutely and unconditionally true, I think MissFancy is talking about a whole different breed of women that are involved in domestic violence. There are many women like the woman in your "after school special" type of scene at the marina. This is the picture of domestic violence against women that causes everyone, rightfully, to rally to the cause.

What MissFancy is describing is a side of it that a lot of people don't see. There are a shedload of female abusers out there.

While a male abuser typically has simple physical strength as his leverage over his victim, the female abuser has "the system" on her side and will abuse that system.

I've never volunteered at a women's shelter, but I'm not surprised that MissFancy's experience revealed that a lot of the latter type of women wind up there.

All they need is a man that's weak enough to hit her back once after she hits him thirty times and they'll get to play victim in the women's shelter. This buys them unassailable and complete leverage over things like access to shared children, the house, you name it.

What you are calling a "bizarre defense of domestic abuse" is not at all a defense of domestic abuse. It is pointing a finger at it. These women are out there. I say you take MissFancy's challenge and have a look for yourself.

I have volunteered at a DV center, and I didn't see what she is describing. Not to mention having run this marina/trailer park for over 25 years, and I've never seen this cowering male DV victim that is always claimed to exist.

Every case of physical DV I have seen in these 25 years of dealing with drunken couples, on the edge of poverty, has involved a male beating up a female.

Now, maybe my place presents a different set of circumstances. Perhaps there are more men being beaten out in suburbia, and they are quiet about it. Some men here have shared stories of abuse.

But, here, at my place, it is always a female victim. She is usually drunk, and unquestionably pushing buttons or being plain obnoxious, but so is he. Sometimes, the female may have struck the first blow, but the man will then beat the crap out of her.

These couples usually have toxic, co-dependent relationships. The woman will almost always go back, and the man will almost always want her back. They know how to push each other's buttons.

I even think sometimes the women want to be hit because living with the tension is like waiting for a hurricane...and afterwards, he's sorry, which means he's loving again, for a few days or weeks. That's the payoff.

Believe me, I've seen how it works.

OK people(does that include Reality?) let me reiterate:

I never said he was an abuser, I said it was likely he was or would be because of the pattern of his behavior. I never said anything about gender bias. I defended an opinion that Reality attacked, and to my mind still has yet to disprove cause he's too busy frothing at the mouth. I said:

Reality-this is what makes me think he's either an abuser or psycho stalker.

"I met a guy online, and after two four-hour phone conversations, he declared he felt a "deep connection." We had a romantic date, during which he made repeated declarations of his feelings. The next morning, he sent a somewhat angry text, observing that I'd logged in again on the dating site, and while I didn't owe him anything, he found it odd. This led me to (stupidly and prematurely) proclaim him "the total package" for me and say I wouldn't see anyone else."

Sounds like moving at a rapid fire pace to me, cause who the hell declares a "deep connection" over an 8 hour cyber chat? THEN goes on a romantic dinner as a first date? Seems pretty rapid fire to me. What makes me think he's an abuser is that after ONE (highly inappropriate) date, he's monitoring her activity and becoming angry with her when she doesn't seem "attached" enough. THEN he proceeds to wring a promise of exclusivity from her, and promptly disappears. Controlling much?

Read a book, that's how this shit starts. That's all I said. And Reality....Bites.

:D

Angel, I can see where you jumped to that conclusion, as did I intially. But I didn't get the thing about the fake phone call at first.

It's really not so strange to say you feel a deep connection after two four hour phone calls. He didn't propose or anything. Plus, for all we know, she added the "deep" to his "connection".

Checking to see whether someone logs on again after a date is common. I did it, and often found it helpful - keeping me from getting too excited about a first date. It reminded me that it was just a date, and neither of us had declared exclusivity yet.

You have to keep in mind that letter writers often exaggerate in order to justify their own actions. She proclaimed him the "total package" after a first date, which makes her seem a little crazy, so she wanted to make it seem like his "somewhat angry" text drove her to do this, when it's really her desperation. Amy nailed it.

While I agree with most of your assessment of LW's situation, I disagree with the idea that there is anything suspect about having 4-hour phone conversations. In 2004, I met a guy online. After emailing back and forth a few times, he asked permission to call me (he was 500 miles away and an in-person meeting was not convenient at the time). I said yes, and our first conversation lasted for several hours -- not because either of us was needy or desperate, but because we were enjoying the heck out of talking with each other and the time just went by. There was no proclamation of "you're the one", or anything like that, based on our talks. We just hit it off conversationally. After some more emails and a couple more long talks, he made the trip to see me in person. It didn't take long for us to realize that we really loved each other's company,we were each as we had represented ourselves, and things progressed from there. Six years later, we are married and very happy together.

I agree with Nancy. It's not so strange to talk on the phone that length of time, especially if you're not close enough to easily meet at first (or aren't sure you want to meet). I preferred having phone conversations, as I could usually weed people out pretty well and not waste my time meeting them. As a woman on a dating site, there are so many potential dates, it gets overwhelming. You can't meet them all in person.

There were a few guys I really hit it off with on the phone, and, though I didn't end up marrying them, I don't regret those chats. A couple are still friends.

I agree with Nancy. It's not so strange to talk on the phone that length of time, especially if you're not close enough to easily meet at first (or aren't sure you want to meet). I preferred having phone conversations, as I could usually weed people out pretty well and not waste my time meeting them. As a woman on a dating site, there are so many potential dates, it gets overwhelming. You can't meet them all in person.

There were a few guys I really hit it off with on the phone, and, though I didn't end up marrying them, I don't regret those chats. A couple are still friends today.

The only drawback is that you can become too friendly if you talk too much before meeting, then it's awkward if the physical chemistry isn't there.

Mmmmm. I didn't see my post the first time I refreshed the page, but now it's there.

Angel,

First of all I am a person just like you and just like everyone else here. I’ve had ample opportunity to attack you as a person but I haven’t done so and kept to the topic and only gone after your ridiculous statements. Needless to say, when someone can’t defend their position the first thing they do is go after the person who points out that what they are saying makes no sense.

Secondly, you are not telling the truth when you say this:

“I never said he was an abuser, I said it was likely he was or would be because of the pattern of his behavior.”

In your very first post on the topic your statement was the following:

“If this guy isn't currently off his meds and recently escaped from Arkham Asylum, then he is clearly an abuser looking for a new victim.”

This isn’t a statement about him “likely” being an abuser because of a pattern of behavior. This is you declaring that this person is either an escapee from a mental hospital, or an abuser looking for a new victim.

I’d address the rest of what you have to say but I have already done so and demonstrated how the rest is also riddled with errors and fabrications of your imagination (such as where you determined they went out on a “romantic dinner”… exactly where does it say that?) But sure, keep trying to adjust history and recast your previous statements in a different light. Lucky for us the internet doesn’t simply let you white wash the absurdity of your claims.

If LW just waits a little bit longer, Dexter will find Hannibal and the problem will go away.

"I have volunteered at a DV center, and I didn't see what she is describing. Not to mention having run this marina/trailer park for over 25 years, and I've never seen this cowering male DV victim that is always claimed to exist."

I haven't volunteered at a DV center, but I agree with you about the male DV victims that are supposedly out there. I have volunteered at a rehab center and I can safely say that almost every woman I encountered -- about 90% -- were victims of domestic abuse.

Very few of the men at the center could say the same--they were usually the abusers and were usually moaning about their parental rights while their spouses were busy hiding out at "safe house" type women's shelters.

I have a woman journalist friend of mine who took up the cause of men's rights a few years ago. She too always talked about this "male victim," but the facts are that it is still women who suffer the brunt of the abuse. Just a quick glance at the murder statistics in Canada supports this and supports it unequivocally.

While I think the justice system here in Canada, when it comes to DV and parental rights, has still been something of a swinging pendulum the last couple of decades, it's settled fairly centrally and I know of just as many men who get full custody as women.

Moreover,the vast majority of couples who split up get joint custody. I think the mandatory mediation process here in Quebec is a great help in creating that system. Couples who split up HAVE to have mediation. I think that's a great example of the government intervening in a way that puts kids first and their feuding parents second.

I'm not saying that men never get abused, and that they aren't pushed into high stress situations by their spouses, but most of the real violence is still perpetrated by men against women.

Men always have the option of walking away too, which is an option that doesn't get mentioned nearly as often as the question of "Why does she stay?" But as LS described above, couples engaged in these relationships have a very sick sort of symbiotic connection to each other that creates an incredibly strong bond, even stronger than concern for the children involved. It's usually when one partner tries to leave--usually the woman--that guns and knives get pulled out.

There have been a few men on this blog who have shared credible sounding stories of abuse. I don't know them personally, of course, so it's all anecdotal. In most cases, they didn't walk away because they didn't want to lose their kids and home, or leave their children alone with the abuser, who would likely get custody. They also have no shelters for men, which I do find troublesome, but there is a great deal of shame involved for a man to admit he's being abused, so it's questionable whether male shelters would even be used.

However, like I said, I haven't seen the male victim here. Perhaps there is a certain personality type that resides in trailers/boats that doesn't fully represent the male population. Maybe they are naturally more aggressive than, say, a passive accountant living in middle America.

Nobody really knows what goes on behind closed doors, but a trailer or boat is pretty transparent. It's hard for a couple to fight here without being overheard, so it's given me a unique glimpse of the dynamics involved in DV. I certainly don't believe the women are angels, by any means, but they do generally take the worst of it in domestic altercations simply due to size.

A girl was just arrested in my city for stabbing her boyfriend. He was packing his belongings to leave, and she waved a knife at him. He tried to take the knife away from her and cut his hand.

But that, to me, is somewhat different than the long-term abusive situations that many women find themselves caught up in. I see so many women just beaten down and hopeless, with no sense of self-worth, and it's very sad.

A girlfriend of mine is involved in that sort of sick, co-dependent relationship. She and her husband have separated, but can't seem to stay away from each other. The other night, she called him while drunk, and he came over. Things went well at first, then inevitably, they proceededed to have an argument, and she threw his phone in the water. He became enraged and shoved her. However, months ago, he threw her sewing machine in the water and poured a beer over her head while at a restaurant. He's also cheated.

That's how it goes with these couples. They have a long-running scorecard between them. "You did this...no, you did that...I was just getting even for what you did to me months ago...."

It's stupid and destructive, and they both need a lot of therapy to stop the cycle. In a way, neither can be called a true "victim" because they both keep it running.

Well I used to handle placement for a variety of social services and facilities in DC and can tell you that physical abuse by women is rather prominent among the populations we served. Domestic abuse is typically mutual. One sided male on female abuse scenarios constituted the minority of situations we dealt with, at maybe 20%. The rest involved mutual violence and a pattern of abuse by both sides, and usually lots of alcohol and other drugs. Women actually predominated in certain forms of abuse, against children and old people, and other women. Lesbians for instance had the highest DV rates of any type of couple we served. It's estimated that physical abuse exists in over 25% of lesbian relationships.

I'm basing a lot of my opinion on the murder stats for Canada. A sociology friend of mine works with this information and I occasionally look over his shoulder at it. It's still overwhelmingly women who get killed by their boyfriend or spouse. The last figures were something like 92% women to 8% men. (I'm talking about the likelihood of being a victim.)

I know that the spiral down into a murder situation is a complex one, and one that most likely both partners play a role in, but at the end of the day, who's killing who still matters.

I don't know what the total answer is, but I think the mandatory mediation process is a good one in that it seems very even-handed to me. I know a couple of men who have full custody of their kids and for the last few years I've heard very few men complaining about an unfair system.

Quebec judges are known to make some pretty outrageous decisions--stupid ones, I mean--but on this score, I think they and the justice system have been quick to correct a historical imbalance that automatically favoured women. I think it's a good thing. It frees men up to walk away from a situation because they know that down the road they will get a fair hearing.

