May 02, 2008 LOVING OURSELVES LOVING LIFE - IV - ABUSE
Domestic violence in heterosexual relationships is a serious issue, with 20% of women reporting they have been assaulted by their partners, and this is true among married adult women as well as dating college women (IPARV, 2002). However, domestic violence against men is often ignored in clinical discussions because it is assumed that the overwhelming majority of victims are women (Steinmetz & Lucca, 1988). Some have in the past gone so far as to argue that men are more likely to initiate violence, and initiate more severe violence at that, and so warrant little attention as victims (Walker, 1984). While Steinmetz and Lucca (1988) reported that cases of domestic violence harming women outnumber violence harming men by a factor of 12 or 13 to 1, such views ignore gay and lesbian relationships. Gay men are not intimately involved with female lovers, and lesbians are not intimately involved with male lovers. Thus, adhering to this conceptualization means that lesbians can not be battered because there is no male to serve as perpetrator of the violence, and gay men can not batter as there is no female to serve as victim.
This kind of view has, for some, led to excluding gay and lesbian victims from clinical services and research. For example, although the 1995 Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy, a venerable review of a range of couple therapy issues, does include a chapter on domestic violence (Holtzworth-Munroe et al, 1995), there is no mention of domestic violence in gay and lesbian couples. While there is a chapter on couple therapy with gay and lesbian couples (Brown, 1995), there is only passing mention that domestic violence is an issue for same-sex couples too. More recent publications show little improvement. A recent book about domestic violence, Couples in Conflict, (Booth et al, 2001) includes 17 chapters on recognizing and responding to domestic violence, but does not include any chapters on domestic violence in gay and lesbian couples.
This does a great disservice to the gay and lesbian community. Even where gay and lesbian domestic violence is recognized, it may still be misunderstood. One study found counselors in training, when given a vignette about a lesbian couple experiencing domestic violence, were more likely to recommend inappropriate interventions (e.g. couples therapy). However, when given the same vignette with an unmarried straight couple, counselors in training were more likely to recommend appropriate interventions (e.g., police involvement and referral to a shelter for battered women). Further, respondents rated straight violence as more serious and aggressive compared to lesbian violence (Wise and Bowman, 1997). This is not surprising given older studies indicating that that people viewed gay victims of violence more negatively compared to straight victims of violence (Harris and Cook, 1994)
However, others have focused in detail on domestic violence in gay and lesbian couples, citing some higher estimates of gay domestic violence to support a view of gay and lesbian relationships as inherently dysfunctional, and the gay and lesbian community as aware but hiding this from mainstream society. There are two ways to respond to this.
On the one hand, these numbers may not be accurate. For example, some research shows that the lifetime prevalence of physical assault among women living with female partners was 35.4%, compared to 20.4% among women living with male partners. However, looking deeper, women living with female partners were almost three times more likely to report having been victimized by a previous male, rather than a female partner (IPARV, 2002). Thus, some sources carelessly misquote research to support their negative views of gays and lesbians, simply to promote their own agenda.
On the other hand, the reasoning displayed may be flawed. For example, some would argue that women are at risk for violence because they are women in a patriarchal society that devalues women. As a result, one would expect higher levels of domestic violence in heterosexual couples because it is easier to victimize a woman than a man (Burke and Follingstad, 1999).
As a result, discussing gay and lesbian domestic violence has the potential to be of aid to the Gay and Lesbian community, but also to be of harm. In order to explore the issue but minimize the potential harm, this paper begins with a discussion of normal gay couple development, and then moves to a discussion of domestic violence, referencing research from straight and lesbian couple violence as well. It should be noted that being lesbian involves being a minority person who seeks socially disfavored intimate relationships with members of the same sex. In as much as gays and lesbians are thus similar, the contents of this article would apply to lesbians. However, being lesbian involves being a woman in a male dominated society, and seeking an intimate relationship with another women. As a result, being lesbian is rather different from being gay, and so the contents of this article would not apply to lesbians, and generalization to lesbian couples should be made with caution.
Similarly, domestic violence is about violence, control, and abuse. In as much as this is true for any violent relationship, the material here could be generalized to any kind of relationship, dating or married, gay or straight. However, gay relationships are not privileged with the same social, religious, legal, and family support as the vast majority of straight relationships. As a result, domestic violence in straight relationships is very different, and generalization to straight couples should be made with caution.
Stages of Gay Relationship Development
Before discussing what is obviously development of dysfunctional relationship processes, a review of healthy gay couples' development would be helpful. While there are many that wish to present gay relationships as inherently dysfunctional (see for example link 1, and link 2), work by respected authors such as Gottman and Julien (Julien et al, 2003) indicate otherwise. Gay and lesbian couples seek the same kind of mutually supportive, romantic, and emotionally intimate bonds as straight couples. They struggle with the same issues of finances, intimacy, and extended family as straight couples. They define relationship satisfaction in largely the same way as well.
