Domestic Violence: Stockholm Syndrome, Trauma Bonding, and why women stay.

[LuvRPgrl]

Here is an article that may be helpful to a discussion.

http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DUTTON-PAINTER.-EMOTIONAL-ATTACHMENTS-IN-ABUSIVE-RELATIONSHIPS-A-TEST-OF-TRAUMATIC-BONDING-THEORY..pdf

I started this thread because a poster claimed that people here are actually interested in discussing not only articles but real people's experiences and opinions.

The position of the agency I work for regarding counseling DV victims is to support the victims choice whether to stay or go.

Perhaps the question should have been why do men terrorize their partners? Why does the community allow battering to continue? How can we help women who want to leave?


Not this old story again.:lame2:


It was on the news last night, I hadnt heard about it before.


I will NOT discuss gay rights on this thread because it is off topic.

nobody is asking u to discuss homo rights. what the topic is about is the right to protest, and/or read out loud in a public setting, land

why
is it ok for homos to protest out loud, but not ok for a preacher to speak out loud in a public setting.

Notice the question has nothing to do with homo rights

[tailfins]

I started this thread because a poster claimed that people here are actually interested in discussing not only articles but real people's experiences and opinions.

The position of the agency I work for regarding counseling DV victims is to support the victims choice whether to stay or go.

Out of 100 clients, how many live in poverty? It's like trading one form of abuse for another. Earning income potential is something built over decades. If the breadwinner's ability to earn an income is destroyed, there is no happy ending. The non-breadwinner cannot suddenly create big earning power with a snap of the fingers. Current law is a huge disincentive to report domestic violence. From what I have seen, the system is built to increase caseload, not actually make people whole again. One of my in-laws worked with a faith based city mission telling non-English speaking men that a family cannot function with drunkenness and family violence. This was news to them. One group that a criminal record doesn't seem to hurt is illegal aliens.


Perhaps the question should have been why do men terrorize their partners? Why does the community allow battering to continue? How can we help women who want to leave?

As a long time veteran of the corporate environment, I mostly address problems in a gender-neutral manner unless it involves personal choices. You should consider doing the same. There are women who batter their husband. Do you have any concern for those husbands?

[Wind Song]

Out of 100 clients, how many live in poverty? It's like trading one form of abuse for another. Earning income potential is something built over decades. If the breadwinner's ability to earn an income is destroyed, there is no happy ending. The non-breadwinner cannot suddenly create big earning power with a snap of the fingers. Current law is a huge disincentive to report domestic violence. From what I have seen, the system is built to increase caseload, not actually make people whole again. One of my in-laws worked with a faith based city mission telling non-English speaking men that a family cannot function with drunkenness and family violence. This was news to them. One group that a criminal record doesn't seem to hurt is illegal aliens.



As a long time veteran of the corporate environment, I mostly address problems in a gender-neutral manner unless it involves personal choices. You should consider doing the same. There are women who batter their husband. Do you have any concern for those husbands?

First of all, just because I mention WOMEN, doesn't mean I don't care for men who are battered. Truth is, the OVERWHELMING majority of battered spouses or partners are female and YOU know it.

Sounds like you favor the abusers because they are worth more to the family than the women due to their bread winning status.

Domestic violence occurs in EVERY income range.

The "system" needs more definition. You appear to be painting in broad brushes, mister.

[jimnyc]

What about men who are abused and battered by women?

[Wind Song]

What about men who are abused and battered by women?


What about them?

[jimnyc]

Perhaps the question should have been why do men terrorize their partners? Why does the community allow battering to continue? How can we help women who want to leave?


What about them?

Shouldn't you be addressing everyone who are victims, not just the women?

[tailfins]

First of all, just because I mention WOMEN, doesn't mean I don't care for men who are battered. Truth is, the OVERWHELMING majority of battered spouses or partners are female and YOU know it.

Sounds like you favor the abusers because they are worth more to the family than the women due to their bread winning status.

Domestic violence occurs in EVERY income range.

The "system" needs more definition. You appear to be painting in broad brushes, mister.

System: A combination of government entities with authority under law.

The abuser is the one doing the behavior. It is where action is applied. It comes down to whether your focus is fixing the problem or forwarding an agenda. I know of cases where abuse has stopped because a mentor is available 24 hours a day. This is one area where government involvement does as much harm as good. The clergy has a much better track record in this area than the state. Like I said: Trading one form of abuse for another. You just don't seem too interested giving assistance to men or even whole families.


If you doubt me, do a Google search on CPS misconduct.

[jimnyc]

Maybe someone else can remember the name, and it's not really related - but we had a guy posting here last year, who was literally running for office in I believe Maryland - and the cornerstone of his campaign was to repeal child support. He didn't believe fathers should have any responsibility, whether as fathers or financially, to those they helped bring into this world.

My apologies for going a bit off topic, just made me think...

[Wind Song]

Shouldn't you be addressing everyone who are victims, not just the women?


Shouldn't you be discussing the actual topic, which is why victims don't leave? Yes, there are a few men who are abused by women.

VERY few.

Apparently, you think the male victims are more worthy of notice than the majority of victims who are female.

[jimnyc]

Shouldn't you be discussing the actual topic, which is why victims don't leave? Yes, there are a few men who are abused by women.

VERY few.

Apparently, you think the male victims are more worthy of notice than the majority of victims who are female.

Where did I even imply such? And you wonder why people treat you as they do? You just make shit up as you go along. And because men might be in the minority, they should be left out of the subject/discussion? Funny how you think the minorities deserve attention when talking sexual orientation.

MANY men are abused by their wives. Maybe not as many as women, but that's no reason to diminish violence towards them.

[Wind Song]

Where did I even imply such? And you wonder why people treat you as they do? You just make shit up as you go along. And because men might be in the minority, they should be left out of the subject/discussion? Funny how you think the minorities deserve attention when talking sexual orientation.

MANY men are abused by their wives. Maybe not as many as women, but that's no reason to diminish violence towards them.

The topic is "why do victims not leave"? Check the stats. Very few men are abused by women. The overwhelming majority of DV victims are female.

I guess you're a bit thin skinned about me not saying why do men and women not leave. My apologies to your offended sensibility.

I take violence against men just as seriously. Sometimes it is a co-combatant relationship.

The topic is Stockholm Syndrome, Trauma Bonding and why it happens that women, (in particular, as the majority of abused domestic partners) don't leave abusive relationships.

[Gator Monroe]

I had a Black GF (One of more than one) who Skated for the Los Angeles Thunderbirds & The Bay Area Bombers ( "Real" Roler Derby) and she had a few pounds on me also , I would be sitting wastching a Raider Game (Then Los Angeles Raiders) andshe would Bop me in the back of the head so hard my John Lennon Designer Glasses would go flying off (Yes they were Rap around the ears kind) :cool:

[jimnyc]

The topic is "why do victims not leave"? Check the stats. Very few men are abused by women. The overwhelming majority of DV victims are female.

I guess you're a bit thin skinned about me not saying why do men and women not leave. My apologies to your offended sensibility.

I take violence against men just as seriously. Sometimes it is a co-combatant relationship.

The topic is Stockholm Syndrome, Trauma Bonding and why it happens that women, (in particular, as the majority of abused domestic partners) don't leave abusive relationships.

So how does this explain you making stuff up about what another poster says?

[Wind Song]

So how does this explain you making stuff up about what another poster says?

Quote the post, please.

[jimnyc]

Apparently, you think the male victims are more worthy of notice than the majority of victims who are female.

I NEVER said that and didn't even come remotely close to implying it. I simply wanted to know why men were omitted, and you right away post that I think men are more worthy of notice.

[Wind Song]

I NEVER said that and didn't even come remotely close to implying it. I simply wanted to know why men were omitted, and you right away post that I think men are more worthy of notice.


My bad for NOT saying MEN are sometimes victims of DV. I already know that. I'm talking about why do women victims not leave.

[Gator Monroe]

Wow I was a Hurricane Andrew Survivor and asurvivor of DV !:clap:

[Wind Song]

Wow I was a Hurricane Andrew Survivor and asurvivor of DV !:clap:


Wow. Tell us more of your story. Maybe you should write a self-help book.:rolleyes:

[Gator Monroe]

Wow. Tell us more of your story. Maybe you should write a self-help book.:rolleyes:

If we both stick around ,I'm sure I'll spill more about them for you...:poke:

[Wind Song]

If we both stick around ,I'm sure I'll spill more about them for you...:poke:

The verdict's not out yet. Jim wants me to develop elephant skin. I have enough wrinkles. Who needs to get them for posting on a forum?

[tailfins]

The verdict's not out yet. Jim wants me to develop elephant skin. I have enough wrinkles. Who needs to get them for posting on a forum?

If your avatar photo is recent, I would say you've done a good job keeping the wrinkles away.

[Wind Song]

If your avatar photo is recent, I would say you've done a good job keeping the wrinkles away.

It's not. Recent is in the profile.

[logroller]

My bad for NOT saying MEN are sometimes victims of DV. I already know that. I'm talking about why do women victims not leave.

Why do you frame it as why women don't leave; do you think men wouldn't leave for the same reasoning? That's sexist, and I find it personally offensive. Probably because I've been hit by my wife a handful of times because I'd smoked pot against her wishes. I have NEVER struck her. (Well, maybe smack on the butt, but never out of anger). Once it was in front of my friend and since then he and I don't hang out anymore. She even threatened to call my work and tell them I'd smoked pot and should be drug tested. Indeed many of my friends and family have told me they don't like how she treats me at times; but I tell them she's my wife, a wonderful mother and I love her; I tell myself she only hit me to 'slap some sense into me', as sometimes my behavior isn't what's best for our family. If that's not OK with them, then that's their problem. So is that the stockholm thingy; that I don't leave because its better for our family, that maybe I deserved it for doing something she didn't approve of? Guys just think I'm a pussy, and you think I'm in the minority, that its guys who predominantly abuse women; thus, I'm not germane to the discussion. When somebody starts hitting you, its your problem if you wish it to be-- Until then, I say you should MYOB.