Just a few comments on the whole DV issue.

Firstly, it has been well documented that a large percentage of DV incidents are strongly correlated with substance abuse (this is true of child abuse as well I believe). Furthermore, socioeconomic pressures also seem to play a distinct role, with larger sections of the local population being involved in DV incidents the more impoverished they become. For example, the rate of DV in a trailer park or an inner city slum is higher than that found in a wealthy suburb. I am pretty sure I remember there being additional correlations to educational level as well, with a lower relative percentage of college graduates being involved in DV incidents than high school drop outs.

Basically, the more substance abuse there is and the more financial stress that exists, the higher the prevalence of DV in any population tends to be.

Generational factors amongst women also appear to play a role with higher percentages of young men contending with violent partners than older men.

Beyond these demographic factors however is a behavioral component which is highly predictive of whether or not someone is going to be injured in a DV incident. This behavioral component is who has initiated the physical altercation.

I always find it interesting when people use terms like “the brunt of the abuse” or “real violence” or make an attempt to declare that violence against one section of the population “is somewhat different” when differentiating between male and female victims of violence. It is interesting to me simply because at the same time when others try and make justifications in the reverse direction the response is always similar to “That's no excuse to hit someone.”

Isn’t that really the heart of the matter though? That there is no excuse to have a physical altercation with another human being except in the case of self defense or in the immediate defense of another person?

This whole game of statistics about which gender perpetrates more and which gender is the victim more, or which one else up in the hospital more, or which one is murdered more misses the main point that no one should be hitting, pushing, slapping, or injuring someone else. It loses sight of the fact that it simply doesn’t matter what the gender of the person on the receiving end happens to be, what matters is that someone is assaulting them.

Since it seems to be well accepted that female victims of DV exist, and only the existence of male victims is being called into question I’ll end by simply offering the following link which may remind people that many things happen that none of us would be aware of if not for video evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HDN1Y2GKYQ

If this hadn't been caught on video how many of us would believe this happened given the relative difference in their sizes?

@Reality: I've made comments on substance abuse before and so I didn't want to wade into that aspect of the problem, although of course it's a HUGE factor in what happens.

When I talk about real violence, I guess I'm talking about the life threatening kind and not the push and shove kind that ends at push and shove. Yes, violence is violence, but a dead body on the kitchen floor is a whole different level of it.

I think gender matters because if you ask an abused man if he'd like to stay at a women's shelter, he'd probably say no. If there were men's shelters and you asked a woman if she wanted to seek refuge there, she'd probably say no too.

In other words, it's important to the victims. Ask some if you're in any doubt.

No question that women hit back. However, it is my belief that many of them didn't come into the relationship with that response (unless they'd been in other abusive relationships, or were hit as children).

Of course, it's true that neither person should hit. But, practically-speaking, how many of us would take multiple beatings stoically, over time, and not decide to hit back? That is a rare woman or man. The dynamic of these relationships, ad I said, becomes about trying to one-up the other - physically, for sure, but also mentally.

From what I've seen, it is very rare to find a male who gets hit who has never hit himself. That camera caught her in the act, but my guess is that they've had many scuffles before, and he's probably not just an innocent abuse victim.

The problem truly is that when he hits her, she will be more severely hurt, or possibly killed, just from the brute force. He's at least 3 times her size.

lovelysoul you might want to consider whether you have some unresolved issues w/ men, because the BS that you're spinning right now doesn't make any sense and makes you look like a bigot.

My mother used to do the same thing to may dad, and she admits that he never hit her. That's why she felt free to hit him, because she knew that he wouldn't hit her back.

I've been smacked around in the same way by girlfriends, for the exact same reason. They knew that I wasn't going to hurt them. I bet that any man you talk to can tell you a similar story. Women hit men all the time, they don't think anything of it. They'll all use the same excuses that you are, that it doesn't matter when women do it because men are stronger.

Common sense tells you that the only time a weaker person is going to be able to physically intimidate a stronger person like that is when they know that the stronger person isn't going to retaliate.

JJ: I think LS is talking about mutual abuse over a prolonged period. I get what she's talking about. It's a cycle and it's not pretty.

I know stories like yours are out there and that they are true. But there's the issue of why abused men and women don't leave or ask for help.

Usually the women who are murdered by their partners have tried to leave several times (I think the average is 12 times up here in Canada). But because they have usually exhausted friends' and family's patience, they are very isolated at the end. That's why they are more vulnerable to severe violence and death.

However, lately I sense we are holding women to a higher standard because there are shelters they can go to and (usually free or affordable) legal help they can get. I know for example, that the "battered wife syndrome" is heavily under fire because of all the resources available for women experiencing DV. It's also under fire because some abusive women have used it to get out of convictions for various crimes.

However, if we're holding abused women to a higher standard, I think the same should apply for men. If you're putting up with abuse you need to ask yourself why. It's a question that hear being put to women all the time in the rehab I volunteer at.

ie,

You bring up some interesting points. In particular I like that you have highlighted the notion that it is a spectrum of violence that exists. This spectrum extends from isolated slapping incidents all the way through systematic physical beatings and culminating in the horrific example of homicide.

That being said, I’m not really comfortable with you defining only the latter two as “real violence” when the legal system is quite clear that ALL of these items constitute unacceptable criminal behavior. If a husband were to punch his wife in the face only once and have no history of ever having does it before, do you think the police would be convinced that the event wasn’t “real” and simply tell the woman she shouldn’t bother calling in for fake violence?

If we are going to take abuse seriously we can’t only worry about the most extreme cases where someone is murdered. If we are going to be completely up front about this then we must also acknowledge that domestic homicide is an extraordinarily small percentage of the domestic abuse issue. As serious and horrific as these events are when they happen, we must also acknowledge that these events are rare. So if they are the only once that count you have essentially discounted the vast majority of DV that ever occurs.

The legal system does not and should not make the same sort of distinction you are making lest we turn a blind eye to people whose lives may not be in danger, but are suffering at the hands of someone else nonetheless. As a result I can’t so easily draw gender distinctions like you are and essentially disenfranchise men because not enough of them are being murdered.

If we are free to do that, then we are also free to disenfranchise women in general violence situations because outside of domestic issues it is men who are most likely to be killed in the streets. The same logic would apply here, but how comfortable are you with the statement that women by and large do not suffer “real violence” as compared to men?

I think such statements are divisive and miss the mark by a long shot because this isn’t a competition. If the social problem of abuse is to ever be resolved we can’t pick and choose the victims that count based upon demographic features such as gender, race or age.

It's still overwhelmingly women who get killed by their boyfriend or spouse. The last figures were something like 92% women to 8% men. - ie

Thats because when women murder their men they usually hire a guy or have the new beau do it for and/or with them and it gets classifed as a 'multipule defendant' murder or as male on male violence, or self-defence justifiable homocide which isnt counted as a 'murder' statistic

Reality, when I was in my 30s, I was down visiting my mom in Florida. We decided to go to the mall and for some reason--both of us were in pissy moods, or whatever--we got into an argument. I thought she should pay for a top I liked and she said I should pay for it myself. (I see her side of the situation now, btw).

Our argument got strangely heated and my mom ended up slapping me in the face in the mall in front of some amazed onlookers.

Now...I could have reported her for this, or, I could chalk it up to her being under a lot of stress because my dad (alive at the time) was being really difficult.

She's also tried to hit me recently, after her stroke. She was so frustrated with me insisting that she go to physio one day that she started hitting me with the one limb she has left that's still working: her right arm. And she punched me pretty hard!

I dunno. I do think that there are times when just letting something like this go is okay...I think it's a commonsense sort of thing. I was being a real jerk in the mall (I'm in my 30s and I'm expecting my mom to pay for my clothing?) and in the second situation my mom was so overwhelmed with her new life situation that it was understandable.

I've only had one boyfriend who got violent with me, but it only happened the once and he was history. But he WAS being genuinely mean and nasty and I knew it.

There are fights and there are fights. I think intentionality has a great deal to do with determining the gravity of a situation, although if a person is high or drunk sometimes it's hard to figure that out.

ie,

I understand what you are getting at when it comes to people being under pressure and snapping. However, the whole point is that as adults we are expected and should be expected to keep our hands to ourselves. These are lessons we are supposed to learn as children. Hitting other people because you are frustrated or annoyed is simply not acceptable behavior. There are better outlets for anger than assaulting someone else.

Do I think sometimes people are arrested for incidents that would be better handled outside of the criminal justice system? Yes I do, but we do not have robust alternative systems or policies in place yet.

Since you were earlier talking about differences in expectations between men and women, I am very much interested in your opinion on the following:

What do you honestly think would have happened had instead of you been out shopping with your mother, you were instead out shopping with your father? What if you and he were both in pissy moods, got into an argument over who should pay for a top you liked, the argument escalated and he slapped you in the face with the same force as your mother did?

Do you believe the onlookers would have simply been “amazed” and done nothing? Or do you believe that something else would have happened? Such as your father being escorted out of the mall in handcuffs perhaps?

I do agree with you that expectations between men and women do tend to be different, but those expectations tend to err on the side of men always physically restraining themselves and staying in control of their behavior. What are your thoughts?

I guess my point is that even if you would have been willing to let the incident go if it had been your father instead of your mother, society at large would probably step in and not leave that decision entirely up to you.

Oh for sure it's screwed to her advantage, LovelySoul, but I'm going on the basis that this letter is the absolute truth, as I have nothing to say otherwise. What really gets me about the whole 4 hour conversation thing is that she went out to meet him for a romantic ANYTHING after only speaking with him online.Isn't rule one of online dating to have a first date in a public place? Not to say public places aren't romantic, but that's just not the way it came across to me. To me, that's just seven different kinds of crazy. She does sound a little flaky to me, which is why I came to suspect he was an abuser. Abusers LOVE flaky and desperate. Also, the whole online activity monitoring thing strikes me as just a little too stalkerish. Would you follow a guy/girl that you had ONE date with on a date with another person? I imagine they'd be a little unimpressed.

In my opinion, I think if you're going to lay hands on someone, man or woman, be prepared to have them lay hands on you.Ie, I agree that sometimes it's best to let things go, but where do you draw the line? The more someone uses DV, the easier it becomes.Oh, and Reality, you never answered my question. I told you where I came by my information, but you never answered my question about what you are basing your opinions on. Or a bunch of others. You also never disproved my theory, you simply attacked it so you could prove you were right. So I thought it was mutual. My bad.

I did think about how things would have changed if it had been my father, or a boyfriend. Yeah, I think people would have reacted really differently. But I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make (honestly, I'm a bit confused).

But women are getting called on their aggression more often. I'm thinking of that woman who was hitting her kid in the back of her mini-van in the parking lot of a mall (she was caught on videotape). There was a real hue and cry over that incident, so I'm not sure what to say.

I would have told the mall police not to arrest my dad though. He was sick at the time (dying although we didn't know it) and because he was ill and unhappy, I wouldn't have wanted him to be carted away. I would have told them his meds were responsible and hope that the police would be compassionate about it.

I don't know. I'm a bit crazy when it comes to kids and violence, but I'm getting a whole different perspective on violence because of my mother being in a nursing home. There's a lot of violence there--patients hitting staff and each other--and it seems to me that the staff extend a lot of compassion even to these difficult patients.

The thing is, these patients really DON'T know better so there's very little to be done. It's not legal in Quebec to restrain patients, so really, all the staff can do is put them in some sort of psuedo-isolation for a while while they calm down.

When I hear of violence between couples I usually suspect that substance abuse must be a factor with at least one of them...well, usually. I keep thinking that if that element were removed, the violence problem would probably stop along with it.

Me too!