One of the earliest and most well known models of gay couple development was that of McWhirter and Mattison (1984, 1987a, 1987b). While perhaps seeming outdated, their model is a very clear one; it was based on interviews with over 150 normal male couples over a five year study, and is still consistent with more modern couples research today.
McWhirter and Mattison conceptualized gay relationships as consisting of six stages. They began their discussion of their model, however, by discussing the climate in which gay relationships develop. They noted that:
"Heterosexual couples do not grapple with issues about roles, finances, ownerships, and social obligations in the same way as gay men do. The heterosexual couple that was concerned about acceptance by their mutual families was exceptional, whereas this was the rule for homosexual couples.... Heterosexual couples lived with some expectation that their relationships were to last "until death do us part," whereas gay couples wondered if their relationships could survive. Heterosexual couples have a wide variety of models for their partnerships... Gay men have only the same heterosexual models, including their own families, which they may try to emulate but find unsuitable.... Non-gay people rarely question the rightness or wrongness of their sexual orientation, but at some point gay persons do." (p. 3)
While they made these comments over 15 years ago, it is worth noting that in many respects, little has changed:
• The debate over gay marriage has stirred many negative comments in the media, with some seeming bent on citing any research they can find (even if outdated and irrelevant) to continue to present gay men as child molesters who would harm children (see for example link). This issue is directly relevant, as marriage is a protective factor against violence. Waite and Gallagher argue that this is in large part due, internally, to the commitment that the married people make to each other, and, externally, to the social support our society provides for marriages. This raises the question of whether gay couples granted the right to marry would experience the same benefits. Interestingly, Gallagher thinks not and is against gay marriage as a result. Waite, on the other hand, is unsure, as it is difficult to predict whether society would really give the same support to gay couples. One could argue convincingly, however, that by denying marriage and the legal, religious, and familial support it should bring to gay couples, society discriminates and harms gay couples by placing them at an increased risk for relationship violence.
• Many polls have been conducted about gay marriage. Some were conducted and reported honestly, some were conducted and slanted in their reporting, and some were simply removed or hidden when the results were not to the polltakers' liking. Perhaps the overall summary comes down to this: Over 50% of Americans are against gay marriage, but over 50% of Americans are against a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage and against impeaching the judge from Massachusetts who ruled that the State must provide for gay marriages. Clearly, equal support for gay and lesbian couples is still a contentious and hotly debated issue in our country.
• Some argue gay marriages would be unstable, and would only lead to the diluting of marriage as a sacred institution (see link). Others point out that in Danish society, only 15% of gay marriages end in divorce, compared to 46% of straight ones. Gottman and colleagues (2003b) based on their 12 year longitudinal study reported that 20% of their gay and lesbian couples ended their relationships, and extrapolated to a 40 year period this would yield a divorce rate of 63.5%, slightly less than the comparable statistic for straight couples of 67%.
• Only 14 states (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. As noted later in this paper, legal discrimination complicates the recognition and treatment of domestic violence, as well as the protection of gay and lesbian victims of domestic violence.
• After September 11th, 2001, Jerry Falwell actually blamed the terrorist bombings on God's displeasure with America over feminists, abortions, and gays and lesbians, with Pat Robertson supporting this opinion (see link).
Thus, the formation of healthy gay relationships is still housed in a society that is, to a large extent, ambivalent at best and aggressive at worst toward gays. Nonetheless, what follows is a short summary of McWhirter and Mattison's (1984) six stages of development in healthy gay relationships.
Blending - Stage 1 - Year 1
This first stage entails the "unification" of the couple into a single unit. Each man is happy to no longer feel isolated and alone, spends most of his free time with his partner, and experiences strong feelings of romantic love and frequent sexual activity during this time. They balance responsibilities, household rules, and their mutual goals, as well as come to know each others' strengths and weaknesses.
This can be a very difficult time for couples, in that two men may both be socialized to be decision makers, bread winners, and "the dominant one" in the relationship. This can cause great difficulty negotiating decisions, coping with a partner who makes more money or has higher status, and learning to admit a need for and to rely on the support of the other.
Of note, Gottman has found that gay/lesbian couples are "more upbeat" when facing problems, are less likely to use negative communication styles (e.g., belligerence and intimidation), and become less physiologically aroused during conflict compared to straight couples. This last point is especially salient, as Gottman argues that becoming overly "worked up" during arguments is especially likely to undermine effective communication.
Nesting - Stage 2 - Years 2 and 3
The second stage is marked by "homemaking," or strengthening the commitment the couple has. They find compatibility though acceptance of each other's personality differences and styles, strengths and weaknesses, and needs and goals. The loss of limerence (or the "end of the honeymoon") is common during this time as well, but is paired with a more realistic view of the relationship and the partner.
The "eye opening experience" this marks is not the experience of only gay couples, however. Benjamin Franklin said, "Keep your eyes wide-open before marriage, half-shut afterwards." This means that you should objectively judge your partner before you decide to marry, but once married remember not to judge them as harshly. Of note, Gottman has found that gay/lesbian couples are more likely to "take it less personally" when their partner points out some characteristic or flaw they find less desirable compared to straight couples. Thus, gay couples may accept some degree of negativity in a relationship, and be more reality based in their view of their partner.
