If you hit your OH then YES you are as much an abuser as he would be if he hit you.

[QueenGigantaurofMnet]

I have just seen someone on another forum discussing how she couldn't possibly have been an abuser. she has only hit her husband twice (although the second time she hit him twice as she enjoyed the fear and shock in his face) in the 15 years of their marriage.

the rest of the forumn are telling her that it was ok. they are both "headstrong"

other are saying things like "i wish i could hit my oh"

It makes me feel sick.

Violance on a relationship is wrong. It is called Domestic violance, not man hitting wife violance.

if you have hit your partner then you ARE an abuser and you SHOULD be looking at ways to deal with your anger.

Im sorry but i am actually quite angry about this

Thistledew you seem determined to misunderstand me.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I don't really like commenting on situations about specific people who may or may not wish their lives to be discussed on public forums.

I very much would understand a victim of domestic abuse who hit back - regardless of their sex. I don't see the point in trying to apportion 'blame'. I don't think I would consider myself qualified to judge the victims actions and would refrain from doing so.

"Violence is always wrong" is a far too simplistic statement to be able to be applied to all and every case of human violence.

Right really have to go out now.

i think it was pretty clear throught the thread beachcomber that opinions fell in one of two camps and that they weren't going to be changed on either side. still debate is healthy and i am sure has left us all witha bit of food for thought. i personally wished no upset by any of my posts.

I am not saying that a victim of sustained abuse should not get support to leave his/her abuser if they do strike back on one (or more) occasions. Or that they should have any sort of approbation heaped upon them.

But I really do not see how it helps a victim of sustained abuse to say that an assault within a relationship may not be abuse.

Many people get sucked into being a victim of sustained abuse because of the gradual way that it happens. There will be an argument. Maybe both parties have been drinking. One of the parties will assault the other. The thoughts that often go through the abused's head are 'maybe I was being unreasonable, I pushed him/her too far, he/she wasn't thinking straight and just lost it, I'm sure if we are both sensible, it won't happen again'. Then quite possibly, there are a few months were nothing does happen again. The abuser appears remorseful and promises that it won't happen again. The abused thinks 'ok, I love him/her, I can put this behind us, he/she is not a bad person, he/she is not an abuser, he/she just lost it for a moment,it won'. And everything is ok, until it happens again, and the though process is gone through again. By the time that the abused realises that the abuser is not going to change, damage has been done to their self-esteem, and it becomes even harder to leave.

If society as a whole recognised that any physical violence in a relationship amounts to abuse, surely it would help the abused to acknowledge it as such?

*it won

it won't happen again

I know four women who are in/have been in abusive relationships. None of them have ever been hit by their partners. Abuse is a pattern of controlling behaviour which takes many forms.

www.domesticviolencelondon.nhs.uk/1-what-is-domestic-violence-/1-definition.html

"Whatever form it takes, domestic abuse is rarely a one-off incident, and should instead be seen as a pattern of abusive and controlling behaviour through which the abuser seeks power over their victim. Typically the abuse involves a pattern of abusive and controlling behaviour, which tends to get worse over time."

Of course an assault may be the beginning of abuse and any incidence of domestic violence should be taken seriously.

the thing i am struggling with is how if it is once it is assault but more than once is abuse. why is that? surely the first incident is the first episode of abuse. if someone hits their partner once and then realises how wrong it was surely it was abuse that they chose to prevent happening again.

I think that is because you are not connecting control with abuse and are not factoring in the power and domination elements that are intrinsic to domestic abuse.

Domestic abuse is primarily about control and dominance. Some perpetrators will achieve this through withholding money for example. Domestic abuse is much more complicated that simple violence.

Of course a case of assault may be the first incidence of domestic abuse. It is much much more likely however that the first incidence of abuse will be some other behaviour such as isolating the victim, monitoring of the victim's movements and phone calls, control of household finances, insulting or criticizing the victim. The actual physical violence tends to come later - once control and dominance have been established by the perpetrator through other means.

but as someone (sorry cant remember who) pointed out earlier in the thread that even the first incident, even if just lashing out in frustration is an attempt to control what the other person is doing. even if it just to stop them talking or end a row it is an attempt to control what that other person is doing by physically hurting them, shocking them into stopping whatever it is they were doing.

OK - you seem to be saying that an isolated incidence of violence, within a normal and healthy power dynamic, and in a relationship in which one partner does not seek to manipulate, dominate or control the other in a cyclical way, is abuse.

Could you explain to me why?