[Wind Song]

Why do you frame it as why women don't leave; do you think men wouldn't leave for the same reasoning? That's sexist, and I find it personally offensive. Probably because I've been hit by my wife a handful of times because I'd smoked pot against her wishes. I have NEVER struck her. (Well, maybe smack on the butt, but never out of anger). Once it was in front of my friend and since then he and I don't hang out anymore. She even threatened to call my work and tell them I'd smoked pot and should be drug tested. Indeed many of my friends and family have told me they don't like how she treats me at times; but I tell them she's my wife, a wonderful mother and I love her; I tell myself she only hit me to 'slap some sense into me', as sometimes my behavior isn't what's best for our family. If that's not OK with them, then that's their problem. So is that the stockholm thingy; that I don't leave because its better for our family, that maybe I deserved it for doing something she didn't approve of? Guys just think I'm a pussy, and you think I'm in the minority, that its guys who predominantly abuse women; thus, I'm not germane to the discussion. When somebody starts hitting you, its your problem if you wish it to be-- Until then, I say you should MYOB.


I don't think most men would stay with an abusive wife for financial reasons.

Do you remain with your wife because you have Stockholm Syndrome? Stockholm Syndrome was so named after a bank was robbed and two of the hostages ended up marrying their captors. It is the pattern of some who are abused to bond with their abusers. It happens in child abuse.

There is a great deal of research going on right now about the effect of trauma on brain function.

I'm sorry you take my thread as some kind of personal attack of you. I don't think you're a "pussy". The FACTS are that most domestic violence is male perpetrated.

[Dilloduck]

Informative article

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm

[logroller]

I don't think most men would stay with an abusive wife for financial reasons.

Do you remain with your wife because you have Stockholm Syndrome? Stockholm Syndrome was so named after a bank was robbed and two of the hostages ended up marrying their captors. It is the pattern of some who are abused to bond with their abusers. It happens in child abuse.

There is a great deal of research going on right now about the effect of trauma on brain function.

I'm sorry you take my thread as some kind of personal attack of you. I don't think you're a "pussy". The FACTS are that most domestic violence is male perpetrated.i didnt say you thought so, i said men do.

Do my wife and I have baggage from our past; yea, probably-- doesn't everyone? But the facts you speak are based on what's reported--not saying you're wrong about Females being in the majority, but your own beliefs are based upon the social structure which perceives men to be stronger, thus more capable of committing violent acts. Conversely, this social gender role discourages a man to seek refuge for fear of appearing imasculated. I would think you, being alesbian, would understand well how society places pressure on individuals to fulfill certain gender roles, where outliers who dissent from the prescribed theme are cast aside as deviant or statistically inconsequential.

[Abbey Marie]

It's not. Recent is in the profile.

Are you in pink or blue?

[logroller]

Are you in pink or blue?
Its the pink I think...And who's that sitting behind her..vavaVOOOM.

[jimnyc]

Why do you frame it as why women don't leave; do you think men wouldn't leave for the same reasoning? That's sexist, and I find it personally offensive. Probably because I've been hit by my wife a handful of times because I'd smoked pot against her wishes. I have NEVER struck her. (Well, maybe smack on the butt, but never out of anger). Once it was in front of my friend and since then he and I don't hang out anymore. She even threatened to call my work and tell them I'd smoked pot and should be drug tested. Indeed many of my friends and family have told me they don't like how she treats me at times; but I tell them she's my wife, a wonderful mother and I love her; I tell myself she only hit me to 'slap some sense into me', as sometimes my behavior isn't what's best for our family. If that's not OK with them, then that's their problem. So is that the stockholm thingy; that I don't leave because its better for our family, that maybe I deserved it for doing something she didn't approve of? Guys just think I'm a pussy, and you think I'm in the minority, that its guys who predominantly abuse women; thus, I'm not germane to the discussion. When somebody starts hitting you, its your problem if you wish it to be-- Until then, I say you should MYOB.

Pass the bong, buddy! :420:

[Abbey Marie]

Re: all of the comments about how Wind Song should address male victims of DV.

First, I have never liked the "you have to care about this, in order to care about that" attitude. One is not a hypocrite for feeling more for one poor soul or group than for another. If WS feels more for women victims, then that's her prerogative.

Second, I think it is common knowledge that the number of women victims is astronomically higher. Therefore, focusing on women victims makes sense. I will admit that we have to look harder to find male victims of DV- I can easily imagine this goes under-reported due to the male ego.

It reminds me of the AIDS activists who try to portray white women as the face of AIDS, when we all know who really are the vast majority of victims in this country.

[jimnyc]

Re: all of the comments about how Wind Song should address male victims of DV.

First, I have never liked the "you have to care about this, in order to care about that" attitude. One is not a hypocrite for feeling more for one poor soul or group than for another. If WS feels more for women victims, then that's her prerogative.

Second, I think it is common knowledge that the number of women victims is astronomically higher. Therefore, focusing on women victims makes sense. I will admit that we have to look harder to find male victims of DV- I can easily imagine this goes under-reported due to the male ego.

It reminds of the AIDS activists who try to portray white women as the face of AIDS, when we all know who really are the vast majority of victims in this country.

We're not asking her to include apples with oranges - but other HUMANS. While abused men may be in the minority... I just think when speaking out against such a topic it should be victims of domestic violence, not just WOMEN victims of domestic violence. Honestly, I don't see how one CAN care about one and not the other. If one did, they would be discarding somehting they are speaking out against, only a different sex.

[Abbey Marie]

We're not asking her to include apples with oranges - but other HUMANS. While abused men may be in the minority... I just think when speaking out against such a topic it should be victims of domestic violence, not just WOMEN victims of domestic violence. Honestly, I don't see how one CAN care about one and not the other. If one did, they would be discarding somehting they are speaking out against, only a different sex.

I think it is very understandable that someone feels more for those they identify closely with.

[jimnyc]

I think it is very understandable that someone feels more for those they identify closely with.

That I can agree with, I just disagree with omitting men altogether, as if them being in the minority makes it inconsequential.

[Abbey Marie]

That I can agree with, I just disagree with omitting men altogether, as if them being in the minority makes it inconsequential.

I can't speak for WS, but I certainly don't see men as inconsequential victims. I just think it is ok to focus on the vast majority. For example, men get breast cancer too, but we don't generally include them in studies or ad campaigns.

[logroller]

I think it is very understandable that someone feels more for those they identify closely with.
Likewise, one should feel more for those who have been exposed to abuse. I have yet to hear her side, on why she feels the way she does-- only statistics. I'm not saying statistics don't matter-- but the stockholm effect or whatever, is it based on numbers, or individuals' response to abusive situations? I'd guess many of those who commit, and are victims of, domestic violence learned this behavior from their caregivers. Its a cycle or pattern of abuse that demands our attention in seeking a solution; where both sexes need be involved in the discussion to actually work towards a solution-- not the male-bashing which underlies WS's question-- why do women stay with abusive men? Maybe dating women is her solution to the problem; but statistically, she'd be in the minority.

[Wind Song]

I can't speak for WS, but I certainly don't see men as inconsequential victims. I just think it is ok to focus on the vast majority. For example, men get breast cancer too, but we don't generally include them in studies or ad campaigns.


Thanks for understanding.


i didnt say you thought so, i said men do.

Do my wife and I have baggage from our past; yea, probably-- doesn't everyone? But the facts you speak are based on what's reported--not saying you're wrong about Females being in the majority, but your own beliefs are based upon the social structure which perceives men to be stronger, thus more capable of committing violent acts. Conversely, this social gender role discourages a man to seek refuge for fear of appearing imasculated. I would think you, being alesbian, would understand well how society places pressure on individuals to fulfill certain gender roles, where outliers who dissent from the prescribed theme are cast aside as deviant or statistically inconsequential.


I agree with you that men who are abused may report the abuse in less numbers. All we can go on is reported abuse. Domestic violence of women is ALSO under-reported.

Men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence against women.


That I can agree with, I just disagree with omitting men altogether, as if them being in the minority makes it inconsequential.


Abbey gets it. You don't.

[logroller]

I can't speak for WS, but I certainly don't see men as inconsequential victims. I just think it is ok to focus on the vast majority. For example, men get breast cancer too, but we don't generally include them in studies or ad campaigns.

Unlike breast cancer though, men are complicit in most domestic abuse cases; so you must include them in the study. Because the links between abuser and abuse, regardless of gender lines, offer insight into the causes of codependent abuse.

As for breast cancer; male ego probably precludes them volunteering for such studies...I'm for breaking the stereotype, hence I offer free exams to men and women alike...of course, a female breast exam usually takes longer, there's more to examine and one must be thorough.;)

[jimnyc]

Abbey gets it. You don't.

Oh well, I suppose I can live with concern for all those victimized by domestic violence and not just the majority.

[jimnyc]

As for breast cancer; male ego probably precludes them volunteering for such studies...I'm for breaking the stereotype, hence I offer free exams to men and women alike...of course, a female breast exam usually takes longer, there's more to examine and one must be thorough.;)

Are you my long lost brother?

[Abbey Marie]

Unlike breast cancer though, men are complicit in most domestic abuse cases; so you must include them in the study. Because the links between abuser and abuse, regardless of gender lines, offer insight into the causes of codependent abuse.

As for breast cancer; male ego probably precludes them volunteering for such studies...I'm for breaking the stereotype, hence I offer free exams to men and women alike...of course, a female breast exam usually takes longer, there's more to examine and one must be thorough.;)

If cancer is caused by environmental factors, we are all potentially complicit in our own cancers. ;)

[Wind Song]

If cancer is caused by environmental factors, we are all potentially complicit in our own cancers. ;)


I hope you aren't saying we cause our own cancers. That's lousy press for people with cancer. My wife is a survivor. One of my friends is too, and she has driven herself crazy trying to find what she did wrong. She's been a health fanatic her whole life.

[logroller]

I agree with you that men who are abused may report the abuse in less numbers. All we can go on is reported abuse. Domestic violence of women is ALSO under-reported.