Kurdek (1994) offered that years two and three were often the most stressful on gay relationships, and many reported they felt less family support for their relationship when compared to straight couples. They may be denied the "wisdom" many mothers pass to their daughters and many fathers pass to their sons about successful marriages, as well as support for rituals, building and home and life together, and personal growth through this time.
Maintaining - Stage 3 - Years 4 and 5
The third stage is when the couple balances their own individual identities against the couples' traditions and rituals. This can be a difficult time, as each may return to making friends outside the relationship, may begin new hobbies or interests, and may want to renegotiate previously set relationship rules.
Waite and Gallagher argue that the religious, social, financial, and familial structure around straight marriages is what prevents them from dissolving so easily during a similar stage. During this time, the stress of parenting, the demands of career, and the need for time alone seem very strong, and if unbalanced, these needs can lead the partners to develop a sense of emotional isolation from each other.
Gottman discusses his idea of Positive Sentiment Override (PSO) which basically means that when couples are happy, they tend to ignore the small difficulties and focus instead on the positive experiences and aspects of the relationship, sometimes in a ratio of noting 20 positive experiences for every 1 negative experience. Kurdek (1994) found similar results in that, on the one hand, when gay men were happy in their relationships, they consistently related the benefits of the relationship as high, the costs as low, and the temptation of other possible partners as weak. On the other hand, when gay men were generally unhappy in their lives, they reported lower relationship satisfaction, higher cost, and a stronger temptation to find another partner, and this held even when there was no obvious stress in the relationship.
Building - Stage 4 - Years 6 through 10
The fourth stage is marked by the settling of any left-over issues from Stage Three, and the couple is left with the sense that their connection is "dependable" and that they know each other very well. They have established a new balance of dependence/independence and can now collaborate on goals such as career building, vocational changes, and retirement planning.
Interestingly, Gottman in his research on straight couples (see link) has found that the beginning and ending of this stage is often the time when straight couples divorce. If they do not resolve conflict at the beginning of their own Stage Four (between five to seven years), they are prone to divorce to end their unhappiness, and seek satisfying relationships elsewhere. If they fail to rebuild their connection at the end of their own Stage Four (10 to 12 years), they are prone to end the marriage due to loss of intimacy and connection.
Some have noted that gay relationships are more likely to be non-monogamous, arguing that this marks gay marriages as being nothing like straight marriages that show "real commitment." Put another way, some argue that non-monogamous gay relationships lack a fundamental attribute required of a "real commitment." There are two ways to respond to this.
One response would be to correct this erroneous notion. Gottman notes that 20-25% of straight men in research studies will admit to having had an affair (although we can not know how many men have had an affair but would not admit to it). While women were half as likely as men to have affairs in the 1970s, in the last 30 years they have "caught up" to men in terms of infidelity. It is possible that married men who have affairs only marry women who do too, and thus the overall rate of affairs in marriages is still only 20-25%. However, if even half of the men having affairs are not married to women having affairs, we are still talking about affairs in one third (30-37%) of straight couples. Pittman and Pittman-Wagers (1995) quote even higher estimates of affairs indicating that 50% of husbands and 30-40% of wives have affairs, and that 90% of first marriage divorces involve one or both partners having an affair. Thus, to discuss gay and straight couples, but focus exclusively on non-monogamy in gay couples, is blatantly misleading.
A second response would be to return to what matters with regard to relationship satisfaction. Kurdek (1994) found that relationship satisfaction was more related to social support and similarity between partners with regard to emotional investment and expressiveness. This held true for gay, straight, and lesbian couples. Monogamy, however, was not related to relationship satisfaction for gay men. Thus, even if monogamy was a key difference between gay and straight couples, it may not be one that gay couples place great weight on, and so may not matter. Other research has found that in regards to relationship satisfaction, the details of the gay couples' agreement about sex and fidelity may not matter, but the adherence to that agreement does (Bryant and Demien, 1994).
For those reading this with shock now, a similar argument for straight couples might go as follows. In straight couples, household responsibilities are divided rather unequally, with women doing more of the housework (especially if there are children), even when they work outside the home just as much as the men do (REFERENCE). Gay and lesbian couples are more egalitarian about these duties (Julien et al, 2003). One could ask how a straight couple, working to build a home and life together, could be based on a relationship where one person habitually did more of the work. One could then argue that most straight couples thus lacked a fundamental element required for a "real commitment."
However, the same counter-arguments would apply. While very large disparities between the work men and women do to support the home (especially if there are children) are related to relationship dissatisfaction, small differences are not. Thus, even if work to support the home was a key difference between gay and straight relationships, women's 10 additional hours a week of housework in a home with children may not be one that straight couples place great weight on, and so may not matter.
Releasing - Stage 5 - Years 10 through 20
In the fifth stage, the couple comes to trust each other completely, with no need "to change him." The relationship is more likely marked by close friendship and companionship, and greater relationship satisfaction (Kurdek, 1989). Money and resources are no longer shared, so much as simply owned by both.
