Sanctuary for the Abused

Sunday, July 03, 2022

Psychological Abuse in Intimate Relationships Increases Intensity of PTSD Symptoms


The most common forms of intimate partner violence (IPV) are sexual violence,
sexual coercion, psychological abuse and physical abuse and each causes significant psychological problems. 

The act of using pressure … to have sexual contact (physical or verbal/mental):
Pressure in this case can mean physical pressure, verbal pressure or emotional pressure. Physical pressure can include hitting, kicking and slapping the victim; holding the victim down; continuing with the sexual behavior after the victim has been told to stop; and even continuing to kiss the victim as he/she tries to pull away.
Verbal pressure includes behaviors like threatening to use physical force against the victim, yelling at the victim, name calling, tricking, lying, blackmailing and badgering the victim.
Emotional pressure is used much more frequently than physical and verbal pressure and is the most subtle of all the sexual coercion tactics. Using emotional pressure includes the perpetrator convincing the victim that he/she cares more for the victim than he/she actually does, threatening a break-up, wearing the victim down by using the same tactic over and over again, making the victim feel obligated to participate in sexual acts, guilting the victim participating, utilizing peer pressure and even the perpetrator using his/her position of authority over the victim.

 
“Many victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) experience negative mental health outcomes including anxiety problems, substance abuse, depression, and suicidal ideation,” said Amber Norwood and Christopher Murphy of the University of Maryland. “Most notable are high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with prevalence estimates ranging from 33% to 84%.” Yet in a relationship, not all four behaviors predict PTSD, according to a recent study conducted by Norwood and Murphy. The team theorized that because research suggests that intimate partner rape causes extreme psychological trauma, that sexual violence would be the strongest predictor of PTSD in IPV. In order to confirm their theory, the researchers interviewed 216 women who were in abusive relationships and asked them about the frequency and types of abuse that they experienced.

The results of the study revealed similar findings to previous research, with some exceptions. “As predicted, the rate of PTSD diagnosis was higher in both the sexual coercion (56.8%) and sexual violence (63.2%) groups when compared to the no sexual abuse group (32.3%),” said the researchers. But they were surprised by some of their findings, such as the fact that psychological abuse increased PTSD symptoms much more significantly than physical violence. Overall, exposure to sexual violence and sexual coercion together did increase the presence of PTSD. But when taken as separate factors, only sexual coercion was directly linked to increased PTSD symptoms. 

“Though not hypothesized, the finding that sexual coercion (which resembles psychological abuse) is more predictive of PTSD symptoms than sexual violence (which resembles physical abuse), appears to be consistent with the overall finding that psychological abuse had the most consistent unique associations with PTSD. When all four abuse variables—physical abuse, psychological abuse, sexual coercion, and sexual violence—were examined together, only psychological abuse remained a significant unique predictor of PTSD symptoms.”

Reference:
Norwood, A., & Murphy, C. (2011, August 22). What Forms of Abuse Correlate With PTSD Symptoms in Partners of Men Being Treated for Intimate Partner Violence?. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0025232


SOURCE

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

shared by Barbara at 12:02 AM 3 comments


Share

Wednesday, April 04, 2018

Emotional & Physical Responses to Abuse


Victims have experienced and mentioned the following physical and emotional responses to being involved with abusers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Arthritic problems/Lupus, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome, chronic pain, atypical M.S. (reported by a surprising number of abuse victims) This abstract from pubmed may shed some light on this topic.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11161117&dopt=Abstract

With the kind permission ...
"I am remembering too how my body began to react to the stress. I ended up in hospital twice. I had never been in hospital in my life. That is how bad it was. One of the worst memories is of a nurse having to support me as she got me out of the bed and walked me around the hospital corridor (the doctor said I would have to walk a bit each day), and this was not because of medication or anything like that. My knees were actually buckling under me, (weakness no doubt due to not sleeping, not eating, constant panic attacks, fear of the unknown. financial uncertainty and the loss of my home, and my weight had plummeted and kept going down. And I had been a very fit person prior to this happening, so I can imagine the horror of physical breakdown for someone who perhaps was not so fit."

