Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[SpuriusMaximus]

Actually, that's flat out wrong, Unca. You need not only a P(B) for that estimate, but also a P(B|A). _If_ the percentage of rapists wearing a red shirt on the third date were were known to be higher than the percentage of guys wearing red shirts on the third date in the general population, (ETA: or just the percentage of rapists wearing red ever vs the percentage of guys wearing a red shirt ever, that works too,) then yes, Bayes' Theorem would say exactly that: that it's ok to start worrying if the guy you date shows up in a red shirt on a third date.

Just because you obviously don't understand it, doesn't mean it's useless. It just means you obviously don't understand it.

And the whole _idea_ is to predict the probability of an event B when you know event A has happened, even if they're not the same type of event or behaviour. E.g., "If 50% of a high school's students are female, and only 40% of girls wear pants, if you see someone wearing pants from a distance, what's the probability it's a girl?" Nobody (sane) would say that wearing pants is the same kind of behaviour as being a girl, or anything, but you can calculate the probability anyway.

The other objections in the thread boiling down to "yeah, but there are other factors" are invalid too. Yes, if you knew other factors, you should adjust the estimate based on them too. But that doesn't mean you can't calculate a probability until you know all the factors.

E.g., in the girls and pants example, sure, someone could sound all profound by going on about what if genetic preferences influence it too, and what if certain kind of pants are more girl-like, and what if someone deliberately wears pants to deceive you (the Bundy objection.) So what? If you know those you should of course adjust the estimates, but in the meantime you still _can_ calculate a probability based on what you do know.

What she describes there is just the normal and correct way to assess risk. If you know nothing, that person starts at the general P(A). Once you know an event B you can correlate with, you move it to P(A|B). Once you have a C, D and E too, you move it to a P(A|B&C&D&E). And so on.

There is nothing irrational in there. That's how risk assessment works. That's how your insurance can adjust your premium based on what types of incidents you've been in, or conversely how many years without one you had. You start at P(A), then are moved to a P(A|B), then to a P(A|B&C) and so on.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

There is nothing irrational in there. That's how risk assessment works. That's how your insurance can adjust your premium based on what types of incidents you've been in, or conversely how many years without one you had. You start at P(A), then are moved to a P(A|B), then to a P(A|B&C) and so on.

And people are paid lots of money to sift out the red-herrings from the truly predictive factors. Insurance companies don't want to turn down or price out good risks because of irrelevant information.

So, where's the evidence to indicate a man talking at a woman when she doesn't want to talk is predictive of that man being more likely to be a rapist?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

The evidence is that piece of maths above.

Really, nowhere does Bayes say "but only if it doesn't bother you, or can find a good reason to believe the correlation." It doesn't matter if there is a logical "why would B lead to A". Technically it doesn't even have to lead to. It's just a probability of A to happen if B happened.

In the girls in pants example, nobody says that being a girl is a cause of wearing pants, nor that wearing pants makes one a girl. You can calculate a conditional probability anyway.

Ditto here. It doesn't matter if you have a known reason why one would lead to the other, and in fact there doesn't even have to be a causation at all. It's a conditional probability.

 

[Lyrandar]

You and she need to establish a connection between behavior on a bus and behavior in the bedroom. I can relate my own personal experiences to demonstrate how this connection is by no means automatic.

(stories)

The first event, based on your logic, would not predict the second event. Both events seem to predict entirely different risks of me being a rapist.

First off: I think your behavior in both stories is admirable.

That said, I don't agree with your example. I would specify the nature of the warning signs a bit more carefully - in particular, I'm worried about motive. Your motive in the first story is entirely acceptable - your safety, your son's safety, and the safety of everyone else around you. The motive of someone that refuses to leave some woman alone is almost certainly based on what they want - I can't say that with certainty, but I think exceptions to that would be easy to notice. I don't find that admirable.

Believe me, I don't have any problems with aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior for the wrong reason, though, I think makes a perfectly good warning sign that this person may not have respect for others.

What you and the author have done is taken the incredibly complex nature of human beings and human interaction, both of which are affected by genetics, culture, and the dynamics of the individual situation, and made incredibly simplistic evaluations that produce nothing of any value.