McWhirter and Mattison note the risk in this stage is that the men may start to find their life with the other to be boring, may sleep apart, may take each other for granted and share little about themselves, or may experience a "mid-life crisis" and grow more distant. This is consistent with Gottman's concerns about straight couples moving through their own version of this stage as well, and losing intimacy and closeness.
Renewing - Stage 6
Stage six might be considered the "retirement" stage of the relationship, when the couple has financial security, more time for each other, and more time for their own thoughts and activities. While health issues may become more salient, also salient during this time are issues associated with the meaning of life, and a sense of productivity or stagnation across one's life, similar to Erikson's "Integrity versus Despair" stage of psychosocial development.
Grossman and colleagues (2003) report on their interviews with gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians over 60, and found a correlation between low self-esteem and experiences of victimization. In fact, 63% reported experiencing verbal abuse, 16% reported physical assault, 11% reported having objects thrown at them, and 12% reported being threatened with a gun or shot at. Further, 20% reported experiencing employment discrimination, 7% reported experiencing housing discrimination, and 29% reported being threatened with "outing," or the disclosure of their sexual orientation without their permission. They found that 93% reported having lost at least one close friends to AIDS, and 47% reported having lost three or more friends to AIDS.
Despite this, 84% rated their mental health as "good to excellent," 44% were "partnered," and the average participant reported having 6.3 close friends. In describing these people, Grossman and colleagues explain the average man they interviewed would have been 44 when homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder, and removed from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. He would have been 52 when the first case of AIDS was reported, and would have been 69 when Ellen Degeneres "came out" on national television. This timeline nicely puts into perspective the very different concerns of today's "gay and gray" population compared to older gays and lesbians 30 years from now.
Of course, one of the major changes since this model was published is that more gay couples are having and/or raising children. Child development, adolescent development, and the separation of adult children from the family of origin to couples and form their own nuclear families is not worked into this model.
Also not included in this model is the role of commitment ceremonies and civil unions. The June 2004 issue of Journal of Family Psychology began with three articles on Gay Couples who have had Civil Unions.
Solomon, Rothblum, and Balsam compared about 300 lesbian and gay couples who had civil unions in Vermont to about 200 lesbian and gay couples who had not, and about 400 heterosexual married couples. The interesting thing about this study was that the sample of lesbian and gay couples who had not had Civil Unions were obtained by asking friends of the couples who had to participate, and the sample of married heterosexual couples were obtained by asking siblings of the lesbian and gay couples who had Civil Unions to participate. Thus, they were able to obtain three samples of people who were similar in age, ethnicity, education... making comparisons easier.
The results were hardly shocking but were interesting:
• lesbians and gays were no different from married heterosexuals in terms of religion during childhood, but 35-40% of lesbians and gays no longer identified as being part of a religious group as adults compared to 16% of married heterosexuals
• heterosexual women reported performing more housework and almost all childcare compared to their male partners, while lesbians and gays reported more equal division of labor in the home, with heterosexual women spending twice as much time per week doing housework
• lesbians and gay men reported receiving more support from friends than families; however, among lesbians and gays, those who had Civil Unions felt more support from their families than those who had not
• while heterosexual women were more likely to initiate contact with their in-laws than lesbians, gay men in civil unions and married heterosexual men were equally likely to initiate contact with their in-laws, and more likely to do so than gay men without Civil Unions
• lesbians who had Civil Unions were more "out" than those who had not
• heterosexuals were more likely to have been in their relationship longer, with gay men who had not had Civil Unions being more likely to have discussed ending their relationship
• while lesbians and heterosexuals were more likely to be living across urban and suburban areas, gay men were three times more likely to live in cities than their brothers
Patterson, commenting on Solomon et al.'s findings, notes that in many cases, gays and lesbians were more similar to each other than to married heterosexuals, indicating sexual orientation likely has more of an impact on the experiences of gays and lesbians than does Civil Union status. Green, commenting on Solomon et al.'s findings, follows up with this idea, arguing that lesbian and gay couples have three significant hurdles to overcome, and that seeking Civil Unions might be one way couples would indicate progress at overcoming these hurdles.
Hurdle One: Homophobia
Green discusses briefly the kinds of homophobia gay and lesbian couples face, consistent with Patterson's note of employment and religious discrimination for gays and lesbians.
Hurdle Two: Lack of Templates for Couplehood
Green discusses the lack of clear guidelines for coupling, commitment, and living together. He notes that a kind of relational ambiguity results. Heterosexuals clearly know the difference between dating, living together, being engaged, being married, and having a wedding, as each is marked by some clear demarcation or ritual, but lesbians and gays do not have such clarity as their relationships are not recognized by churches and States by and large. They don't receive the same level of support from the State or Federal government either.