Men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence against women.

I'm guessing they're also the most likely perpetrators of abuse against other men. What I'm getting at is what makes one susceptible to abuse is not gender linked. Unless, you feel women are inherently weaker and thus predisposed to being abused. I could play the devil's advocate on that one, and say women are emotionally and verbally superior to men; and it is this advantage which begets, nigh on incites, men to a level of frustration which often manifests itself into violence.

[Abbey Marie]

I hope you aren't saying we cause our own cancers. That's lousy press for people with cancer. My wife is a survivor. One of my friends is too, and she has driven herself crazy trying to find what she did wrong. She's been a health fanatic her whole life.

No, I wasn't saying that.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm guessing they're also the most likely perpetrators of abuse against other men. What I'm getting at is what makes one susceptible to abuse is not gender linked. Unless, you feel women are inherently weaker and thus predisposed to being abused. I could play the devil's advocate on that one, and say women are emotionally and verbally superior to men; and it is this advantage which begets, nigh on incites, men to a level of frustration which often manifests itself into violence.

OOh, that's dangerous ground there.

I have no problem saying that women are physically weaker than men, with exceptions, of course. But you don't usually see stronger women beating up on weaker women, so there is obviously more to it than just physical strength. I might point to a sense of entitlement ("might= right") on the part of the men, oops, abusers.

[Wind Song]

I'm guessing they're also the most likely perpetrators of abuse against other men. What I'm getting at is what makes one susceptible to abuse is not gender linked. Unless, you feel women are inherently weaker and thus predisposed to being abused. I could play the devil's advocate on that one, and say women are emotionally and verbally superior to men; and it is this advantage which begets, nigh on incites, men to a level of frustration which often manifests itself into violence.

Trauma bonding isn't gender determined. I wouldn't go as far as you do, saying that it is women's superiority that makes them victims of domestic violence.

I think it's largely cultural and conditioned by gender roles.


No, I wasn't saying that.

OK. I don't think I got your point.

[logroller]

If cancer is caused by environmental factors, we are all potentially complicit in our own cancers. ;)


I hope you aren't saying we cause our own cancers. That's lousy press for people with cancer. My wife is a survivor. One of my friends is too, and she has driven herself crazy trying to find what she did wrong. She's been a health fanatic her whole life.
Genetics play a huge part in most all cancers. Some people have smoked their entire lives and never get cancer. But certainly, by and large, environmental factors play a part in cancer-- and NO less so with abuse. There is most often a pattern which develops, or is learned, from a young age. Not to say there's never a single causal incident, but I'd guess they're in the minority. :coffee:

[Wind Song]

Genetics play a huge part in most all cancers. Some people have smoked their entire lives and never get cancer. But certainly, by and large, environmental factors play a part in cancer-- and NO less so with abuse. There is most often a pattern which develops, or is learned, from a young age. Not to say there's never a single causal incident, but I'd guess they're in the minority. :coffee:

You're right about the pattern that is developed or learned at an early age. Many DV victims are also victims of child abuse and came from homes where DV was present. At the same time, that isn't ALWAYS the case.

I'd really like to discuss trauma bonding and Stockholm Syndrome. Anyone interested?

[logroller]

You're right about the pattern that is developed or learned at an early age. Many DV victims are also victims of child abuse and came from homes where DV was present. At the same time, that isn't ALWAYS the case.

I'd really like to discuss trauma bonding and Stockholm Syndrome. Anyone interested?

Discuss or debate? I'm down to debate; state a premise, make a claim.

[Thunderknuckles]

I started this thread because a poster claimed that people here are actually interested in discussing not only articles but real people's experiences and opinions.

The position of the agency I work for regarding counseling DV victims is to support the victims choice whether to stay or go.
Maybe you worded that incorrectly but do you actually support a woman's choice to stay in an abusive relationship or do you actually encourage them to leave?

In any case, I briefly went through the article you posted. I think their sampling of women was a little on the low side at 75. Secondly they break the definition of abuse into two categories: Verbal/Emotional and Physical (battered). Of the 75, 25 women claimed emotional abuse with little to no physical abuse. I toss them off the list because the definition of emotional/verbal abuse is too broad and I've seen too many women throw down that claim for any number of silly reasons that don't amount to actual abuse. That leaves us with 50 women of which scored a 44.1 on the CTS test for mild physical abuse which is defined as pushing, being physically restrained, etc. I grudgingly toss those scores out too because it doesn't rise to the level of actual "abuse" in my opinion. Out of the 50 "battered" women, a score of 13.4 was noted for severe physical abuse...the "real" abuse, again in my opinion. Those are the women I worry about.

In essence, I believe it is a small minority of men out their who actually "terrorize their partners" as you put it. To answer your question as to why, I suspect it is because they have their own psychological issues, which women may have as well, but men have testosterone which grants them greater physical strength and aggression.

Anywho...back to work.

[Wind Song]

Discuss or debate? I'm down to debate; state a premise, make a claim.


My premise is that victims of domestic violence don't leave because of trauma bonding. The brain is literally altered by trauma. It's possible to heal and grow new neural pathways, but trauma bonding explains a lot of why women often don't leave abusive relationships. Many women who enter violent relationships were traumatized earlier as children first.
All experiences change the brain – yet not all experiences have equal ‘impact’ on the brain. Because the brain is organizing at such an explosive rate in the first years of life, experiences during this period have more potential to influence the brain – in positive and negative ways. Traumatic experiences and therapeutic experiences impact the same brain and are limited by the same principles of neurophysiology. Traumatic events impact the multiple areas of the brain that respond to the threat. Use-dependent changes in these areas create altered neural systems that influence future functioning. In order to heal (i.e., alter or modify trauma), therapeutic interventions must activate those portions of the brain that have been altered by the trauma.
http://www.aaets.org/article196.htm

[tailfins]

My premise is that victims of domestic violence don't leave because of trauma bonding. The brain is literally altered by trauma. It's possible to heal and grow new neural pathways, but trauma bonding explains a lot of why women often don't leave abusive relationships. Many women who enter violent relationships were traumatized earlier as children first.
All experiences change the brain – yet not all experiences have equal ‘impact’ on the brain. Because the brain is organizing at such an explosive rate in the first years of life, experiences during this period have more potential to influence the brain – in positive and negative ways. Traumatic experiences and therapeutic experiences impact the same brain and are limited by the same principles of neurophysiology. Traumatic events impact the multiple areas of the brain that respond to the threat. Use-dependent changes in these areas create altered neural systems that influence future functioning. In order to heal (i.e., alter or modify trauma), therapeutic interventions must activate those portions of the brain that have been altered by the trauma.
http://www.aaets.org/article196.htm

The only abusive relationship I have been in was an employment relationship. She eventually marched me down to fire me after three years of emotional abuse. The EEOC didn't seem too interested. Thankfully, I was able to dig up some dirt on her and take her down with me four months later. American women in the corporate environment often are the most abusive. I generally don't accept offers if my boss will be an American woman. Indians, Latin American and other immigrants are OK. All this emotional intelligence crap is just code for being a good enough manipulator to make incorrect answers and non-functioning systems be perceived as correct and have people cover faulty decisions. However, a house built on a sand foundation eventually falls.

It took me a year to heal.

[jimnyc]

Domestic violence against men has happened for centuries, but recently with the introduction of the Men's Movement, cases are coming to light.

Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, has compiled an annotated bibliography of research relating to spousal abuse by women on men. This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses appear to demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.[8] In a Los Angeles Times article about male victims of domestic violence, Fiebert suggests that "...consensus in the field is that women are as likely as men to strike their partner but that—as expected—women are more likely to be injured than men."[9] However, he noted, men are seriously injured in 38% of the cases in which "extreme aggression" is used. Fiebert additionally noted that his work was not meant to minimize the serious effects of men who abuse women.

The United Kingdom equal rights group Parity assert that men are unfairly treated in the provision of refuge places, stating that in England and Wales there is provision of 7,500 refuge places for women but only 60 for men.[10]

In Australia the One in Three campaign was initiated in 2009 to show that "at least" one in three victims of domestic violence is male. The campaign promotes public awareness of the issues faced by male victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_men

[Wind Song]

Not one person except me has addressed trauma bonding or Stockholm Syndrome.

[jimnyc]

Not one person except me has addressed trauma bonding or Stockholm Syndrome.

My heart bleeds for you. :rolleyes:

Since you're admittedly sexist, we have added things you said you would purposely leave out.

[Wind Song]

My heart bleeds for you. :rolleyes:

Since you're admittedly sexist, we have added things you said you would purposely leave out.

If you would like to report incidences of Stockholm Syndrome in men who are DV victims, please go ahead and do so. Go back and re-read Abbey's comments a few times before you call me an "admitted sexist" without evidence.

I do not claim to be a sexist. You appear to be WAY more concerned about the very few number of men who report being victims of DV, and very UNDERCONCERNED about violence against women.

[tailfins]

Not one person except me has addressed trauma bonding or Stockholm Syndrome.

There is just a certain personality type susceptible to these things whether it be a spousal, cult member or employee relationship. It must be this personality type that can be manipulated to work a 60 hour work week on salary (no overtime pay), take regular abuse, pay cuts, demotions, "try harder" under the constant threat of being fired, covering up for failed projects, etc., etc., etc. all for "the team". I suspect the dynamic you speak of was prevalent in Koresh followers and in Scientologists.

[Wind Song]

There is just a certain personality type susceptible to these things whether it be a spousal, cult member or employee relationship. It must be this personality type that can be manipulated to work a 60 hour work week on salary (no overtime pay), take regular abuse, pay cuts, demotions, "try harder" under the constant threat of being fired, covering up for failed projects, etc., etc., etc. all for "the team". I suspect the dynamic you speak of was prevalent in Koresh followers and in Scientologists.


You'd be wrong about the "personality type" theory. You'd be closer if you'd said that child abuse survivors are more likely to form trauma bonded relationships with DV perps in their adult life.

Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the US.
http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/domestic-violence-statistics/

[jimnyc]

If you would like to report incidences of Stockholm Syndrome in men who are DV victims, please go ahead and do so. Go back and re-read Abbey's comments a few times before you call me an "admitted sexist" without evidence.

I do not claim to be a sexist. You appear to be WAY more concerned about the very few number of men who report being victims of DV, and very UNDERCONCERNED about violence against women.

Nope, making sure ALL victims are included and/or discussed and not just one portion of victims.

[tailfins]

You'd be wrong about the "personality type" theory. You'd be closer if you'd said that child abuse survivors are more likely to form trauma bonded relationships with DV perps in their adult life.

Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the US.
http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/domestic-violence-statistics/

There might be something to the idea that abusive men prefer to act in the home and abusive women prefer to act in the workplace, acting in teams, covering for each other. If there is emotional and verbal abuse, why does the venue matter?

When x occurs every y seconds, you are hearing a sales pitch (Lojack, Lifelock, ADT, etc.) Like a place "just minutes" from downtown (they don't mention it's 90 minutes).



Ninety-two percent of women surveyed listed reducing domestic violence and sexual assault as their top concern.

Thanks for revealing you are giving us a biased survey. It fails the "sanity test". It would only be more glaring if 104 percent listed it as their top concern.

[jimnyc]

You'd be wrong about the "personality type" theory. You'd be closer if you'd said that child abuse survivors are more likely to form trauma bonded relationships with DV perps in their adult life.

Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the US.
http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/domestic-violence-statistics/

How much stock can we put in statistics that only contain one sex? Wanna bet, that lame site just stole statistics from elsewhere, without crediting them, and conveniently did their "statistics" solely for women and left out the men?

[Wind Song]

Nope, making sure ALL victims are included and/or discussed and not just one portion of victims.

Go back and read Abbey and a few other people. We RARELY discuss male breast cancer, yet it exists. Why? Because female cancer is more prevalent.

Start your own thread on male victims. You'd make a good one, since you're acting like one on this thread.

[jimnyc]

Go back and read Abbey and a few other people. We RARELY discuss male breast cancer, yet it exists. Why? Because female cancer is more prevalent.

Start your own thread on male victims. You'd make a good one, since you're acting like one on this thread.

No thanks, I'll stay in this thread and ensure that all victims get discussed, and point out sites that steal information without credit and only post one side of stats.

[tailfins]

How much stock can we put in statistics that only contain one sex? Wanna bet, that lame site just stole statistics from elsewhere, without crediting them, and conveniently did their "statistics" solely for women and left out the men?

The results scream manipulation to a trained eye such as mine. If you torture the data long enough, it will confess!

[jimnyc]

The results scream manipulation to a trained eye such as mine. If you torture the data long enough, it will confess!

The best statistics come from abuse agencies, FBI and regular police. And if one searches, they'll find that the stats posted, and stats on that page, are from those sources (uncredited of course). And they're clearly made to discuss JUST women who are victims. While I agree that this happens to women MUCH more, it's insulting to leave out the thousands of men that are victims yearly.

Funny thing is - how hard would it be to say "Yeah, my bad, the mend should be included too. But just an Fyi, the numbers are much different between the 2" - but rather it's an argument as to why they shouldn't be included, or an explanation as to why. I'm sure if I went over murders yearly, and did so by race, and only mentioned whites, I would be wrong. Or murders yearly, but only included the men. Or ANYTHING where PEOPLE are victims, and a select group is omitted.

[Wind Song]

No thanks, I'll stay in this thread and ensure that all victims get discussed, and point out sites that steal information without credit and only post one side of stats.

I'm still waiting for you to post about ALL the men with Stockholm Syndrome who are DV victims. Feel free to show any independent research on the VAST problem of men who are victims of violence by their spouses or partners.

You act like real statistics are distorted because of who published them in an article. That's a form of lying.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf

[jimnyc]

I'm still waiting for you to post about ALL the men with Stockholm Syndrome who are DV victims. Feel free to show any independent research on the VAST problem of men who are victims of violence by their spouses or partners.

You act like real statistics are distorted because of who published them in an article. That's a form of lying.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf

Where did I say anything was distorted? Man, you just see and think what you want. I think the stats on the women are 100% accurate and extremely horrible. Just as the stats about men are accurate, and horrible.

[Wind Song]

Where did I say anything was distorted? Man, you just see and think what you want. I think the stats on the women are 100% accurate and extremely horrible. Just as the stats about men are accurate, and horrible.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=535182#post535182)
How much stock can we put in statistics that only contain one sex? Wanna bet, that lame site just stole statistics from elsewhere, without crediting them, and conveniently did their "statistics" solely for women and left out the men?

You have YET to contribute ANYTHING to the topic on Stockholm Syndrome and Trauma Bonding.

What is it, some of male protest?

[Thunderknuckles]

You'd be wrong about the "personality type" theory. You'd be closer if you'd said that child abuse survivors are more likely to form trauma bonded relationships with DV perps in their adult life.

Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the US.
http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/domestic-violence-statistics/
I'd like to see exactly how they came up with those stats. Some of them sound fishy, especially this one:
"Ninety-two percent of women surveyed listed reducing domestic violence and sexual assault as their top concern."
Out of every possible concern a woman has in life, their top one is reducing domestic violence and assault? Bull!
That 92% has to be made up of a large number of mothers and I'll bet both Jim's testicles that their primary concern in life is the well being of their children.

[jimnyc]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=535182#post535182)
How much stock can we put in statistics that only contain one sex? Wanna bet, that lame site just stole statistics from elsewhere, without crediting them, and conveniently did their "statistics" solely for women and left out the men?

You have YET to contribute ANYTHING to the topic on Stockholm Syndrome and Trauma Bonding.

What is it, some of male protest?

Yes, what I said is 100% true, but has NOTHING to do with "distortion" or the accuracy of the numbers. Just that they stole their stats without crediting their source and conveniently left the men out of their findings.


I'd like to see exactly how they came up with those stats. Some of them sound fishy, especially this one:
"Ninety-two percent of women surveyed listed reducing domestic violence and sexual assault as their top concern."
Out of every possible concern a woman has in life, their top one is reducing domestic violence and assault? Bull!
That 92% has to be made up of a large number of mothers and I'll bet both Jim's testicles that their primary concern in life is the well being of their children.

I know you're right, so the family jewels are safe! :lol:

[Wind Song]

I'd like to see exactly how they came up with those stats. Some of them sound fishy, especially this one:
"Ninety-two percent of women surveyed listed reducing domestic violence and sexual assault as their top concern."
Out of every possible concern a woman has in life, their top one is reducing domestic violence and assault? Bull!
That 92% has to be made up of a large number of mothers and I'll bet both Jim's testicles that their primary concern in life is the well being of their children.

Check the Department of Justice. They are the source of all DV stats. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf

Of course, I doubt you'll bother to read it. Everyone wants sources but no one believes the facts even with proof.

Violence against women is a HUGE issue for women AND men and for the well being of children. Some men actually value women's lives.

Jim's "testicles" are irrelevant.

[jimnyc]

Check the Department of Justice. They are the source of all DV stats. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf

Of course, I doubt you'll bother to read it. Everyone wants sources but no one believes the facts even with proof.

Violence against women is a HUGE issue for women and the well being of children.

Jim's "testicles" are irrelevant.

I really don't think the DOJ performs surverys.

[Wind Song]

I really don't think the DOJ performs surverys.


Did you read the article? No. DOJ consolidates FBI stats in a concise report. Do you suggest both the FBI and DOJ are inaccurate?

[jimnyc]

And according to your pdf - 20 percent of the victims are men. That's even MUCH higher than I would have thought.


Did you read the article? No.

That PDF? just did a search and that 92% "survey" is NOT in there.

Here is where the 92% claim came from:

92% of women say that reducing domestic violence and sexual assault should be at the top of any formal efforts taken on behalf of women today. -Liz Claiborne Inc., study on Teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.

This was retrieved from an official police/government page - http://www.florence-nj.gov/police/police_dvrt.html

[Wind Song]

And according to your pdf - 20 percent of the victims are men. That's even MUCH higher than I would have thought.

It's much lower than that in my county. More like 3%.

[Abbey Marie]

The best statistics come from abuse agencies, FBI and regular police. And if one searches, they'll find that the stats posted, and stats on that page, are from those sources (uncredited of course). And they're clearly made to discuss JUST women who are victims. While I agree that this happens to women MUCH more, it's insulting to leave out the thousands of men that are victims yearly.

Funny thing is - how hard would it be to say "Yeah, my bad, the mend should be included too. But just an Fyi, the numbers are much different between the 2" - but rather it's an argument as to why they shouldn't be included, or an explanation as to why. I'm sure if I went over murders yearly, and did so by race, and only mentioned whites, I would be wrong. Or murders yearly, but only included the men. Or ANYTHING where PEOPLE are victims, and a select group is omitted.

Should all studies on breast cancer spend their limited funds to study breast cancer in men? Is a study bad/irrelevant/useless unless it includes everyone who may be affected?

[tailfins]

Here is where the 92% claim came from:

92% of women say that reducing domestic violence and sexual assault should be at the top of any formal efforts taken on behalf of women today. -Liz Claiborne Inc., study on Teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.

This was retrieved from an official police/government page - http://www.florence-nj.gov/police/police_dvrt.html



You have just demonstrated that you deserve to be arrogant (or cah-kee [that's "cocky" with a Boston accent] if you prefer) today. Nice job!

[Wind Song]

Should all studies on breast cancer spend their limited funds to study breast cancer in men? Is a study bad/irrelevant/useless unless it includes everyone who may be affected?


Jim would say, yes. (We'll see if he ACTUALLY does or doesn't). Men are more important human lives than women. Don't you know that? (Sarcasm)

[jimnyc]

Should all studies on breast cancer spend their limited funds to study breast cancer in men? Is a study bad/irrelevant/useless unless it includes everyone who may be affected?

My comments had nothing to do with funds. These "statistics" which include ALL victims of DV don't cost anything. It costs nothing to include statistics of ALL sexes when those statistics are readily available by all of the very same agencies used to gather the stats about women.

