Written by Richard L. Davis, SAFE Speaker

I believe that as law enforcement officers increase their knowledge about the dynamics of domestic violence, they respond better while markedly decreasing their level of frustration.Susan R. Paisner

It would seem logical that all victims of domestic violence regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation would receive justice from the criminal justice system. However, many domestic violence advocates, even those who claim to be unbiased, continue to view the issue of domestic violence as only or primarily violence against women. Law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system do not have that same luxury.

Domestic violence directly affects many families. The problem for the criminal justice system is that domestic violence, by statute law in all fifty states has become far more complicated than either “violence against women” or “battering behavior.” Domestic violence remains different things to different people.

Domestic violence advocates need to expand their education and understanding of the criminal justice system. Domestic violence advocates need to become more familiar with statute law. It is statute law and not ideological or philosophic beliefs that must guide law enforcement intervention.

In The Beginning

In 1981 a group of citizens in Duluth, Minnesota became frustrated with what they perceived was a lack of commitment by the criminal justice system concerning “wife beaters.” With private funding they founded the Duluth Abuse Intervention Project.http://www.duluth-model.org/ The project was a coordinated community wide effort that contained a number of agreed upon written protocols that were intended to connect the police, the court system and social service agencies.

The Duluth police department put in place a policy that mandates when their officers respond to a domestic violence incident and there is enough probable cause to identify the offender and there was an injured victim present, an arrest must be made. And most people would agree that if someone beats or batterers their wife, they should be arrested, sanctioned, and perhaps placed in an effective treatment/counseling program.

The Duluth courts and social service agencies have specific advocates trained to assist the victims in all steps of the post arrest process. Recognizing that many offenders would return to their home after the arrest and that many victims did not want the offender to be jailed they put in place a courted ordered education and counseling program for offenders. The majority of law enforcement officers at that time agreed that the Duluth approach was a good idea. Today I think that many law enforcement officers and others in the criminal justice system have their doubts about contemporary domestic violence intervention. So what went wrong?

How We Lost Our Way

Susan R. Paisner is a Maryland criminologist and writer with more than 20 years’ experience in domestic violence. She writes for and is on the advisory board of the National Bulletin on Domestic Violence Prevention. Paisner recently wrote that the key to effective “domestic violence” training is to make the dynamics of domestic violence very, very clear.

Paisner is absolutely correct. However, Paisner, the bulletin she writes for and the majority of domestic violence advocates lack a basic understanding of just what domestic violence, by statute law in all fifty states, really is. In all fifty states domestic violence can be one push, one shove, one hit, one threat. In fact in some states all that is required is “the fear” that someone may be abused. By statute law domestic violence most often includes family members regardless of age or gender and in many states those who are not related but live in the same household.

How can criminal justice domestic violence training or its dynamics be made clear if those who provide the training do not understand the dynamics of the criminal justice system or the dynamics of domestic violence statute law? Law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system must be guided by statute law not ideological or philosophic beliefs.

Domestic violence can also be a single act of physical abuse towards children, spouses, intimate partners regardless of sexual orientation, and the elderly. In some states it can also include acts that affect the emotional, mental, psychological states of mind. In other states domestic violence advocates also want to include acts that violate the “integrity, dignity and liberty of a person.”

Criminal justice domestic violence intervention has become a problematic series of multifaceted and complicated dynamics that reach far beyond its original intent by the well intentioned group of advocates in Duluth, Minnesota.

Unbiased Data

Much of the following data is taken from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS)http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf. Everyone who is a member of the criminal justice system or who advocates for victims within the criminal justice system is doing a disservice to the victims of domestic violence if they are not aware of the results of this survey.

The NVAWS documents that 22.1 percent of surveyed women and 7.4 percent of surveyed men report they were physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime. Approximately 1.3 percent of surveyed women and 0.9 percent of surveyed men report experiencing such violence in the previous 12 months.

Approximately 31.5 percent of female rape victims compared with 16.1 percent of male rape victims report being injured during their most recent rape. About 39.0 percent of female physical assault victims compared with 24.8 percent of male physical assault victims report being injured during their most recent physical assault.

Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States. Because many of the victims suffer multiple victimizations the number of women who are physically assaulted by intimate partners annually is an estimated 4.5 million and 2.9 million against men. These statistics do not document “battering behavior.”