Hurdle Three: Family Support
Green discusses the difficulties heterosexual families hve understanding the prejudice against gays and lesbians, and helping their gay and lesbian children and siblings cope with these experiences. Barring a clear relationship status, some families don't know how to respond to a gay or lesbian family member's partner, or how to support their family member's relationship. Such ambiguity for family leaves many gays and lesbians to create a "Family of Choice" composed of gay and lesbian friends instead for support.
All three articles propose many research ideas for learning about gay and lesbian couples over the next few years as the legal landscape changes, and Civil Unions become more common and accessible.
Introduction to Domestic Violence
Domestic violence is a serious issue in society, but perhaps more so for mental health workers. Williamson (2000) reports that two-thirds of couples seeking couple therapy did not report domestic violence until asked, and that 40% to 75% of the children of abusers, in addition to witnessing parental abuse, suffer child abuse themselves.
Not all domestic violence is the same. Differences in frequency, severity, purpose, and outcome are all significant. Johnson and Ferraro (2000) argue there are five types of domestically violent relationships:
• Common Couple Violence - within the context of a single issue, there is one or at most two incidents of violence, and it is not used as part of a pattern of behavior to control the partner. This is similar to what Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) proposed as a "family-only" batterer, or someone who is not violent outside the home, and is the least likely to be sexually and emotionally abusive. Johnson and Ferraro report this kind of batterer is about evenly split between males and females, with 56% being male and 44% being female.
• Intimate Terrorism - as one tactic in a general pattern of control and manipulation, violence may be used. Worth noting here is that the violence still may have occurred only once or twice, and may be relatively "low severity." Nonetheless, it still involves emotional abuse and men who show this pattern of abuse are more likely to kill their partners. This is similar to what Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) proposed as a "generally-violent-antisocial" batterer, and what Jacobson and Gottman (1998) called the "cobra" type of batterer. This kind is more likely to use violence as a way to control; while they may appear extremely distressed during violent episodes, their physiology reveals no arousal. The appearance of almost uncontrollable rage is an act, one tool of many to intimidate and control others. Such batterers are more likely to engage in carefully planned and more violent revenge if the relationship ends, and are thus much more dangerous to their victims.
• Violent Resistance - where one partner becomes controlling or frightening, the other partner may respond with violence in self-defense. Johnson and Ferraro do not call this pattern of violence self-defense, however, noting that, in general, courts view this term to mean whatever is defined by State law. This kind of violence occurs in response to a perceived threat, may be a one-time event, and is not part of a pattern of control and manipulation.
• Mutual Violent Control - this kind of violence may be what is thought of as mutual combat. It can be two parties using violence to control each other in a specific setting, or be more like two people attempting a kind of intimate terrorism with each other. Johnson and Ferraro note that even in these cases, however, some gender differences remain. They explain that in 31% of these couples, the male initiated more violence, as opposed to 8% in which the female initiated more violence. They also note numerous studies showing even where violence was initiated "50-50" by males and females, women are more likely to suffer more serious harm.
• Dysphoric-Borderline Violence - this kind of batterer was proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994), and entails a needy, dependent, and emotionally overwhelmed person who resorts to violence in frustration. Jacobson and Gottman (1998) called this the "pitbull" type of batterer, and were able to show extreme emotional and physical arousal and distress, as compared to the "cobra" type. Renzetti (1992) also classified 68% of the abuse in her samples as due to dependency needs, and so would seem to have supported this kind of violence as well. This kind of abuser is more likely to show obvious emotional adjustment problems and distress, such as depression, fears of abandonment, and great emotional dependence on the victim.
Introduction to Gay Male Domestic Violence
Some people view the violence that happens in some gay and lesbian relationships as "less serious" than the violence in straight relationships (Wise and Bowman, 1997) or feel less empathy for gay victims (Harris and Cook, 1994; Howard, 1984a, 1984b; Ford et al, 1998; Davies et al, 2001). However, the violence that abusive gay men inflict on domestic partners is no less serious than the violence inflicted by abusive heterosexual men on their domestic partners. One study found 79% of gay victims had suffered some physical injury, with 60% reporting bruises, 23% reporting head injuries and concussions, 13% reporting forced sex with the intention to infect the victim with HIV, 12% reporting broken bones, and 10% reporting burns (Merrill and Wolfe, 2000). Thus, the issue deserves the same attention in gay relationships as it does in straight relationships.
While the gay and lesbian community is far more willing to discuss domestic violence today, this was not always so. Many in the 1980's and 1990's feared open discussion of this kind of issue would make gays and lesbians "look bad" in an already homophobic society, and take the focus off of fighting heterosexism. While that argument may seem outdated, reasons to continue with this concern are still present today (see Citizens for Parents' Rights). Other noted that dealing with the AIDS crises in the 1980's took tremendous energy for the gay community, and exposed gays to significant hatred, fear, and negative attention. As a result, there was little energy and attention left over for concerns about domestic violence (Elliot, 1996).