And I never said a study was bad, or irrelevant or useless. I've already stated that the stats on women were accurate and horrible. I just think they are incomplete. And I find it dishonest and disrespectful to the men who suffer from the same thing to omit them.

Also, we're talking about victims who also have perpetrators, unlike diseases. So I don't think the 2 are very comparable.


Jim would say, yes. (We'll see if he ACTUALLY does or doesn't). Men are more important human lives than women. Don't you know that? (Sarcasm)

I never said anything at all about EITHER being more important. But ONLY posting a portion of the stats, and leaving so many other victims out - kind of leads me to believe that you think women are more important.

While in NO WAY to diminish the breast cancer in women, as my Mom was a survivor of breast cancer after going through removal... Apparently they DO keep statistics, and these men who die from the disease probably wouldn't want to be forgotten.


The most recent American Cancer Society estimates for male breast cancer in the United States are for 2012:



About 2,190 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among men
About 410 men will die from breast cancer

Breast cancer is about 100 times less common among men than among women. For men, the lifetime risk of getting breast cancer is about 1 in 1,000. The number of breast cancer cases in men relative to the population has been fairly stable over the last 30 years.

The prognosis (outlook) for men with breast cancer was once thought to be worse than that for women, but recent studies have not found this to be true. In fact, men and women with the same stage of breast cancer have a fairly similar outlook for survival.




http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancerinMen/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-in-men-key-statistics

[Wind Song]

I never said anything at all about EITHER being more important. But ONLY posting a portion of the stats, and leaving so many other victims out - kind of leads me to believe that you think women are more important.

Once again, you cannot provide ONE post about Stockholm Syndrome and trauma bonding.

[jimnyc]

Once again, you cannot provide ONE statement about the relevance of gender to Stockholm Syndrome and trauma bonding. If 20% of all DV victims are male, where are the studies about trauma bonding?

I'm more interested in ensuring that ALL victims of DV are mentioned when statistics of DV are posted.

[Wind Song]

I'm more interested in ensuring that ALL victims of DV are mentioned when statistics of DV are posted.


Then start a thread on it. This topic is about Stockholm Syndrome and Trauma Bonding.

http://www.insideoutlivinginc.org/Traumatic%20Bonding%20Self%20Test.pdf

[jimnyc]

Then start a thread on it. This topic is about Stockholm Syndrome and Trauma Bonding.

And as the title states, and your statistics, DV in general as well. I'm quite happy in this thread, but thanks for the tip!

[Wind Song]

And as the title states, and your statistics, DV in general as well. I'm quite happy in this thread, but thanks for the tip!

Please try and address the actual topic. For trauma bonding to occur, there must be an imbalance of who has power in the relationship.

[tailfins]

Please try and address the actual topic. For trauma bonding to occur, there must be an imbalance of who has power in the relationship.


Let's address that imbalance of power, shall we?

1) Who makes a more credible threat of leaving with the kids? That's especially true with threats to make a DV complaint.
2) Which gender is more likely to RECEIVE child support?
3) Which gender is more likely to manipulate the system to produce unaffordable child support payments to keep the ex-spouse in jail?
4) Which gender is able to find a new lover and be financially rewarded for it?

You never hear stories of women receiving restraining orders not to come home after work. Ask your friendly neighborhood process server if you doubt me.

I invite others to add to the list.

[jimnyc]

Let's address that imbalance of power, shall we?

1) Who makes a more credible threat of leaving with the kids? That's especially true with threats to make a DV complaint.
2) Which gender is more likely to RECEIVE child support?
3) Which gender is more likely to manipulate the system to produce unaffordable child support payment to keep the ex-spouse in jail?
4) Which gender is able to find a new lover and be financially rewarded for it?

I invite others to add to the list.

Sort of the same - but my BIGGEST complaint is children. A man has no say whatsoever if a woman wants to abort their child. The child gets killed even if that is not what the man wants. The man has no say at all if the woman wants to keep the baby. Whether he wants a child or not, he's going to pay one way or another.

[Wind Song]

The imbalance of power you guys mention have nothing to do with trauma bonding. Do some reading, boys. I recommend psychologist Patrick J Carnes.


Sort of the same - but my BIGGEST complaint is children. A man has no say whatsoever if a woman wants to abort their child. The child gets killed even if that is not what the man wants. The man has no say at all if the woman wants to keep the baby. Whether he wants a child or not, he's going to pay one way or another.

Abortion has nothing to do with Stockholm Syndrome or Trauma Bonding. You're having a helluva time staying on topic today Jim.

[jimnyc]

Abortion has nothing to do with Stockholm Syndrome or Trauma Bonding. You're having a helluva time staying on topic today Jim.

You're having a helluva time picking up on the fact that I don't give a shit what you think about where I post. I post what I feel is relevant to the flow of the discussion, and what helps me prove points. If you don't like it, go eat a shitsicle, with all due respect of course.

[Wind Song]

You're having a helluva time picking up on the fact that I don't give a shit what you think about where I post. I post what I feel is relevant to the flow of the discussion, and what helps me prove points. If you don't like it, go eat a shitsicle, with all due respect of course.

You've decided to get ugly. Bye.

[jimnyc]

You've decided to get ugly. Bye.

Have yourself a wonderful evening, sweetheart! :fu:

[Dilloduck]

The imbalance of power you guys mention have nothing to do with trauma bonding. Do some reading, boys. I recommend psychologist Patrick J Carnes.

What is the exclusive imbalance of power that causes trauma bonding ?

[Wind Song]

What is the exclusive imbalance of power that causes trauma bonding ?


I didn't say it was exclusive. Are you familiar with Patrick J. Carnes work?


Carnes says you may be caught in a betrayal bond if:


You stay in dangerous relationships, attract friends or a partner who use you or hurt you.
You have to keep secrets or cover up your partner's anger, abuse or addictions
You feel that you have to make your partner understand how you are and he or she does not care about your feelings.
If people who are truly your friends are worried about your situation but you are not, you are in denial.
Your partner expects you to isolate from others, meet every demand, read his or her mind and always give him or her what is expected.
The two of you have destructive fights where behavior deteriorates to hurting each other with words or actions instead of trying to solve the problem.
You are supporting someone who is financially irresponsible.
You have given up your sense of self to meet the needs of someone who is selfish and uses you.
You long for someone from a past relationship that was unhealthy for you.

http://www.markmeans.com/clientimages/36010/sexaddictionfiles/csattraumabondscourse.pdf

[Dilloduck]

Where's the part that defines and describes the imbalance of power?

[Wind Song]

Where's the part that defines and describes the imbalance of power?

Read Dillo. Are you really telling me that you as a mental health professional know absolutely nothing about domestic violence?

Let me give you an example. The perpetrator doesn't allow the victim to drive, leave the house or have any friends. The perpetrator makes frequent threats to kill the victim, and the children and has the means and opportunity to do so. The perpetrator controls all the money and doesn't allow the victim to have any.

[Dilloduck]

Read Dillo. Are you really telling me that you as a mental health professional know absolutely nothing about domestic violence?

Let me give you an example. The perpetrator doesn't allow the victim to drive, leave the house or have any friends. The perpetrator makes frequent threats to kill the victim, and the children and has the means and opportunity to do so. The perpetrator controls all the money and doesn't allow the victim to have any.

Hey--you got it with your last sentence !!! Financial imbalance of power. Is that the only one there is ? I bet not. I bet there are several imbalances of power where the woman actually holds the upper hand don't you ? Physical strength is far from the top dog on the list.

[Wind Song]

Hey--you got it with your last sentence !!! Financial imbalance of power. Is that the only one there is ? I bet not. I bet there are several imbalances of power where the woman actually holds the upper hand don't you ? Physical strength is far from the top dog on the list.

80% of all DV are male perpetrator and female victim incidents. I've posted examples of power imbalance in Trauma Bonding and Stockholm Syndrome with no gender language at all.

Try and understand the topic.

[Dilloduck]

80% of all DV are male perpetrator and female victim incidents. I've posted examples of power imbalance in Trauma Bonding and Stockholm Syndrome with no gender language at all.

Try and understand the topic.

So women DO hold power over men------enough so to make them victims ? And the man might become one of the Stockholm Syndrome Club ?

[Wind Song]

So women DO hold power over men------enough so to make them victims ? And the man might become one of the Stockholm Syndrome Club ?


I don't know. It's possible. Do you know about Trauma Bonding, Dillo? I know you're smarter than you're pretending to act.

Check the list I provided. Consider the examples I've provided.

[Dilloduck]

I don't know. It's possible. Do you know about Trauma Bonding, Dillo? I know you're smarter than you're pretending to act.

Check the list I provided. Consider the examples I've provided.

I think I'll just settle for the admission that you don't know.

[Abbey Marie]

Blue responses=Abbey


My comments had nothing to do with funds. These "statistics" which include ALL victims of DV don't cost anything. It costs nothing to include statistics of ALL sexes when those statistics are readily available by all of the very same agencies used to gather the stats about women.

All studies cost money, as far as I've seen. As do programs to help the unfortunate.

And I never said a study was bad, or irrelevant or useless. I've already stated that the stats on women were accurate and horrible. I just think they are incomplete. And I find it dishonest and disrespectful to the men who suffer from the same thing to omit them.

I find it dishonest and disrespectful to the vast majority of DV victims, which we know are women, that so many of the men in this thread are trying to derail and marginalize this discussion just because the OP didn't include men.

Also, we're talking about victims who also have perpetrators, unlike diseases. So I don't think the 2 are very comparable.

It's an analogy. Analogous things are by definition not exactly the same. What is the same, is the idea that, whether we are discussing violence or disease, it is relevant and logical to discuss what hurts the vast majority without necessarily discussing what hurts the almost anecdotal minority.

[Dilloduck]

If one REALLY wants to get a point across, including ALL victims be they male OR female will be seen as an honest attempt to address the problem as opposed to sohisticated gender bashing.