I was just pointing out that although there are some forms of domestic abuse that can be forgiven, e.g. (or is that Ie...)yelling obscenities at your spouse, or your own situation. What troubles me with the whole DV situation, (and to be very clear I'm not sure thats what I would call your situation...) is that unfortunately too many people are willing to forgive and forget. Like so many women who keep going back to the abusers year after year, only to get smacked around again and again. This, I think, leads to the whole politically correct trend to hyper sensationalize DV, and in turn cause a whole generation of women to be on the lookout for the raging hordes of women beaters. This in turn makes it harder to identify the actual abusers. Thats not to say women like the LW shouldn't be careful, and in this case, afraid-very afraid, however now it's gotten so out of hand that any man yelling at his wife on the street cause she blew the grocery budget on shoes is liable to get lynched! This lessens the actual impact of the message, because so many men are suspect, it's become routine.

OMG, I agree with Reality! BLAAARGH!

Oh, and even though I think the instance of DV increases proportionately with the instance of drug use, many many straight and sober people abuse their families. And even high or drunk, I don't think that's an excuse. I highly doubt the Crown's office would accept it, so I don't think the general public should either.

Yeah, I think people would have reacted really differently. But I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make (honestly, I'm a bit confused).

I think you just illistrated his point.

Had a man hit you rather than a woman people wouldnt have just stood and looked on

What is so confusing about that double stanndard?

Angel,

I could take the opportunity here to only point out that you indicated before that you were done discussing this issue with me and were going to give me the last word in our conversation (which obviously you weren‘t content to do), and that following that statement you took a few unnecessary jabs at me implying that I wasn’t even a human being. As a result, while I am willing offer you another chance to discuss this topic with me, odds are if the discussion devolves into a series of insults I’ll simply write off the possibility of having a reasonable discussion with you as an unlikely.

One thing you said recently that I do agree with is that people shouldn’t be aggressively laying their hands on one another, so at least that is a point of common ground.

As for what my position is based upon, I’m not 100% sure what position you are talking about. My only contention has been that we have not been presented with any evidence to suggest that the man in this story is physically abusive or is stalking this woman.

You then state that I never “disproved” your theory as if that means that your contention that this man is stalking her is valid unless I take it apart. That is called shifting the burden of proof. It is the responsibility of the person making the claim to support it, not the responsibility of those calling it into question to disprove it. That is just the nature of argumentation. It is fallacious reasoning to require that I disprove what you are saying to invalidate a contention you have made that does not have adequate evidentiary support.

That being said, I will humor you in this case and explain why we have zero evidence to suggest that this man is “stalking” the LW. First of all, let’s define what stalking is and what stalking is not. Stalking is what happens when one person persistently pursues someone else when it is plainly obvious that that pursuit is unwelcome and undesired. Stalking behavior includes showing up unbidden to someone’s home or place of work when they do not want you there, following someone around without their knowledge, logging their behavior, spying on them, etc…

By contrast, stalking behavior does not include showing up when you are invited or showing up when your presence is desirably to the other person. So while it would be stalking for some person to show up at your place of work after you have repeatedly told them to leave you alone, it would not be stalking for a loving husband to surprise his wife at work with flowers or to join her for lunch. Simply being around is not a valid test for stalking, constantly being around when the other person doesn’t want you there is a valid test.

So let’s apply these criteria to the LW’s situation:

1 - The LW and the man in question met online and had two 4 hour conversations which the LW apparently enjoyed
2 - The LW and the man in question had a romantic first date which the LW apparently enjoyed
3 - The LW told this guy that he was the “total package” after one date indicating that she wanted his attention
4 - The guy stopped calling her… this is important, HE cut off contact with her
5 - Weeks later after not hearing from this guy at all SHE called him… this is also important, SHE initiated contact with him after he stopped calling her
6 - They had a second date which the LW states was “great”
7 - After this second date the guy wasn’t responding to texts quickly enough for the LW… this is important, SHE kept texting him and was bothered by the fact that HE didn’t respond right away
8 - The guy stopped calling her again… this is important, HE cut off contact with her for the second time
9 - Weeks later the LW mass e-mailed her new cell number and included him in that list… this is important because if she did not want to hear from him, why would she e-mail him her phone number?
10 - The guy then called her after getting the new number and they went on a third date
11 - After date number 3 the guy stopped calling her for the third time… this is important, he was avoiding her for the third time in a row after she initiated contact with him
12 - The LW writes for advice not because she thought this guy was smothering her or following her around, but because it bothered her that he was never returning her text messages and constantly stopped calling her
13 - Because this guy who she had only 3 dates with wasn’t calling her back, the LW isn’t even sure if she will ever be able to date anyone again (doesn’t this sound strange to you Angel?… doesn‘t this suggest that she had some sort of unhealthy obsession about him and not the other way around?)

Any rational person processing the above 13 pieces of information could never come to the conclusion that the guy was stalking this woman. After every date they had he cut off contact completely. After each pause in contact, it was her and not him who reinitiated the contact. And finally, it is her and not him who wrote for advice on how to not have someone avoid her like this guy did.

The LW wanted the guy around more, not less. She was bothered that he kept avoiding her, not that he was constantly around when she didn’t want him there.

This guy was doing the exact opposite of stalking this woman which is why I find your contention that he was stalking her to be so absurd.

Have I sufficiently made my case now?

lujlp, I do think there's a double standard, but it's because of some of the reasons LS laid out. Men are usually considered the stronger of the two sexes, physically at least, and that's where the standard comes from.

I know there are a lot of strong women out there, and some of them hit men, but I think in the situation I described--watching someone get slapped--we go back to our primitive beliefs and react differently with a man because our sense of potential danger is heightened. A short time frame within which to act can result in a quick (and unthinking) reaction: as in "stop that man."

And then, of course, there are the stats: more men do commit violent acts.

There are a lot of things in life that are unfair. One thing I hear from single mothers I've known is that our culture tends to make single fathers out to be heroes, whereas single mothers aren't given anywhere near the same level of recognition for all their hard work. I know it pisses some of them off. What can we do about that?

Reality, I agree with a lot of what you've said, BUT the LW's date did message her the next morning after a date and chastise her for going on to the dating site again. In other words, he checked up on her first thing the next morning.

That's borderline something--stalking, voyeurism, whatever, and I know that that would put the kibosh on my seeing a guy again.

Then, when the guy called her on it--"I saw you on the dating site again"--she felt pressured and told him he was the entire package, probably because she felt pressured into saying it. She probably enjoyed that first date and gave into him because she wanted to see him again.

A more confident woman would message him back and say "Well, YOU must be on the site too, so what are you complaining about? And btw, don't contact me again if you think checking up on me like this is okay."

But the LW fell for his lines, started to get hooked and then yes, wanted more from the guy. She's not a criminal; she just likes the guy and pursued him for a while until she got tired of being jerked around. So what? At least she's not online checking out his activity on the dating site the way he was.

She also wrote in to get some perspective, which is a healthy thing to do, and hopefully she can see her part in it now.

Mr. Creepy-let's-check-up-on-everybody-without-their-knowledge isn't writing in and he probably needs way more help than she does.

Back in the day before computers, when people had to do their stalking in person, I remember having girlfriends who would actually find stalking behaviour--at least at the beginning of a relationship--flattering, as in "see how much he likes me?" And they would run TOWARD a guy like that. Of course, they were young at the time and didn't see the reality, which was way closer to "see how much he wants to control me?" Followed up by "Where's my passport?"

This girl is in this situation...and is asking for help. Making her out to be the villain isn't right here, although she is obviously lying to herself about a few things.

Reality you're wasting your time. There's no way that these women are going to acknowledge that the man in this situation wasn't at fault. Men are always at fault, even if its the woman who did wrong. He made her do it!

case in point..

One thing I hear from single mothers I've known is that our culture tends to make single fathers out to be heroes, whereas single mothers aren't given anywhere near the same level of recognition for all their hard work.

This is the 900 pound gorilla in the room when it comes to gender relations. Women are hard wired to blame men for their actions. It's why they assume the role of a victim so readily.

"How do you write women so well? I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability."

Angel, you just don't seem to get the online thing. He was not "stalking" her. He could not see her online activity. He went to her profile, maybe to gaze at her photograph, and it says, "last log on 8:15 pm" so he knew she'd logged on, presumably right after their romantic date, which he took as a sign she was still looking, so maybe how she acted towards him that night wasn't sincere. It was insecure and foolish of him to text her, but not stalkerish. It is discouraging to see that your date logged on immediately after he/she got home from meeting you because it seems to suggest that there was nothing special enough about the date to make them want to stop looking for other dates, even for a couple of hours.

He also may have just been using that as an excuse to break it off with her. If he'd really been that upset that she logged on, and wanted an exclusive relationship, it seems that a phone call to discuss things would've been his choice of contact rather than a text.

Women are soo stupid!

"How do you write women so well? I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability."

No truer words were ever spoken!

Jack Nicholson As good as it gets!

case in point..

One thing I hear from single mothers I've known is that our culture tends to make single fathers out to be heroes, whereas single mothers aren't given anywhere near the same level of recognition for all their hard work.

LOL. OK.

What planet is this happening on!?!?

ie,

Just to be clear, I don’t want to give the impression that I think the guy in this story did everything correctly. I can list several character flaws for him based upon the information we have been given. Those character flaws include that he is a flake, that he is a hypocrite, and that he is insecure. We do not however have any evidence that he is an abuser, a stalker, or any other type of criminal.

My point isn’t to vilify anyone in this story. I don’t believe this is a story of villains and victims. It is a story of an incredibly desperate woman and an amazingly flaky guy who met on the internet.

As for the whole “checking up on her” thing, as LS has pointed out, it really isn’t as nefarious as you are making it out to be. He didn’t have to hack into her home computer, remotely activate her web cam and watch as she logged into the online service. All he did was long in at home, click on her profile and BAM, he could see when she was last online. The same applies for her when it came to his profile. Now you may argue that such a tool should not exist and that the website is violating peoples right to privacy by making that information public, but that doesn’t make anyone who notices this information a stalker.

Now when he texted her about this issue, that is when he stepped over the line. However why would that one event make him a “stalker” instead of making him an insecure hypocrite? You seem to be far more charitable with this woman and all of her antics than you are being with this guy and the one thing he did that in my opinion was really inappropriate.

You then say this:

“She probably enjoyed that first date and gave into him because she wanted to see him again.”

I agree with you, which is precisely why he could not have been stalking her. She wanted him around, she desired his attention, and right wrong or otherwise you can’t stalk someone who wants you there no matter how “creepy” it may seem to outsiders.

This part of what you wrote confuses me:

“But the LW fell for his lines, started to get hooked and then yes, wanted more from the guy. She's not a criminal; she just likes the guy and pursued him for a while until she got tired of being jerked around. So what? At least she's not online checking out his activity on the dating site the way he was.”

So the LW isn’t a stalker even though she was actively pursuing a guy who was by all accounts avoiding her entirely. However the guy is a stalker and a creep because he logged into a dating site and looked at her profile?

Just to be clear, I don’t think she is a criminal either. My only point is that on a stalker sliding scale, her behavior is further down the stalker line than his is. Therefore if she wasn’t stalking him (which I don’t think she was) then clearly he wasn’t stalking her either.

Lastly you note that the woman in this situation (let’s not call her a girl because that is just a word that infantilises her and takes away her agency as an adult) is asking for help. However, let’s carefully note what help she is asking for.

Is she asking for help on how to avoid “creepy” men?… NO
Is she asking for help on how to spot a “stalker”?… NO
Is she asking for help on how to ensure her privacy online?… NO

Here is what she says:

“The next day, we sent friendly texts, but he again stopped responding. Now, I'm ending it for sure, but I'm reticent to date anyone else for fear this will happen again.”