All data documents and almost all researchers agree that in violence between men and women, in which homicides, serious injuries and sexual assaults are suffered, there is little question that women are victims more often than men.

Data Expunged

A 1994 federally sponsored family violence conference noted that the problem of family violence in the United States is epidemic. The conference estimates that the annual incidence of abuse of family members is at 2 to 4 million for children, nearly 4 million for women, and 1-2 million for elder adults. At his conference there were 400 professionals and 80 national experts.

The 1994 conference experts did not acknowledge one man as being a victim of domestic violence. Not a single male victim was mentioned. More egregious is a recent report designed for and designated to our public policy makers by the National Conference of State Legislatures. This report claims that domestic violence for men is a “rare event.” The NVAWS notes that because many victims are victimized more than once the number of this “rare event” of male victimization could be as high as 2.9 million annually. Rare indeed!

Each and every October during domestic violence awareness month not a single president has every, just once, mentioned the fact that even one man in the entire nation could be a victim of domestic violence.

Why is it that these experts, our public policymakers, and the president on a yearly basis do not mention men as victims of domestic violence? What is the cause of these dramatic differences? How does this effect law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system?

Dynamics

The last three decades of research reveal that varied interventions are needed for the many different dynamics domestic violence present. It should be clear to everyone that any “one-label- fits-all” or “single philosophic approach” is not suitable for all victims or all abusers. Domestic violence advocates who are concerned with the dynamics of domestic violence need to understand that this behavior can begin with or be as simple as belittlement or demeaning behavior towards another family member.

Data document that domestic violence often presents itself in low levels of aggression such as shouting, pushing, shoving, slapping or threats of violent physical acts. Some of it can also include severe physical injurious and sexual assaults coupled with extreme controlling behavior.

Often low levels of assertive or aggressive behavior can be mutual and mild, however, it can escalate quickly into violent and injurious behavior. These behaviors are often fueled, but not caused by, alcohol or drug abuse. There is no question that the abuse of drugs and alcohol lessens reason and logic, hence its abuse can often promote or exacerbate the violence, however, most researchers agree it is not the casual factor of the aggressive or violent behavior,

Proper identification of victim-specific and batterer-specific dynamics is vital concerning proper intervention. Women, who are the primary victims of chronic injurious physical and sexual assault, need the most assistance. In general the basic dynamics are:

• The forms and patterns of family violence are not the same for all families and social, economic, and educational factors play an important role.
• The cycle of violence associated with “battered” woman may be typical only for the more severe forms of domestic violence.
• While woman are at a greater risk for physical, sexual, emotional, and economic abuse, many woman do initiate assertive and aggressive behavior.
• Risk factors for both perpetrators and victims are often familial and intergenerational. Risk factors are exacerbated by, not caused by, the abuse of alcohol and/or drugs.
• The risk of chronic and violent abuse is greatest, but not exclusive too abusers who are violent outside the family and/or have a history of criminal behavior.
• Risk factors for both victimization and perpetration are dramatically increased when one partner has a history of criminal behavior and/or psychological problems.

Who Gets It And Who Does Not

Without a doubt two of the most common questions I have received from domestic violence advocates over the last decade are

• Why don’t law enforcement officers recognize domestic violence when they see it, or put more bluntly: WHY DON’T THEY[LAW ENFORCMENT] GET IT!?
• Why don’t law enforcement officers show more compassion and concern towards the victims of domestic violence?

The problem is that many domestic violence advocates come to the criminal justice system with a bias that causes them to view law enforcement as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. They also view domestic violence as violence against women caused by the patriarchy and not familial violence in general.

The bias against law enforcement is so entrenched in many advocates that there is actually a nationally recognized “domestic violence” organization that claims that in law enforcement academies law enforcement officers are trained how to inflict great physical pain on the general public while leaving no external marks or bruises. This organization then makes the claim that law enforcement will do the same to their wives.

It is not just one domestic violence organization that reveals its extreme bias against law enforcement. There are many domestic violence advocates who, while not making that excessive claim, do believe these extreme and unrealistic assertions to be true.

The majority of domestic violence organizations continue to believe, as their websites and pamphlets document, that domestic violence is caused by men because men in general are misogynists. These organizations ignore the fact that there is not a single empirical scientific study that can document this fundamental feminist ideology is valid.

