There are many signs of potential abusers and almost all of them are attractive elements in our romantically ill culture.

I invite you to do a bit of research online and you will not find a scarcity of information. Usually, the guy comes on strong, seals the deal early, ties the gal up (not literally) and sometimes even brings flowers.

However, certain aspects of these red flags can assume stereotypical proportions. It is not like they have a tattoo on their heads. Really charming narcissists (and some sociopaths) can hide their true characters wonderfully.

Geez, I know of a woman who dated a guy for five years, so afraid was she that he might turn out to be like the previous batterer she married. She even went through extensive therapy. Well, dear reader, she married him. At first, everything was lovely. Dream come true. The sex, which was never very frequent, began to taper to nothing.

She had two daughters. Guess who he was abusing?

Let us just be frank. There are more male batters than female. There are more male sociopaths than female. There are more male pedophiles than female. There are more male (still) alcoholics than female.

There are more women than men. Most of the women want to get married and have children. You do the math.

It would be nice if the point of this book -- many women stay with abusers because, there, he will beat them but he will probably let them live, but if they leave, he will probably hunt them down and kill them -- didn't have to be repeated, but it does, so --- Say it again, Sam.

Weird that it is so hard for people to understand this point.

I guess it is hard for people to accept the reality that SO MANY MEN are potential murderers. Not that many people will kill strangers, but a LOT of men, apparently, would kill "their" woman.

It is clear that the most common scenario in which a woman ends up dead is simply: She exits an abusive relationship, the ex finds her and kills her.

Happens a lot. Apparently, it is some kind of "natural" male behavior, taken to its logical extreme. Control is somehow hardwired into men and some are just a lot more violent about it.

And, broadening the scope of murderous men, think about how frequently you see these little newspaper blurbs about the guy who kills his children, his wife and then himself.

Happens all the time.

Now, you people who keep yarping about how abuse is an equal-opportunity activity, when is the last time you saw one of this little newspaper articles about a WOMAN who killed her kids, her husband and then herself?

I don't think I've ever read one. Ever.

Jan VanDenBerg

Spankerton, you have hit on the real hidden ugly.

However, women and men who can tell these stories generally disappear from public consciousness.

They disappear back into the marriage because they haven't the resources to take the children and cannot bear to leave the children.

They disappear from our divorce courts into a pigeonhole that assumes false accusations arising from the divorce.

Or sometimes, they just disappear.

My advice would be, sometimes, just to forget the divorce and get the children and get the hell out of Dodge. True, staying married is a risk if they are caught. The authorities may send the children to Daddy. However, most times Daddy will not go for long without a punching bag. He will find someone else. He may be glad just to not have to pay child support. It sort of depends upon the abuser's financial resources and attention span.

Various situations call for various strategies.

Of course, the system would never tolerate that sort of solution. If every person married to an abuser took the children and went underground and then needed the help of the government -- welfare, medical care for the children, supplemental food programs . . .

Ditto, putting all abusers in prison (A solution I favor for serious repeat serial abusers) would also bankrupt the treasury.

America has a big dysfunctional family. To solve this problem, we have to throw real money at it.

There are good reasons to include men in this discussion:

1. There are good men. No kidding!

2. There are men who can change.

3. Men do get battered by women.

4. Although, it is it not nearly as frequent as the opposite, men are sometimes killed by their spouses.

5. People are hurt by violence and they wish to express that hurt. Sometimes they must express it many, many times to get better. Both men and women find it hard to get past having been somebody's punching bag.

6. There is also violence in some gay and lesbian relationships.

However, the fact remains that men are more violent than women and the world's fate hinges upon being able to solve that problem.

One man can batter one woman. One dangerous idiot with his finger on the nuclear button can destroy us all.

However, certain aspects of these red flags can assume stereotypical proportions. It is not like they have a tattoo on their heads.

No, but have you seen Mike Tyson?

Actually tatoos are almost universal in prison populations and there does seem to be some connection between tattoos and violence.

I'm not talking about the odd discreet flower or butterfly in a hidden spot, but inappapropriate, obtrusive, or crude, homemade tattoos are quite a good predictor of a tendency to violence.

Example: one of my coworkers was fired from his job as a prison guard a few months back. (I don't know why). He started a course of extensive tattooing after he started his current employment, which he is only doing temporarily until he gets a better job. He was recently turned down for a job in law enforcement because his tattoos extended above his collar line on his neck. (You would think tattoo parlors would make you sign a disclaimer that certain types of tattoos could affect your employability.)

Last week at work, he had scratches on his face. I asked him about this and he said he got into a fight with another guy "but you should see him".

Not scientific proof of a link between tattoos and violence, to be sure, but if I was a woman I would be wary of any man who is heavily or crudely tattooed.