She is asking for help about how to prevent men she is interested in from avoiding her. She is so distraught about this in fact that she isn’t even sure she can ever date anyone again because this one guy kept avoiding her. Considering they only went out on three dates doesn’t that seem a little extreme?

One last point. Why do you suppose she even tells us that he told her he felt a “deep connection”, that he texted her the next morning, or that he said he wouldn’t mind if she got pregnant? Is this included because he bothered her or creeped her out? Not in the slightest.

Those bits of information are included to make her case that he was supposed to be interested in her, that what he told her and what he did somehow didn’t match up. Her question is essentially “why would he say all those things to me and then not return my phone calls?”

Is she a villain?… NO… does she need to learn that actions speak louder than words?… YES

LS: I'm not sure I would like it if a guy checked up on me the web site. If we had a great date the night before, what would be the point? I mean, the thing about dating is that it's dating, it's not ownership or immediate possession, a theme that comes up on this blog a lot. How many times have commenters on this blog "told" an LW something along the lines of "Hey, it's just a date; you don't own the guy just 'cause you went out once"?

Checking up on someone's profile might just be insecurity or it might be something else. The thing is, without more information about the guy, it's hard to know if he's just a goof or a budding sociopath. Myself, I would err on the side of caution and classify that behaviour as a big red flag.

Why? Because he must have given her at least a bit of grief about logging on again for her to appease him by calling him the "complete package." She didn't know better, took it as a sign that he cared for her and fell for it. Just like the young women I mentioned above.

Feeling stalked is a subjective, to some extent, so I understand that you see it differently. If a woman has been stalked before--I've been, for example--it might change how she sees things.

The online thing makes it tricky too. I've known both men and women, gay and straight, who have created fake profiles and contacted someone they're dating to see if the person is "still looking." To me, this is an awful lot like going through another person's things--like their drawers or their wallet or their pockets. Beware of what you're looking for because you just might find it.

Personally, I would find that sort of contact--"I see you went back online again"--very unwelcome, especially so early in a dating situation. Maybe it's a symptom of how disposable people feel about the people they meet online, but that would end the situation for me.

@Reality, there's only one person in this situation who's been sneaky and that's the guy.

I've talked about these things before on this blog, which is why I don't always bring this up, but I had a colleague (well, two actually), who did a lot of online dating. Our offices are adjacent, so she (and he) often talked to me about what they were up to.

Both colleagues did what the guy did. They checked up on the profiles of the people they were dating. I told them they were probably just asking for heartache and trouble if they did this, but they didn't listen.

The one male colleague had something similar happen and wanted to send the guy he was interested in (he was gay) a message saying something like "I see you went back online." My woman colleague and I talked him out of it because we both thought it would scare the other guy off.

Because apparently guys get scared off pretty easily by these things. They don't appreciate getting messages like this from a woman that indicate the woman is watching them in some way. Why would it be any different for the LW or someone like myself?

The thing is, relationships at the very beginning are fragile and one wrong move can end things very easily. Being sneaky and then manipulative would do it for me. That's all I'm saying.

ie says:

"there's only one person in this situation who's been sneaky and that's the guy."

I completely disagree with your assessment.

I can think of at least two actions by the LW that could be described as “sneaky” or “manipulative”. I strongly suspect at this point that had these actions been taken by the guy instead of the LW you would classify them as “sneaky” too.

I think it was pretty “sneaky” for her to call him up out of the blue after weeks of him avoiding her using the excuse that she got some “strange” phone call and hence immediately called him up. In this modern age she could have easily caller IDed the “strange” phone call or used call return to call back who actually called her, but that isn’t what she did now is it?

I also think it was pretty “sneaky” of her to include him in a mass e-mail of her new phone number when the guy clearly wasn’t calling her. I mean who does that?

Wouldn’t you classify it as “sneaky” behavior for a guy to mass e-mail his new phone number to everyone he’s ever been on one or two dates with over the past few months? Based upon what you have said so far I can’t imagine you being so forgiving if a guy had done this.

Needless to say, you have just made my case for me when you say the following:

“Both colleagues did what the guy did.”

You fully admit that the two people you work with who you know have used online dating sites have done exactly what the guy did. LS also acknowledged that checking up on the online activity of people you have met on these sites is typical behavior.

Everything we know about online dating suggests that this behavior is normal and typical, it is done by completely normal people all the time… yet this is your evidence that the guy is “sneaky” and something is wrong with him.

Well if that is the case then I’d be very careful around people like LS and your two coworkers as they have done exactly the same thing this guy did that you are crucifying him for.

I honestly think you are grasping at straws to find some reason why the LW isn’t accountable for her actions in this situation. You are trying to make everything she did a reaction to the guy, that she did these things because of him, that he made her do it. Sorry, I’m not buying it.

No one made her call the guy out of nowhere after weeks of him avoiding her, and no one made her include him in the mass e-mail she sent out. She did those things of her own volition and they tell us a great deal about what was really going on in this situation.

"The thing is, relationships at the very beginning are fragile and one wrong move can end things very easily. Being sneaky and then manipulative would do it for me. That's all I'm saying."

Yes, but you are not the LW. You are constantly giving this woman the benefit of the doubt even when she doesn't truly deserve it because you keep putting yourself in her shoes.

Please try putting yourself in the guy's shoes for a second and your perspective might change a little.

Reality, do you read my posts? I said the woman pursued him, which she did. I said she was lying to herself because I believe she is. I believe she made excuses to contact him because she was still into him even though he was not into her.

All of these behaviours are the behaviours of a person who is attracted to someone and is trying to re-establish contact with that someone. She may be looking for excuses, but she's not hiding behind a computer. Her acts may not be totally healthy, but they fall within the realm of normal behaviour. The LW was getting mixed message, after all.

But checking up on someone online and then "calling them" on behaviour they have a perfect right to is different. Sorry. And I know for a fact that guys get freaked out by this stuff all the time.

I share an office with a gay man who has a small business on the side--he's a personal trainer on his days off. He has a website and can see who is logging on and off, etc. He's very handsome and has a lot of admirers. But if someone trolls his site for too long and then tries to hire him, my colleague won't go for it. His thinking is that there's something voyeuristic and unhealthy about the person and he steers clear. Personally, I think he's right.

Look, if you don't believe what I'm saying, why don't you do something like this to a woman yourself and see what results you get?

ie,

There seems to be a disconnect here between what I am writing and what you are reading. To begin I do read your posts and I am fairly confident that I comprehend what you are saying… this is why I am trying to explain a few things where I feel you have missed the boat.

In particular, you fully acknowledge that she was pursuing him in spite of his complete lack of interest. Good, I am glad we are on the same page here.

However, what would you call a guy who kept pursuing a woman in spite of several obvious signs that the woman wasn’t into him and was in fact avoiding him entirely? Generally speaking that sort of behavior would be considered “stalkeresque” would it not?

Yet all of this behavior on her part falls totally below your radar and instead you remain fixated upon the singular event that he did that was inappropriate. That is the critical thing so far as you are concerned and all of the wacky behavior on her part is written off as some sort of understandable infatuation.

It isn’t an understandable or justified infatuation though. She should have let go of this guy the first time he stopped calling her for several weeks. Notice, that is weeks, not days, not hours, not minutes… he stopped calling her for weeks and she still went after him.

Even if we accept her going after him again was reasonable (it wasn’t), we then have the problem of explaining away why she went after him a second time after he dropped completely off the map for several more weeks. You keep defending the strange and wacky antics of the LW with statements like this:

“The LW was getting mixed message, after all.”

No she wasn’t. When someone doesn’t return your phone calls or contact you for weeks at a stretch after one date, that isn’t a “mixed message”. That is blatantly obvious.

To utilize a turn of phrase you just used:

Look, if you don’t believe what I’m saying, why don’t you do something like this to a man yourself and see what results you get?

Go ahead, call a guy for a date after you went out once and he stopped calling you for weeks… mass e-mail everyone you have dated only 1 or 2 times your new phone number. Try all of the behavior you are making excuse after excuse for and tell us how it works out.

I’m not defending the guys text message, I think the moment he did that the LW should have told him he was a hypocrite and that she wasn’t interested in seeing him again. However that is what a well adjusted person would do… the LW instead took that as a sign he was the guy for her and proceeded to fanatically pursue him in spite of numerous signs he wasn’t interested.

You are judging the actions of these two people on completely different scales and for the life of me I don’t know why.

i.e,

"However, if we're holding abused women to a higher standard, I think the same should apply for men. If you're putting up with abuse you need to ask yourself why. It's a question that hear being put to women all the time in the rehab I volunteer at"

That's an easy question to answer for most men in these situations. It's because we have children. We can't "leave with the kids" as a woman can. I'm happy to hear that in Canada they have leveled the playing field, but that couldn't be further from the truth in the States and that doesn't show any sign of changing anytime soon.

Whistledick, it's a trade-off. I live in a part of the world where the taxes are so high they're off the charts--we're the most taxed province in Canada--but we have a social system that is sensitive to the needs of a lot of people. In short, we get great services. And while I will never understand French humour, I am so happy I live alongside them in a place where progressive programs flourish.

But the taxes, oh man...they are so high...

LS,

"From what I've seen, it is very rare to find a male who gets hit who has never hit himself. That camera caught her in the act, but my guess is that they've had many scuffles before, and he's probably not just an innocent abuse victim."

I wasn't able to see the video (I got, "this video not available in your country"), but I can imagine what's on it.

I find it truly disgusting and incredibly sexist that you came to your conclusion. JJ is completely right that some abusive women feel completely comfortable hitting their man precisely because they know they wont hit back.

Neither of us know the couple in the video and, while unlikely, it's not impossible that your hunch is correct. But the fact that you make that assumption is really stomach churning.

Oh, and "from what I've seen..."? That's just it. People outside of these relationships rarely SEE this. It doesn't mean it isn't happening.

i.e.,

I guess you get what you pay for. :)

She's being stalkeresque?

She called him once, using an obvious excuse. OK. She sent him her new number as part of a mass email. OK.

Then:

"We had another date, and he asked for exclusivity, and even said he wouldn't mind if I got pregnant."

Wow, if that's avoiding her entirely, I wonder what engaging with her would look like.

His behaviour is creepy. End of story.

If you want to behave like a creep too, that's your business. I'm just giving you the straight goods on what some women, like me, think of it.

You aren't listening, so I'm not going with this any further.

i.e.,

Okay, right... according to you his behavior is "creepy", but her behavior is completely understandable and even sympathetic.

I'm not buying it.

Amy has this one right that BOTH of these people are emotionally unhealthy.

I'm not cutting either of these people slack. You on the other hand keep saying stuff like this:

"She didn't know better, took it as a sign that he cared for her and fell for it."

Right... she is an innocent victim here who doesn't know any better, and he is some creepy cad who is taking advantage of her (you know, by not calling her).

If that is the narrative you prefer I'm obviously not going to convince you to listen to reason.

"His behaviour is creepy. End of story."

My point is that her behavior is EQUALLY creepy. End of story.

Reality, no one cares what you're buying or not buying.

ie, why are you so invested in the woman not being the creep in this senario?

Lijlp: How would you feel if a woman you dated once, just once, started monitoring you via your online activity? Introduce me to an emotionally healthy guy who wouldn't find this creepy too.

I would be a little wierd, but not as weird as one who called me after weeks of ignoring her claiming she got a ;strange; call and thought it was me, or emailed me her new phone number when I never asked for it.

Both of these people are a little creepy - but, again, why are you so invested in the woman in this senario being completely blameless?

The girl's not completely blameless, just a bit silly and self-deceptive. I get mass messages like the one she sent out too.

And sometimes I get them from people I haven't been in contact with for ages. I don't get freaked out by it, even if it's from an old boyfriend. That happened once and I figured he just forgot to check his mailing list, not that it was some sort of mysterious message freighted with mystical meaning I would need to have a clairvoyant explain to me. But then I'm busy and I don't have time to let my imagination wander around like that.