The majority of feminists still believe in “equal” rights, however, fundamental feminist ideology [people who believe women’s rights are more important than victims or civil rights] cause many in domestic violence organizations to claim that men objectify women.

These fundamental feminist organizations rarely hesitate to remind us that most law enforcement officers are men. They stress that men do not respect women and that contemporary masculine mores and norms cause men in general to view women as property to be used and abused and/or sexual assaulted at will. They assert that those men who do not abuse or sexually assault women condone the behavior of men who do.

They believe in their hearts and minds that men cause domestic violence because men in general hate women in particular. They remind us that the majority of police officers are men and these agencies then expect that the general public will connect their dots.

The fundamental feminist patriarchal ideology is commonly held by the majority of domestic violence advocates. In many states public policy makers actually mandate that batterer intervention programs are based on this myopic feminist patriarchal model.

This “one-label-fits-all” intervention for the criminal justice system and batter programs continues despite any evidence that this single minded, biased, and ideological based intervention works, in and of itself, any better than other criminal justice sanctions.

A recent National Institute of Justice Report “Batterer Intervention Programs: Where Do We Go From Here?” documents that the fundamental feminist ideological based batterer programs, in and of themselves, have demonstrated little to no real scientific empirical evidence that they work.

In addition to holding ideological and gender biased views many domestic violence advocates who train law enforcement officers have little real understanding of the complexities of statute, federal, state and common law. They often have less knowledge of individual police department policy and procedure concerning domestic violence.

Who Doesn’t Get It?

The fact is many law enforcement agencies wonder why the domestic violence advocates and public policy makers don’t get it! Law enforcement agencies, as do the majority of physicians, nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, family counselors, educators, social workers, attorneys, judges understand that domestic violence does not fit only a single dynamic.

Domestic violence by statute law in all fifty states is child, intimate partner regardless of sexual orientation, spousal and elder abuse. Domestic violence is not only or primarily violence against women, it is a multifaceted complex dynamic.

However, the majority of contemporary domestic violence interventions continue to disregard and ignore those complexities. Too often law enforcement domestic violence training is presented as “one-label-fits-all.” That label claims that domestic violence is battering behavior.

Why Don’t They Get It?

The lack of agreement between many professionals concerning just what domestic violence is continues to cause confusion and disarray between law enforcement, domestic violence advocates, and public policy makers. Domestic violence advocates claim they are right and want to train law enforcement, while the fact is that law enforcement must be guided by statute law.

Because there is no agreement between researchers, scholars and professionals on definition, it logically follows that there can be no agreement concerning cause and consequences. Hundreds of studies to date only serve to document that there is no single researcher, scholar or professional that has discovered the single correct answer to cause or consequence.

How can domestic violence advocates provide training for law enforcement officers when there are dramatic differences between their ideological philosophy and statute law concerning the definition of domestic violence? A great many criminal justice agencies resist domestic violence training because it is most often presented by advocates who continue to believe in their “one-label-fits-all” batterer dynamic.

What Is Domestic Violence?

Deborah Capaldi, is a research scientist and the author of a recent study issued by the Oregon Social Learning Center. Andy Klein, is a former probation officer, domestic violence consultant and author concerning domestic violence. Both appeared on the June 24, 2003 MSNBC show “Scarborough Country.”

Their appearance document the difference between what the majority of domestic violence incidents look like when law enforcement respond to calls for service and what many of the contemporary domestic violence advocates, who are involved indomestic violence training, claim they are.

Capaldi asserts that her study is not an attempt at “victim blaming” however, it does document that women are often involved in mutual assertive behavior with partners. The study notes that women initiate many “domestic violence incidents.” Capaldi is talking about domestic violence incidents in general and not battering behavior in particular. There are more than 100 scientific scholarly empirically based studies that agree with the findings of the Capaldi studyhttp://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.

Klein asserts that Capaldi’s study is a “real misstatement of what domestic violence is all about.” Klein maintains that domestic violence as seen in civil and criminal courts is not people engaged in mutual fights and pushing or slapping or pinching each other. Klein claims the domestic violence as seen in the courts is the type of behavior that lands female victims in the hospital and the morgue. And concerning the men Klein interacted with, he is correct.

