I’m interested in the tendency for those who find themselves trapped in an abusive relationship to love, defend, and always return to the abuser. It defies all reason and common sense to the naive onlooker. I’m wondering if anyone’s been in an abusive relationship and found themselves inclined to do these things (love, defend, and always return). Can you explain the psychology behind this? From what I understand, it has to do with the fact that the mind adapts to those situations it finds itself stuck in, and so even though the abuse isn’t fun, leaving the situation becomes daunting and unpredictable because the mind is no longer adapted for anything outside the relationship. At least the relationship, abusive as it may be, is predictable and can be controlled to a degree, allowing the abused to manage and cope. The thought of leaving fills the abused with a sense of insecurity and dread because he/she doesn’t know how to handle it.
has to do with priorities, lots of people are willing to put up with what some call abuse to have other more pressing needs satisfied (money, sex, emotional companionship, etc, etc).
then there are those who call this ‘abusive’, ‘disfunctional’ and all the other labels people like put on relationships that don’t conform to their expectations.
i think calling an adult’s consensual relationship abusive is in itself abusive.
but hey, maybe i just perpetuated a viscious cycle…
my issue is with the negative connotations carrried with the word abusive - as if someone can be responsible for another’s actions.
i think if i speculated about the times with another that i felt the ability to self-actualize came more easily, i might be able to shed some light on the quandry over whether encountering difficulties with another are worth pursuing.
Zen priests used to through disciples into the mud for much less serious infractions than burning toast.
Then there’s a great film by Pasolini (sorry if i forgot to double some of the consonants) that makes a similar point with more graphic and extreme demonstrations. What was its name again? Sallo?
Oh, okay, so if you don’t like the abuse, get out of the relationship. If you stay, that’s your choice and it shows you must have some reason to like it. Did I get ya all right?
Personally, I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Freedom of choice is so overestimated in our culture. I believe there can be relationships in which one or both members feel “trapped”.
I willingly walked into it, masochistically. Plus I had been reading Notes from the Underground. And I chose to choose badly. Just to prove it. You know, that freedom thang.
In one sense, yes, in another, no. At this point in the discussion, I’m not really interested in whether they are or aren’t trapped. I’m more interested in - and this seems roughly what you’re getting at too - who’s the asshole. If you’ve got a relationship in which the woman is scared shitless every time she makes a minor mistake because the guy beats the snot out of her, and she’s convinced for whatever reason, that she can’t leave him, or her life would be worse off, or the thought of going it alone just frightens her too much, or whatever, then I have no reservations or confusions about labeling him the asshole. He deserves to have his balls squeezed in a vice grip.
This sounds very much like the psychological theory I posted in the OP.
'cept that that kind of attitude encourages self-victimization and, hence, perpetuates abusive relationships.
that is, if someone (too bad you chose the feminist stereotype (isn’t male-bashing abusive?) because statistics demonstrate that this is only one side of the coin) depends on a big bad knight in shinning armor (surogate parent) to rescue them from their oopsies, it results in a scenario in which one has no responsibility for one’s own actions.
This isn’t male-bashing; it’s wife-beater bashing, which isn’t remotely abusive in my estimation.
I think you’re generalizing way too much. I don’t think it promotes self-victomization or removes self-responsibility in the specific case I’m arguing over. I don’t think it’s as black and white as you make it out to be, nor should it be colored that way. A line should be drawn between cases like the one I’m describing (where the woman clearly is a victom and needs outside help - or a huge dose of courage) and other cases where the woman or man should and can take on more responsibility for their own actions (a lot of teenaged relationships are like this).
And believe me, I ain’t partial to the feminist stereotype. I have a brother in law who I would describe as “abused” (psychologically) by his wife - though I would also say he could stand to take on more self-accountability for his situation.
harsh? I’m just wondering if the specific case you’re referring to actually exists. i think it’s a myth that, even in the face of a history of emotional ties, there are those who voluntarily and innocently position themselves to be the repeated objects of violence to the extent that daily life is simply an experience of fear.
Instead, I think what more often times happens is that it’s a back and forth escalation.
I’m not talking about kidnapping (from which imprisonment is necessary to keep the victim from escaping) - obviously that exists.
Mutually abusive? That I’d believe. But then again, whatever is mutual ventures dangerously close to consent.
Do I feel compelled to take unsolicited action against those who choose to engage in this type of behavior? - not in the slightest.
They’re all grown-up now, they can decide for themselves.
Nobody voluntarily asks to have their face beaten every day. Yes, of course it’s a mystery. That’s why I brought up the question (and supplied a psychological theory (not mine BTW)), but a failure to fully understand the phenomenon is hardly reason to doubt its existence. I have no difficulty conceiving that someone could voluntarily walk into a relationship without knowing what they’re getting themselves into, and even when they do come to grips with the condition they’re in, voluntarily stay only because they see it as the best option available to them. The best option doesn’t mean a good option. I’m sure the german jews of world war II relished in the freedom they had to choose between killing themselves now or endure 6 years of torture under Nazi brutality - whichever they chose, they brought it on themselves, right?
I’m sure there are relationships like this - but come on, you really think they represent the vast majority of cases?
there’s a huge difference between being a prisoner and simply convincing one’s self that one is a prisoner.
I don’t buy the psychological theory of learned helplessness unless there is truly imprisonment. I am more inclined to see it as an expression of playing dead and waiting for the opportunity to sucker punch.
i’m not saying the majority. I’m saying the qualities of EVERY one of “abusive” relationships to which we’re referring (consensual relationships) constitute mutual aggression and there is no good person or bad person. there are simply two individuals who haven’t learned how to get along with each other - something like an extreme form of sibling rivalry.
I also think that this goes on and is exacerbated because when intervention comes, it usually comes in the form of a poorly thought out strategy rather than a facilitator providing a forum through which the differences can be peacefully overcome.
