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

But surely the act of violence is the attempt to force the submissive behaviour?

and how does that work when DV is carried out by both parties then?

and i know you are getting frustrated that i still dont accept your definition of abuse but tehre is no need to be patronising.

Ok so you two are saying that anyone who has ever lashed out at their partner in anger or thrown a vase in frustration is a domestic abuser? Regardless of any other elements of their relationship.

I would say that these are people who have lost control of themselves momentarily.

Pretty much everything I have read about abuse says that the abuser is in control of their behaviour and is making decisions about how to behave.

www.domesticviolencelondon.nhs.uk/1-what-is-domestic-violence-/7-abusers-in-control-of-themselves.html

I would say that the person who lashed out has committed domestic abuse. If they acknowledge that, and take steps to address their behaviour and/or relationship to ensure that it never happens again, they do not continue to be an abuser. But that one incidence of violence is still abuse.

I think in most cases someone lashing out still has a degree of control. The law quite rightly recognises that in some cases they may lose reason so much that they completely lose control and end up killing the other person, quite often as a result of having been a victim of domestic violence themselves. But such provocation is a defence only to commute a charge of murder to manslaughter. There is no defence of provocation to an assault.

If the person lashed out at someone who had been systematically abusing them, would you then say that the victim of systematic abuse is a domestic abuser and that the person they have lashed out to is now a victim?

In domestic abuse there is always an abuser and a victim.

I really want to get away from the label of 'domestic abuser', as something that has to exist in perpetuity. To my mind, it is correct to apply it so long as the person carries out the abusive actions, fails to acknowledge that they were wrong, and fails to take steps to ensure that they never do it again.

As is always said about children, label the behaviour, not the child.

For that instance where someone lashes out, they are abusing, and the person at the receiving end is the victim of that abuse.

If an 18 year old, who lives in a home where there has been systematic abuse, lashes out at the perpetrator does this person become a domestic abuser too?

What about if they shove the person? (shoving is common in domestic abuse?)

Yes, they have committed domestic abuse.

A young person, who is modeling abusive behaviours, is particularly in need of being identified as a perpetrator of domestic abuse, as well as a victim, so that they are given access to the help they need to learn that they should not and cannot repeat their actions. This does not have to be a judgemental process, and should be done in full knowledge of their own victim status, but for their own sake they need to be identified as having the potential to abuse, and as not being able to deal with those urges on their own.

"Ok so you two are saying that anyone who has ever lashed out at their partner in anger or thrown a vase in frustration is a domestic abuser? Regardless of any other elements of their relationship.

I would say that these are people who have lost control of themselves momentarily.

Pretty much everything I have read about abuse says that the abuser is in control of their behaviour and is making decisions about how to behave"

have you honestly never heard of an abuser, a repeated abuser saying they saw red and lost control? the red mist descends and tehy lose it? only difference being that it happens more than once.

I think you two are confusing the concepts of domestic violence and domestic abuse.

The 'red mist' excuse is commonly used by abusers. These people do not act violently indiscriminately - they are controlling their behaviour and choosing who to be violent towards.

"The 'red mist' excuse is commonly used by abusers. These people do not act violently indiscriminately - they are controlling their behaviour and choosing who to be violent towards."

you could be describing any one of the posters who has admitted to lashing out once at their partners. none of them said they were violent to others, just their partner. in fact many of them said they were not violent people. the red mist/seeing red/lost it/however you want to put it is also what they described.

"I think you two are confusing the concepts of domestic violence and domestic abuse"

I don't understand what you mean by this. I accept the widely held definition that domestic abuse need not necessarily mean physical violence, but that domestic violence is encompassed within domestic abuse.

Also, are you able to explain why you disagree that the reason violence within a relationship amounts to domestic abuse is because of the breach of trust?

A breach of trust within a relationship does not necessarily make that relationship abusive. Just as an act of violence does not necessarily make a relationship abusive.

Breaches of trust and acts of violence are intrinsic to abusive relationships however.

Domestic abuse is a system of behaviours acted out with the intent to control and dominate another person. Abuse is calculated and controlled, it is designed to provoke fear and submissiveness in the victim and is a way for the abuser to get what they what.

www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200410001&itemid=1275&itemTitle=What+is+the+cause+of+domestic+violence

"Abusers choose to behave violently to get what they want and gain control. Their behaviour often originates from a sense of entitlement which is often supported by sexist, racist, homophobic and other discriminatory attitudes.

Domestic violence against women by men is 'caused' by the misuse of power and control within a context of male privilege. Male privilege operates on an individual and societal level to maintain a situation of male dominance, where men have power over women and children. Perpetrators of domestic violence choose to behave abusively to get what they want and gain control. Their behaviour often originates from a sense of entitlement which is often supported by sexist, racist, homophobic and other discriminatory attitudes. In this way, domestic violence by men against women can be seen as a consequence of the inequalities between men and women, rooted in patriarchal traditions that encourage men to believe they are entitled to power and control over their partners."

"Domestic abuse is a system of behaviours acted out with the intent to control and dominate another person. Abuse is calculated and controlled, it is designed to provoke fear and submissiveness in the victim and is a way for the abuser to get what they what."

so by your definition, someone who has hit their partner many times in a fit of rage, although doesn't pre-plan their behaviour with the intent to control or dominate is not abusing their partner.

Basically folks - if you disagree with the definition of domestic abuse I'm using, perhaps you should get on to Women's Aid and tell them they need to change their site.

They state at one point that;

"Everyone has arguments, and everyone disagrees with their partners, family members and others close to them from time to time. And we all do things at times that we regret, and which cause unhappiness to those we care about. But if this begins to form a consistent pattern, then it is an indication of domestic violence."

www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-survivors-handbook.asp?section=000100010008000100310004

It is not my definition is is Women's Aid's definition.

i am not disagreeing with teh definition, i am disagreeing with your interpretation of teh definition and what constitutes teh system of behaviours.

" someone who has hit their partner many times in a fit of rage, although doesn't pre-plan their behaviour with the intent to control or dominate is not abusing their partner"

is this what you believe?

""Everyone has arguments, and everyone disagrees with their partners, family members and others close to them from time to time. And we all do things at times that we regret, and which cause unhappiness to those we care about. But if this begins to form a consistent pattern, then it is an indication of domestic violence."
"

i do take issue with this part that you have quoted.

a consistent pattern of arguing and disagreeing is not an indiaction of DV, but may be an indication of domestic abuse. domestic abuse is not necessarily violent so i think this part is misleading.

People have bad relationships, negative relationships, which end acrimoniously, which aren't classifiable as abusive. Is this a difficult concept ilove ?

phooey not at all difficult why do you ask though? i haven't suggested that all bad relationships are abusive have i? have you read all my comments on this thread by the way?

Beachcomber is talking perfect sense. Don't be too proud to agree with her, ilove and thistle