I'm willing to believe the author oversimplified a little to make her point simpler. I don't blame her for that, though. I'm willing to read what she wrote and accept it as mostly true with some exceptions that she doesn't mention for brevity's sake. Even if the woman you're dealing with is less cautious than the author, it's not like following the advice given will cause major problems.

 

[Uncayimmy]

74,000 people were caught drinking driving in the UK in 2006
In 2006 85,000 women were raped in the UK.
So clearly the amount of people who rape someone and those who drink and drive are roughly of the same order of magnitude. We have so many adverts telling people not to drink and drive, we also have campaigns which inform people exactly what is drink and driving.

Sigh...First, it's common courtesy to provide links to the sources of your data. Second, assuming your numbers are correct, you are comparing arrests to what are by far mostly unreported rapes. If you want to make a comparison, find the numbers for unreported drinking and driving incidents. According to this article, 3.4% of those drivers tested in one month by the police were intoxicated. According to this article there are 31,000,000 cars on the roads in the UK. The math shows that 3.4% of that number is over 1,000,000, which is not the most reliable calculation but it demonstrates my point.

Continuing along this line, according to this report, 59% of women and 75% of men drank alcohol within the last week. The number of people over age 14 is about 50,000,000. If only half of them after drinking have a decision about driving, that's about 17,000,000 every week who have to make a choice about driving while intoxicated.

Do think the number of men considering raping somebody even approaches that?

Third, people drink all the time and are faced with the choice of driving. Alcohol is well known to impair judgment. The reminders are welcome, and they also remove the stigma that used to associated with somebody not drinking and driving (when I was coming up only wussies gave their keys to somebody else). Fourth, lots of people believe they can drive safely while under the influence and don't think they are doing any wrong yet, speaking for myself, I can so no situation where I would even consider rape as acceptable.

Your argument fails.

Oh and about asking me how I'd feel if someone told my Dad not to abuse me, you are again failing to understand just how common rape and sexual abuse is. 1% of people under 16 are sexually abused by their parent and carer. So you had roughly a 1 in 100 chance of asking someone who was abused wether they wish someone had asked their father to not do it.

Please don't tell me what I am and am not aware. In the NVAWS report they indicate that majority of rapes happen to minors. About 21% are raped for the first time before they reach age 12. Of those, 87% are raped by relatives. In the 12 to 17 age group it's about 20%.

That said, you didn't answer the question, and you twisted it around. I didn't say anything about somebody wishing their father didn't do it. I asked you to consider how insulting it is for a father to be told not to diddle his daughter when the very thought of such a thing boils the blood of most fathers.

You can continue to tell me that I shouldn't be offended by being told not to rape someone. Intellectually, I can see why someone might say that. It still bothers me, though. And I don't believe it actually has any benefit and probably hurts the cause.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

All else being equal, people tend to exhibit similar personality characteristics over different situations. So in the absence of empirical data on the subject it is common sense to assume that people who override other people's wishes sexually (rapists) will be more common in the group of people who override other people's wishes in the conversation area than in the group of people who do not override other people's wishes in the conversation area. Since the rapist group is much smaller than the conversation boundary crossers, the result is still to filter out a lot of non-rapists too, but its still enough for a woman to decide to put up her guard. ESPECIALLY AS SHE DIDN'T WANT TO CONVERSE WITH HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The evidence is that piece of maths above.

Really, nowhere does Bayes say "but only if it doesn't bother you, or can find a good reason to believe the correlation." It doesn't matter if there is a logical "why would B lead to A". Technically it doesn't even have to lead to. It's just a probability of A to happen if B happened.

In the girls in pants example, nobody says that being a girl is a cause of wearing pants, nor that wearing pants makes one a girl. You can calculate a conditional probability anyway.

Ditto here. It doesn't matter if you have a known reason why one would lead to the other, and in fact there doesn't even have to be a causation at all. It's a conditional probability.

P(A|B) = P(A).P(B|A) / (P(A).P(B|A) + P(~A).P(B|~A))

A = 'rapist'.
B = 'talks at women who don't want to be talked to'.

