Quite shocked and disappointed by my friends' reactions. Am I being unfair?

Blaming victims - i.e. implying that it's something about them that somehow gets them abused, is dangerous and cruel. DV can happen to anybody because abusers don't have it tattooed on their forehead - on the whole, they come across as lovely charming people to start with.

My top tip is to not have the bad luck to end up in a relationship with an abuser. That's the only thing DV survivors have in common.

people love to level the accusation of victim blaming on these threads, i cant speak for bobble but i would hazzard a guess he only sees the perpetrator of Dv as being in any way blameable.
domestic abusers are criminals and worthy of our contempt and the full weight of the law. dont we actally all agree on that part?

if there are a few tips and tricks that meant a person could minimise the likelyhood of becoming a domestic abuse victim would you really withold that information because that would be victim blaming?

men are obviously stronger than women so how can someonme say that weak women put up with abuse. Al woman are physically weaker and we all live with men who could kill us at any moment but in a civilized society it shouldn't happen.

Men abuse and rape because they think they can get away with it and reading the conviction rates for rape they certainly seem to do so.

bobble your synopsis of 'abused women' doesn't ring true at all for any of the women I know, any more than the idea that they are all 'victorious Amazons'

Maybe that's just your friends?

bobbledunk your posts are victim-blaming and spreading dangerous myths about DV. Please stop.

You can make a donation to Women's aid here should you so wish.

And I much prefer the term dv survivor rather than dv victim

I don't know.if most DV.victims go from one abuser to the next?

Just because the abuser is the problem doesn't mean that potential victims shouldn't be warned of their own vulnerabilities and how abusers manipulate those vulnerabilities. Individual women can't change the ridiculous sentences handed to violent offenders, they can minimise the risk of although not prevent random attacks on the street with safety precautions, they can almost certainly protect themselves from becoming involved in a relationship with a violent bastard if they know what to look out for. Most dv victims go from one violent man to the next, that cycle can't be broken until they understand what attracted them to these men, why they were prepared to endanger themselves by staying with them, how these men recognised their victim potential and exploited them. As soon as these men walk in to a room they will know who to target and who to avoid, they are not stupid.

In an ideal society nobody would have to use their brain to recognise and fend off predators because no predators would exist, we don't and never will live in an ideal world, we live in the real world where predators roam free and your chances of falling prey to them depend very much on your ability to see them coming and defend yourself from their advances.

I don't care who takes offence at my words. I'm not particularly offended by the word 'weak'. I'm just confused....

I don't know what you mean by 'weak'? I've asked a number of times, but no one is answering....

IMO and IME all people can go through times in their lives where they are more vulnerable. It doesn't make them 'weak'.

Oh yippee. Semantic quibbling. Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would leap at the chance to take offence at the word 'vulnerable' too.

Not one of the women I met in that system could be called "weak", whether they were arriving on their first day, halfway through their stay, leaving the system, or in some cases going back to their ex partners.

Well what made them all stay after the very first abusive incident if it wasn't some kind of weakness? I'm a very strong person in many respects, and I have also been weak in some ways at some times in my life. Yes, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger but I think it's a daft cliche to imply that all women who have survived abusive relationships are some how victorious Amazons when in fact they're very possibly weaker in some respects than all the other women who refuse even a second date with these awful men. My abuser weakened me inordinately, I don't find that statement any more difficult or belittling than the very fact of what happened to me. And I don't know why anyone else would either. It doesn't make what happened any better to pretend that regardless or even in spite of it I've always been a paragon of strength in every way

IMO and IME all people can go through times in their lives where they are more vulnerable. It doesn't make them 'weak'.

What does 'weak' even mean?

NicknameSchmickname

I spent 3 years in a violent relationship. I had my head smashed into a metal railing, my nose punched, I was dragged around by my head and smacked into doors. I was locked in his house with no food. At the end I was raped.

As you say I was mentally 'weak', which is why I stayed with him even though I could have left. We were not married, I did not have kids, I did not even live with him full time, I was not dependent on him for money (the opposite, in fact). I had no reason to stay other than that my self worth was so low that I literally became incapable of taking any independent action. I also became brainwashed into thinking that no one else would ever want me and that being with him was preferable to being alone. I was in a weakened state before I met him due to family background and he weakened me entirely.