"The relationship lasted for 8 years and it took 7 years of therapy, to undo some of the damage he did to me. I was in bad shape. I do not glorify him anymore. I stopped. It was a terrible experience. In the end, he was afraid of me. As I had helped to raise him up, I also had the power to bring him down. We both understood that. His tears and pleas lost their effect on me. I stopped caring about him and worked on myself, to get past that time and recover my health. I don't even want to be reminded of that time. This is now the only place where I talk about what really happened and how it affected me. I hope it helps others who read, here, if only to know that 'it' comes to an end. There is hope for all."

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

shared by Barbara at 12:44 AM


Share

Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Understanding Boundaries


Understanding personal boundaries is the single most important thing you can do to improve your relationships immediately. This is an explanation and definition of the concept of personal boundaries.

 You've heard people say "He's so refined." We think of refined people as having a great deal of "class." What they have if they really are refined is a very refined - a detailed and accurate - understanding of boundaries - or where their rights end and another's begin. Put simply, people who have exceptionally good manners have a much better understanding of personal boundaries than people who don't. They are a pleasure to be around because they have respect for your emotional and physical space. They don't touch you without permission, they don't try to "define" you or make remarks about you or your life or being.

 Physical Boundaries

 To begin to get a grasp on the concept of boundaries let's start with physical boundaries of each human being.

 We can view a human being as having a space around him of about, say, a foot. This is his comfort zone. Step inside this and he is likely to become uncomfortable and step back. This is his physical boundary: his body combined with the space he needs from you to feel comfortable. The size of everyone's physical boundaries are different. Latin Americans have a much smaller comfort zone, they like to talk "in your face."

 Stepping inside that comfort zone deliberately, if you know it makes the person feel uncomfortable, is called a boundaries violation, or transgression. You have quite literally "gone over the line."

 Most people will get frightened to one degree or another if you violate their physical boundaries. Abuse, by definition, is "boundaries violations." Deliberately stepping inside one's comfort zone, making someone uncomfortable and/or feel threatened, therefore, is defined as physical abuse.

 At night, the physical comfort zone of a woman widens considerably, to perhaps yards and yards. If a man walks behind her too closely she will likely feel threatened and may call the police. He has every legal "right" to walk so closely, but "refined" people will understand intuitively that a woman's physical boundaries and her comfort zone are different at night and in unsafe areas, and will respect this and keep a distance, "hang back" just to be respectful.

 If you touch a person without permission technically that, too, is a boundaries violation, regardless of how affectionate you intended the gesture to be. Some people don't mind this type of physical boundaries intrusion from a family member but most people feel uncomfortable about it when it comes from anyone else. They may say nothing, but if they do reproach you, know that you are, indeed, at fault. As mother used to say, "Keep your hands to yourself unless invited."

 Hugging someone without permission is a boundaries violation, too - a deliberate invasion of that person's personal space. We do it all the time, don't we? It's widely accepted and encouraged. But be warned: many people don't like it, they may avoid you or reproach you and again: it's not your intent that matters, it's the effect the gesture has on the receiver. It technically is a boundaries violation: we have no right to touch another person without their permission.

 Obviously, hitting or harming a person's body is a serious boundaries violation and constitutes serious physical abuse.

 Becoming aware of people's physical boundaries is an important first step to ending all abusive behavior.

 Emotional Boundaries

 People also have emotional boundaries. This comprises everything about who they are: what they do, what they like, their past, their family and friends, their looks, their personality, where they went to school, the house they live in.

 Making remarks about any of these things - anything that has to do with "who a person is" - is an emotional boundaries violation. Intentions don't matter when it comes to trespassing someone's emotional boundaries; only the effect the words had on the person matter.