The LW may have thought the strange call was the guy because they guy acted strangely right off the bat by checking up on her. He's shown an inclination for surveiling behaviour, so why wouldn't she think of him?

You know what? I'm tired of defending my position here. Why don't we ask Amy to ask Gavin DeBecker what he thinks of the guy's behaviour?

And why are you so invested in the man in this senario being completely blameless? Talk to your buddies and ask them what they would make of a day-after email, from a woman they've dated once, telling them "Oh, I see you're back online."

Seriously. And you and Reality should do this before you post again.

i.e.,

Neither I nor lujlp seem to be saying the guy in this scenario is "blameless".

I've actually said multiple times that what he did was inappropriate. In fact, all I have been trying to get across is that the woman here is just as blameless as the man.

You on the only hand keep trying contextualize and justify the woman’s oddball behavior and then make whatever she did wrong an offense against herself and not the guy. I mean you just did it again:

“The girl's not completely blameless, just a bit silly and self-deceptive.”

So when she consistently pursues a guy who doesn’t call her for weeks and then mass e-mails him her phone number after he ignores her for a few more weeks she is just being a “bit silly” and “self-deceptive”… but when the guy sends her one inappropriate text message he is a “creep”.

Every messed up action the woman takes in this scenario you have sought to justify by saying that she doesn’t “know any better” and that the guy essentially tricked her into doing those creepy things.

Well all of this begs the question of how you know that this woman actually didn’t know any better, and how you know that the man did know any better.

You have infantalized the woman here, made a child out of her who is incapable of making rational adult decisions while leaving the guy as a fully responsible adult.

Sorry, but this isn’t a letter from a 12 year old girl about her bad relationship with a 25 year old man. Only then would your explanation about how she doesn’t know any better and that the guy was taking advantage of her hold water (and incidentally he really would be a criminal then).

This is an adult woman and it is high time you treated her like one and really held her accountable for the wacky stuff she did in this scenario. It wasn’t simply “a bit silly and self deceptive”. The woman is clearly so desperate that she is doing very inappropriate things herself.

If you are going to continue contextualizing whatever this woman did here by making up your own details such as her “feeling pressure” or “not knowing any better” then the same can be done for the man can it not?

Not to make a big deal out of it, but in rereading the situation with your mother at the mall I couldn't help but notice that you blamed that on your father. I mean, are women ever at fault for anything in your world?

"Why? Because he must have given her at least a bit of grief about logging on again for her to appease him by calling him the "complete package." She didn't know better, took it as a sign that he cared for her and fell for it."

I think people generally fall into several stages with online dating, and it depends on where you are. When I first started out, I was more naive and admittedly got myself psyched up too quickly whenever I had a good first date.

As time when on, I learned not to do that, and to accept that my wonderful-seeming dates were not necessarily going to lead anywhere, and if they were, we'd have the "let's hide our profile and see where things go" conversation. Later, I met men who were still in the early stages, like was, and a few expressed hurt that I still logged on. It's impossible not to notice that information, so I understood where they were coming from.

Before online dating, it was rare to know that your date might be seeing 10 other people at the same time. No one rubbed that in your face. But this "last log on at 8:00 pm" (and many sites show you the exact time teh person spends online) pretty much lets you know your romantic interest is contacting others, and that hurts when you really like somebody. It would be less than human not to feel hurt by it.

The only mistake this guy made is commenting on it, but, to be fair, we don't know what representations LW made during their "romantic date". If she acted like she had finally found "the one" (as she seems to have a propensity to do), then he was rightfully surprised and disappointed to see that she immediately logged back on.

Some people get really tired and frustrated being jerked around by online players, of which there are many, so my guess is that a) he'd had a series of experiences where women had seemed really interested in him on the first date but were never willing to hide their profile and stop dating others or b) he used that as an excuse to dump her, and she called his bluff.

Based on his subsequent behavior, I lean towards the latter explanation. Men who are really interested, don't text. That was one huge rule I discovered while online. If a guy is texting or emailing a lot more than calling or seeing you in person, he's just not that into you!

In fact, avoiding calls and using texts tends to be the behavior of men who have steady girlfriends or wives. It is estimated that 10-15% of people on online dating sites are cheating.

LW sounds very naive, just new to this game. I would love to know who brought up the idea of having a baby because my suspicion is that it was her, not him. Of the two, she seems less stable to me.

I mean, look, she's not even saying to Amy that she found it strange or was turned off that he "wouldn't mind" if she got pregnant. That's an immediate red flag! Who would want a guy who said something like that by the second date? Yet, she's viewing it as proof that he really cared about her.

But, facts are, after the first date, he's only asked her out again after accidental (or on purpose) contact from her. First, a mass e-mail, then her calling to ask if he'd called her.

That, right there, shows he's not really into her. If she was anything more than an afterthought or convenience, he would've been calling her first.

This guy is a player. He only asked for exclusivity because he wanted her to believe he was exclusive so she'd go to bed with him. He probably has a lot of women he's stringing along like that. He can't keep them all straight or even remember them until they call with some silly ruse that has "desperation" written all over it.

LS,

Thank you so much for injecting some rationality into this discussion.

I pretty much agree with everything you've written in the above two posts.

Whenever I read this letter I can't help but shake the following question entering into my mind:

"What is more creepy than someone who tells you that they wouldn't mind if you got pregnant on a third date?"

And the answer is invariably:

"Someone who finds that sort of thing attractive and evidence that the guy who says it is the one for her."

I think you have hit the nail on the head. He has zero interest in this woman as a long term romantic partner, but also has no problem going out with her when she pursues him because he figures it might be an easy lay.

All the "creepy" stuff he says needs to be viewed through the context of a guy trying to get a desperate woman into bed. Clearly he doesn't really mean for them to be "exclusive", otherwise he would be calling her. He just says that because that is what desperate women want to hear.

That doesn't make him a nice guy, or even an honorable one. But it is more disturbing to me that this woman appears to have liked all of this.

Stable, normal, emotionally healthy women don't buy into that garbage, and they especially don't go begging for more of the same by pursuing people like that.

I also said this Reality:

"I would have told the mall police not to arrest my dad though. He was sick at the time (dying although we didn't know it) and because he was ill and unhappy, I wouldn't have wanted him to be carted away. I would have told them his meds were responsible and hope that the police would be compassionate about it."

Reality, you don't need my permission or my blessing to act like a creep if you want to. Feel free. Go out on one date with a woman and start acting like you own her. See what happens and report back to us, will you?

Ie, how can you conclude this guy was acting like he owned her? He sent her one "somewhat angry" text, which (in my opinion) was merely designed to get him out of the deal, as he had probably just been trying to get laid on the first date, and when that didn't happen, he wasn't interested anymore. SHE fell totally apart at the text and declared herself his....to which he responded by basically ignoring her. If he'd wanted to own her, she was practically laying down at his feet! He could've had her, but instead, he avoided her calls and only went out with her again at her initiation....twice. That is not the behavior of someone who is looking to own anybody.

These posts have become WAY too long, and by the same 3-4 posters to hold my attention any longer.

I agree Just Sayin'. I'm outta here.

Lijlp: How would you feel if a woman you dated once, just once, started monitoring you via your online activity? Introduce me to an emotionally healthy guy who wouldn't find this creepy too.

Someone is pretending to be me. The above comment at 4:39, was not posted by me.

Lijlp: How would you feel if a woman you dated once, just once, started monitoring you via your online activity? Introduce me to an emotionally healthy guy who wouldn't find this creepy too.

Ie

I could take the opportunity here to only point out that you indicated before that you were done discussing this issue with me and were going to give me the last word in our conversation (which obviously you weren‘t content to do), and that following that statement you took a few unnecessary jabs at me implying that I wasn’t even a human being. As a result, while I am willing offer you another chance to discuss this topic with me, odds are if the discussion devolves into a series of insults I’ll simply write off the possibility of having a reasonable discussion with you as an unlikely.

One thing you said recently that I do agree with is that people shouldn’t be aggressively laying their hands on one another, so at least that is a point of common ground.

As for what my position is based upon, I’m not 100% sure what position you are talking about. My only contention has been that we have not been presented with any evidence to suggest that the man in this story is physically abusive or is stalking this woman.

You then state that I never “disproved” your theory as if that means that your contention that this man is stalking her is valid unless I take it apart. That is called shifting the burden of proof. It is the responsibility of the person making the claim to support it, not the responsibility of those calling it into question to disprove it. That is just the nature of argumentation. It is fallacious reasoning to require that I disprove what you are saying to invalidate a contention you have made that does not have adequate evidentiary support.

That being said, I will humor you in this case and explain why we have zero evidence to suggest that this man is “stalking” the LW. First of all, let’s define what stalking is and what stalking is not. Stalking is what happens when one person persistently pursues someone else when it is plainly obvious that that pursuit is unwelcome and undesired. Stalking behavior includes showing up unbidden to someone’s home or place of work when they do not want you there, following someone around without their knowledge, logging their behavior, spying on them, etc…

By contrast, stalking behavior does not include showing up when you are invited or showing up when your presence is desirably to the other person. So while it would be stalking for some person to show up at your place of work after you have repeatedly told them to leave you alone, it would not be stalking for a loving husband to surprise his wife at work with flowers or to join her for lunch. Simply being around is not a valid test for stalking, constantly being around when the other person doesn’t want you there is a valid test.

So let’s apply these criteria to the LW’s situation:

1 - The LW and the man in question met online and had two 4 hour conversations which the LW apparently enjoyed
2 - The LW and the man in question had a romantic first date which the LW apparently enjoyed
3 - The LW told this guy that he was the “total package” after one date indicating that she wanted his attention
4 - The guy stopped calling her… this is important, HE cut off contact with her
5 - Weeks later after not hearing from this guy at all SHE called him… this is also important, SHE initiated contact with him after he stopped calling her
6 - They had a second date which the LW states was “great”
7 - After this second date the guy wasn’t responding to texts quickly enough for the LW… this is important, SHE kept texting him and was bothered by the fact that HE didn’t respond right away
8 - The guy stopped calling her again… this is important, HE cut off contact with her for the second time
9 - Weeks later the LW mass e-mailed her new cell number and included him in that list… this is important because if she did not want to hear from him, why would she e-mail him her phone number?
10 - The guy then called her after getting the new number and they went on a third date
11 - After date number 3 the guy stopped calling her for the third time… this is important, he was avoiding her for the third time in a row after she initiated contact with him
12 - The LW writes for advice not because she thought this guy was smothering her or following her around, but because it bothered her that he was never returning her text messages and constantly stopped calling her
13 - Because this guy who she had only 3 dates with wasn’t calling her back, the LW isn’t even sure if she will ever be able to date anyone again (doesn’t this sound strange to you Angel?… doesn‘t this suggest that she had some sort of unhealthy obsession about him and not the other way around?)

Any rational person processing the above 13 pieces of information could never come to the conclusion that the guy was stalking this woman. After every date they had he cut off contact completely. After each pause in contact, it was her and not him who reinitiated the contact. And finally, it is her and not him who wrote for advice on how to not have someone avoid her like this guy did.

The LW wanted the guy around more, not less. She was bothered that he kept avoiding her, not that he was constantly around when she didn’t want him there.

This guy was doing the exact opposite of stalking this woman which is why I find your contention that he was stalking her to be so absurd.

Have I sufficiently made my case now?

And thank you LS,

Thank you so much for injecting some rationality into this discussion.

I pretty much agree with everything you've written in the above two posts.

Whenever I read this letter I can't help but shake the following question entering into my mind:

"What is more creepy than someone who tells you that they wouldn't mind if you got pregnant on a third date?"