[Wind Song]

I'm sorry for men that 80% of all DV is male perpetrated. I'm sure that really sticks. The topic is Trauma Bonding and so far, no one but me is interested in it.

The question of why don't WOMEN leave comes up much more in relation to DV, unfortunately. Is a common title of any article on DV.

This is NOT a male bashing thread. We certainly do have a couple of men, Dillo and Jim, who are acting like victims.

[jimnyc]

I'm not going to get into a long drawn out, line for line argument with anyone, Abbey and Ws. But my stance has been all along that ALL victims should be included when discussing statistics about domestic violence. These are not studies, they are simply crime statistics. Marginalizing? Let's not just make shit up now. I don't see anyone in here marginalizing jack shit about women who are victims of DV. Derailing? Is asking that men who are victims as well really disrespectful to other victims? I don't think so.

You guys have your one sided victim thread, I've said my part.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm sorry for men that 80% of all DV is male perpetrated. I'm sure that really sticks. The topic is Trauma Bonding and so far, no one but me is interested in it.

The question of why don't WOMEN leave comes up much more in relation to DV, unfortunately. Is a common title of any article on DV.

This is NOT a male bashing thread. We certainly do have a couple of men, Dillo and Jim, who are acting like victims.

Sorry, WS, you are apparently not allowed to discuss all these female victims and why they stay. You can only discuss what the men deem worthy of discussion. Your thread is no good. :rolleyes:/Sarcasm off.

I suspect you are onto something- discussion of some awful truths is just not very palatable for people and therefore must be derailed. Irony alert- your thread is the victim of male e-violence. ;)

[Wind Song]

Sorry, WS, you are apparently not allowed to discuss all these female victims and why they stay. You can only discuss what the men deem worthy of discussion. Your thread is no good. :rolleyes:/Sarcasm off.

I suspect you are onto something- discussion of some awful truths is just not very palatable for people and therefore must be derailed. Irony alert- your thread is the victim of male e-violence. ;)


You've got that right. I've seen a study where it suggests that when a woman introduces a topic, the male has to argue about it. It may have been the book, Gender, Power and Communication.

These poor victimized men here. They have it so rough.

[tailfins]

80% of all DV are male perpetrator and female victim incidents. I've posted examples of power imbalance in Trauma Bonding and Stockholm Syndrome with no gender language at all.

Try and understand the topic.

You mean REPORTED DV, right? I bet these express themselves very well, having gone over what they were going to say for a few months. How many rub their hands together, so happy to have the house all to themselves starting that night?


You've got that right. I've seen a study where it suggests that when a woman introduces a topic, the male has to argue about it. It may have been the book, Gender, Power and Communication.

These poor victimized men here. They have it so rough.


I don't leave that door open very much. I have already taught my sons: When you start dating and she starts playing games or giving you trouble, dump her - AND have nothing to do with her afterwards; no friends, no chit-chat, NOTHING. Every young male should attend several divorce court proceedings. That way they know what to be on the lookout for.

[DragonStryk72]

Perhaps the question should have been why do men terrorize their partners? Why does the community allow battering to continue? How can we help women who want to leave?

Why do women terrorize their partners? Women are not the only ones abused in relationships, and I can attest to that from my own experience. I was in an abusive relationship with a woman previously, and honestly, almost no one knew it was going on. Truth be told, there is nothing you could have told me that would have made me want to leave, and it's because of intelligence.

See, even an idiot knows when to get out of a relationship, it's only in the smart people that you find the really airtight rationalizations that go on for years. The smarter a person is, however, the more they attempt to rationalize things, and so perversely, you have some incredibly intelligent men and women who stay in abusive relationships. Oddly, the very act of trying to bring someone out of it can force them to dig in their heels more, and become even more firmly entrenched in their misconceptions.

There are always going to be those who terrorize and abuse others, that's an unfortunate dark aspect of human nature. The most we can really do is encourage the abused to come forward, and be there for them until they're ready.

[Wind Song]

Thank you Abbey for seeing and stating the obvious. It's impossible to discuss Stockholm Syndrome or Trauma Bonding on this forum.

I think one of the admin ought to just change the name and topic of the thread to "Women who abuse Men". I give up.

It's all yours boys. You got your wish. I will shut up about this topic from now on.

[jimnyc]

Why do women terrorize their partners? Women are not the only ones abused in relationships, and I can attest to that from my own experience. I was in an abusive relationship with a woman previously, and honestly, almost no one knew it was going on. Truth be told, there is nothing you could have told me that would have made me want to leave, and it's because of intelligence.

See, even an idiot knows when to get out of a relationship, it's only in the smart people that you find the really airtight rationalizations that go on for years. The smarter a person is, however, the more they attempt to rationalize things, and so perversely, you have some incredibly intelligent men and women who stay in abusive relationships. Oddly, the very act of trying to bring someone out of it can force them to dig in their heels more, and become even more firmly entrenched in their misconceptions.

There are always going to be those who terrorize and abuse others, that's an unfortunate dark aspect of human nature. The most we can really do is encourage the abused to come forward, and be there for them until they're ready.

WS started this thread, and she didn't include both sexes in her posts, and it needs to stay that way. Even though you directly answered the questions, it only matters if you're addressing the female victims.

[Wind Song]

This thread is dead. The topic never got off the ground thanks to Jim and Didlo.

You should merge the two threads and I will stop posting altogether on the topic. That should make you happy.

[jimnyc]

This thread is dead. The topic never got off the ground thanks to Jim and Didlo.

Nope, not dead in the slightest bit. Others are free to toss in their comments about domestic violence, whether that be by men, or by women. YOU don't get to choose who replies and in what manner. I'm sure others won't have much problem addressing posts in a thread if you no longer participate.

[SassyLady]

This thread is dead. The topic never got off the ground thanks to Jim and Didlo.

You should merge the two threads and I will stop posting altogether on the topic. That should make you happy.

Wow....did WS ... did you just call someone a name? Didlo? Now, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black........hmmmmm.

[Wind Song]

Nope, not dead in the slightest bit. Others are free to toss in their comments about domestic violence, whether that be by men, or by women. YOU don't get to choose who replies and in what manner. I'm sure others won't have much problem addressing posts in a thread if you no longer participate.


That's just fine, Jim. No point sticking around where I'm not wanted. Feel free to deactivate my forum membership.

[jimnyc]

Wow....did WS ... did you just call someone a name? Didlo? Now, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black........hmmmmm.

Even worse, she meant "dildo" not "didlo" - as I can hardly see trying to type "Dilloduck" and coming up with what she did.


That's just fine, Jim. No point sticking around where I'm not wanted.

Oh boy, here's the victim again. Posting as we wish and not doing what you want us to do has nothing to do with wanting you or not. It simply means that others are free to discuss THEIR points of view, just as you are.

[Abbey Marie]

WS started this thread, and she didn't include both sexes in her posts, and it needs to stay that way. Even though you directly answered the questions, it only matters if you're addressing the female victims.

Lol. Touche' :clap:

[logroller]

How many female dv victims met their abusive partner in a bank robbery anyways? Talk about a minority.

[Thunderknuckles]

The entire problem with this thread can be found with Wind Song posting the following:
"Perhaps the question should have been why do men terrorize their partners?"


Now she has left the board because she feels Jim derailed the thread and disrespected her at every turn.
WTF did you think would happen? You might as well have posted why do blacks like fried chicken and watermelon on BlackSingles.com

[DragonStryk72]

WS started this thread, and she didn't include both sexes in her posts, and it needs to stay that way. Even though you directly answered the questions, it only matters if you're addressing the female victims.

I refute the assumption that so many people seem to make that the reasons are so very different between the sexes. The are bits and pieces that are different, such as men who do not fight back, like me, who do so because they don't feel right about fighting a woman. I had 100 lbs on the girl, and nearly a foot of height, and I know karate and Tae Kwon Do. I've trained with weapons most my life, but bringing myself to hurt someone is just repugnant to me, moreso when it's someone that I have severe advantages over.

A major misconception that seems far too prevalent is the idea that abuse suddenly turns on like a lightswitch. It just doesn't happen like that. It starts out small, a quick tantrum here of there, but nothing that would be considered untoward, and so you let it go, cause honestly, everyone has shitty days. Then steadily, over time, it becomes more regular, and the abuse heightens, but you've already been making excuses, and so you make more excuses. Oh, it's just the financial problems, or he/she's just insecure about the relationship. then of course comes a certain moment of clarity where you get the impulse that you should get out, that this is horribly wrong, and it's here that you should get out, immediately. Unfortunately, so many do not, and there are a myriad of reasons, although admittedly, even in my case, kids in the picture tend to become an unfortunate crutch.

"Oh god, Julia would be hurt so much if I left."

"I'm the only good thing she has."

"I'll never get to see the kid again."

Whether or not these are valid points is entirely sidenote to the fact that these excuses make us hedge, and suddenly, we're martyring ourselves. Not that we'd call it that, but that's really what it is. We've made this one person so much bigger than us, so much grander than us, that we start to fear them being gone, because what's left? It's not like we have any real self-respect left by then, anyhow, so really, what's to look forward to? Who would ever love someone who would let themselves be put through all this? We come to this belief that there is something... wrong in us that means we deserve this, and that it's just not going to get any better.

When I finally left, I was a wreck for quite a while afterward. I was living with friends of mine who welcomed me in with open arms, but they never really understood how much damage had been done. One of the things I had been raked over the coals about was not to eat any food that was slated for something else, except that every scrap of food was earmarked for someone, so there was never any safe food to eat. I literally only ate 1 meal a deal at my friends', and only the portion I was given, because they had jobs and weren't around during the day for me to ask what food was "okay". Didn't matter that I was told by my best friend that I was free to eat whatever I wanted, I had to have specific permission.

And then of course there's the self-pity, let's not forget that. The "why did I let this happen?" arguments you have with yourself, and even others. It doesn't even conceive that we should be blaming the person who actually abused us, no, the fault must lie within us.

[fj1200]

... no, the fault must lie within us.

Truer words...