However, Klein is not talking about the thousands of domestic violence incidents that cause restraining orders to be issued or the incidents that police officers respond to. Klein is describing the results of what he saw as a probation officer when the most serious cases reach his office. Data documents that majority of domestic violence abusers that Klein dealt with had histories of both violent and criminal behavior. Many, if not all, of these abusers were in front of Klein as a consequence of the physical beatings of their partners.

The majority of law enforcement agencies can relate to the Capaldi study. They recognize these forms of domestic violence incidents because a great many of the incidents they respond to are “family conflict” incidents.

The Capaldi study documents, if one actually takes the time to read the study, that the majority of the incidents in her study are “family conflict” and not “battering behavior.” Rather than being on opposite sides of the fence, both Klein and Capaldi are right. However, they are engaged in the decades old apples (battering behavior) and oranges (family conflict) dilemma.

The officer’s view of domestic violence must be comparable to how it is defined by statute law in the individual officer’s state. Anyone remotely familiar with law enforcement understands that officer’s respond to both minor “family conflict” and “battering behavior” incidents. These two, distinct domestic violence behaviors, are very different yet they must be treated exactly the same because of “one-label-fits-all” statute law.

Battering Behavior

Most researchers and professionals agree that a “battered victim” is a victim whose life is thoroughly, extensively, and completely controlled by an abuser. The victim’s behavior is purposely altered to satisfy the abusers desires while they live in a familial or intimate partner styled relationship. The batterer manipulatively uses psychological methods, physical violence, economic subordination, threats, isolation, and a variety of other behavioral and controlling tactics to ensure the victim does what the abuser wants.

Sociologist and researcher Michael P. Johnson, in his many papers concerning “Conflict and Control,” labels this behavior “intimate terrorism.” At times only one partner is violent and controlling and the other is violent only while resisting an assault. There are other couples where both partners “mutual violent control” are both violent and controlling. Often this mutually violent behavior is fueled, not caused by, the abuse of alcohol and/or drugs.

It is important to understand that most victims do not rationally choose to stay in violent relationships. They often stay because they do not understand their problem is outside the mores and norms of society and/or why the relationship has gone wrong.

Some victims remain because they were raised in a violent home and/or neighborhood, thus the violence they face is not viewed as aberrant or abnormal. Some do not realize or understand they can leave. Some lack the education or economic resources to survive on their own. Some have little to no community support. Some will be ridiculed by their own family for leaving.

Some believe that leaving will publicly document the shame they privately feel. Some mistakenly view the failure of the relationship as their failure. Some are concerned that the physical and emotional harm their children suffer may increase if they attempt to leave. And some, rightly so, fear greater physical abuse or death.

Unconditional love can keep some victims in relationships far too long. Some confuse sexually acts with acts of love and jealously and possessiveness with romantic behavior. Many who are used and abused believe that their abuser needs their help. Many learn that their abuser has been physically or sexually abused as a child.

Other victims remember that their family was loving and caring and they believe they must make their chosen relationships succeed. Some victims believe that their abuser is the person suffering and their abuser wants to, can and will change. Many being abused believe that if they can demonstrate to their abuser what unconditional love is, their abuser will stop the abuse. Many victims believe that their abuser, given unconditional love, will return that love.

Family Conflict Abuse

It is a fact that the majority of people who are married or who live in a familial or intimate partner styled relationship will occasionally struggle with individual or family problems. A lack of education and economic resources often create or exacerbate stress and conflict.

There are many types of psychological and physical tactics employed by family members or intimate partners, regardless of age or gender, who attempt to “get their way” in a specific or general disagreement. Too often in contemporary society, many family members accept this type of behavior as “normal.”

Johnson documents that this family styled conflict is the most common form of domestic violence and labels it “situational couple violence.” Johnson believes that this style of familial violence is most often documented in family violence surveys.

The findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey are documented in the National Institute of Justice report the Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women. This report documents that most familial or intimate partner incidents are relatively minor.

Family conflict does not always involve violent assaults nor is it the result of a specific, long term, carefully crafted, well thought out pattern of controlling behavior. Data documents many forms of family conflict can be assertive or aggressive mutual behavior, regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation.

Who Still Doesn’t Get It

Esta Soler is the founder and president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) (www.endabuse.org). The FVPF receives national recognition concerning domestic violence intervention and training. Soler acknowledges that the debate between Capaldi and Klein, “goes to the definition of domestic violence.” And Soler is absolutely correct.