And the answer is invariably:

"Someone who finds that sort of thing attractive and evidence that the guy who says it is the one for her."

I think you have hit the nail on the head. He has zero interest in this woman as a long term romantic partner, but also has no problem going out with her when she pursues him because he figures it might be an easy lay.

All the "creepy" stuff he says needs to be viewed through the context of a guy trying to get a desperate woman into bed. Clearly he doesn't really mean for them to be "exclusive", otherwise he would be calling her. He just says that because that is what desperate women want to hear.

That doesn't make him a nice guy, or even an honorable one. But it is more disturbing to me that this woman appears to have liked all of this.

Stable, normal, emotionally healthy women don't buy into that garbage, and they especially don't go begging for more of the same by pursuing people like that.

"as in "see how much he likes me?" And they would run TOWARD a guy like that."

Isn't it generally a good thing in a relationship if the other party likes you? If our culture has reached a point where "he likes me a lot" is regarded as a surefire sign that you must run away in the opposite direction as fast as possible, then it's no wonder we have the divorce rates we do. (OK, I'm being a little facetious, but only a little.)

I totally agree, Lobster.

Now, I may be wrong, and he may just be a budding psycho stalker, as is the general consensus, but if you read up on it, the first thing that an abuser does is immediately form an unwarranted level of attachment to the abused.

They then move the relationship along at a rapid fire pace so that the abused doesn't have time to think, and the next thing they know, they're in a full blown relationship, and the abuser moves on to the next phase, isolation from friends and family. Also, guilt trips are a favored weapon of the abuser.

I stand by my original response because whether he's a psycho stalker, an abuser, or just a run of the mill freak, she still needs to run fast and far. However, I agree with you that she does need some help, and when she stops running, she should make sure it's somewhere in the vicinity of a licensed therapist

LS makes some valid points. The more I think on this scenario, the more convinced I am that the guy is the one pursuing this "relationship."

It is quite likely that she was looking for an excuse to bail right after the first date, so she made like she was surprised and upset she was caught when she logged on the dating site. Good excuse to get rid of him. So she told him he was the "total package" to scare him off. It obviously worked.

It's not the way she should've handled it, but, when I was online, I found guys I didn't know how to just say, "I don't see us as a couple, but I enjoyed meeting you." So, sometimes, I'd find some overblown reaction would work like that. The fact she texted him and told him not to call seems to back up my theory.

However, the guy, sensing her pulling away, declared, right then and there, that he was "the one" and she should see no other. At that point, she didn't know quite what to do. He'd called her bluff!

I mean, the guy has shown manipulativeness a couple of times here. He accused her of going back online and also faked a strange phone call just to have her contact him. What's more, he's so disturbed by his distant behavior that he's really the one writing Amy. Most healthy men would accept this woman just isn't interested or was just playing him and move on.

By the way, I love you Lobster. Rock on!

What is going on with this thread? That was my post from days ago with all the "her"s changed to "him"

Ie, how can you conclude this girl was acting like she owned him? She sent him one "somewhat angry" text telling him to get lost, which (in my opinion) was designed to get her out of the deal, as she had probably just been trying to get laid on the first date, and when that didn't happen, she wasn't interested anymore.

Hel totally apart at the text and declared himself hers..to which she responded by basically ignoring him. If she'd wanted to own him, he was practically laying down at his feet! She could've had him, but instead, she avoided his calls and only went out with him again at his initiation....twice. That is not the behavior of someone who is looking to own anybody.

Looks like there's something odd going on above that ends w/ Reality's post at 5:21 today. It seems as if many posts from a couple of days ago were pasted together into one gigantic post, complete with in-text time/date stamps. Anyone else seeing this? Very weird.

In looking over the thread it looks like things that were said by one person have attributed to another. Several items were also lost, and several posts were mashed into one uber post.

I think the problem is that everything beyond this point are bogus posts:

Posted by: ie at February 28, 2011 3:05 PM

There are no bogus posts. I'm sorry if comments were lost. This doesn't usually happen here. I unpublished the smushed together ones. Gregg had to move my server and install an upgrade and it was really tough going. I think we're back in shape now and won't have problems. Comments shouldn't have been lost. If yours was, let me know -- it's probably somewhere in that big one I just unpublished.

I am really, really sorry if any were that I can't retrieve...but that shouldn't be the case and I hope it's not...and from here on in, the site should be okay, with no middle of the night errors, etc.

The post at 7:20 and the one at 6:51 are mine identical except for the pronouns being reversed. I assume someone copied them and changed the "he" to "she" and "him" to "her".

I also didn't say, "By the way, I love you Lobster. Rock on!"

Apparently, somebody has hijacked the thread and is playing around with the posts?

"I think the problem is that everything beyond this point are bogus posts:

Posted by: ie at February 28, 2011 3:05 PM"

I didn't write the above information and shortly after I walked away from my computer, someone started repeating some of my posts. I saw it when I went to shut down my computer around 7:30 (I left the screen up while I ate supper).

The subject line in an email I received last night said something about me being watched. The "sender" was a bunch of characters and so I deleted it.

"Reality" wrote the quoted post above--which I did not write, let me repeat--and seemed particularly focused on continuing an argument with me when I signed off. I felt he was just bringing up tangential point after tangential point just to see how long he could keep things going.

Just sayin' was saying how tedious the list was getting and I agreed and signed off.

Gregg will look into this, but please let me know if there's any more weirdness.

i.e.,

This thread isn't about you or how you decided not to participate in a discussion. I am trying to help Amy debug what is going on with the thread.

My opinion is that your post at 3:05 was the last legitimate post before either the server started screwing with things or someone started hijacking the thread.

Calm down.

someone started repeating some of my posts

I really, really doubt it's a hijacker. I saw the mondo post last night and it was massive. As in it took a full thirty seconds of holding my mouse on the scroll bar to get to the end kind of massive. With name and time stamps after every part. The person would have to have a hell of a lot of time on his hands to put together something that huge that had no payoff. I'm going with the solution that weird artifact in thread + server problems around the same time=server problems causing weird artifact.

And this:

"I think the problem is that everything beyond this point are bogus posts:

Posted by: ie at February 28, 2011 3:05 PM"

was Reality saying that everything that appeared after that second line was part of the problem, not that you posted the line about bogus posts. The second part was a copy and paste of the time stamp of the last legitimate post before things went screwy. Not sure why you're so bent on making it about someone (i.e., Reality) messing with your posts because you stopped arguing with him.

The second I said I was outta here, the trouble started. A repitition of three of my posts appeared. When mentioned it, more appeared

Sorry Amy but I don't think this site is as secure as you think.

The second I said I was outta here, the trouble started. A repitition of three of my posts appeared. When mentioned it, more appeared

Sorry Amy but I don't think this site is as secure as you think.

Hello. And Bye.

ie, it's pretty arrogant of you to assume that the problems in this thread were because of someone messing with you. It wasn't just your posts that got smushed together: it was a whole bunch of posts repeated in sequence, several of which happened to be yours. I once left the Entertainment Weekly site and went back five seconds later to find it down. I don't think my clicking off the site broke it. I've gotten spam pretty quickly after having an argument with someone on here, and I never once thought it was because of the argument.

And what would the payoff have been for someone to take the time to copy and paste all those posts and add timestamps after each one? That's a lot of wasted time for something that would be attributed to server error by any rational person. Wouldn't someone messing with you have wanted you to know it for sure? You assume the timing means it was because of you, but the server problems had already been going on before that. Hmmm...known technical issue, or someone retyping a bunch of posts in order to...do what, exactly?

Horses, not zebras.

NumberSix,

I really don’t get it either. It seems like several conclusions have been jumped to without any reasonable evidence to support any of the claims. What I personally find kind of insulting is that even if one were to assume that a person was responsible for all or some of what happened to screw up this thread, why exactly would that person be me?

If one actually looks at the screwed up part of the thread they will notice that i.e. isn’t the only one here who has their old posts reposted. LS also had it happen, as did I. Furthermore, some of those posts were modified from their original content (this is possible evidence that a person was behind those particular posts as computers tend not to alter content in a way that makes any sense, I do agree with you that the giant post was probably a technical issue).

In any event, i.e. saw all this and immediately concluded that I had vandalized the entire thread and proceeded to obtain her e-mail account and send her a strange message. What the basis of those conclusions are I do not know, but apparently this was part of her thinking:

“"Reality" wrote the quoted post above--which I did not write, let me repeat--and seemed particularly focused on continuing an argument with me when I signed off.”

The problems with this statement are numerous. Firstly, as you noted, I never was trying to impersonate anyone with the comment she was basing this off of, I was trying to point Amy in the direction of when the posts started to get messed up. Secondly, I never even wrote anything in this thread after i.e. “signed off” until AFTER the thread was messed up, so how exactly was I “particularly focused” on continuing anything when I literally said nothing at all.

Needless to say, maybe you should be careful about disagreeing with this person lest they accuse you of breaking into their home or something.

"What I personally find kind of insulting is that even if one were to assume that a person was responsible for all or some of what happened to screw up this thread, why exactly would that person be me?"

Gee Reality, maybe because you come across as aggressive, arrogant, rude, and as just a plain old glorified NUT!

Angel,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but all I did here was disagree with your position, and then later disagreed with i.e.’s position. I presented my case for why I believed both of you to be wrong and explained why neither of your arguments held water.

It was both you and her who then took this personally and attacked me as a person on multiple occasions.

I was neither “aggressive” nor “arrogant” nor “rude” in presenting my case.

Some people on the internet however have a serious problem separating themselves from their arguments, hence if they see their arguments being attacked they take it personally.

To people such as that all I have to say is… grow up.

They only nut's I see in this conversation are the ones who declare offensive things without any evidence to back up what they are saying.

So sure, keep justifying crazed and irrational behavior just like you did for the LW, that is sure to make you seem like a very reasonable person.

1) You asked a question, I merely answered it. It isn't my fault you don't like the answer. :D

2)"I was neither “aggressive” nor “arrogant” nor “rude” in presenting my case."

SAYS YOU!!!! No one asked you for your case. No one asked you for your opinons on our opinions, and no one really cares what you think abot them, but you kept coming back, even after being politely told to piss off. Hmmmm, if more then one person sees it, is it still an illusion, or might it be you?

NAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!

Angel Says:

"No one asked you for your case. No one asked you for your opinons on our opinions, and no one really cares what you think abot them, but you kept coming back, even after being politely told to piss off."

You claim that no one asked me for my case… but the fact is that YOU asked me for my case. Anyone can see that you did in the following post:

Posted by: Angel at February 26, 2011 2:29 PM

Where you say this:

“Oh, and Reality, you never answered my question.”

As a matter of fact, at the time you seemed to be upset that I hadn’t told you my case or answered your “questions” and that I has ignored your previous questions about it.

So if we get this straight… first you ask me for my case… then I provide it to you… then you claim that no one asked me for it and that I was being aggressive after I was “politely told to piss off”.

Also, it doesn't matter how many put forth a bogus argument. A bad is argument is still bad even if a million people put it forth. Truth is not a popularity contest.

As best I can tell based upon all of this you are either delusional, a liar, or a troll.

Because of that I’m not going to respond to your inane male bashing ramblings any longer. Just because you see some male bogeyman under every rock and tree that you come across doesn’t mean rational people are going to agree with you or respect your bigoted opinion.

As a final note I’ll simply point out that you only because incredibly rude AFTER you said you thought I was a man. My guess is that your attitude would be very different if you found out I was a woman.

Some people on the internet however have a serious problem separating themselves from their arguments, hence if they see their arguments being attacked they take it personally.

No one asked for your case. No one asked you for your opinions on our opinions, and no one really cares what you think about them, but you kept coming back...