 "Refined" people steer clear of any personal remarks. Even compliments are judgments and judgments and diagnoses (about people's mental health, for example) are serious emotional boundaries violations.

 Any remarks that start with "You " are probably trespassing on someone's emotional boundaries. A man in an elevator once said to a stranger, "You should wear short skirts." He may have thought that was nice, he wasn't too "refined". To the woman it felt invasive, personal, like it reduced her personhood to nothing but body parts, it attempted to "define" her by telling her something she "should" be doing with her life and therefore felt controlling. In fact, it was all of these, whether he was consciously aware of it or not. He was, as we say, "out of line."

 Language is powerful, words can be destructive. Refining the language you use, is a very important part of learning to respect other people's boundaries.

 Boundaries and Family Members

 Boundaries tend to be more lax among family members - but, really, should they be? Unless we are asked to comment on something that falls within someone's personal emotional boundaries, we are trespassing on their territory and risk doing emotional damage and causing relationship problems and conflicts when we do. Remember: it doesn't matter what your intention was. If you trespass someone's boundaries they have a right to be upset.

 The home is probably the MOST important place to exercise a healthy respect of boundaries. So much of our happiness depends on the smooth functioning of these relationships.

 Boundaries and Manipulation and Control

 Emotional boundaries violations are verbal and emotional abuse. You can emotionally abuse without OVERTLY trespassing a boundary. In fact, very quiet attempts to manipulate someone are also violations - these are attempts to control someone, someone's emotions or behavior, and therefore constitute "stepping over the line".

 Conclusion

 "Mind your own business."

 "Keep your words to yourself."

 "Stay on your side of the road."

 "Don't say a word until you've walked in his shoes."

 These old sayings are the best things you can do for your relationships.

 And respecting the boundaries of others has the added benefit of making you a much more "refined" person. :-)

******************
You may reprint/reproduce any of these provided you include the entire copy, especially this credit.

Labels: , , , , , ,

shared by Barbara at 12:14 AM 3 comments


Share

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Betrayal Trauma

What is Betrayal Trauma?

What is Betrayal Trauma Theory?

Short Definitions 
The phrase "betrayal trauma" can be used to refer to a kind of trauma (independent of the reaction to the trauma). E.g. This definition is on the web: "Most mental health professionals have expanded the definition of trauma to include betrayal trauma.
Betrayal trauma occurs when the people or institutions we depend on for survival or those we trust violate us in some way. An example of betrayal trauma is childhood physical, emotional, or sexual abuse." LINK

The phrase "Betrayal Trauma theory" is generally used to refer to the prediction/theory about the cause of unawareness and amnesia as in: "Betrayal Trauma Theory: A theory that predicts that the degree to which a negative event represents a betrayal by a trusted needed other will influence the way in which that events is processed and remembered."

History of Terminology
 Jennifer Freyd introduced the terms "betrayal trauma" and "betrayal trauma theory" in 1991 at a presentation at Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute:

Freyd, J.J. Memory repression, dissociative states, and other cognitive control processes involved in adult sequelae of childhood trauma. Invited paper given at the Second Annual Conference on A Psychodynamics - Cognitive Science Interface, Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute, University of California, San Francisco, August 21-22, 1991.

From that talk:
"I propose that the core issue is betrayal -- a betrayal of trust that produces conflict between external reality and a necessary system of social dependence. Of course, a particular event may be simultaneously a betrayal trauma and life threatening. Rape is such an event. Perhaps most childhood traumas are such events."

Betrayal trauma theory was introduced: "The psychic pain involved in detecting betrayal, as in detecting a cheater, is an evolved, adaptive, motivator for changing social alliances. In general it is not to our survival or reproductive advantage to go back for further interaction to those who have betrayed us.

However, if the person who has betrayed us is someone we need to continue interacting with despite the betrayal, then it is not to our advantage to respond to the betrayal in the normal way. Instead we essentially need to ignore the betrayal....

If the betrayed person is a child and the betrayer is a parent, it is especially essential the child does not stop behaving in such a way that will inspire attachment. For the child to withdraw from a caregiver he is dependent on would further threaten his life, both physically and mentally. Thus the trauma of child abuse by the very nature of it requires that information about the abuse be blocked from mental mechanisms that control attachment and attachment behavior. One does not need to posit any particular avoidance of psychic pain per se here -- instead what is of functional significance is the control of social behavior. "


These ideas were further developed in talks presented in the early 1990s and then in an article published in 1994. A more definitive statement was presented in Freyd's 1996 book. [See refs at end of this web page.]

Betrayal Trauma Theory and Research 
Betrayal trauma theory posits that there is a social utility in remaining unaware of abuse when the perpetrator is a caregiver (Freyd, 1994, 1996). The theory draws on studies of social contracts (e.g., Cosmides, 1989) to explain why and how humans are excellent at detecting betrayals; however, Freyd argues that under some circumstances detecting betrayals may be counter-productive to survival. Specifically, in cases where a victim is dependent on a caregiver, survival may require that she/he remain unaware of the betrayal. In the case of childhood sexual abuse, a child who is aware that her/his parent is being abusive may withdraw from the relationship (e.g., emotionally or in terms of proximity). For a child who depends on a caregiver for basic survival, withdrawing may actually be at odds with ultimate survival goals, particularly when the caregiver responds to withdrawal by further reducing caregiving or increasing violence. In such cases, the child's survival would be better ensured by being blind to the betrayal and isolating the knowledge of the event, thus remaining engaged with the caregiver.

The traditional assumption in trauma research has been that fear is at the core of responses to trauma. Freyd (2001) notes that traumatic events differ orthogonally in degree of fear and betrayal, depending on the context and characteristics of the event. (see Figure 1). Research suggests that the distinction between fear and betrayal may be important to posttraumatic outcomes. For example, DePrince (2001) found that self-reported betrayal predicted PTSD and dissociative symptoms above and beyond self-reported fear in a community sample of individuals who reported a history of childhood sexual abuse.

Research on Betrayal, Dissociation, and Cognitive Mechanisms 
Betrayal trauma theory predicts that dissociating information from awareness is mediated by the threat that the information poses to the individual's system of attachment (Freyd, 1994, 1996). Consistent with this, Chu and Dill (1990) reported that childhood abuse by family members (both physical and sexual) was significantly related to increased DES scores in psychiatric inpatients, and abuse by nonfamily members was not. Similarly, Plattner et al (2003) report that they found significant correlations between symptoms of pathological dissociation and intrafamilial (but not extrafamilial) trauma in a sample of delinquent juveniles. DePrince (2005) found that the presence of betrayal trauma before the age of 18 was associated with pathological dissociation and with revictimization after age 18. She also found that individuals who report being revictimized in young adulthood following an interpersonal assault in childhood perform worse on reasoning problems that involve interpersonal relationships and safety information compared to individuals who have not been revictimized.

Basic cognitive processes involved in attention and memory most likely play an important role in dissociating explicit awareness of betrayal traumas. Across several studies, we have found empirical support for the relationship between dissociation and knowledge isolation in laboratory tasks. Using the classic Stroop task, Freyd and colleagues (Freyd, Martorello, Alvarado, Hayes, & Christman, 1998) found that participants who scored high on the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) showed greater Stroop interference than individuals with low DES scores, suggesting that they had more difficulty with the selective attention task than low dissociators. The results from Freyd et al. (1998) suggested a basic relationship between selective attention and dissociative tendencies. In a follow-up study, we tested high and low DES groups using a Stroop paradigm with both selective and divided attention conditions; participants saw stimuli that included color terms (e.g., "red" in red ink), baseline strings of x's, neutral words, and trauma-related words such as "incest" and "rape." A significant DES by attention task interaction revealed that high DES participants' reaction time was worse (slower) in the selective attention task than the divided attention task when compared to low dissociators' performance (replication and extension of Freyd et al., 1998). A significant interaction of dissociation by word category revealed that high DES participants recalled more neutral and fewer trauma-related words than did low DES participants. Consistent with betrayal trauma theory, the free recall finding supported the argument that dissociation may help to keep threatening information from awareness.

In two follow-up studies using a directed forgetting paradigm (a laboratory task in which participants are presented with items and told after each item or a list of items whether to remember or forget the material), we found that high DES participants recalled fewer charged and more neutral words than did low DES participants for items they were instructed to remember when divided attention was required (item method: DePrince & Freyd, 2001, list method: DePrince & Freyd, 2004). The high dissociators report significantly more trauma history (Freyd & DePrince, 2001) and significantly more betrayal trauma (DePrince & Freyd, 2004). Similar findings have been found with children using pictures instead of words as stimuli. Children who had trauma histories and who were highly dissociative recognized fewer charged pictures relative to non-traumatized children under divided attention conditions; no group differences were found under selective attention conditions (Becker-Blease, Freyd, & Pears, 2004).

Research on Betrayal, Forgetting, and Recovered Memories 
Betrayal trauma theory predicts that unawareness and forgetting of abuse will be higher when the relationship between perpetrator and victim involves closeness, trust, and/or caregiving. It is in these cases that the potential for a conflict between need to stay in the relationship and awareness of betrayal is greatest, and thus where we should see the greatest amount of forgetting or memory impairment. Freyd (1996) reported finding from re-analyses of a number of relevant data sets that incestuous abuse was more likely to be forgotten than non-incestuous abuse. These data sets included the prospective sample assessed by Williams (1994, 1995), and retrospective samples assessed by Cameron (1993) and Feldman-Summers and Pope (1994). Using new data collected from a sample of undergraduate students, Freyd, DePrince and Zurbriggen (2001) found that physical and sexual abuse perpetrated by a caregiver was related to higher levels of self-reported memory impairment for the events compared to non-caregiver abuse. Research by Schultz, Passmore, and Yoder (2003) and a doctoral dissertation by Stoler (2001) has revealed similar results. For instance the abstract to Schultz et al (2003) indicate: "Participants reporting memory disturbances also reported significantly higher numbers of perpetrators, chemical abuse in their families, and closer relationships with the perpetrator(s) than participants reporting no memory disturbances." Sheiman (1999) reported that, in a sample of 174 students, those participants who reported memory loss for child sexual abuse were more likely to experience abuse by people who were well-known to them, compared to those who did not have memory loss. Similarly Stoler (2001) notes in her dissertation abstract: "Quantitative comparisons revealed that women with delayed memories were younger at the time of their abuse and more closely related to their abusers." Interestingly, Edwards et al (2001) reported that general autobiographical memory loss measured in a large epidemiologic study was strongly associated with a history of childhood abuse, and that one of the specific factors associated with this increased memory loss was sexual abuse by a relative.

Some researchers have presumably failed to find a statistically significant relationship between betrayal trauma and memory impairment. It is hard to know how many times a possible relationship was examined and yet not found at the statistically significant level because of the bias to publish only significant results. When a relationship is not found, the question then is whether it does not exist or simply cannot be detected due to measurement or power limitations. For instance, Goodman et al (2003) reported that that "relationship betrayal" was not a statistically significant predictor for forgetting in their unusual sample of adults who had been involved in child abuse prosecution cases during childhood. It is not clear whether the relationship truly does not exist in this sample (which is possible given how unusual a sample it is) or whether there was simply insufficient statistical power to detect the relationship (see commentaries by Freyd, 2003 and Zurbriggen & Becker-Blease, 2003). Future research will be needed to clarify these issues. At this point we know that betrayal effects on memorability of abuse have been found in at least seven data sets (see paragraph above).

Research on Betrayal, Distress, and Health
 In the section above research relating betrayal to forgetting was reviewed. What about the relationship between betrayal and distress? DePrince (2001) discovered that trauma survivors reporting traumatic events high in betrayal were particularly distressed. Freyd, Klest, & Allard (in press) found that a history of betrayal trauma was strongly associated with physical and mental health symptoms in a sample of ill individuals. Goldsmith, DePrince, & Freyd (2004) reported similar results in a sample of college students.

Atlas and Ingram (1998) "Investigated the association of histories of physical and sexual abuse with symptoms of posttraumatic stress. 34 hospitalized adolescents (aged 14-17.10 yrs) with histories of abuse were given the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children. Sexual distress was associated with histories of abuse by familymembers as compared to nonabuse or abuse by other, while posttraumatic stress was not." Turell and Armsworth (2003) compared sexual abuse survivors who self-mutilate from those who do not. They report that self-mutilators were more likely to have been abused in their family of origin.

In addition, as mentioned above, Chu and Dill (1990) reported that childhood abuse by family members (both physical and sexual) was significantly related to increased DES scores in psychiatric inpatients, and abuse by nonfamily members was not. Plattner et al (2003) report that they found significant correlations between symptoms of pathological dissociation and intrafamilial (but not extrafamilial) trauma in a sample of delinquent juveniles.

In contrast to these other findings, Lucenko, Gold, & Cott (2000) report: "subjects whose perpetrators were not caretakers experienced higher levels of posttraumatic symptomatology (PTS) in adulthood than those abused by caretakers." Future research is necessary to determine why this one study resulted in such a different pattern than the others reviewed in this section.

Implications of the Research 
Taken together, these investigations support the underlying betrayal trauma model. Specifically, betrayal appears to be related to avoidance and dissociative responses that help the individual to keep threatening information from awareness under conditions where the individual's survival depends upon the perpetrator. Furthermore betrayal trauma appears to be associated with numerous other physical and mental health symptoms.

Some Questions
Is it necessary for the victim to be conscious of the betrayal in order to call it "betrayal trauma"?

The short answer is "no." The following text is from DePrince and Freyd (2002a), page 74-75:
"The role of betrayal in betrayal trauma theory was initially considered an implicit but central aspect of some situations. If a child is being mistreated by a caregiver he or she is dependent upon, this is by definition betrayal, whether the child recognizes the betrayal explicitly or not. Indeed, the memory impairment and gaps in awareness that betrayal trauma theory predicted were assumed to serve in part to ward off conscious awareness of mistreatment in order to promote the dependent child's survival goals......While conscious appraisals of betrayal may be inhibited at the time of trauma and for as long as
the trauma victim is dependent upon the perpetrator, eventually the trauma survivor may become conscious of strong feelings of betrayal."

An important issue for future research is investigating the role the emotional perception of betrayal has in distress and recovery.

Is gender a factor?
It appears that men experience more non-betrayal traumas than do women, while women experience more betrayal traumas than do men. These effects may be substantial (Goldberg & Freyd, 2004) and of significant impact on the lives of men and women (DePrince & Freyd, 2002b). To the extent that betrayal traumas are potent for some sorts of psychological impact and non-betrayals potent for other impacts (e.g. Freyd, 1999), these gender difference would imply some very non-subtle socialization factors operating as a function of gender.

What is betrayal blindness?
Betrayal blindness is the unawareness, not-knowing, and forgetting exhibited by people towards betrayal (Freyd, 1996, 1999). This blindness may extend to betrayals that are not traditionally considered "traumas," such as adultery, inequities in the workplace and society, etc. Both victims, perpetrators, and witnesses may display betrayal blindness in order to preserve relationships, institutions, and social systems upon which they depend. (Also, see Helen Garrod's discussion of "Political Betrayal Trauma" and Eileen Zurbriggen's essay on Betrayal Trauma in the 2004 Election.)

Are demands for silence a factor in not-knowing about betrayal?
In addition to implicit motivations for not-knowing that the betrayed person may have in order to maintain a relationship, the victim may have other reasons for not-knowing and silence. At least one such reason is demands for silence from the perpetrator and others (family, society). Demands for silence (see Veldhuis & Freyd, 1999 cited at What is DARVO?) may lead to a complete failure to even discuss an experience. Experiences that have never been shared with anyone else may a different internal structure than shared experiences (see What is Shareability?).

There are also very useful resources and links provided at the sites of Stop It Now, the Sidran Institute and The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence.

References
(see the original article by clicking on the title above for the references.)

Labels: , , , , , ,

shared by Barbara at 12:33 AM 6 comments


Share

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Different Types of Abuse



The different types of abuse are:

Physical Abuse
Sexual Abuse
Emotional Abuse
Financial Abuse
Social Abuse
Environmental Abuse
Ritual Abuse

If you recognise these behaviours as part of your life, please get some help and leave before it's too late. If you recognise them in someone you know, talk to them and help....many women (victims) out there are silently crying for help!
Please note: that in most cases I have referred to the victim as a woman and the abuser as a man for easier explanation.


PHYSICAL ABUSE
- any unwanted physical attention
- kicking, punching, pushing, pulling, slapping, hitting, shaking
- cutting, burning
- pulling hair
- squeezing hand, twisting arm
- choking, smothering
- throwing victim, or throwing things at victim
- restraining, tying victim up
- forced feeding
- hitting victim with objects
- knifing, shooting
- threatening to kill or injure victim
- ignoring victim's illness or injury
- denying victim needs (eg. food, drink, bathroom, medication etc.)
- hiding necessary needs
- pressuring or tricking victim into something unwanted
- standing too close or using intimidation
- making or carrying out threats to hurt victim
- making her (victim) afraid by angry looks, gestures or actions
- smashing things
- abusing pets
- display of weapons as a means of intimidation


SEXUAL ABUSE
(coercing or "talking her into it" or pretending to love her to get sex from her is a form of psychological sexual force!)
- any unwanted sexual contact
- forcing her to have sex, harrassing her for sex, coercing her for sex
- forcing her to have sex with animals
- uttering threats to obtain sex
- pinching, slapping, grabbing, poking her breasts or genitals
- forcing sex when sick, after childbirth or operation
- forcing her to have sex with other men or women (cuckolding/swinging)
- forcing her to watch or participate in group sex
- knowingly transmitting sexual disease
- treating her as a sex object via coercion, manipulation or force (including cybersex, phone sex, sex with prostitute)
- being "rough"
- pressuring or needling her to pose for pornographic photos/videos
- displaying pornography or sending her pornography that makes her uncomfortable
- using sex as a basis for an argument
- using sex as a solution to an argument
- criticising her sexual ability
- unwanted fondling in public
- accusation of affairs
- threatening to have sex with someone else if she doesn't give sex
- degrading her body parts
- sexual jokes
- demanding sex for payment or trade
- insisting on checking her body for sexual contact

EMOTIONAL ABUSE
Also called "Psychological or Verbal Abuse"
- false accusations
- name calling and finding fault
- verbal threats
- playing "mind games"
- making victim think she/he is stupid, or crazy
- humiliating victim
- overpowering victim's emotions
- love bombing
- disbelieving victim
- bringing up past issues
- inappropriate expression of jealousy
- degrading victim
- putting victim down, not defending her
- blame the victim for things
- turning the situation against the victim
- laughing in victim's face
- silence, ignoring victim
- refusing to do things with or for victim
- always getting own way
- neglecting victim
- pressuring victim
- expecting victim to conform to a role
- comparing victim to others (including past lovers)
- suggested involvement with other women or men
- making victim feel guilty
- using certain mannerisms or behaviour as a means of control (eg. snapping fingers, pointing)
- threatening to get drunk or stoned unless....
- manipulation
- starting arguments
- withholding affection
- holding grudges and not really forgiving
- lying
- threatening to leave or commit suicide
- treating victim as a child
- having double standards for victim
- saying one thing and meaning another
- denying or taking away victim's responsibilities
- not keeping commitments
- insisting on accompanying victim to the doctor's office
- deliberately creating a mess for victim to clean
- preventing victim from getting or taking a job
- threatening her with anything (words, objects)
- refusing to deal with issues
- minimising or disregarding victim's work or accomplishments
- demanding an account of victim's time/routine
- taking advantage of victim's fear of something
- making her do illegal things

DURING PREGNANCY AND CHILBIRTH
- forcing her to have an abortion
- denying that the child is his
- insulting her body
- refusing to support her during and after pregnancy
- refusing sex because her pregnant body is ugly
- demanding or pressuring her for sex after childbirth
- blaming her that the baby is the "wrong sex"
- refusing to allow her to breastfeed


FINANCIAL ABUSE
- taking victim's money
- withholding money
- not allowing victim money
- giving victim an allowance
- keeping family finances a secret
- spending money foolishly
- pressuring victim to take full responsibility for finances
- not paying fair share of bills
- not spending money of special occasions when able (birthdays etc)
- spending on addictions: gambling, sex, alcohol, overeating, overspending
- not letting victim have access to family income


SOCIAL ABUSE
- controlling what victim does, who victim sees, talks to, what victim reads and where victim goes
- put downs or ignores victim in public
- not allowing victim to see or access to family and friends
- change of personality when around others (abuser)
- being rude to victim's friends or family
- dictating victim's dress and behaviour
- choosing victim's friends
- choosing friends, activities or work rather being with victim
- making a "scene" in public
- making victim account for themselves
- censoring victim's mail
- treating victim like a servant
- not giving victim space or privacy

USING CHILDREN
- assaulting victim in front of the children
- making victim stay at home with the children
- teaching children to abuse victim through name calling, hitting etc
- embarrassing victim in front of the children
- not sharing responsibility for children
- threatening to abduct children, or telling victim they will never get custody
- puttin down victim's parenting ability

DURING SEPARATION/DIVORCE
- buying off children with expensive gifts
- not showing up on time for visitation or returning them on time
- pumping children for information on victim's partners etc
- telling children that victim is responsible for breaking up the family
- using children to transport messages
- denying victim access to the children

USING RELIGION
- using scripture to justify or dominance
- using church position to pressure for sex or favours
- using victim, then demanding forgiveness
- interpresting religion or scripture your way
- preventing victim from attending church
- mocking victim's belief's
- requiring sex acts or drugs for religious acts


ENVIRONMENTAL ABUSE
ABUSE IN THE HOME
- locking victim in or out
- throwing out or destroying victim's possessions
- harming pets
- slamming doors
- throwing objects
- taking phones and denying victim access to the phone
- taking computers and denying victim access to a computer




ABUSE IN THE VEHICLE
- deliberately driving too fast or recklessly to scare victim
- driving while intoxicated
- forcing victim out of the vehicle (when angry)
- pushing victim out of the vehicle when it is inmotion
- threatening to kill victim by driving toward an oncoming car
- chasing or hitting victim with a vehicle
- killing victim in a deliberate accident
- denying her use of the vehicle by tampering with engine, chaining steering wheel or taking the keys

RITUAL ABUSE
- mutilation
- animal mutilation
- forced cannibalism
- human sacrifices
- suggesting or promoting suicide
- forcing victim to participate in rituals or to witness rituals

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although some of these behaviours don't appear to be abusive they are still considered abusive behaviours. Others are in fact illegal.

If you think you are being abused, you more than likely are - if you recognise these behaviours, then YOU ARE being abused.

Remember PLEASE, if you recognise these behaviours as part of your life, please get some help and leave before it's too late. If you recognise them in someone you know, talk to them and help.

No one deserves to be treated like this!

Labels: , , , , , ,

shared by Barbara at 12:50 AM 5 comments


Share