Soler asserts that, “Certainly, all violence is wrong regardless of who is the perpetrator. But domestic violence is not one person pushing another person one time. Soler claims that domestic violence occurs when there is an ongoing pattern of fear, intimidation and violent assault.”

And it is here that Soler displays her complete lack of understanding of statute law. It is both frustrating and painfully obvious that Soler has little to no knowledge of the statute laws that define domestic violence for law enforcement officers in all fifty states.

Soler may be well intentioned, however, she just one of many domestic violence advocates who do not or choose not to understand criminal statute law. In the real world of statute law and the criminal justice system, domestic violence does not require ongoing pattern of fear, intimidation and violent assault.

Soler has it absolutely wrong. Domestic violence, by statute law in all fifty states, can be one person pushing another person one time. What Soler is describing is “battering behavior” and not “domestic violence” as defined by statue law in all fifty states.

There is not a single domestic violence law in this nation that matches Soler’s definition of domestic violence. And as bizarre as it seems, it is organizations similar to FVPF that continue to claim they want to educate the criminal justice system and the general public concerning domestic violence.

And worse still it is organizations like the Family Violence Prevention Fund and the National Conference of State Legislatures that sometimes do train law enforcement and actually do drive many of our public policies concerning domestic violence.

The Cause of the Confusion Between Capaldi, Kelin, Soler and Many Others

The National Institute of Justice sponsored study, Controlling Violence Against Women, documents that “The vast majority of law enforcement policies, procedures, statute law and mandatory and preferred arrest laws make no distinctions between “family conflict” and “battering behavior.” 

The criminal justice system now has in place in all fifty states mandatory and/or preferred arrest laws. The majority of domestic violence advocates who train law enforcement continue to insist law enforcement officers must arrest every time there is any probable cause that a domestic violence incident occurred.

This “one-label-fits-all” intervention process makes little sense. In some communities approximately one quarter to one third of all “domestic violence” arrests are of female offenders. Many domestic violence advocates think that law enforcement officers need more training so the officers will better understand just who the real “batterer” is. What these advocates do not understand is that there is often no “batterer” or “battered victim” in many of these incidents.

There is no question that the vast majority of domestic violence advocates do not believe that many of these women who are arrested are “batterers.” They believe that these women should not be arrested. And they are right, most of these women are not involved in “battering behavior.” However they are involved in “domestic violence” as defined by statute law. It is stupefying that after all these years so many domestic violence advocates still do not understand domestic violence statute law is not about battering behavior.

An ever increasing number of women are being arrested for domestic violence because many women can be just as aggressive and assertive as men concerning “family conflict” incidents. It comes as no surprise to any reasonable and prudent person that some women can be just as violent and jealous as some men concerning intimate relationships.

What follows is an example of a “family conflict” incident that law enforcement officers respond to:

A live in boyfriend stays out all night, spends his entire pay check, sleeps with his girlfriends best friend. He comes home at 5:00 AM. His girlfriend, who told him they need the money for rent and food for the kids, finds out, gets mad and throws glasses and plates at him. A concerned neighbor, hearing all the noise, calls law enforcement. Officers arrive and by statute law in the majority of our states she is the one who is guilty of “domestic violence.” In those states with mandatory arrest she must be arrested and in many other states she most likely will be.

Should the woman in the preceding paragraph be considered a “batterer?” Few if any domestic violence advocates agree that this woman is a “batterer.” However, she is an example of the type of domestic violence perpetrator, regardless of age or gender, that law enforcement often responds to.

What is truly sad is that contemporary domestic violence “one-label-fits-all” laws do not reflect the “battered” victims or perpetrators described by Soler or Klien. Often those arrested by law enforcement are reflections of “family conflict” found in the Capaldi study.

The vast majority of law enforcement officers understand that a great many of the calls they respond to are the result of “family conflict” and not “battering behavior.” Statute law makes no distinction despite the dramatic differences between the two dynamics.

Most tragic of all is the fact that data from court systems across this nation document that the violent and chronic “batterer” offenders often receive the same sentence as minor “family conflict” first time offenders. This may be directly attributed to the demand of a “one-label-fits-all” approach in reverse.