That being said, several points must be noted in attempting to understand the data on gay and lesbian domestic violence. For example, only since 1987 have statistics regarding gay and lesbian domestic violence been collected. Estimates have varied considerably since then, with numbers ranging from 11% (Bryant and Demien, 1994), to 17% (Gay and Lesbian Community Action Council, 1987), to 25-26% (Brand and Kidd, 1986; Lie et al, 1991), to 38% (Gardner, 1989), to as high as 46% (Coleman, 1990).
While 15 years of statistics might seem to be a sufficiently large body of numbers to draw solid conclusions, this is not the case. There are several concerns that must be taken into consideration.
• For example, one has to be concerned with how well these statistics have been collected. A recent (2004) news story told of a government agency that, under the director's decision, simply stopped collecting statistics on gays and lesbians experiencing discrimination in the workplace (see story but this was corrected). Some states do not participate in the FBI collection of hate crime statistics as well. Thus, some of the data available may not have been consistently, diligently, or thoroughly collected.
• Another concern is that the violence may have been denied by victims, or incorrectly recorded as "mutual combat." The logic behind this is simple: If a community refuses to acknowledge gay relationships, it can not acknowledge the violence in the relationship. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reported in 1997 that seven states did not consider gay and lesbian relationships to be "domestic." Thus, they did not included gay and lesbian relationship violence as a kind of "domestic" violence (IPARV, 2002). Murphy (1995) found that six jurisdictions in the US had laws protecting victims who lived with their abuser, but specifically excluded gays and lesbians from protection under these laws. Jablow (2000) notes that only one US State, Vermont, clearly classifies same-sex relationship violence as domestic violence in their State laws.
• Another concern relates to the source of the sample. Some studies fail to exclude the second partner from the relationship. These studies sample gay men from a community and ask only about a "history of domestic violence," and thus for some relationships may count both the abuser and the victim, effectively inflating the resulting estimates. Others have questioned men who used violence, and failed to differentiate between violence that was inflicted as abuse and violence that was inflicted in self-defense, again possibly doubling estimates by counting both abusers and victims. Other studies have sampled men from very small communities or from agencies providing mental health services, and introduced other confounds with regard to the representativeness of the sample (Burke and Follingstad, 1999).
• Other studies have sampled very narrow populations, such as only gay men from clubs and bars. Such men are more likely to be extroverted, to live in urban areas, to use alcohol, and to be single or in short-term relationships. Relationship status may be an important confound. For example, Brand and Kidd (1986) found 72% of the violence reported was perpetrated by men, and 28% perpetrated by women. These differing rates were seen only in short-term relationships, however. When violence only from committed relationships was examined, only 27% of straight couples and 25% of lesbian couples had experienced violence. Thus, estimates based on a sample of mostly younger and single gay men may be inflated when compared to estimates based on committed couples (Burke and Follingstad, 1999).
• Differing definitions of domestic violence or abuse lead to different rates. Potoczniak and colleagues (2003) offer that domestic violence is basically "a pattern of violent or coercive behavior [used by one person] to control the thoughts, beliefs, or conduct" of his or her partner. What constitutes "violent or coercive behavior?" Some differentiate physical violence (hitting and punching) from property violence (kicking in doors and smashing things), sexual violence (forced sex), and psychological violence (intimidation and verbal threats) (Burke and Follingstad, 1999). More "lenient" definitions (e.g., including general insults and withholding sex to hurt a partner, or verbal threats to harm the victim of his possessions) produce higher estimates of violence in both the straight and gay community, while more "severe" ones (e.g., choking, stabbing, or hitting with a closed fist) produce lower estimates in both communities.
• One might think the field would simply agree on one definition to clarify the data gathered. However, this has been difficult, and is perhaps unwarranted. Research shows that abuse meeting "lenient" definitions generally leads to abuse that meets more serious definitions (REFERENCE). Thus, while verbal attacks and insults do not leave bruises, over time, they are likely to lead to physical assaults that do. Thus, research is needed to understand not only "serious" abuse but also the "lenient" abuse that would possibly predict it.
As noted above, critics of gays and lesbians often use citations of higher rates of domestic violence as "proof" that gay and lesbian relationships are dysfunctional. On the one hand, as noted earlier, these numbers may not be accurate. Results based on questions about the presence domestic violence might be inflated, results based on questions about the absence of violence should not be subject to the same problems. Gardner (1989) had straight, gay, and lesbian couples rate the violence in their relationship on a scale ranging from 36 (no violence) to 288 (severe violence). The average score for straight couples was 38.51, for gay couples was 39.6, and for lesbian couples was 40.22. Thus, as noted earlier, there is some reason to believe that the incidence of domestic violence in gay and lesbian couples may not be any higher than in straight couples. Thus, non-violent relationships would seem as prevalent in the gay and lesbian community as in the straight community.
On the other hand, it is worth noting that it is reasonable to assume that gay and lesbian relationships would show higher rates of domestic abuse because there are more ways that gays and lesbians can be abused. For example, batterers can make specific threats to "out" the victim to family, coworkers, and friends. This may mean greater isolation and painful rejection by loved ones, loss of employment, and loss of emotional support and aid.