Seriously? Have you ever been on the internet? Or did I miss the memo on how we're supposed to wait to be asked our opinions before saying anything? Must I be called by name, or will a general request for opinions suffice? Angel, I don't see anyone up there asking for your opinion, yet you felt perfectly justified in giving it. As it should be on this site. If you don't like someone's argument, either respond or don't, but the "Nobody asked you!" retort is just childish and naive. And what I saw was Reality responding to responses from you and ie. You can argue the content of the posts all you want, but they were not unprompted. The quickest way to end an internet argument is to stop posting, not to shake the Finger of Shame at someone because you never asked for his opinion.

*sigh*

Thank you both for proving my point.

Wanst your original point that you can always spot an abuser? How exaclty did Reality poining out the female LW was the stalker was the nut job prove that you can spot abusers?

Becuase as far as I can see Reality proved that, indeed, you can NOT spot abusers

Thank you both for proving my point.

What point was that, exactly?

My point (differing from the original luljp, little late to the party!) is that even tho I respect Reality enough to be content that his opinion doesn't match my own, he doesn't seem to give the same respect to other people. The more you disagree with him, the more aggressive in his arguments he becomes, as if he argues harder that should sway the persons opinion. In fact, he finds it offensive when a person refuses to change their opinion to match his. To illustrate, once I let him have the last word, (as debating with him is useless) he immediately started with Ie. And as for the "he never answered my question" comment, if he's going to argue my opinion, then he should be able to tell me on what his opinions are based. He still hasn't. Now, this doesn't mean anything more then that he's socially inept,but an aggressive attitude such as his doesn't lend itself to credibility. Which is why Ie suspected him.

And, Number6, I invite you to reread the thread. My objection is not to Reality's basic opinion, my objection is to Reality refusing to back off when it became clear neither I nor Ie wished to debate with someone so obviously bent on invalidating our own opinions. That he finds our opinions offensive is unfortunate, but as you say, he doesn't HAVE to like it. It's our opinion, and will not change.An opinion is an opinion, whether about chocolate cake or abortion, mine just happens to be based on knowledge and experience. He has, in fact, failed to address any point of my opinion with fact rather than emotion and redirection.

Reality, if you keep bringing up gender bias in order to detract from the original issue, people might just be inclined to think you're a sexist.

(My kid hit send while I was away from the comp-realize it's fragmented, but you get the idea.)

:D

"Whistledick, it's a trade-off. I live in a part of the world where the taxes are so high they're off the charts--we're the most taxed province in Canada--but we have a social system that is sensitive to the needs of a lot of people. In short, we get great services. And while I will never understand French humour, I am so happy I live alongside them in a place where progressive programs flourish.But the taxes, oh man...they are so high..."

YEAH NO SH*T! But, Ie, how can you justify the crack pipe program, the $8.8,000,000 pedestrian bride the province just approved, or the Hydro repayment plan? No daycare sopts, the highest transit fees in the NATION, AND we're BILLIONS in deficit, where ten years ago we had a surplus!

Methinks Dalton has some splainin' to do........

And, Number6, I invite you to reread the thread. My objection is not to Reality's basic opinion, my objection is to Reality refusing to back off when it became clear neither I nor Ie wished to debate with someone so obviously bent on invalidating our own opinions.

I did read the thread. And what I saw was that Reality did not post unprompted. He wasn't railing against you and ie with no response from either of you. It was a two-sided argument. You can't say that you don't want to debate with someone and then keep posting in response to that person. It doesn't work. If you don't want to debate, then don't debate; don't try to convince the other person to stop debating. You can't control that.

As as for the "bent on invalidating your opinions" thing, that goes with my above post about the way this site works. It's an argument, of course Reality isn't going to cave and wants to convince you he's (or she's, I'm not sure) right. That's what we do here. And from what I saw, Reality had the more rational explanation to back up his opinion, while yours was based more on emotion and justification for abhorrent behavior. If you want the "everyone's opinion is valid" experience, you should go elsewhere. Amy don't play that.

Angel,

Your rendition of events does not comport with the facts. While I’m sure you “believe” what you are saying to be true, the problem is that the way the conversation actually took place doesn’t match what you are saying.

This right here is the crux of the problem. You seem to believe that if you have an opinion about something, the facts do not matter.

My position is that if someone has an opinion, it is valid or invalid based upon what the facts are. If you do not care about the facts and believe that your opinion doesn’t have to rely upon facts to be correct or reasonable that explains a great deal. The items under discussion here are not all subjective, some of them are objective and objective things do not sway in response to your opinion, your opinion needs to sway in response to the facts.

Here is an example of what I mean about the facts not agreeing with your portrayal of things. Here is your rendition of things:

“To illustrate, once I let him have the last word, (as debating with him is useless) he immediately started with Ie.”

So according to you, the story goes that you simply presented an opinion and I apparently relentlessly and aggressively attacked you until you let me have the last word. At that point you claim that I “immediately” started to aggressively go after i.e..

Okay, that is your version of events, let’s put that to the test and see if what you are saying is correct:

First of all, I challenge you to quote a statement I made that was “aggressive”, “rude”, or “arrogant” that predates a time when you said something that was “aggressive”, “rude”, or “arrogant”. I simply matched (or generally was nicer than) whatever escalation of argumentative aggression you chose to engage in. For example, in your post on February 24, 2011 1:44 PM you say the following two things:

“My, this doesn't say much for your logic.”
“And Reality, get a sense of humor.”

That is you escalating things, I defy you to find anything I said prior to this which was equally “aggressive”, “rude”, or “arrogant”, because my contention is that it doesn’t exist. What you want is to be able to say whatever garbage you feel like, but if someone matches your level of argumentative aggression you cry foul. Sorry, but adult conversations do not work that way. A simple rule to follow is that if you want to have polite discourse, you first need to be polite to the people you are talking to.

Secondly, even as you kept upping the stakes so far as aggression went, you eventually got frustrated that you were still making no headway that you told me I could have the last word. Well at the time I knew it was bogus, but I decided to take you up on your offer in my post on February 25, 2011 6:33 AM.

Now here is the kicker, if I was really the “aggressive” one, and you were just glad to be done with the conversation with me, wouldn’t that have been the last time you or I even mentioned one another? One would think so if your rendition was accurate.

I mean if your story is true then what was your post on February 25, 2011 12:59 PM all about? In that post you say the following:

“OK people(does that include Reality?)”
“And Reality....Bites.”

Even after our discussion was over you kept trying to instigate me into a continuation of the argument. That was done by you, and i.e. hadn’t even entered into a discussion with me when this happened.

The truth of the matter is that even after you “gave me the last word” you are the one who sought to continue the discussion with me, and you continued to do so for several posts. No one made you do this, and it certainly wasn’t me being the “aggressive”, “rude”, and “arrogant” one.

Show me one instance where I even came close to insinuating that you weren’t a human being?

Lastly, I’ll point out that I never started a conversation with i.e., she started one with me in her post on February 26, 2011 6:52 AM. So that shoots down half of what you are saying.

This is why I think your “opinions” are absurd… because when one actually looks at the facts they find out that you have no idea what you are talking about. It would be really nice if facts could find a way into your brain, but alas, you already think you know everything so the facts don’t matter to you.

Pardon me, but who died and made you moderator? Everyone's opinion is valid, no matter which site it's on. This is a basic fundamental of the Charter of Rights. Further, I stopped engaging Reality when it became clear that he refuses to see anyone's opinion but his own as valid. He then continued the argument, as he was clearly not done venting his spleen, therefore my basic response of "shut your trap." Your agreement or lack thereof does not invalidate an argument. I can have the opinion that strip clubs objectify women, and you can present me with countless women willing to testify otherwise(and believe me, they would...) but that would still not invalidate my opinion. That is why it is an OPINION. That's why when they publish Amy's column, they put it under the OPINION section of the paper. To attack someone's opinion (with nothing to go on) just because you disagree with it is something best left to politicians, otherwise you run the risk of sounding like an arrogant, stubborn know it all with an attitude problem. Reality said it best himself.

"Some people on the internet however have a serious problem separating themselves from their arguments, hence if they see their arguments being attacked they take it personally."

Hmmm....Fancy that, a person who is being attacked over their opinions taking it personally. Go figure!

Oh, and if you wanna talk about taking it personally.....

"As best I can tell based upon all of this you are either delusional, a liar, or a troll."

(Oh, the HORROR!!! Betcha he's a real catch!)

Well, as best I can tell, Reality is a sexist, misogynistic, arrogant double speaker who uses misdirection when he can't win, and is a coward to boot. Does that make it true? Further, does Reality's opinion seem so weak to you that you see need to defend it? As I recall, my beef was with Reality and you just jumped in with both feet. Some people have agreed with me, some with Reality, but somehow I didn't need anyone to defend myself or my arguments as did Reality.

Nuff Said.

"And as for the "he never answered my question" comment, if he's going to argue my opinion, then he should be able to tell me on what his opinions are based."

Number6, I find it kind of funny that you wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.....and neither will he!

Everyone's opinion is valid, no matter which site it's on.

Many people's opinions are highly invalid and full of crap.

Are you talking about the Canadian Charter of Rights?

I'm a Yank. Here we have freedom of speech, which I'm all for, which is why I'm a strong supporter of theFIRE.org, which defends speech on college campuses. Atheist speech, Christians' speech, offensive speech.

Everyone's opinion is valid, no matter which site it's on.

It's valid that you have an opinion and can post it here, not that others can't call it into question. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but we are all perfectly entitled to disagree with it and say as much.

To attack someone's opinion (with nothing to go on) just because you disagree with it

Isn't that the best reason to attack an opinion? I mean, it isn't an attack on the person himself, but the things he is publishing on the site. That's not actually attacking, it's debate. You are responsible for what you post and others here have every right to parse what you say. No, you don't have to take it personally. An "attack" on something you post here does not necessarily mean it's personal, so to make it so is up to you. You'll notice that I have said nothing about you as a person, Angel, or about Reality, or ie or anyone else here. I was questioning what you typed on this thread.

Further, does Reality's opinion seem so weak to you that you see need to defend it? As I recall, my beef was with Reality and you just jumped in with both feet.

I have said nothing about Reality's opinion itself. I was not defending it. I was calling into question your interpretation (and ie's) of what was going on in this thread. The only thing I have said about either opinion is that Reality presented his with more evidence from the letter to back it up than you and ie did. To assume that I'm defending someone's opinion just because I think it's childish to use the "Stop arguing with me!" tactic is, well, childish. And taking it too personally.

As for whom your beef was with, is it written somewhere that I can't comment on what others are talking about? Is it because I wasn't asked, like I posted yesterday? Seriously, did I miss the meeting where we decided that's how it was going to be here? If I ask really, really nicely, can I get an engraved invitation to participate?

Reality doesn't need me to defend him (or her, because I still have no idea), and neither do you. I wasn't defending anyone, I was jumping in with my own opinion, which, by your philosophy, is equally as valid as anyone else's. And you have every right to question what I post, just like everyone else.

"And as for the "he never answered my question" comment, if he's going to argue my opinion, then he should be able to tell me on what his opinions are based."

Number6, I find it kind of funny that you wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.....and neither will he!

Wouldn't touch it? I'm so confused as to what I've been doing thus far.

Angel Says:

"I find it kind of funny that you wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.....and neither will he!"

I've already addressed everything you have said and shown you why your position is utterly indefensible in my post on February 26, 2011 8:14 PM.

There is a reason why people like NumberSix find my position to be the more rational one and it is because I actually explained how I came to my conclusion and presented a logical and coherent case.

When asked how you concluded anything all you could muster was that you “know an abuser when you see one”. This roughly translates into “my opinion is valid because I know it is”. Rational people don’t buy into that stuff, they tend to like thing that involve facts, evidence, and reasonable explanations.