What are your data to estimate P(B|A)?
What are your data to estimate P(B|~A)?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

All else being equal, people tend to exhibit similar personality characteristics over different situations. So in the absence of empirical data on the subject it is common sense to assume that people who override other people's wishes sexually (rapists) will be more common in the group of people who override other people's wishes in the conversation area than in the group of people who do not override other people's wishes in the conversation area. Since the rapist group is much smaller than the conversation boundary crossers, the result is still to filter out a lot of non-rapists too, but its still enough for a woman to decide to put up her guard. ESPECIALLY AS SHE DIDN'T WANT TO CONVERSE WITH HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Should I be keeping an eye on parents who sometimes shout at their kids in the supermarket?

Is it 'common sense' military men are more likely to be rapists, or would that just be a gross generalisation?

In fact, is anyone who exercises any form of authority more likely to be a rapists because they override another person's will?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Re my previous post - in terms of the Big Five factor model of personality, I would say that rapists would tend to fall among those who measure low on the agreeableness factor. Persisting in trying to converse with someone who had given out signals that they do not want to talk would also be a rough and ready measure of their level of agreeableness - although it would catch more people as well as the rapists.

Agreeableness is a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. The trait reflects individual differences in general concern for social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are generally considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. They believe people are basically honest, decent, and trustworthy.

Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others’ well-being, and are less likely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others’ motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative.

[edit] Sample agreeableness items
I am interested in people.
I feel others' feelings.
I have a soft heart.
I make people feel at ease.
I sympathize with others’ feelings.
I take time out for others.
I am not interested in other people’s problems. (reversed)
I am not really interested in others. (reversed)
I feel little concern for others. (reversed)
I insult people. (reversed)[30]
I like being isolated. (reversed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Agreeableness

 

[mediocrity511]

That said, you didn't answer the question, and you twisted it around. I didn't say anything about somebody wishing their father didn't do it. I asked you to consider how insulting it is for a father to be told not to diddle his daughter when the very thought of such a thing boils the blood of most fathers.

You can continue to tell me that I shouldn't be offended by being told not to rape someone. Intellectually, I can see why someone might say that. It still bothers me, though. And I don't believe it actually has any benefit and probably hurts the cause.

You didn't ask me about a father, you asked me about my father. I deliberately didn't answer the question because I was abused by my father, therefore how I feel about someone saying it to my dad is likely to be different to about 99% of the population. That said personally I don't think offending people is a good reason for taking an action that may result in fewer people being harmed. For example I know many gay men are offended by the fact that they aren't allowed to donate blood, however I think the risks of someone contracting a bloode-bourne disease trumps offending a few people.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

A sample of 521 college men completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and an expanded version of the Sexual Experiences Survey to examine whether variation in the Big Five personality traits in a normal, college population provides any insight into the nature of sexual assault and rape perpetrators. Rape perpetrators reported lower levels of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness when compared to both sexual assault perpetrators and nonperpetrators, and lower levels of Extraversion when compared to nonperpetrators. Rape perpetrators also endorsed lower levels of tendermindedness, excitement-seeking, warmth, positive emotions, feelings, altruism, competence, and dutifulness, and higher levels of vulnerability. Contrary to expectation, overall personality profiles followed remarkably comparable patterns for sexual assault and nonperpetrators, suggesting that sexual assault perpetrators were more similar to nonperpetrators than to rape perpetrators. Findings suggest that individuals who perpetrate sexual offenses, particularly rape, differ from nonperpetrators on dimensions of normal personality. Clinical and research implications are discussed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19443734

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Ivor, when I have a mathematically proven formula, namely Bayes' Theorem, give me one good reason why I should use yours instead? It's not as if there is any doubt about whether Bayes is right or wrong about that formula.

Also, note that nowhere does it say that you have to go that specific. I can calculate, say, which percentage of girls wear pants even without narrowing down to basically "but what is the data for her being brunette and the pants being Levi jeans." Same here.

But you tell me if you have more specific data. Then we'll plug it into the formula and get a more accurate estimate.

But the absence of such more specific data doesn't mean one can't calculate a conditional probability based on the less specific known data. E.g., in the girls in pants example, I _can_ calculate a conditional probability even without knowing the numbers specifically for short-haired brunettes in Levi jeans.