Where the victim is a parent, threats to out the victim could lead to loss of custody or contact with their children. Fray-Witzer (1999) tells of a 1996 case in which a judge awarded custody of an 11 year old girl to her father, a convicted murderer, rather than give custody to the mother, a lesbian. The judge argued that the child had a right to grow up in a heterosexual home.
While some might argue the risk associated with being out these days is very limited, this is a dangerous assumption. The reader should consider a gay man who today in 2004 is 27 years old. This man would have been born in 1977.
• He would have been 14 in 1991 when the police found 14 year old boy named Konerak naked and bleeding, and returned him to a man who claimed to be his lover and who later killed him, Jeffrey Dahmer (Potoczniak et al, 2003).
• Between his 18th and 21st birthdays (1995 to 1998), the number of hate crimes based on sexual orientation reported to the FBI would increase 24%, to finally comprise 16% of all hate crimes in the US and become the third largest category of hate crimes after race and religion (see link1 and link2, as well as link3 and link4).
• He would have been 21 in 1998 when Matthew Shepard, a 21 year old Wyoming college student, was brutally beaten and left to die on a frigid night, tied to a fence, in the middle of nowhere. After this event, Republicans in the House and Senate rejected the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 twice, with the second time being after President Clinton vetoed the original bill they brought him because it omitted this legislation.
• He would have been 26 when the US Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws that made consensual sex between men illegal, and he would turned 27 as hate crimes against gays and lesbians rose in the six months after this, doubling from their 2002 levels in Chicago, Illinois for example (NCAVP, 2004).
Whether or not the risk associated with being out today in rural areas is or is not high is irrelevant. Most gay men have already learned to be very cautious about being out, especially in rural and suburban areas.
A further example of the risks of being out occur when a victim has resorted to some violence to defend themselves. Merrill (1998) reported that 58% of gay males who had been victimized fought back. The police and courts are less likely to take the time to figure out who is the abuser and who is the victim, and more likely to simply assume the violence is "mutual combat" rather than abuse. Thus, the batterer may actually threaten to call the police himself, claim the victim is the abuser, and press charges against the victim. The victim could then be listed as an abuser with the county or city hall, and be further victimized.
Treatment
Thus, as explained above, domestic violence in gay and lesbian couples is a serious problem, just as it is in straight couples. Until recently, the problem has been completely discounted by many researchers and writers, and has received very little theoretical and empirical attention. Newer work has shown that some of what is known based on violence in straight couples can serve as a starting point for understanding violence in gay couples. However, because many research and theoretical models were based only on straight batterers and victims, empirical results of testing these models can only serve as a starting point to understanding gay domestic violence.
Treatment options may be similarly understood. Just as treatment providers for batterers and victims in straight couples require a specific knowledge base, so do providers for batterers and victims in gay couples. However, because of the additional complexities of working with gay and with lesbian relationships, this knowledge base, built on treatment straight couples, can only serve as a starting point for intervention for gay couples. Several points for treatment can still be offered, however.
First, the therapist must have a solid knowledge base about the dynamics of domestic violence, based on general theory as well as on specific research about violence in gay couples. This knowledge base would include an understanding of:
• the assessment of specific risk factors for violence, as well as recognition of changing risk factors depending upon the couple's stage in "The Cycle of Violence"
• the importance of focusing on physical safety of the victim in treatment and periodic "safety check-ins" to assure the situation remains safe for the victim
• the power differences between batterer and victim, both those that are "acquired" as well as those that are "inherent"
Further, it should be noted that the therapist must not blame the victim. Blaming could take the form of conceptualizations of relationship violence as being something for which both partners are responsible. Many therapists make this mistake when working with straight couples as well. However, blaming could also take the form of failing to recognize abuse, and instead classifying it as mutual combat, based on misconceptions about gay couples.
It must also be noted that the treatment provider must be aware of the lack of adequate community resources, and the prejudice the client is more likely to experience in the legal system. This lack of external resources means the treatment provider may need to reconceptualize their role, shifting from "one of many" providers with straight victims to being the primary or even only point of intervention for gay victims.
These two notes are especially important in working with gay victims, as they are already a stigmatized population. Failure to recognize the victim's specific needs and resources available is likely to only compound the trauma.
Second, the therapist must be Gay and Lesbian Affirming. The therapist must be knowledgeable of issues such as coming out, normal gay and lesbian relationship development, societal response to gays and lesbians, internal and external homophobia, and theoretical biases in psychological theory.
This is likely to require an examination of any personal biases for the treatment provider. Such biases may be obvious, as in seeing domestic violence as "proof" of the untenability of gay relationships, or more subtle, as in minimizing the risk for harm and encouraging gay victims to fight back and defend themselves.
Third, there is considerable debate about the appropriateness of couples counseling with violent couples, be they straight, gay, or lesbian.
