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

I have ilove and I find many if your posts quite upsetting to say the least.

this isn't anything to do with pride. we all hold our opinions and we are discussing them. discussing them does not mean that we must change our opinions.

well, as i have already said, i wish to cause no upset by any of my posts but i do stand by all that i have said. apologies if this isn't pleasant for you to read.

It's not pleasant full stop.

you're right it isn't a pleasant subject. not sure why i am getting the finger pointed at me for discussing it though.

I'm offski. Just at attitudes to DV on this thread, which I wasted an hour reading.

Beachcomber Tue 25-Jan-11 19:58:51
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.

That is not quite what I said, is it? I said much earlier in this thread that a one-off incident need not necessarily mean the end of the relationship if both parties are comfortable to work through it and redress any power imbalances/ communication problems that may have caused it. I would never advocate someone remaining in an abusive relationship.

All that I am saying, is that an act of violence in a relationship is always an abusive act, because it breaches the trust in the relationship.

We seem to have fundamentally differing view points. Would it be fair to say that your position is that it is important to look at the relationship as a whole, and if it is generally balanced and happy then it doesn't matter if there are occasional acts of violence. I am coming at it from a zero-tolerance point of view. That there are some acts that are so damaging to the heart of a relationship that they should always be recognised as such.

thank god for beachcomber on this thread.

I am really not trying to diminish the experience of victims of sustained domestic abuse. By saying that someone who has been hit once is a victim of domestic abuse, I am not detracting from the fact that a victim of sustained violence has had a much more hellish experience.

On the contrary, it highlights to the victim of sustained abuse just how bad their experience has been. If society treated every incidence of violence in a relationship as abuse it provides a baseline against which sustained abuse can be measured. S/he hit you once? That is unacceptable. S/he hit you 5 times? That is 5 times unacceptable.

There is a real problem in helping victims of domestic violence get help, as they frequently feel that things have not been bad enough for them to deserve help. Surely it would help them to be able to say that just one incidence is bad enough to 'deserve' help?

My thoughts entirely Aitch!

i agree thistledew.

"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."

Well, no.

Let's look at what I actually said,

"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."

Surely any fool can see that someone who regularly hits their partner in a fit of rage is engaging in systematic behaviour that is intended to dominate the other person and provoke fear in them. .

And as for this;

"We seem to have fundamentally differing view points. Would it be fair to say that your position is that it is important to look at the relationship as a whole, and if it is generally balanced and happy then it doesn't matter if there are occasional acts of violence. I am coming at it from a zero-tolerance point of view. That there are some acts that are so damaging to the heart of a relationship that they should always be recognised as such."

No it wouldn't be fair to say that at all - you seem to be making stuff up. Nowhere have I said that occasional acts of violence do not matter. Please do not attribute offensive views to me by misinterpreting what I have written. Nor have I said that such acts would not be damaging.

Thanks for your input phooey.

I am not making stuff up Beach. I am genuinely trying to understand your point of view. I really do not understand why you do not consider one act of violence to be abusive, and am trying to get my head around it. I am prepared to listen to reason and learn from other people, but you seem to be reluctant to engage with the points I am trying to make.

What do you think of my point that it is important to label the act, not the action?

Do you disagree that a zero-tolerance approach to violence in a relationship would help combat domestic abuse?

If so, why?

Beachcomber (and Women's Aid) in fact said that occasional acts of violence are assault - since when does assault not matter? And since when is assault not worthy of getting help?

I am wondering why it is so hard to understand that abuse is systematic.

"Let's look at what I actually said,

"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."

Surely any fool can see that someone who regularly hits their partner in a fit of rage is engaging in systematic behaviour that is intended to dominate the other person and provoke fear in them. ."

but you say abuse is calculated and controlled. a fit of rage is not calculated or controlled.

It appears that Boo and Thistle are defending the OP position by hook or crook for whatever reason

Assault does not = abuse

Women who hit their H in frustration is not the same as domestic abuse

A woman hitting a man is not an abuser

Read the title of the thread and if necessary re-assess your pov

I don't disagree that abuse can be systemic. I just disagree that it has to be. I don't see why it diminishes the definition of sustained abuse to recognise a single incidence of abuse as well.

phooey - why?

there is something really sickening about this thread and I cannot get my head around what it is
is there an agenda?
I have the feeling people may be reading in disbelief and cannot bring themselves to comment because they feel the slippery slope

am I the only one to feel this way?

Beach... you are a "pro"...what's your take?
Some, led by IloveBoo, feel bullies
how come?

Look you two this is getting boring now. Thistledew you are ignoring things I have clearly stated and making things up. You are misinterpreting me time after time.

I don't think you are genuinely trying to understand. If you were, you wouldn't be attempting to make me out to be someone who thinks that incidences of domestic violence 'don't matter'.

We seem to be back to victim blaming and myths about abuse again with this statement;

"but you say abuse is calculated and controlled. a fit of rage is not calculated or controlled."

You seem to be suggesting that an abuser cannot help it. This is very dangerous ground.

I agree with JustForThisOne, but am in the opposite corner.

ILove, Thistle et al have not resorted to insults or patronising comments, and are making valid points clearly and reasonably.

I also totally agree with the agenda comment. It felt like Gigantaur was ripped apart the second she posted.

"A woman hitting a man is not an abuser"

phooey, really? you dont think a woman hitting a man can be an abuser?

"Beach... you are a "pro"...what's your take?
Some, led by IloveBoo, feel bullies
how come?"

can you clarify what this post mean. it doesn't read clearly.

Regular fits of rage can be used to control someone - surely you can see that? Knowing that using anger instills fear in their partner they can use the same method again to instill the same fear over and over again. I disagree that fits of rage can't be calculated and controlling. The abuser can create situations where he knows he will get angry and lose his temper, just to frighten the other person, make them bend to his will. What he does when he is angry maybe out of control but the build up isn't.

If you are not an abusive person then you would try and avoid those situations with your partner which would lead to you losing control.