As should be evident by now, just because you say something doesn’t make it so. I thoroughly debunked your claims and showed why your conclusions are not reasonable given the evidence we have.

As Amy just said, some opinions are highly invalid and full of crap. My position is that your opinion on this matter falls into that category because all it seems to be based on is your "feelings".

"Many people's opinions are highly invalid and full of crap."

I would agree Amy, that many peoples opinions are full of crap. Loads and loads annnnnnnnd loads of it. I don't, however, agree that any opinion is invalid.

"Are you talking about the Canadian Charter of Rights?"

Yes. (Talk about full of crap, that document has some holes large enough to drive a TRUCK through! But I digress...)The great thing about both documents is that they were allowed through Parliament and the House(Senate?)due in large part to votes based upon informed opinions.

Peace Number6, my bad. I have reread my posts. I didn't mean to vent my frustration at Reality on you. My bad.

"It's valid that you have an opinion and can post it here, not that others can't call it into question. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but we are all perfectly entitled to disagree with it and say as much."

My objection was not to Reality stating his disagreement. Originally, if you recall, I did encourage it. He stated it. And stated it. ANNNNND stated it. My objection is to his refusal to leave a standing disagreement and his rude, repeated interruption of a conversation between myself and Ie that did not address him after we had both requested to be allowed our opinions, as offensive to him as they may be.

"Isn't that the best reason to attack an opinion?"

There is never a good reason to attack an opinion. To do so is a sign of ignorance. A free, respectful debate usually generates more positive results with less animosity.

"The only thing I have said about either opinion is that Reality presented his with more evidence from the letter to back it up than you and ie did."

Actually, he never presented much of anything to back anything up. He just misdirected the conversation when either of us said anything substantial. Politicians call it double speak, I think.

"Wouldn't touch it? I'm so confused as to what I've been doing thus far."

Actually, I meant that you failed to address the fact that though I have repeatedly asked Reality to tell me on what his opinions are based, he still refuses to.

"Seriously, did I miss the meeting where we decided that's how it was going to be here?"

Not to put too fine a point on it, but doesn't that completely disagree with your whole "If you want the "everyone's opinion is valid" experience, you should go elsewhere. Amy don't play that." comment?

And you see Number6, I can be persuaded! I am completely ignoring Reality, as per your suggestion. Shall I pray he takes the hint?

:D

Actually, I meant that you failed to address the fact that though I have repeatedly asked Reality to tell me on what his opinions are based, he still refuses to.

Aren't there several long posts above where Reality does just that? One even has convenient numbered points with where he disagrees and where in the letter he's getting his evidence. That's not doublespeak, that's a very clear breakdown of why he disagrees with you and why he thinks his interpretation is better, with evidence from the original letter to back it up. Is that not what you wanted?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but doesn't that completely disagree with your whole "If you want the "everyone's opinion is valid" experience, you should go elsewhere. Amy don't play that." comment?

No, because what I meant by that was that this isn't the kind of place where people don't argue because everyone's opinion is valid and should be coddled gently like a sickly puppy or something. You can post whatever you want, but be prepared to defend it or ignore those who want you to. Crying foul because someone disagrees doesn't fly here. You'll quite quickly be taken apart.

This is really funny.

“No one asked you for your case. No one asked you for your opinons on our opinions, and no one really cares what you think abot them, but you kept coming back, even after being politely told to piss off.”

Posted by: Angel at March 3, 2011 7:13 PM

“I have repeatedly asked Reality to tell me on what his opinions are based”

Posted by: Angel at March 4, 2011 7:51 PM

I did encourage it. He stated it. And stated it. ANNNNND stated it. My objection is to his refusal to leave a standing disagreement

So. . . how exaclty was your refusal to stop disagreeing with his disagreement any less rude?

and his rude, repeated interruption of a conversation between myself and Ie

So . . . how exactly does one 'interupt' typed words that appear in whole only after you hit the submit button?

that did not address him after we had both requested to be allowed our opinions, as offensive to him as they may be

So. . . given the LW worte Amy and not you how was your original comment any less an invasion into a conversation between the LW and Amy, as you fell Realitys was into yours?

Also if you could describe exactly HOW Reality took away your opinions and relplaced them against your will I'd apreaciate it. There are a few eople I'd like to try that on

Lujip,

Not that you aren't necessarily aware, but there was never actually conversation between i.e. and Angel for me to interrupt.

I made a general comment about DV that wasn’t addressed to anyone in particular and joined a conversation involving lovelysoul, rosa, and ie. Angel was never part of that discourse when I joined in. It was then that ie addressed me specifically and began a conversation with me.

Angel was the one who jumped into this conversation after I was already a well established member of the discussion.

So I'm not entirely sure how I can interrupt a conversation that I was involved in first.

I think the tactic now is to repeat lies often enough until they stick.

Aren't there several long posts above where Reality does just that?

Ummm, no. But let me rephrase, perhaps I was a bit vague, thus the misunderstanding. What I was asking Reality, and am still asking him if he can stop being such a churl, is:

What books has he read, what research has he done, which support groups has he been in, or what experiences has he had that leads him to believe that my opinion on how domestic starts is invalid?

"but be prepared to defend it or ignore those who want you to. Crying foul because someone disagrees doesn't fly here. You'll quite quickly be taken apart."

I have no problem defending my opinions per se, as in debate, and was not crying foul because he disagreed with me. What I was crying foul to was his repeated arguments against my opinion when I had told him in a nutshell that we would have to agree to disagree. However, if you read the majority of his posts, as I have just done, he is not content to stop attacking an opinion until A) The poster agrees with him, or B) stops posting. That is a bully. And that doesn't fly with ME!

Also, since Reality brought up gender bias, have you noticed he rarely argues with men? ( You'll say I have no idea which gender it is, but c'mon....)

"Also if you could describe exactly HOW Reality took away your opinions and relplaced them against your will I'd apreaciate it. There are a few eople I'd like to try that on"

HUH? WTF?

Angel, the way you worded your complaint, you made it sound as though Reality had taken away your opinion as easily as one takes away a childs toy.

"What books has he read, what research has he done, which support groups has he been in, or what experiences has he had that leads him to believe that my opinion on how domestic starts is invalid?"

Silly me... when asked what I based my opinion on I resorted to the "dubious" activity of offering the facts and evidence that supported what I was saying rather than talking about the really "important" stuff like how many support groups I have been in.

People who based their opinions on things like books as opposed to the facts and evidence before them are the same people who declare the earth to be 6000 years old.

Nice non answer.

You might as well say

"Don't muddy up my opinion with facts!"

In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on.

:D

Angel,

You are not making any sense.

I've already established (and it has been acknowledged by several other posters that I have done so) that my position is based upon the facts and evidence we have been presented in the letter describing this specific situation.

You then assert that none of that stuff counts and what really matters is how many support groups I have been in.

Sorry, but that isn't in the least bit relevant when assessing this particular situation. Your personal experiences also are not more relevant than the evidence presented to us. No books you have read are more relevant than the facts we have regarding this specific situation.

None of those details trump the facts.

If you are going to insist that a list of support groups is more convincing evidence than actually detailing the facts we have been given you are going to have to explain why.

Needless to say I think you are confusing the word "evidence" with the word "credentials".

What you are saying is the logical equivalent of saying a medical professional should base their medical diagnosis upon their degree or some text book they read and not on the symptoms of the patient. Professionals do not do this, they rely upon facts and evidence, only crack pots and charlatans claim to be able to cure you based upon a book and not on your symptoms.

You aren't by any chance a young earth creationist or an advocate of crystal healing are you?

Now who's biased? What is the American equivalent of a Liberal?

Your whole position throughout the thread has been that my opinion, "one of the red flags of abuse is the rapid fire over attachment to the victim", is invalid. I have asked you repeatedly to tell me on which experiences or point of knowledge you base that invalidation.

You keep backing up your own opinion, but fail to notice that I never called your opinion into question. You came to me to invalidate my opinion.If you are going to argue someone's opinion, you had better be able to back it up with something, be it knowledge, experience, or hell, even hearsay.

You quite obviously can't.

And what the Hell is a young earth creationist?

Angel Says:

"Your whole position throughout the thread has been that my opinion, "one of the red flags of abuse is the rapid fire over attachment to the victim", is invalid."

This is a straw man argument. That has never been my position.

Instead my position has been that even if your criteria for an abuser is correct, it is the LW and not the guy who displays a greater tendency to "attach" and escalate the relationship with someone who isn't interested.

As a result, even if your opinion on the "red flags" of an abuser are accurate, you have not been applying the criteria equally between the people in question.

I don’t have enough evidence to declare either of these people to be abusive or victims, but even if I go by your criteria I can’t call the guy the abuser and the woman the victim because she is the one who is doing more of the “rapid fire attachment” stuff than he is.

“You came to me to invalidate my opinion.If you are going to argue someone's opinion, you had better be able to back it up with something, be it knowledge, experience, or hell, even hearsay.”

Your opinion on whether the guy in this story is an abuser or a stalker is the only opinion I have stated that is invalid. It is invalid because it does not have enough foundational evidence to back up that claim.

Furthermore, you need to understand who has the burden of proof when it comes to a claim. If you make a claim it isn’t up to other people to shoot it down for it to be invalid.

As a skeptic your claim remains invalid until you substantiate it which you have failed to do. It isn’t up to me to “prove” you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims to be correct.

I recommend you read the following brief article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

In particular:

“The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.”

You need to prove your case for it to be valid… it doesn’t start out as valid until someone else proves otherwise. The reason I keep saying that your position on this issue is invalid is specifically because you have not provided sufficient warrant to validate your claims.

It isn't a personal attack, it is just the way logic, reasoning, and argumentation work.

In other words you don't have any idea in high hell what you're talking about.

Angel, dear, give it up already - even if everthing creepy the guy did were true, by the LW own admission she still comes off as the worse of the two by far - and all by her own admision

Angel,

What are you talking about?

I have explained myself very clearly and for some reason you still don't seem to comprehend anything I am saying. You should really familiarize yourself with Russell's teapot, it might help you better understand why your method of reasoning is seriously flawed.

Furthermore, a great quote that applies here is from Christopher Hitchens:

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

You made a claim and haven't backed it up, therefore it can be dismissed without any effort on my part.

Every time I offer a clear and reasonable argument all you have to respond with is something along the lines of:

"In other words you don't have any idea in high hell what you're talking about."

Again you are wrong.

The only problem I think you and I have been having in this discussion is that you don't have any idea of what constitutes a valid and convincing argument or how to even begin to construct one or notice one when it is right in front of you.

Every statement you make is peppered with fallacious reasoning and while I would be happy to help you understand what a fallacy is, I don't think you want to actually learn anything because you think you know everything already.

I think the appropriate phrase is “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink”.

...doesn't everyone love Lobster???

Someone early on hit the nail on the head. The LW and stalker b/f are, i believe, very young, very naive, and very impatient.

Also, since Reality brought up gender bias, have you noticed he rarely argues with men? ( You'll say I have no idea which gender it is, but c'mon....

Well, I'm a chick and Reality seems to agree with me (or at least isn't arguing with me), so isn't that a point for the other side? Or maybe it's that it's not actually the gender of the poster but the content of the post. I think gender here is a red herring. Or Red Herring, that character from A Pup Named Scooby-Doo who was always getting blamed for stuff even though he never did it. Anyone else remember that show?

I expected to see some improvements in my love life after I contacted Ekaka and asked him to send out a spell to the Universe for me, but I didn’t expect a life-changing experience, that’s for sure! Still, though, that’s what I got! I’m not only in love, I’m going to be moving to my soon-to-be-fiance’s state next month! We probably would never even have met if it weren’t for ekakaspelltemple@yahoo.com and his wonderful powers of peace and love. I wish you all the peace and love you sent me, DR Ekaka.