If I nick my DHs car keys because he has had too much to drink to drive safely I am seeking to control his behaviour right? Is this abuse too? Are you saying that anything we do to influence a partner's behaviour is abuse?

If I go to another room in order to end an argument with my DH because I feel we are getting nowhere, I am controlling his behaviour. Is this abuse too?

your car key analogy is a preventative measure for his and other's safety and will not cause harm to your partner by doing so. it isn't comparable.

by throwing something at or hitting your partner out of frustration you are seeking to control their behaviour through physical pain and possibly fear in order to get your own way in a situation. it isn't for their safety that you do it.

Beachcomber - there is no dispute that domestic abuse can be and very frequently is perpetrated by non-violent means. I am sure you will also find much anecdotal evidence to show that the first shift of power and imposition of dominance is through a physical assault.

I argued up thread that any physical assault within a relationship is an attempt to shift the power dynamic, and to control and dominate the other person, if only for an instant.

The whole point of an assault is that it is the use of force. There is no reasoning or negotiating with a blow. Even if deployed out of frustration in the middle of an argument, it is an attempt to force someone to take note of and respect your point of view, or bodily integrity. It is an attempt to get control over your opponent, even if you have to do that to stop them having control over you.

if you go to another room you are only controlling your own behaviour. he is free to rant at the wall if he chooses.

Domestic abuse always concerns means other than violence. Tension building and unreasonable demands for example. Erosion of the victim's self esteem is a constant too.

This is because domestic abuse is a system of control and domination.

Violence and fear of violence are very common but they are not the only elements which make a person an abuser.

I think that we are fundamentally on the same page. We all want to help the victims of sustained abuse, and to prevent it happening in the first place.

In my utopian world, I would have counselling facilities available for anyone who had been assaulted by their partner, whether for the 1st time or for the 100th time. Either party to the relationship could ask for a 'health check' on the relationship, and be helped to see where there may be power imbalances, or problems with communication.

Obviously, in the present climate, getting funding for this is about as likely as everyone having their own private hover-pig, even though the chance of reducing domestic violence to a minimum level may solve a lot of the problems in society that are so costly at the moment.

But there is no reason not to take the first step: for me, this is for society to acknowledge that any violence in a relationship is unacceptable abuse.

"Domestic abuse always concerns means other than violence. Tension building and unreasonable demands for example."

like a row bewtween a normally functioning couple who are both under stress and one lashes out?

You don't think it is controlling to walk away from someone who is trying to communicate with you? Even if they are communicating badly through angry words and/or a raised voice?

The point is that abuse is a collection of behaviours designed to exert and maintain control and dominance over another person.

It is about power.

i think walking away from angry words and a raised voice is self protection TBH. i have a right not to be shouted at and i am free to excercie that right. if someone chooses to shout at me it is up to them, it is not controlling for me to remove myself from that situation.

I'm really interested in the answer to this question,

"OK - you seem to be saying that an isolated incidence of violence, within a normal and healthy power dynamic, and in a relationship in which one partner does not seek to manipulate, dominate or control the other in a cyclical way, is abuse.

Could you explain to me why?"

I have explained what I consider to be abuse and I have explained why I think it is abuse. I have posted links and quoted websites written by people who are experts on abuse.

Could you expand on your position and answer the question above please?

i think it is more controlling for a person to shout at me with the assumption that i can not walk away (because taht would be me attempting to control them)

in your opinion i mean.

Because it shows that the person who has inflicted the violence is prepared to disregard the (emotional and physical) hurt and pain cause to their partner in order to force the other person to do what they want them to do.

"OK - you seem to be saying that an isolated incidence of violence, within a normal and healthy power dynamic, and in a relationship in which one partner does not seek to manipulate, dominate or control the other in a cyclical way, is abuse.

Could you explain to me why?"
because i dont believe that the intention has to be to manipulate, dominate or control in a cyclical way for it to be abuse.

you, from what you are posting, believe the intention has to be to control in teh long term.

And simply, I believe that violence has no part in a loving, caring relationship. To inflict violence on your partner is to breach the boundaries of that relationship. You have abused their trust that you will not hurt them.

"Domestic abuse always concerns means other than violence. Tension building and unreasonable demands for example."

like a row bewtween a normally functioning couple who are both under stress and one lashes out?

Nope. With domestic abuse one person is creating tension in order to make the other person behave submissively. If the victim submits they may be able to avoid a beating - but then again they may not. This behaviour is designed to generate fear in the victim of what is to come next.

Comparing this to tension building up between two people who have a healthy power dynamic in which one does not attempt to force submissive behaviour from the other is a bit silly.