Island and Letellier (1991) go so far as to say that couple's counseling is never appropriate. This view makes some sense. Clinicians working with violent couples struggle with a number of concerns, including that couples therapy:
• reinforces the batterer's efforts to "make up," possibly making it harder for the victim to freely choose to stay or leave the relationship
• may redefine one person's choice to be violent as "a couple problem"
• requires careful decision-making regarding client safety outside of the therapy office
• prevents accurate monitoring of abuse potential, as the victim is likely to be afraid to report honestly if the potential is high
• could cause more violence after therapy has stirred troublesome issues and conversations or if the victim reports the abuser's actions honestly
• is demanding, as work with abusers stirs deep feelings and possible transference in therapists to punish batterers and protect victims
Some argue that under specific circumstances, couples therapy might be possible. Holtzworth-Munroe and colleagues (1995) note that there is no data supporting that this approach to treatment is more effective than individual therapy. However, there is no evidence that this approach is less effective than individual treatment. Individual therapy for batterers, however, has low rates of success. For example, Edelson and Grusznski (1989) conducted an intense treatment program including educational self-help groups, therapeutic groups, and individual therapy for heterosexual batterers and found that at a five month post-treatment follow-up, 67% of batterers were reported to have been non-violent by their female partners. However, 43% of the men were reported to have made threats of violence. Thus, in actuality, only 24% of the men could be considered "success cases," who did not become violent or threaten violence toward their partner. Gondolf's (1997) study similarly showed that verbal abuse continued after treatment for 70% of abusive men.
Holtzworth-Munroe and colleagues (1995) offer that couples therapy would offer several benefits over individual treatment, including that couples therapy:
• gives the therapist a more accurate picture of the violence, since it is not based solely on the abuser's report, which is likely to be minimized
• allows for the same techniques and information to be given to both partners, including education about domestic violence and personal responsibility for one's actions and safety, as well as attention to warning signs that the abuser is at risk to lose control over his anger
• can focus on better communication patterns that could help prevent risky situations in which the batterer is prone to lose self-control
• provides a "safe place" to discuss difficult and anxiety-provoking topics
Prerequisites for potentially successful couples treatment would include:
• the violence did not fit a pattern of abuse and control
• the violence only happened once, perhaps twice (separated by a long interval)
• the batterer takes full responsibility for the abuse and is willing to seek treatment to gain better control of his actions
• the batterer is willing to comply with "safety check-ins" and reports by the victim, which typically should be conducted without the batterer present
• a clear set of terms under which therapy would be ended (such as a "relapse" into any violence, or the use of manipulative efforts to control)
In these kinds of cases, there are a few basic procedures that would help:
• a "no violence" contract that specifically states there is to be no violence between the parties, and that should they become violent, they must report this to the therapist within one day
• part of the "no violence" contract would also include no threats of violence
• the batterer may be required to begin work on his own of some kind (individual therapy, anger management classes, group therapy, etc...) to begin to address his anger problems, perhaps including attention to physiological signs, relaxation therapy, etc...
• there is a safety plan in place for the victim, which spells out under what circumstances he will leave the home; the therapist should meet individually with him to spell out a safe place to go (e.g., a friend or family member who knows the relationship has been violent), and this place should remain secret from the batterer
• there is a safety plan for the batterer, which spells out triggers or physiological signs he can use to warn himself that he is loosing control of his temper, "calming activities" he can engage in to soothe his anger, and a contact person he can go to for support and honest feedback who is aware of the violence in the relationship
• a "no threats" contract that specifically states neither partner will make threats to end the relationship; this would not preclude leaving the home, but it would stipulate that any decision to leave would be reported at a therapy session
• a "no discussion" list of topics; these would include "crazy buttons" or issues that are too volatile for the couple to discuss outside of session, and an agreement for both partners not to discuss these outside of session, and what to do if the other brings up these issues
Of note, work with domestic violence cases is never easy. Some research (Edelson & Grusznski, 1989) shows that even under the most intensive treatment conditions (individual, educational, and group therapy), physical abuse may end in a large number of cases, but many abusers continue to be manipulative, controlling, and threatening in their relationships, and thus therapeutic gains are limited. When there are no or limited resources specifically targeting gays in violent relationships in the community, it is possible that even fewer gains can be made.
WEBSOURCE FOR THIS ARTICLE
http://www.psychpage.com/gay/library/gay_lesbian_violence/dv_gay_couples_intro.html
Article really conveys the types of relationships and how they function, and how disfunctional relationships can become violent. It is helpful to read what has worked for others as well.
When looking at any form of mass communication today related to current events, one would think us Americans have turned into a flock of chicken lit...
‘As the nights lengthen and the leaves take on their autumn colours, many of our cities prepare for a seasonal festival dominated by dark and fright...
Two years ago I embarked upon creating a new community for HIV+ poz gay men. After years of being on several HIV+ poz gay men Yahoo groups and other...
Many HIV poz gay men still do not know what serosorting is about. There are also quite a few HIV+ gay men, and others, who are just as quick to make...
Some HIV poz gay men (and poz hets as well) who deal with pain, nausea or have lost their appetite choose to smoke pot rather than taking legal meds...