Same here. She can estimate a risk anyway. It won't be as accurate an estimate as one based on more specific numbers, but it's mathematically sound to calculate one based on the larger category anyway.

Unless, as I was telling Unca, you want to claim that Bayes' Theorem is false. Well, have fun proving that.

ETA: and what makes it even sillier a red herring is that P(A).P(B|A) + P(~A).P(B|~A) in your formula equals P(B). Which makes it just more blatantly irrelevant to try to slice "yeah, but you don't know P(B|~A)" when mathematically provably it makes no difference in the final result. It's not even just a logical red herring, it's a mathematically provable red herring.

 

[Dipayan]

B = "a guy overrides the woman's personal choices"

According to the article, for a girl on the subway, 'looking out of the window' is code for 'don't disturb me'. Note that Ms. Starling does not say that this is true only for her. She is making a pretty sweeping statement here. So if you happen to talk to a girl on a subway who is looking out of the window, apparently you are sending out a subtle sign that you could be a potential rapist.

A statement like 'a guy overrides a woman's personal choice' is a strong statement, and it can hardly be used for a situation such as this. Unless, it is your contention that every person who is looking out of the window in a subway is doing so to signal to others that they do not want to be disturbed. If you cannot show this to be true, this condition of yours is not met.

You might say that I am taking her too literally and thereby losing the essence of her article, but my issue is with the little things, not the big picture.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Actually, that's flat out wrong, Unca. You need not only a P(B) for that estimate, but also a P(B|A). _If_ the percentage of rapists wearing a red shirt on the third date were were known to be higher than the percentage of guys wearing red shirts on the third date in the general population, (ETA: or just the percentage of rapists wearing red ever vs the percentage of guys wearing a red shirt ever, that works too,) then yes, Bayes' Theorem would say exactly that: that it's ok to start worrying if the guy you date shows up in a red shirt on a third date.

We don't know P(B|A) when it comes to interrupting conversations or wearing red shirts and rape. Period. We can assign a value and do some calculations. There is no requirement whatsoever that P(B|A) needs to be greater than P(B|C) to use Bayes.

Just because you obviously don't understand it, doesn't mean it's useless. It just means you obviously don't understand it.

Again with the unsupported assertions.

And the whole _idea_ is to predict the probability of an event B when you know event A has happened, even if they're not the same type of event or behaviour. E.g., "If 50% of a high school's students are female, and only 40% of girls wear pants, if you see someone wearing pants from a distance, what's the probability it's a girl?" Nobody (sane) would say that wearing pants is the same kind of behaviour as being a girl, or anything, but you can calculate the probability anyway.

That is an accurate description. However, it says nothing about the value of whether considering pants is a good idea or not. It could say that it's a horrible idea. Let's keep our eye on the ball here. The author has offered that something like interrupting a conversation is an indicator of rape potential, which assumes that at least one man in this world has never interrupted a conversation. He's either a rapist or he's not. Therefore, we can use Bayes.

So what? Does this make her premise a valid one?

The other objections in the thread boiling down to "yeah, but there are other factors" are invalid too. Yes, if you knew other factors, you should adjust the estimate based on them too. But that doesn't mean you can't calculate a probability until you know all the factors.

Another straw man.

What she describes there is just the normal and correct way to assess risk.

Another unsupported assertion.

If you know nothing, that person starts at the general P(A). Once you know an event B you can correlate with, you move it to P(A|B). Once you have a C, D and E too, you move it to a P(A|B&C&D&E). And so on.

She doesn't know any of them!

Look, the first thing she has to do is demonstrate that there is a statistically significant difference between rude men (tired of typing interrupting conversations) and men who are not rude and rape. Everyone is rude at some point or another, so the probability of a rude person being a rapist is 100% and the probability of a rude person not being a rapist is 100%.

You can then try to get more granular with the definition of rude and looking at specific behaviors. If you can find a behavior that is different among rapists and non-rapists, then you're on to something. You can then invoke Bayes if you want. There's nothing profound about that declaration. Nobody has argued against it. I have argued that nobody has presented any evidence for a specific behavior.

If such a behavior or characteristic can be established, then we have to enter into a new discussion about the value of looking at that behavior.