Egregious Inactions

In 1983 Charles “Buck” Thurman was sentenced to 20 years in prison after his brutal attack on his wife Tracey Thurman led to a $1.9 million suit against the Torrington, Connecticut police. In the Torrington case, Thurman was found guilty of stabbing his wife 13 times, stomping on her head, and partially paralyzing her for life.

Thurman was released from prison in 1991 after serving only nine years of the twenty year sentence. In 1999 a woman Thurman was living with in Northampton, Massachusetts, and mother of their child, fled the state accusing him of repeatedly choking and sexually assaulting her.

No criminal charges were filed as she only asked for a restraining order to keep him away from her. The order was issued, she returned to Massachusetts and Thurman, who has a long history of ignoring court orders, violated this latest order.

Thurman pleaded guilty only to violating a restraining order. A judge placed Thurman on probation for a year. He ordered Thurman to participate in any counseling ordered by the probation department and ordered him to comply with the restraining order against him.

This was the only action taken by the judge despite the fact that Charles “Buck” Thurman is a chronic violent abuser who has a history of beating women and ignoring court orders. Buck Thurman had a restraining order against him and he was on probation when he beat and stabbed Tracey Thurman and traumatized her for life.

In 1996 in Bristol County, Massachusetts Debbie Melo asked for and received a restraining order against her husband Luis. In an affidavit before the court she wrote that Luis made threats to do bodily harm to himself, her or both. She was afraid of what he might do to her or their daughter.

In 2000 Luis Melo reported to the police that Debbie disappeared after they had a road side argument. Debbie Melo has never been seen or heard from since. The last person to see her alive was Luis Melo. No report of using credit cards, no phone calls and no attempts to reach either of her two children. Luis Melo, for good reason, should be more than a person of interest to the criminal justice system.

In 2004 the live-in girlfriend of Luis Melo would appear in a civil court to get a restraining order because she and her daughter were afraid of Luis Melo. She has good reason to be afraid because Melo had beaten her in the past. Court records document that Melo is a dangerous man who should be feared. Earlier in a Bristol County court Melo had pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend.

For that previous assault Luis Melo received no jail time and was placed on probation. Luis Melo is a man that many believe may have murdered his wife. He is a man with a history of violent abusive behavior. And he is a man with no respect for the court system.

Apparently domestic violence awareness month must slip by, year after year, unnoticed by the Bristol County District Attorney and this judge.

Is there anyone other than the judge that really thinks a restraining order is going to protect this woman from Melo? Is this really the best that the District Attorney and the judge can do for this woman and her child? After decades of intervention is this as far as we have come?

One-Label-Fits-All

What is truly sad is that these two cases are not aberrations. Data from court systems across this nation document that the most chronic violent abusers often receive the same sentence as minor first time offenders.

And just as tragic, first time offenders with minor violations often are treated the same as violent chronic abusers. It is families with little education and less money, that are in need of resources, education and assistance who will receive false hopes and broken hearts from a system that puts in writing that it “will protect them.”

Contemporary “one-label-fits-all” “domestic violence is battering behavior,” “mandatory arrest,” “no drop prosecutions,” and “ignore the wishes of the families” intervention process document how a good idea can become such a tragedy for many families.

There is an ever increasing number of studies that document how many of these poorly conceived “good ideas” can harm as many people as they help. There is a long line of domestic violence advocates and public policy makers wanting to take credit for people who have been helped over the last couple of decades.

It is time we question why there is no line of domestic violence advocates and public policy makers willing to take the blame for those who have been harmed by their “one-label-fits-all” policies. It is time to weigh successes against the failures. It is time to reevaluate the promise of “We are they criminal justice system and we are here to help you.”

Studies of Importance

The Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women athttp://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf, Batterer Programs: What Criminal Justice Agencies Need to Know athttp://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/171683.pdf, and The Criminalization of Domestic Violence athttp://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/crimdom.pdf, and Findings About Partner Violence From the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/170018.pdf. Controlling Violence Against Women at
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/197137.pdf.

Celebrity Domestic Violence Cases

These are well-known figures who have been victims of domestic violence. Wherever possible, citations or references are provided. Please let us know if you have any additions to make, or if there are any inaccuracies on this list. Please keep in mind that partnership violence is often complicated: it can happen to men or women, and it can even be mutually abusive. The point isn’t that these people are innocent angels or horrible people, but that domestic violence is more complicated than we like to think, and that it happens to anyone, man or woman, gay or straight. Some of these cases involve mutual violence or ambiguous circumstances, but we generally only add to this list items that involve a convinction or an arrest.An additional complication is that people will try to cover for violence in their partners, or if they have murdered their spouses, they can make up any story they like. This makes it difficult to discern what is actually happening in their relationship.

