BritsKate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 4,834
I'm not an expert either but there's been a shift in domestic violence since at least 1995 to attempt to define and highlight psychological abuse. Patricia Evans wrote 'The Verbally Abusive Relationship' in 1996, for example.I am no expert on DV, but something ALV discussed at one point on direct got me thinking. She testified about how in the DV "world" experts are beginning to expand their definition of DV to include more non-physical "attacks" such as verbal and psychological or emotional abuse. IMO she testified about this to cover the bases in case the jury decides to throw out JA's claims of physical abuse because of no corroborating evidence - then ALV can still fall back on the alleged non-physical abuse by TA and still try to claim JA was a DV victim.
My thought on this is that if ALV (and other DV experts) are widening the definition of DV to include non-physical behaviors, then it would surely follow that the stats on male-on-female and female-on-male DV would dramatically change. IMO in general (not in all individual cases) males and females express control and anger and fear in different ways; males stereotypically are more physical and females stereotypically tend towards passive aggressive behaviors (crying, withdrawing/withholding, manipulating etc. - sound familiar, JA?!).
So, if current DV stats (which are probably based on studies from more than 2 years ago anyway) are reporting DV stats based on physical abuse then it would follow that of course male-on-female rates are higher (this doesn't even take into account the factor that men who are abused physically by a woman likely have a lower rate of reporting it due to societal pressures). IIRC ALV on direct claimed that non-physical abuse can be "more damaging" than physical (again, she wanted to be sure that if the jury rejects JA's claims of physical abuse, they might still consider the "more damaging" non-physical abuse and put JA in the DV victim category anyway). Since women in general (IMO) tend towards more non-physical tactics, if studies start including non-physical abuse in their stats then it seems there would be a sharp rise in the rate of DV of the women-on-men type.
Didn't realize I was rambling on so long.... my apologies!
It's hardly a new concept, at any rate, and in my experience 'most' people realize psychological abuse alone can be every bit as destructive and debilitating as physical abuse. Physical abuse almost never exists without concurrent psychological abuse too. Ironically, most of the misconceptions of abuse I've seen are in the family law environment - and peeps (very understandably) not comprehending why victims stay, a victim's 'profile', and things of that nature.
In terms of statistics the problem really is that so many victims don't come forth. Psychologically abused victims can't really come forward - unless the abuse escalates to a reportable crime. Very often though, by the time it gets there, victims are often so terrified of their abuser and so enmeshed within the abuse, they won't report it. This is by no means relegated to psychological abuse alone, either, its a pervasive problem of abuse itself.
I personally believe, because of how abuse evolves, the true statistic of those in abusive relationships is just not quantifiable.
All MOO