In my view everything you say is entirely accurate and I can't think why anyone would find it offensive. In my mind those getting outraged are being pious for the sake of it. Your statements are an honest and accurate statement of how it works.

My abuser was every bit an 'unhealthy choice' made by me (repeatedly, I chose to ignore bigger and bigger warning signals, and then allowed the full scale abuse to be repeated). This does not absolve him of any blame, or apportion any blame to me, but I did have a choice to be with him and to stay with him. And yes, I believe that I did become addicted in some sense to the situation and the cycle of negative behaviour.

I don't see the point of pretending that this isn't the case just for the sake of people (who strike me as unbelievably ignorant) who want to try and insist that never using a 'nasty' word like 'weak' about another woman is more important than discussing an issue honestly.

It's ridiculous to pretend that there is no victim 'type', there is, abusive men target women who are vulnerable to their 'charms'. I have a few friends with abusive relationship histories and they all share certain characteristics; they don't recognise certain body language signals, a man could have 'abuser' tattooed to his forehead and aggression oozing out of every pore (as far as I can see anyway) and they are blind to it which leads them into relationships with people they should avoid, they are overly empathetic which leads them to feel sorry for their abuser and excuse his actions even blaming themselves for not being understanding enough, they're often so needy that if they meet a man who fills their void they will tolerate anything and love him regardless of what he does.

Of course they can have a hundred positive, strong qualities but it is their weaknesses that leave them prey to nasty, violent men. I think there is a subconscious attraction to that type of man because they are mistaking an aggressive man for a protective man. A protective, strong man will always be popular with women because most of us aren't attracted to wimps and want someone who can protect us and our children, some women can't differentiate between the alpha(?) signals both types give out.

How do you differentiate between a strong woman and a weak woman? What are the criteria?

I know a fair few women who are in/out of abusive relationships, myself included

We are all what I would describe as 'strong'; opinionated, confident, independant (or have capacity to be easily).

Can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't compelled to stay, I didn't enjoy the UPS and downs. I stayed because I was confused, because I had misplaced faith in human nature, because I wad hopeful that it would change, because I thought I could change it, because I am optimistic, because I thought it was best for the kids. And because of the boiling frog syndrome; it crept up so slowly, I minimised it and thought 'it wasn't that bad'

OP I do hope the developments you mention are positive ones. You sound very caring in keeping an eye out for your acquaintance.

And, FWIW, asking someone if they've been in an abusive relationship is a silencing tactic. And, for a lot of survivors, triggering. Please refrain from asking that question again.

Nickname, I don't like being backed into a corner and being asked if I've ever been in an abusive relationship. But, if you really must know, I have. As a result, spent 7 months in the refuge system. Not one of the women I met in that system could be called "weak", whether they were arriving on their first day, halfway through their stay, leaving the system, or in some cases going back to their ex partners.

As for you saying the way I talk about domestic abuse sounds more like "theory", that's how I deal with talking about domestic abuse. Sometimes it's dissociation, other times, I really just don't feel like talking about it. So, y'know. I talk about it from an outsider perspective

Edu, I hope the developments have been for the better. Support and solidarity to your friend.

I'm very curious to know what the developments are Edu

I do get what you're saying Nickname and I think you are right to a certain extent. A person who has grown up with abusive situations can see those situations as normal and thus get the same thrill and happiness from an abusive relationship as other people get from non-abusive relationships.

However, stating that no strong woman would stay in an abusive relationship is misleading and uninformative. It implies that there is a "type" of abused woman who is easy to spot, which isn't at all the case in my experience. A woman can appear strong and in control and yet be manipulated by her partner. In the case described by the OP the abused woman could, genuinely, be strong, and be in shock at what has happened. If her own friends are minimising it, then it stands to reason that she will think leaving is an overreaction. In that way society is colluding in allowing the abuse to continue, by sending her the message that her feelings don't really count and that she should forgive her abuser and go on holiday with him.

What is the point in distinguishing between "strong" and "not strong" women in relation to DV?