I understand your points, but I don't think there is much evidence that SM is an abused spouse, other than what he's telling us. Sure TM is controlling, I won't argue that. But TM and SM have been together along time. There has to be a reason SM stayed with her for that long. He was getting something out of their dynamic.
I don't know if it's true for men, but in general, abuse lowers self esteem. Does that fit with the psych profile of a cheating man? There is a positive correlation between high self esteem and confidence in men and infidelity. It's why powerful men, professional athletes, and celebrities cheat so often. It actually raises testosterone. They are confident they can get away with it and that their spouse will forgive them if caught.
Ultimately, TM when caught, didn't leave his primary relationship. He allegedly agreed to some extreme things in order to keep and attempt to mend that relationship. That's not unusual behavior for a husband who has been caught being unfaithful. What I find interesting is that SM also protected that primary relationship. She didn't kick SM out (I wish she would have). Instead she saw HE as the enemy and engaged in what she saw as a nasty battle to keep SM.
I just don't see their relationship as an abuser/victim one. I do believe there was abuse, emotional for sure. But it went both ways. They have some kind of sick co-dependent relationship. Lots of couples willingly choose dom/sub relationships, and it doesn't mean the sub is abused. . .they choose that. Even in the pics from the bond hearing, the mommy/child dynamic is obvious. In several of the pics SM is looking at TM as if to just get some kind of sign of approval. TM is ignoring him. I bet that is typical for their relationship.
ETA. . .MOO. . .and now I need to go catch up. You all please slow down. Between this thread and the flight 370 one, we may be having cereal for dinner. :facepalm:
You bring up excellent points. I believe the financial dynamics played a huge role in why sm didn't and/or couldn't leave. I just posted about it upthread. There is another facet that played an even bigger role, but I can not address it without venturing into time out land. Choosing my words carefully, let's just say that, knowing there is an unstable, abusive, controlling person as the head of household, and you are the passive partner and - buffer, if you will - would be another reason why sm might not have been able to leave. He may not have been able to protect proactively, other than his mere presence.
As I stated in my initial post, the stage is set for these two to turn against one another, and I am deeply saddened at the prospect of who they might call as witnesses to support their claims (of innocence or guilt).
The other point I'd like to address is that within the cycle of abuse, there is the "honeymoon phase" which occurs after the blow-up.
http://www.hruth.org/files/library/CycleofViolence.pdf
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, but what if sm was placated enough by the dynamic of whatever happened when they made up? Whatever happened when they tore each other down in the negativity was sufficiently erased during the efforts to make everything ok? Abusers often do all they can, say it will never happen again, spend lavishly, etc., during this period.
Again, I see your points, but I'm just asking you to consider mine. I'm also not discounting the fact that sm's behavior wasn't abusive in some respects. IMV, he tried to exert control whenever he could. However, by comparison, it didn't hold a candle to his wife's efforts. We've seen it over and over, and sadly, it's just the tip of the iceberg. :moo:
lease:
