I wish I knew what was so hard for those people to understand though. Most victims of abuse, were abused as a child. That is where they learn that if someone loves you, it hurts. Have you ever heard an adult actually brag about how much their father or m other beat them? I once heard a woman brag that her mother would beat her with a piece of wood. She really believed that meant her mother loved her! What kind of relationships do you think this woman had?

This cycle takes therapy to break. And as for Brown, he's 19 and grew up in an abusive home. He has talked about this previously. His mother's bf beat her. This is where he learned how to solve relationship disputes. He's so young, he can be helped. But people saying "can't we give him a break" and defending his actions, that's not helping him. He's going to do it again.

Most of us have been a relationship of some type of abuse in which only we can break off completely. First of all we cannot weigh too much judgement on Rihanna just because according to DV advocates or others she should set an example. Although she is a public figure she has the right to make private choices. And yes he needs help but we also disregard that she needs it, in another sense, help as well.

I second that request. So far I only have fellow abuser Terrance Howard, Mekhi Phifer, and Kanye.

oh gawd, please!. so how does your little theory on hetero relationships explain abused men and women in gay relationships and abused men in hetero relationships? some of the narrow minded views here never ceases to amaze

Haven't you ever been sincerely repentant for something, been "really sorry," and determined never to do it again, and done it again? It's her choice to make, and when he does it again it'll be his fault again, but it's pretty risky to gamble your physical safety on the idea that someone has "changed." The fact that it's not your fault doesn't mean it's not your body in danger.

1. The first situation you described is a classic example of how patriarchy hurts men too; it idealizes the docile, subserviant woman and the big, manly man - which is bad for everyone. While I certainly agree with the idea that male victims of partner abuse should be free to come forward without judgement, I highly doubt that this organization and its members would be willing to let go of a little bit of that priviledge and fight against the patriarchal model that makes abuse so prevalent.

2. I'm probably not the best person to respond to this one.

My mom was involved, and stayed way too long, in two abusive marriages during my childhood, so I am biased in favor of leaving an abusive spouse immediately. In fact, because of my personal experiences, I have a very hard time not judging an abused parter for not leaving - especially when children are involved.

My husband has been nothing but a loving and supportive husband and father during our 11 years together, but if he ever raised his hands to me or the kids, we'd be gone. No matter the circumstances, we'd be gone. I just can't understand how anyone - my own mother included - could do anything different.

I think that the key term in point #2 is "one violent episode." There IS a difference between coercive control and situational couple violence. Most SCV doesn't result in the assaults with the elements this one had, but without any information about the CONTROL he may have been exerting over her, some DV experts are actually reluctant to call this an abusive relationship.

Violence in relationships is never acceptable, but we must look at the dynamics of the relationship to recognize the context and the intent of the violence. This is the difference between SCV and coercive control. This is also what RADAR doesn't get. Yes, women use violence in relationships. But if I'm pissed at my boyfriend during a mutual argument and I throw a show at him, that's different than if I've been isolating him from his friends, playing mindgames, and manipulating him into changing his behavior for six months before I throw that shoe. The coercive control is FAR more often exerted by men than women. This isn't to say men aren't victims, and they should certainly be able to access services and community support, but the men's rights groups who claim that the stats are equal aren't analyzing them properly.

Offenders vary in their response to treatment. There are men who hit women once and never do it again. These are usually the guys involved in SCV. The men who are controlling abusers may be successful in ending their violence, but they usually can't do it with the partner they abused.

I have no idea whether or not that could be true (it certainly sounds like a possibility, but I have no inside knowledge of the music industry), but for the sake of the discussion, let's say it is. Isn't it horrible, then, that preserving the "boy next door" image of an abusive man trumps preserving the safety of the woman he abuses? And what about all of the negative press Rihanna's getting?! She certainly hasn't always been portrayed as the victim--there's been a disturbingly strong current that suggests she somehow deserved being beaten. I understand how profits act as a motivator, but you'd think --well, you'd hope, at least, that the safety (and, let's go a step further and say the very life, as who knows where abuse will stop once it's begun) of an artist would come before their sales.

Me too. I was hoping that it would bring light to this dark situation. That people could see that it can happen to anyone and that it is horrible. But it seems to be no stigma and no shame on his part or the media. And I was hoping it could be brought out into the open to help those who don't or have lost their voice. I was in an abusive relationship for almsot six years. I only went to the police once with bruises and he never got arrested. And it was only a misdemeanor, because he didn't use a weaopon (ie gun or knife). DV cases rarley go further than a night in jail and a fine (if that). I wanted people to see this situation and wake up to it. That it happens everyday to your friends, your family. It is not so easy to leave. I consider myself a strong feminist and I still stayed. SO I am really glad you brought up what you had hoped to see, because I was in the same boat, but that doesn't sell magazines...

True...only those who have lived it can truly understand.....so hard to explain. Thanks for saying that!

Ugh - I can totally see this happening as well.

That's so horrifying it's probably what'll happen. Maybe with some nice helpful commentary on how she changed as well.

I'm not terribly happy with this comment's trying to reason out why Rihanna would return, crossing out her motivations without having any real idea of what they could be. This is absolute over-simplification and upsettingly so, but it is consistent with how many people view this aspect of DV. So I think it is definitely worthy of discussion.

The psychological and emotional reasons for staying are often the most difficult for people to understand when they themselves have not been in a similar situation. Frankly, you may not know yourself why you are returning and why you don't leave. Cognitively you know it makes no sense, but those feelings of love and hope for how the relationship could be don't disappear the second he lays a hand on you. You have to understand that there have been months of little things you learn to justify before this, and this just becomes mixed in with all the other justifications.

Ultimately, what needs to happen is DV needs to become something women are not ashamed to talk about. This cannot happen until we stop blaming victims of violence and stop calling them stupid or trying to figure out why on Earth you'd stay in a relationship like that, as if we are not deserving of empathy or the right to have complicated feelings. We need a system of support that understands, that is angry with the abusers rather than those who have been abused. I believe that as a society we do not value women, and until this changes it is going to be incredibly difficult to combat DV.

personally, i would truly like to understand that psychology you're talking about, because i don't. i understand why people stay if there's kids, or if they are financially dependent, or they're scared of more violence. but my mind hasn't yet been able to wrap around why someone who CAN leave freely chooses not to. and i'm trying really hard to suspend my judgment, but i'm not going to lie… it's difficult to do so in this instance, and i know it's because i don't understand enough about this issue from a psychological standpoint.

for instance, if someone is in a car wreck, and they're injured because they don't wear their seatbelt, and then after healing, they then proceed to never wear a seatbelt again… why? are they addicted to thrillseeking? is an addiction to thrillseeking even possible? if so, is it possible to recover from that addiction? in 12-step programs, a major part of recovery becomes willing to accept responsibility for one's behavior… is a domestic violence victim who continually returns to the abuser similarly "addicted"? if so, does the victim have moral/legal/ethical responsibility in these situations? i too would like to hear thoughts.

I agree with you. However, next time you copy someone's work, leave a source.

Doctor Amy Tuteur blogging on Open Salon:

http://open.salon.com/blog/amytuteurmd/2009/03/01/rihanna_asking_to_be_beaten_again

I think the psychological reasons behind staying have everything to do with self-esteem. Women who are abused tend to already suffer from self-esteem issues and abusers manipulate that into dependence. Most abusive relationships progress extremely quickly in the initial stages. Everyone wants to feel loved, we are social creatures. And for someone who already may not feel a lot of love, that immediate possessiveness and jealousy that abusers often demonstrate (before physical abuse) shows them that the person is very passionate about them. I think there are huge problems with the way society relates jealousy and love, but I could write pages on that matter. After the initial stages, the abuser typically finds ways to isolate his partner from friends and families - other sources of love and attention. The abuse victim becomes dependent on the abuser for a feeling of worth. An abuser may berate his victim or physically attack her, but that is often followed by the honeymoon period. He brings her flowers, tells her he's sorry and things are lovey for a while. That little injection of love can mean a lot after your self-esteem has been knocked down. Over time the honeymoon period gets shorter and shorter but often by then the woman has internalized the idea that she has no worth. And I think that's essentially where most abusive relationships end up emotionally... with the abuser holding complete control over his victim's feeling of self worth.

I wish there were some sort of easy solution that simple funding would solve. Unfortunately if self-esteem were an easy fix I think this whole sexism thing would no longer be an issue. I think in our society low self-esteem is almost a default for women because we are taught to derive our sense of value from men. But encouraging programs that allow women to rebuild their sense of self, even if it's through something simple like a hobby, seems like a good start.

"That really only leaves psychological/emotional reasons for staying (let me know if you think I've missed a facet)...It may mean we don't know enough about the psychology of staying in an abusive relationship..."

You raise some really good points. I would like to point out though, that ALL motivations for any behavior are psychological by definition. So staying because you fear being being punished, or because you fear what he will do to your children, or because you fear that you won't be able to support yourself, are all prime examples of psychological reasons, just as much as self-esteem or mentall illness are.

We have a tendency in our culture to equate anything "psychological" with being fucked up. But psychological just refers to what is going on in your head; every thought and decision we have all day is just as "psychological" whether it makes sense to others or not.

So let's not separate "rational" decisions from psychological processes, it sort of implies that if Rihanna makes a decision that you don't understand, that she must be wrong in the head. And that if she makes a "rational" decision, then it's not a product of her mind, it's just common sense. What, because we determine what are acceptable reasons?

I know that you were NOT trying to say that Rihanna is mentally ill or anything. But we need to look further into the psychology behind abusive relationships for ALL motivations not just the ones that "make sense" externally.

Yeah it really is that simple isn't it? Abuse is immoral and illegal, end of story. We have institutions in place to deal with illegal activity, so there is no need to look into the matter further.

Because, clearly anytime that abuse happens, the victim will recognize instantly that they don't deserve what happened, and they will always report it to the police and would certainly never change their minds or protect their abusers. Because everyone knows that abuse is immoral and illegal.

Seriously though- the reason that people focus so much on the victim is that we need to understand WHY victims of dv tend to go back again and again. It's not pathology, there's a pattern to it, it's NORMAL behavior among people who are placed in a particular circumstance.

Which is why we need to ask more questions about what's going on with these people- what are they thinking and feeling, what are they being told by their families and communities, what implicit attitudes is society imprinting in them, that someone abuses them and they think that it's ok, or that they deserved it?

Chris Brown's role in it is not so hotly debated, because what is there to debate? He committed a disgusting crime. And while there are always outliers who say extreme things on any topic, the majority of people seem to agree that he was wrong and needs to be punished.

Ok, the first time I used the term "victims of dv" and then further down, I used "these" people, as in, the same people that I just mentioned. I was not intending to other or offend anyone, I just thought that was standard use of pronouns.

Did you see where I wrote that staying in an abusive relationship is NORMAL behavior for people, once a certain set of circumstances is met? That means that ANY OF US would likely do the same, if we had the same leading-up events.

I am not saying that we need to grill every survivor of DV for hours until we "get" it. What I am saying, is that we should question the cycle of abuse from BOTH sides - what makes abusers abuse, AND what makes victims stay. Why? So that we can CHANGE the social messages we send to our sons and daughters so they know, even in the face of very confusing manipulations, that they do not deserve to be treated that way. I am not talking about just the "fucked up people who stay", I am talking about teaching this to EVERYONE. Because the survivors are not the only ones who are subjected to these social messages, they are just the only ones who were targeted by a particular kind of abuser.

But we got to really think straight here. Too often as feminists we give too much leeway to victims despite seeing hwo they differ from each other, just bcause they are victims. Being a victim of a feminist crime immediately exonerates anynoe of any personal responsibility which is to me FALSE.

How exactly has Rihanna been exonerated of personal responsiblity? Being in the hospital? Having her battered face splashed across the news? Feeling pain?

Taking a stance on violence has absolutely nothing to do with her personal responsiblity or her privilege here. It's taking a moral position that violence of this sort in a civil society should not be tolerated. Plus, as far as I understand Rihanna has broken no laws. So I have a moral position and a legal position backing me up.

The only thing that would change my outlook would be data suggesting that this type of social pressure---such as "loss of respect" and calling victims out for not leaving---would compel victims to leave their abusers. But from what I understand, this type of negative social pressure (at least from the outside vs within the family) has the opposite effect.