[tailfins]

I refute the assumption that so many people seem to make that the reasons are so very different between the sexes. The are bits and pieces that are different, such as men who do not fight back, like me, who do so because they don't feel right about fighting a woman. I had 100 lbs on the girl, and nearly a foot of height, and I know karate and Tae Kwon Do. I've trained with weapons most my life, but bringing myself to hurt someone is just repugnant to me, moreso when it's someone that I have severe advantages over.

A major misconception that seems far too prevalent is the idea that abuse suddenly turns on like a lightswitch. It just doesn't happen like that. It starts out small, a quick tantrum here of there, but nothing that would be considered untoward, and so you let it go, cause honestly, everyone has shitty days. Then steadily, over time, it becomes more regular, and the abuse heightens, but you've already been making excuses, and so you make more excuses. Oh, it's just the financial problems, or he/she's just insecure about the relationship. then of course comes a certain moment of clarity where you get the impulse that you should get out, that this is horribly wrong, and it's here that you should get out, immediately. Unfortunately, so many do not, and there are a myriad of reasons, although admittedly, even in my case, kids in the picture tend to become an unfortunate crutch.

"Oh god, Julia would be hurt so much if I left."

"I'm the only good thing she has."

"I'll never get to see the kid again."

Whether or not these are valid points is entirely sidenote to the fact that these excuses make us hedge, and suddenly, we're martyring ourselves. Not that we'd call it that, but that's really what it is. We've made this one person so much bigger than us, so much grander than us, that we start to fear them being gone, because what's left? It's not like we have any real self-respect left by then, anyhow, so really, what's to look forward to? Who would ever love someone who would let themselves be put through all this? We come to this belief that there is something... wrong in us that means we deserve this, and that it's just not going to get any better.

When I finally left, I was a wreck for quite a while afterward. I was living with friends of mine who welcomed me in with open arms, but they never really understood how much damage had been done. One of the things I had been raked over the coals about was not to eat any food that was slated for something else, except that every scrap of food was earmarked for someone, so there was never any safe food to eat. I literally only ate 1 meal a deal at my friends', and only the portion I was given, because they had jobs and weren't around during the day for me to ask what food was "okay". Didn't matter that I was told by my best friend that I was free to eat whatever I wanted, I had to have specific permission.

And then of course there's the self-pity, let's not forget that. The "why did I let this happen?" arguments you have with yourself, and even others. It doesn't even conceive that we should be blaming the person who actually abused us, no, the fault must lie within us.

My mom put it in very simple terms: A woman drunkard can be just as mean as a man drunkard.

[DragonStryk72]

My mom put it in very simple terms: A woman drunkard can be just as mean as a man drunkard.

It isn't so much about the abuser. I can't control whether she was abusive or not, that's not possible, nor can a woman control whether or not her husband is abusive. I can only take responsibility for my own actions and inactions, and that's really the best anyone can do.

[logroller]

It isn't so much about the abuser. I can't control whether she was abusive or not, that's not possible, nor can a woman control whether or not her husband is abusive. I can only take responsibility for my own actions and inactions, and that's really the best anyone can do.
90/10 rule

[ConHog]

What if the bitch really deserves it?

I kid I kid.

But Windy, what is your stance on women who obviously enjoy it? Or do you deny they exist? I'm not saying that it is right that the man hit them, I'm just saying some women intentionally stick around and do things knowing they will set that particular guy off.

I got hit over the head with a crockpot by a woman who's husband I had just pulled off of her where he was giving her a world class beating. She defended the guy who was in the process of beating her to death when I stopped him. (I say I but there were two of us.)

[Shadow]

i didnt say you thought so, i said men do.

Do my wife and I have baggage from our past; yea, probably-- doesn't everyone? But the facts you speak are based on what's reported--not saying you're wrong about Females being in the majority, but your own beliefs are based upon the social structure which perceives men to be stronger, thus more capable of committing violent acts. Conversely, this social gender role discourages a man to seek refuge for fear of appearing imasculated. I would think you, being alesbian, would understand well how society places pressure on individuals to fulfill certain gender roles, where outliers who dissent from the prescribed theme are cast aside as deviant or statistically inconsequential.

I think you are exactly right. Verbal or physical abuse of some kind probably doesn't happen less to men...they just don't report it. I happen to know a man who was married to an abusive woman for about a year. He finally had enough when she wrenched his arm out of it's socket to prevent him from leaving during an argument. He ended up having surgery to repair the damage. She was nuts...and like most men he wouldn't defend himself against her because she was a female. Also didn't report her to the authorities for the same reason.

[Shadow]

I refute the assumption that so many people seem to make that the reasons are so very different between the sexes. The are bits and pieces that are different, such as men who do not fight back, like me, who do so because they don't feel right about fighting a woman. I had 100 lbs on the girl, and nearly a foot of height, and I know karate and Tae Kwon Do. I've trained with weapons most my life, but bringing myself to hurt someone is just repugnant to me, moreso when it's someone that I have severe advantages over.

A major misconception that seems far too prevalent is the idea that abuse suddenly turns on like a lightswitch. It just doesn't happen like that. It starts out small, a quick tantrum here of there, but nothing that would be considered untoward, and so you let it go, cause honestly, everyone has shitty days. Then steadily, over time, it becomes more regular, and the abuse heightens, but you've already been making excuses, and so you make more excuses. Oh, it's just the financial problems, or he/she's just insecure about the relationship. then of course comes a certain moment of clarity where you get the impulse that you should get out, that this is horribly wrong, and it's here that you should get out, immediately. Unfortunately, so many do not, and there are a myriad of reasons, although admittedly, even in my case, kids in the picture tend to become an unfortunate crutch.

"Oh god, Julia would be hurt so much if I left."

"I'm the only good thing she has."

"I'll never get to see the kid again."

Whether or not these are valid points is entirely sidenote to the fact that these excuses make us hedge, and suddenly, we're martyring ourselves. Not that we'd call it that, but that's really what it is. We've made this one person so much bigger than us, so much grander than us, that we start to fear them being gone, because what's left? It's not like we have any real self-respect left by then, anyhow, so really, what's to look forward to? Who would ever love someone who would let themselves be put through all this? We come to this belief that there is something... wrong in us that means we deserve this, and that it's just not going to get any better.

When I finally left, I was a wreck for quite a while afterward. I was living with friends of mine who welcomed me in with open arms, but they never really understood how much damage had been done. One of the things I had been raked over the coals about was not to eat any food that was slated for something else, except that every scrap of food was earmarked for someone, so there was never any safe food to eat. I literally only ate 1 meal a deal at my friends', and only the portion I was given, because they had jobs and weren't around during the day for me to ask what food was "okay". Didn't matter that I was told by my best friend that I was free to eat whatever I wanted, I had to have specific permission.

And then of course there's the self-pity, let's not forget that. The "why did I let this happen?" arguments you have with yourself, and even others. It doesn't even conceive that we should be blaming the person who actually abused us, no, the fault must lie within us.

Good post.

Another thing the abuser usually does is move you away from your support groups (friends...family etc) and take over control of the money. A lot of times the abused party may want to leave...but they don't have the means to do so.

I can relate to a lot of your bolded comments. The after effects of verbal abuse are lasting. In my case...loud voices/noises set me off...put me on edge...sometimes,depending on the situation...totally shut me down. I also have a tendency to do strange (almost OCD) things as a way to comfort my mind...sometimes I don't even realize I am doing it....sometimes I do and just can't stop.

[Thunderknuckles]

I think you are exactly right. Verbal or physical abuse of some kind probably doesn't happen less to men...they just don't report it. I happen to know a man who was married to an abusive woman for about a year. He finally had enough when she wrenched his arm out of it's socket to prevent him from leaving during an argument. He ended up having surgery to repair the damage. She was nuts...and like most men he wouldn't defend himself against her because she was a female. Also didn't report her to the authorities for the same reason.
So that guy just sucked it up and went about business?

[Shadow]

So that guy just sucked it up and went about business?

Until he divorced her...pretty much.

[Thunderknuckles]

Until he divorced her...pretty much.
Serious question: What do you think would have happened if the roles were reversed?

[DragonStryk72]

Good post.

Another thing the abuser usually does is move you away from your support groups (friends...family etc) and take over control of the money. A lot of times the abused party may want to leave...but they don't have the means to do so.

I can relate to a lot of your bolded comments. The after effects of verbal abuse are lasting. In my case...loud voices/noises set me off...put me on edge...sometimes,depending on the situation...totally shut me down. I also have a tendency to do strange (almost OCD) things as a way to comfort my mind...sometimes I don't even realize I am doing it....sometimes I do and just can't stop.

Much the same with me, in that she got me to move up to DE with her, with my friends still back in VA, and since I wasn't on the lease, she always had the ability to make me homeless, until the day I didn't keep taking it and she did. I actually posted on here that day.

For me, it took months of work getting back to normal, and living on my own helped in that. I got used to being the only one I had to consult, and I had control over my entire situation. It was a difficult road back, and I hated myself for a time for missing her, but I got through it.


Serious question: What do you think would have happened if the roles were reversed?

I think it would have been much the same. Sure, some detail work might have changed, but any human being, male or female, can tell themselves the thousand little lies they tell until they believe it.

[Shadow]

Serious question: What do you think would have happened if the roles were reversed?

The main difference to me is that if outsiders were aware of the situation (in this case they were)...they would have been more likely to intervene if it was abuse against a woman. I think we tend to think of men as the stronger sex...more in control.


In this case the man had the money and was in control of finances...owned the house,car etc...so, I think the wife would have been more likely to not remove herself from the situation for that reason.

[Shadow]

Much the same with me, in that she got me to move up to DE with her, with my friends still back in VA, and since I wasn't on the lease, she always had the ability to make me homeless, until the day I didn't keep taking it and she did. I actually posted on here that day.

For me, it took months of work getting back to normal, and living on my own helped in that. I got used to being the only one I had to consult, and I had control over my entire situation. It was a difficult road back, and I hated myself for a time for missing her, but I got through it.



