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

oh, and i think we all agree it is WRONG. i'm still waiting for QG to come up with someone who thinks that hitting people is right.

i can't see anyone saying its ok to be physically abusive. i think what we must recognise is that for some a one off incident - which is where this thread sprang from i think - for some is a dealbreaker and for some it is not.

some can forgive a one off incident and some cannot.

I think the example given in the OP wasn't a one of incident.

and my understanding was that she was using that example to display the attitudes of the posters towards female on male violence.

I don't think (given the Op's history here and how much she has shared about her own experiences) that she is so niave as to think that the world is black and white.

She also states in her initial post that after an incident the perpetrator should seek help for the causes of such aggression. not that it spells the end of the relationship after one incident.

I think she has been rounded on rather unfairly actually

i think you must have missed a fair bit of the thread, tbh pen.

IM QUOTING HERE "She also states in her initial post that after an incident the perpetrator should seek help for the causes of such aggression." end quote.

You are kidding me!!!! perpetrator wtf!!!

Shes hardly Hanibal Lectar

Mchobbes has explained numerous times this happened years ago ...she regretted it and she and her partner moved on to have a very happy and stable marriage ffs!!!

perpetrator???

QG has been a sanctimonious patronising drama queen , bored on a Sunday night , so decided to write a small portion of a longer post to stir things up on a quiet Sunday evening. She couldn't back up her argument once the "perpetrator came in to defend herself and decided to flounce.

Rather childish behaviour for one who flaunts her so called qualifications at all and sundry yawn

I take it you are new here fit2drop?
QGOM has been here for many years under various guises and has helped numerous people.

she certainly isn't sanctimonous and spouting her profession at people.

I think it is a perfectly valid point.

and FYI perpetrator means to be the one to hit. A perfectly reasonable and indeed correct term in the given context.

per·pe·trate (pûrp-trt)
tr.v. per·pe·trat·ed, per·pe·trat·ing, per·pe·trates
To be responsible for; commit: perpetrate a crime; perpetrate a practical joke.
[Latin perpetrre, perpetrt-, to accomplish : per-, per- + patrre, to bring about (from pater, father; see pter- in Indo-European roots).]
perpe·tration n.
perpe·trator n.

and i think that the mojority of mn (those that didn't join today) will understand that " are quotation marks and you will not need to shout their meaning.

mojority mAjority obviously.

sorry, i am not clear here. is QG one of 'mn's self-appointed moral arbiters'?

Sorry Penelope but I did smile when i saw a mistake in your post correcting my grammar. Ironic yes... But never mind I understand we are not all perfect.

Thank you for your English lesson , but I know full well what Perpetrator means

and FYI I did not join today, nor yesterday, and I do not post on BMC.

So I have no hidden agenda here

I also care not how long QG has been here,
No amount of time served can allow her to have her head up her arse , actually thinking about it , it can't be head up arse syndrome because there's got to be more oxygen and more light up even the flabbiest of bums than could account for such rampant and long-lasting self-abnegation

i'm still not clear, tbh. and i don't recognise your description of those threads. some people (such as QG, for example iirc) are firmly of the 'leave him, he's a bastard' approach, but others are not. that's demonstrated by the amount of people on this thread who have said that they could tolerate some to and fro before thinking there was a problem, surely?

is QG not saying ' leave her shes a bastard' DV is DV?

mn has double standards.

i think if you do a search on her name you will find a great number of her posts counselling women following incidents of domestic abuse.

She certainly isn't a "leave the bastard" type of poster at all.

But as i have just noticed she has de registered so it is rather academic.

Fit2drop - if you understand what a perpetrator means i am confused as to your shock that i used it in the context given.

Thanks claire your post brought tears to my eyes, nice to hear it being aknowledged as awful iykwim, rather than "well what has he done to deserve it?"

Custy - i dont think she was commenting on the specifics of any case in particular. but on the attitudes towards violance against men by women.

given the response to the incident stated as an example of such attitudes

agreed penbelope - i was using clarevoyants example to explain to clare in her own terms thats all.

there is such a way as to disagree which would encourage debate and there have been far too many overtly nasty people on this thread.

when a posse comes after you with lit torches, its hard not to be affected

no-one should to be with someone who makes them smaller, giraffes, it's very sad.

this thread is very weird, though. i suppose in the end it comes down to the headline, which i, "if you hit your OH you are as much an abuser as he would be if he hit you".

thinking about it, i agree totally. if my dh hit me, knowing him as i do, i would absolutely certainly have been the one who pushed him beyond a point that was fair. likewise him to me. we would be ashamed, and we would survive quite easily i am sure. we would both be culpable.

if i hit him, i would be as much an abuser as him. which is to say NOT an abuser.

but that is my relationship, i do not seek to impose that on anyone else, and i do think that people on here would do well to remember that not everyone has had the same life experiences or formed the same relationships as they have. (thank god).

just managed to read all pages
i am not the candlestick woman
I used my bare hands
giraffe //
I do not think people were arguing whether female abusers are any different than male abuser, they are not

the argument was (at least for some) about if one single violent act within a loving relationship between 2 mentally sound people who love each other and want to stay together was to be considered ''abuse'' and therefore the relationship doomed
(and I would say no, something to reflect about maybe yes, but not abuse)

some posters also argued that having been victims of EA over some time found themselves reacting physically toward their partners. They were soon judged by the same principal and that they were by default abusive too.
(and I would say I disagree fiercely with that idea too. Whatever it takes to react and get the hell out of there women...and man)

readcting to EA with violence may be understandable but it is not excusable.

if you reach a point where you feel violence is your only option then you need to consider your relationship.

Whether you term an act of violence as abuse or not is up to you. But it is equal in its wrongness (is that a word? i suspect not) no matter what gender you are.

it can be. it might not be in some relationships. the law actually recognises that, even if you don't. it's called diminished responsibility iirc.

Penelope / if you reach a point where you feel violence is your only option then you need to consider your relationship.

sure thing. hope i did not sound as I was making allowances. I found it very difficult to be concise on such a complex subject

Yes i understand that self defence can be used as a criminal defence and prolonged abuse can be seen as a trigger for such a reaction.

But for domestic abuse to cease then all violence needs to be seen as unacceptable.

we as a society should be denouncing anyone that is violent, no matter which gender they are.

As has ben said, a violent act may be understandable but it should not be excusable.