Do you think that people who protect their boundaries slightly stronger in abusive relationships tend to experience more physical abuse?

[Justwondering3]

If the abuse is just the tool to get the job done (power and control) do you think the above applies?

People who put their needs and feelings aside quicker experience less physical abuse? I experienced emotional and mental abuse and threats of physical because it worked and I very easily ignored myself because of my childhood experiences. I know this because he told me he was very capable of being physical.

Having to hit someone is much more telling of their bad side and motive and very hard for them to come back from I would have thought. So more of a last resort when all else fails?

I've sometimes read stories where a woman describes how there used to be physical violence in a relationship, but it stopped - and he now just abuses her emotionally/financially or is otherwise controlling. It gives the illusion of things getting better, but in fact it just means he's "trained" her and doesn't need to use his fists any more.

Ah @category12 just a different spin on mine who always threatened he was capable. Just a tool to a means.

I don't think the way the victim behaves has any bearing on how the abuser abuses. He is choosing to do what he does. He will try and justify his behaviour by blaming the victim for whatever, but it is all down to him.

Having to hit someone is much more telling of their bad side and motive

I don't think so. It's easier and quicker but emotional abuse can be SO destructive and takes more cunning. Many victims find that much harder to deal with in recovery than the physical stuff.

Victims don't control how their abusers behave. It's a fallacy to think if you're the 'perfect' victim then the abuse will stop or change or lessen. In fact, that thinking just shows how much you have internalised from the abuse.

@Dodecaheidyin I don’t know. My ex hit previous, didn’t others. I think if you experiencing physical you experiencing emotional along side.

@MelsMoneyTree so partners who stand in the way or speak try and fight back or leave not end up with an escalation?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say - I don't think a relationship where you're being controlled and abused through verbal/emotional/financial means is any better than one where you're being controlled and abused physically? It's all abuse.

I'd agree that many abusers will escalate to physical abuse (mostly) only if/when psychological and emotional methods are not working to keep control/privilege.

However with some, it's probably random. And often de inhibitors, like alcohol, play a role. Or raised testosterone/aggression due to eg sports watching or stress etc.

(I don't mean they're not already abusers - just that some things make them.even more likely to physically abuse).

That's not the case. Violent men are violent men. Women who are hit are just as likely to be sitting reading a newspaper, eating dinner, chatting in the car as they are to be 'speaking'.
And you know - right - that it's just speaking. It's just standing. And if you are assaulted and push back then it's self defence - it's not 'fighting' back. Leaving isn't a provocation. It's a reasonable and safe response in an abusive situation.
Please, please, go to counselling and look at the Freedom Programme.
Because atm you're sounding like an abuser who is trying to cow women into believing they are responsible for male violence. They're not. Not ever. No matter what women say, where they stand, whether they stay or leave.
A violent man is a violent man. An abuser is an abuser. And the only person responsible is him.

In a situation where you are in immediate physical danger then reminding the person who is potentially going to hurt you that you are a human being by placating/ engaging with them in some way is a strategy.

In a relationship if you need to think, 'if I behave in a way that appeases my abuser he won't punch me' then you should be leaving the relationship, not picking your poison. So for me it is irrelevant in a way. Emotional abuse is insidious and the bruises don't show on the outside but it is harmful so I am not sure it is a good thing if you are delaying physical abuse if you are still being abused. Some abusers never get physical but it is still damage.

And yes, the women who don't challenge them are probably less likely to get physical abuse. Because theres no need, and because their "temper" is not being pricked.

People who protect their boundaries in abusive relationships leave them.

But the women are still obviously being abused; Lundy Bancroft is very good on this subject.

He described a household with an abuser as a little autocracy, with everyone pandering to the self established "king", never ever a democracy. The vast majority of the time they don't even need physical abuse/violence to maintain it.

I can't speak for others but my experience of this was that it made no difference how compliant or appeasing I was. If it was on course to happen, it would happen, and the signs were evident from 'point zero' - no matter what I did to try to prevent it escalating, nothing would work.

In my experience, people with good boundaries are less likely to end up in abusive relationships and get out of them sooner. Abusers know who to target. My mum’s partner told her on their first date that he was an abuser. Like literally produced the court paperwork to show her over dinner.

Anyone with any boundaries and self esteem would have literally run out of the restaurant seeing evidence of convictions for abusing your own children. But it was all part of the grooming. Why waste your time on someone who has boundaries and will get out of there at the first sign of a red flag when you can find someone who will desperately cling on to anyone forever? 🙄

As a PP said, Lundy Bancroft is good on this. As is the book Boundaries. And the Freedom Programme. Women's Aid.

Abusers will work hard to break down boundaries and modify their behaviour accordingly. It's not the case that only women with poor boundaries end up with abusers.

Sorry I’m not trying to victim blame here, I was one myself. I’m trying to educate myself. I thought at the beginning they tested your boundaries. If that same method stops working in the future they move on to something else, that’s what I thought. Emotional would have preceded physical, maybe gone un-noticed as so insidious?

sounds like for some physical violence was always the intended outcome, for others not.

It's a sliding scale, @Justwondering3 . Yes, they test your boundaries to begin with; it could be as inoccuous and simple as buying you a different drink to what you asked for and pretending they got it wrong (and they're so lovely and sorry you would feel guilty if you didn't drink it), or to showing you the court papers like he did for PP's mother. If you accept the drink the next test isn't buying you the wrong drink.

Have you heard of the boiling frog analogy? If you put a frog into boiling water it'll jump straight out again; if you put it in cold water and turn the heat up slowly it doesn't realise how hot it's getting, until it's boiling.

Yes, some get physical, some don't, some are both. Even physical abuse isn't always 'violent', as you would imagine violence to be.

@Dodecaheidyin perhaps some in there twisted way have there own boundaries and would move on to the next at that point.

Abusive men will not see their partner's behaviour as "good enough", ever, so they won't see their non-physical abuse as "enough".
I suspect it's a combo of their propensity to violence and small unrelated triggers.

This is not quite the same thing, but my DS has SEN and can be aggressive. If he's triggered or has a meltdown he has that underlying propensity but also sometimes if he's upset he will just shout but sometimes he will hit.

The paediatrician says he's more likely to hit us because he knows what our reaction will be (he would never hit a random in the street and he doesn't hit other kids, except DD, unfortunately).

I understand what you're asking op.
I used to think that women who stood up to emotionally abusive men were more likely to be physically abused as the man had to do 'more' to gain control. I have been in 2 abusive relationships, first one pure emotional abuse and even when I sussed his game and stood up for myself there was never any threat of him turning physical. Second one would have been both had I let the relationship continue. In hindsight the foundations were being laid from the start, play fighting that would only end when he hurt me, obviously mildly and all in the name of fun and he was always sorry 🙄 grabbing, squeezing my leg until I said it hurt etc. Also incredibly manipulative emotionally and I got out, later than I should but I got there. In my opinion it's about the man, they are who they are and the outcome is nothing to do with anything the woman does or doesn't do.
I've used man as the perpetrator here as that was the question but I'm well aware that it's not always the case.

You have this arse about-face. Protecting your boundaries doesn't mean standing firm in the face of abuse. It means removing yourself and not suffering it again. So he buys you the wrong drink. You say ' oops I don't like that ' Hopefully he will replace it. If so all good. If not you probably don't see him again as you now think he is a bit of a wanker.
Or he says you look a bit fat. You say 'wtf is wrong with you? Why would you think it was a good idea to say that?' And you never see him again.
Protecting yourself isn't digging your heels in, its running for the hills as often as necessary. Until you find one who behaves in a way you deserve.