I think it would have been much the same. Sure, some detail work might have changed, but any human being, male or female, can tell themselves the thousand little lies they tell until they believe it.

My ex moved us to California...took control of the money...wouldn't let me have checks,credit cards or cash. Lived in that situation for almost 2 1/2 years. I just remember after leaving and moving home...sleeping...and sleeping some more...for nearly a straight month before I finally got a job, because I was so emotionally drained. The situation made me extremely introverted... I had to work through that and learn to be social again. I used to make myself go out to eat alone and sit there in public no matter how uncomfortable it made me. It is a tough road back....but you are right... having full control of your situation helps...being independant...learning to fend for yourself etc.

[DragonStryk72]

My ex moved us to California...took control of the money...wouldn't let me have checks,credit cards or cash. Lived in that situation for almost 2 1/2 years. I just remember after leaving and moving home...sleeping...and sleeping some more...for nearly a straight month before I finally got a job, because I was so emotionally drained. The situation made me extremely introverted... I had to work through that and learn to be social again. I used to make myself go out to eat alone and sit there in public no matter how uncomfortable it made me. It is a tough road back....but you are right... having full control of your situation helps...being independant...learning to fend for yourself etc.

I also had to stay away from relationships, cause I was seriously messed up and I knew it. I'd either throw my problems off on someone else, or tank the thing, and so for about a year I was well and truly alone with my life. I got all sorts of furniture, unassembled, and started myself on projects, like building my own bookcases, pushing through my writing, those sorts of things, and it helped a lot.

[Shadow]

I also had to stay away from relationships, cause I was seriously messed up and I knew it. I'd either throw my problems off on someone else, or tank the thing, and so for about a year I was well and truly alone with my life. I got all sorts of furniture, unassembled, and started myself on projects, like building my own bookcases, pushing through my writing, those sorts of things, and it helped a lot.

Plus, after putting all your faith and trust into a person...only to have them abuse it and tear it apart along with your self esteem....does not really make a person want to stick their neck out like that again.

There are very few people I really whole heartedly trust... and even less that I am willing to trust right out of the gate.

[darin]

Just have to say, I have NO idea how LuvRPgrl became the starter of this thread. Wacky stuff w/ the database?

[Wind Song]

What if the bitch really deserves it?

I kid I kid.

But Windy, what is your stance on women who obviously enjoy it? Or do you deny they exist? I'm not saying that it is right that the man hit them, I'm just saying some women intentionally stick around and do things knowing they will set that particular guy off.

I got hit over the head with a crockpot by a woman who's husband I had just pulled off of her where he was giving her a world class beating. She defended the guy who was in the process of beating her to death when I stopped him. (I say I but there were two of us.)
No woman "enjoys" being beat up. The answer to why women stay in abusive relationships is they become bonded to their abusers. Abusers aren't abusive 24 hours a day. Sometimes the abusers are "OK" or even loving, or loveable.

The victims feel like captives. They are convinced there is a threat to their existence, and that their abuser/captors will kill them.

The abuser/captors sometimes show small kindnesses within a context of terror.

Victims are often isolated, (by their abuser/captors), and removed from any other perspectives.

Victims feel as though they will be unable to escape, that their abusers will find them, no matter where they are and kill them.

Fight or flight is not the only response to terror. Another response is "freeze". Women who stay in abusive relationships "freeze" when they're abused.
http://www.healing-arts.org/healing_trauma_therapy/traumabonding-traumaticbonds.htm


See Vanderkolk: The Compulsion to Repeat the Trauma

[Dilloduck]

Hey !!! Wb ws !!

[Wind Song]

Hello, DD.

[DragonStryk72]

No woman "enjoys" being beat up. The answer to why women stay in abusive relationships is they become bonded to their abusers. Abusers aren't abusive 24 hours a day. Sometimes the abusers are "OK" or even loving, or loveable.

The victims feel like captives. They are convinced there is a threat to their existence, and that their abuser/captors will kill them.

The abuser/captors sometimes show small kindnesses within a context of terror.

Victims are often isolated, (by their abuser/captors), and removed from any other perspectives.

Victims feel as though they will be unable to escape, that their abusers will find them, no matter where they are and kill them.

Fight or flight is not the only response to terror. Another response is "freeze". Women who stay in abusive relationships "freeze" when they're abused.
http://www.healing-arts.org/healing_trauma_therapy/traumabonding-traumaticbonds.htm


See Vanderkolk: The Compulsion to Repeat the Trauma

Okay, one: There are women who enjot/get off on physical abuse/humiliation. Granted, I don't think they're right in head, but they do exist.

If you had read myself and Shadow's experiences, neither one of us mentioned a threat tour existences, or that we were under threat of death.

I'll give you the next two essential points, but unable to escape is wrong. At least on my end, I understood that I "could" leave, but I convinced myself of reasons not to, and from Shadow's description, it was the same for her.

And again, freezing is not accurate for all. We still think, and process information, but we process it the wrong way, stay when every logical part of our brain tells us to leave.

[Wind Song]

Okay, one: There are women who enjot/get off on physical abuse/humiliation. Granted, I don't think they're right in head, but they do exist.

If you had read myself and Shadow's experiences, neither one of us mentioned a threat tour existences, or that we were under threat of death.

I'll give you the next two essential points, but unable to escape is wrong. At least on my end, I understood that I "could" leave, but I convinced myself of reasons not to, and from Shadow's description, it was the same for her.

And again, freezing is not accurate for all. We still think, and process information, but we process it the wrong way, stay when every logical part of our brain tells us to leave.

No, that's not true. You're confusing women who enjoy consensual, S/M sex with women who are victims of domestic violence. No one "enjoys" having the crap beat out of them.

Freezing is NOT accurate for ALL. I never said it was.

[DragonStryk72]

No, that's not true. You're confusing women who enjoy consensual, S/M sex with women who are victims of domestic violence. No one "enjoys" having the crap beat out of them.

Freezing is NOT accurate for ALL. I never said it was.

Then stop writing in absolutes. You keep writing "Women" with no qualifier or limiter, and so it comes across as though you're speaking for everyone.

[Wind Song]

Then stop writing in absolutes. You keep writing "Women" with no qualifier or limiter, and so it comes across as though you're speaking for everyone.

My my.

I absolutely assert that NO woman "enjoys" being beaten within an inch of her life. That is my opinion, and it's my experience in working with women who have been battered by partners or husbands.

[Dilloduck]

How men ?

[DragonStryk72]

My my.

I absolutely assert that NO woman "enjoys" being beaten within an inch of her life. That is my opinion, and it's my experience in working with women who have been battered by partners or husbands.

No, that's not you said, that's what you are saying now, but not what you said before. You didn't put it forth as your opinion, you put it as flat facts. I'm telling you this so you can stop putting your foot in your mouth, not so you can play the word game with me.

[Wind Song]

No, that's not you said, that's what you are saying now, but not what you said before. You didn't put it forth as your opinion, you put it as flat facts. I'm telling you this so you can stop putting your foot in your mouth, not so you can play the word game with me.

Come on. Don't be so ridiculous. You make your own interpretation of my post and then you get at me for not agreeing with your interpretation.

[DragonStryk72]

Come on. Don't be so ridiculous. You make your own interpretation of my post and then you get at me for not agreeing with your interpretation.

Then that's most of the people on this site. You give no context, and so it sounds like you talk in absolutes. This is not ridiculous, as you put it, it's about the way your posts come across.

[Kathianne]

With this last post, I take it you are 'back'?


No woman "enjoys" being beat up. The answer to why women stay in abusive relationships is they become bonded to their abusers. Abusers aren't abusive 24 hours a day. Sometimes the abusers are "OK" or even loving, or loveable.

The victims feel like captives. They are convinced there is a threat to their existence, and that their abuser/captors will kill them.

The abuser/captors sometimes show small kindnesses within a context of terror.

Victims are often isolated, (by their abuser/captors), and removed from any other perspectives.

Victims feel as though they will be unable to escape, that their abusers will find them, no matter where they are and kill them.

Fight or flight is not the only response to terror. Another response is "freeze". Women who stay in abusive relationships "freeze" when they're abused.
http://www.healing-arts.org/healing_trauma_therapy/traumabonding-traumaticbonds.htm


See Vanderkolk: The Compulsion to Repeat the Trauma

[Wind Song]

Then that's most of the people on this site. You give no context, and so it sounds like you talk in absolutes. This is not ridiculous, as you put it, it's about the way your posts come across.
I stand in the truth of my own life experience.

[Wind Song]

With this last post, I take it you are 'back'?

Just visiting.

[Kathianne]

Just visiting.

and the difference is? Yes, I've a vested interest.

[logroller]

I stand in the truth of my own life experience.
Most do. I think what is ignored is that old adage, to be understood, seek first to understand.
As I understand it, those who have been victims of abuse are most likely aware that they are being abused. The fact many stay is a conscious decision based on their own understanding of what is best-- the comforts of status quo. No matter how foolish it appears from the outside looking in, or even in retrospect, people seek stability and will endure great hardships in hope something better will persevere.

To touch on the OP, a person who's endured the horrors of a robbery/kidnapping what have you, the perseverance through the distress builds strong emotional bonds, even with the source of that distress. I've met a few people who exhibit obsessive/compulsive behavior. What's interesting about these people is they can be so fun, loving and compassionate, its easy to find them appealing. Of course, they can be irrational and even violent. It is understandable that some would attempt to endure the bad, in hopes of the good. Unfortunately, this cycle often grows in intensity, both good and bad. What I can't understand, or perhaps just don't agree with, is someone who enjoys the build up of the extreme good so much they don't merely endure the hardship, but provoke it. Sort of picking a fight because making up feels so good; and beyond that, accepting the worsening treatment as necessary to increasing the heightened sense of the other extreme.

[tailfins]

I stand in the truth of my own life experience.

You should get out more and go more places, then. Listening to women scheming to take their husbands to the cleaners by means of a DV report would give you a biased perspective.



Just visiting.

Did jimnyc give you a "Get Out of Jail Free" card? You do seem to have a "Monopoly" on wild feminist views around here.