 

[Dipayan]

The point being that, Hans, I would think you are correct in that a rapist is more likely to be a man who overrides a woman's personal choices. But my issue is that most of the examples given in the article are too insipid to be called 'overriding a woman's personal choices', unless we specify that we are only talking about a sample size of one - Phaedra Starling.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Re my previous post - in terms of the Big Five factor model of personality, I would say that rapists would tend to fall among those who measure low on the agreeableness factor. Persisting in trying to converse with someone who had given out signals that they do not want to talk would also be a rough and ready measure of their level of agreeableness - although it would catch more people as well as the rapists.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Agreeableness

At least now we're getting somewhere. Too bad the Revised NEO Personality Inventory they used is copyrighted and thus not subject to enough peer-reviewed criticism. I hate seeing studies about what people answered to questions without actually seeing the questions. I also hate seeing abstracts that talk about lower or higher levels of something without using the words "statistically significant." Anybody familiar with my posting history knows that I apply these same skeptical standards to all studies.

I agree that it's possible that persisting in conversation might indicate a lack of agreeableness. At the same time I will note that perpetrators score lower in extravertism, which is "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self".[3] Extraverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious."

In other words one could just easily use this data to say that the assertive, talkative guy on the bus is less likely to be a rapist.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

We don't know P(B|A) when it comes to interrupting conversations or wearing red shirts and rape. Period. We can assign a value and do some calculations.

Except again, there is nothing that says you can use Bayes only for categories as specific as your highness approves. If you don't have the specific data for the more specific behaviour C to calculate a P(A|C), you can still use the more generic super-category B to calculate a P(A|B).

See again the example of girls in jeans. If I don't have the more specific data of how many girls wear Levi jeans, I can instead calculate from the probability of girls using pants.

There is no requirement whatsoever that P(B|A) needs to be greater than P(B|C) to use Bayes.

Considering that i never said that, well, yeah. Any other irrelevant wisdom you feel like dispensing?

Again with the unsupported assertions.

I think you've supported that assertion of mine quite amply by now, actually.

That is an accurate description. However, it says nothing about the value of whether considering pants is a good idea or not. It could say that it's a horrible idea.

I never said that it did. It's just a conditional probability. So that would make this just another red herring. Yes, the example has nothing do with how good an idea it is to wear pants, nor with the radius of Pluto's orbit, nor with the height of the Great Pyramid, nor anything else. It's just an example of calculating a conditional probability.

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. The author has offered that something like interrupting a conversation is an indicator of rape potential, which assumes that at least one man in this world has never interrupted a conversation. He's either a rapist or he's not. Therefore, we can use Bayes.

Well, I'm glad we can at least agree that we can use Bayes. But again, it says nothing about how specific you need to get with the event you correlate. There is nothing in there which says you can only correlate with specifically "a guy insisting to have a conversation", and not with the super-category of "a guy overriding your personal choices."

You can correlate anything with anything, if the data supports it.

So what? Does this make her premise a valid one?

That's what I've been trying to say.

Another straw man.

It's on the same page, so hardly a strawman.

She doesn't know any of them!

Not with decimals or anything, but you only need to know that one number is 1 and another is less than 1 to know that the risk just increased.

Plus, the process described is valid anyway, even if necessarily inaccurate.

Look, the first thing she has to do is demonstrate that there is a statistically significant difference between rude men (tired of typing interrupting conversations) and men who are not rude and rape. Everyone is rude at some point or another, so the probability of a rude person being a rapist is 100% and the probability of a rude person not being a rapist is 100%.

Prof Yaffle already supported that, but basically no the author doesn't even have to do that. Again, there is no requirement that the events correlated must be as arbitrarily specific as you approve.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ivor, when I have a mathematically proven formula, namely Bayes' Theorem, give me one good reason why I should use yours instead? It's not as if there is any doubt about whether Bayes is right or wrong about that formula.

Mine is Bayes'. I've just expanded the P(B) in the denominator. See here.

Also, note that nowhere does it say that you have to go that specific. I can calculate, say, which percentage of girls wear pants even without narrowing down to basically "but what is the data for her being brunette and the pants being Levi jeans." Same here.

But you tell me if you have more specific data. Then we'll plug it into the formula and get a more accurate estimate.

But the absence of such more specific data doesn't mean one can't calculate a conditional probability based on the less specific known data. E.g., in the girls in pants example, I _can_ calculate a conditional probability even without knowing the numbers specifically for short-haired brunettes in Levi jeans.

Same here. She can estimate a risk anyway. It won't be as accurate an estimate as one based on more specific numbers, but it's mathematically sound to calculate one based on the larger category anyway.

Unless, as I was telling Unca, you want to claim that Bayes' Theorem is false. Well, have fun proving that.

I know how to apply Bayes' rule. In this case it requires one to have sources for estimates of P(A) (which we have), P(B|A) and P(B|~A) (which we don't). What are your estimates for the latter two probabilities and where did you get them from?

Are you just assuming rapists talk at people? Why would they do this if women will think men who do this are more likely to be rapists? Remember the article was written as advice to men on how not to appear like a rapist to women, so it seems obvious that successful rapists do *not* behave in ways which make them appear like rapists two women before raping them.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Hans:

I am not wasting anymore time this Bayes thing. I wrote, "My inability (or hers) to answer that question doesn't mean that what she's suggesting is a valid technique. It also presumes that there is a way to tell. Do you have any evidence for markers that indicate the likelihood of a man being a rapist? If so, please present them."

Perhaps you thought by "technique" I meant using conditional probabilities. I'm not sure why unless you stopped reading at the first sentence and assumed what I meant. Obviously the whole thing makes much more sense taken in the context of finding such a conditional probability in the first place. Following the thread backwards, you can see that by "technique" I was referring to where I wrote "her later arguments are built on unproven premises (men who ignore "no" in a non-sexual setting are more likely to do so in a sexual setting)."

When you responded to my request for evidence of markers that indicate the likelihood of a man committing rape, you launched into the whole Bayes thing as if that proved something.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Note sure how reliable they are, but I've been looking for sources for behaviours which can be used to identify rapists. Here are two such lists:

http://rapesurvivor.pbworks.com/Rapists

Warning signs for potential male rapists

It is very difficult to predict who may or may not be a potential rapist because rapists have many [personality type]s, and use many different methods. However, certain behavioral characteristics have been observed in some rapists. These should be used cautiously as "warning signs", since non-rapists and other innocent people may also exhibit similar behaviours:

• Extreme emotional insensitivity and egotism;
• Habitual degradation and verbal devaluation of others;
• Tries to tell others what they are feeling and thinking, as though it is his or her decision and not theirs. "S/he said no, but s/he meant yes";
• Consistently using intimidation in language, or threatening behavior to get his way. Uses words like "bitch" and "whore" to describe women;
• Excessive, chronic, or brooding anger;
• Becoming obsessed with the object of his or her romantic affections, long after his or her advances have been rejected;
• Extreme mood swings;
• Violent outbursts; lack of impulse control;
• Aggressive and violent;
• Cruel behavior, especially under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Scientific research does not support the assumption that rape fantasies are warning signs of a potential rapist. While rapists were almost invariably found to have rape fantasies, they were a very small minority compared to a far larger number of psychologically healthy and normal men who had rape fantasies but did not commit rape.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/profile.html

Danger signs

1) Insensitivity for others/emphasis on self - Does this person put his wants above the needs, feelings or well being of others? Is getting his way more important to him than other people's welfare? Often this can go beyond mere selfishness and border nearly on an "assumed divine right." Often these people will justify a particularly vicious action with a flip comment like, "Hey, that's how the game is played." Such a person has no understanding that he must co-exist with others. Because he simply exists he thinks the world "owes" him whatever he wants. A common tactic of such a person it to make you feel bad for not doing what he wants.

2) Belittling behavior or attitudes towards others - Does this person habitually make nasty, belittling or degrading comments about others – especially under the guise of joking? Does this person think he is better than others? Does he look down on others? A nouveau riche aristocrat? Is he a racist? A person who thinks that race or social position makes him superior can also assume gender does too. When you think you are superior, an assumed right to ‘take’ what you want often follows.

3) Negating behavior or comments - Closely related to 1 and 2. Does he try to tell you what you are feeling or thinking? Or worse, tell you what you are not? Comments like "you don’t really mean that" are serious indicators of someone trying to negate you. A person who negates others is trying to take away the other person’s thoughts, feelings and needs and attempting to project his wants onto that person. The most obvious example of this is "Well even though she said ‘no’, she really meant ‘yes’".

4) Hostile and/or threatening language - What words does a person use? Choice of words convey subconscious assumptions about a particular topic. For example a man who generically refers to women as "bitches" does not have good assumptions about females (or much respect). It is all too easy to dismiss this behavior as just "blowing off steam." But if it is a constant behavior, it goes far beyond that. Someone who habitually uses violent or threatening language should be carefully watched for possible escalation. It’s on his mind already. It’s a uncomfortably short step from ‘thinking about’ to ‘doing’.

5) Bullying - This behavior is especially dangerous. Does this person use overt or subtle threats to get his way? A bully uses the threat of violence more than actual violence. Most often bullies are not willing to risk conflict with someone who can hurt them (an alpha male), and will instead chose to intimidate someone he considers weaker and safer. Someone who is bullying over other matters can easily turn to bullying you regarding sex.

6) Excessive anger - How easy does this person anger? Is he a "Short Fuse"? Does he boil over at the slightest problem? This is an indication of chronic anger. A person who explodes over a minor issue is like a full pot boiling over on the stove. It’s not that the issue is all that important, but that he has so much anger already, any more causes him to explode. Often people with chronic anger look for targets to vent their anger at. This could manifest as physical fights, abuse, or rape.

7) Brooding/ revenge - Does this person hang onto his anger long after the situation is over? Will he still be stewing over something while everyone else has moved onto other things? Will he become anti-social and glare at the source of his anger from across the room? Will he insist on taking revenge for real or imagined slights? Both indicate a petty and obsessive personality. A brooder fixates on something and then works himself into a frenzy over it. A person who seeks revenge "has to win" and is willing to take it to extremes. Refusing such a person’s sexual advances can turn this tendency towards you.

8) Obsession – This is a close cousin to number seven. It is a major factor with acquaintance rapes. This is the person who won’t leave you alone. He insists on ‘hitting on you’ long after you have told him no. He is always trying establish forced intimacy (see ‘bonding process’ below). Such obsessions easily turn into anger when his advances are rejected. One day he shows up in a fringe area, drunk and attacks.

9) Extreme mood swings - Beware someone who can go from wildly happy to deeply wounded at a moment's notice. This sort of personality can feel justified to commit an unlimited amount of violence and damage, because you "hurt his feelings." This is a common pattern among those with chronic anger about life.

10) Physical tantrums - How does this person get angry? Especially when denied "getting his way". Beware of a person who regularly physically assaults his environment i.e. hitting walls, kicking things etc. It is only a short step from striking a car to attacking you.

11) Jock or gorilla mentality - This mentality promotes both acceptance and encouragement for the use of violence. It is especially common among participants of contact sports. What is most insidious about this mentality is the "jock" receives, not only positive reinforcement, but out-and-out applause for being aggressive and violent. This can easily lead to a failure to differentiate between the playing field and real life. Mike Tyson’s comment is a prime example: "Nobody ever objected before."

12) A mean drunk - Nearly all rape and abuse cases involve alcohol. Watch what surfaces when someone is intoxicated. It shows what is always lurking underneath. Do not put yourself into a situation where you would deal with such a person while he is intoxicated. Most importantly, don't allow your facilities to be diminished by alcohol or drugs in this person's presence.

13) Alcohol or drug abuse - To begin with drug and alcohol addiction can in be traced back to selfishness and a refusal to change one’s world view. Alcohol and drugs are not the cause of bad behavior, rather they are used as an excuse! Often the attacker intentionally became intoxicated to ignore the social restrictions and inhibitions regarding violence.

While there are others, these behaviors are serious indicators of a potential rapist. This short list should acquaint you with the basics. Not all men are rapists, but a person like this has a higher probability than others. You not only find these traits among rapists and abusers, but also professional criminals. Philosophically there is little difference between such, they are all selfish. Most often it is just a matter of degrees, style and choice of victims.