Abused Men

• Geno Hayes
  

  Tampa Bay Buccaneers linebacker
  / Was stabbed by his girlfriend

  • Nick Stefanov
    

    was abused by “Real Housewives of NY” star Kelly Bensimon (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20269066,00.html).

    • Ron Artest/Kimisha Hatfield
      

      Indianapolis Star Sept. 16, 2002 The girlfriend of Indiana Pacers forward Ron Artest was to appear in court today after her arrest on domestic battery charges. Kimisha Hatfield, 27, admitted striking Artest in the head with her hands on Sunday, said Maj. Dan Nickel of hte Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department. Nickel said Artest, 22, who called police, was waiting houtside the Carmel home he is believed to share with Hatfield and the couple’s two children when officers arrived. … The incident comes after Artest was charged this summer with two counts of harrassment, and one criminal contempt charge, for allegeldy leaving another woman a threatening phone message.

    • Humphrey Bogart
      

      According to several biographies Bogarts’ third wife, Mayo Methot, was frequently abusive to him, but one friend described it more a case of mutual abuse, ”their drunken brawls”, although friends nicknamed her ”slugsy”. However, in one incident Bogart did receive a minor stab wound in the back.

    • Bobby Brown
      

      In an April 13, 1999 Associated Press article, Whitney Houston said that she was the aggressor in her marriage to Bobby Brown.”Contrary to belief, I do the hitting, he doesn’t. He has never put his hands on me. He is not a woman-beater,” the singer and actress said in the May issue of Redbook. ”We are crazy for one another. I mean crazy in love, love, love, love, love. When we’re fighting, it’s like that’s love for us. We’re fighting for our love.”

      Brown’s arrest history includes drunken driving and battery against women other than his wife.

      Brown was sentenced in 1998 to five days in jail and a year on probation for drunken driving. On Monday, a judge in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., put him back on probation for showing up drunk to do his time.

      Ms. Houston conceded that her singer husband is ”a party guy” who ”likes to hang with his friends. He likes to dance with different people.” But she said she knows he’s loyal to her because “I checked him out when he wasn’t even looking.”

    • Bill Clinton/Hillary Clinton
      

      According to a generally complimentary biography Hillary’s Choice, by author Gail Sheehy, Hillary Clinton has attacked her husband on several occassions. In 1993, Hillary allegedly slashed Bill Clinton’s face with her long fingernails, leaving a “mean Claw mark along his jawline.” Dee Dee Myers, the White House spokeswoman at the time, later explained to Sheehy that it had been singer Barbara Streisands visit to the White House that had sparked Hillary’s rage. According to Christopher Anderson, author of Bill and Hillary, Hillary also assaulted him on August 13, 1999, after the Monica Lewinsky revelations. Anderson writes: ”Much of what transpired next between Bill and Hillary Clinton was plainly audible to Secret Service agents and household staff members down the hall. In the past, Hillary had thrown books and an ashtray at the President–both hitting their mark…Hillary rose to her feet and slapped him across the face–hard enough to leave a red mark that would be clearly visible to Secret Service agents when he left the room.” Sheehy’s account of the incident is similar, though the book also mentions a lamp that was thrown by Hillary Clinton in this or another incident, but she does confirm the the August 13, 1999 assault by a quote from Hillary friend Linda Bloodworth-Thomasen who was staying with her husband in the private quarters nearby who confirmed that Hillary Clinton ”smacked him upside the head.”

    • Joe Elliott, lead singer of Def Leppard.
      

      On May 5, 1996, police arrested Def Leppard lead singer Joe Elliott and his girlfriend, Bobbie Tolsma, on assault charges. Although Tolsma called the hotel’s front desk to report Elliott was beating her, police arrested both of them because they sustained ”mutual injuries.” Celebrity Watch

    • Scott Erickson – Baltimore Orioles
      

      In an article by Glenn J. Sacks: ”According to the Associated Press, the Baltimore police concluded that Erickson’s girlfriend Lisa Ortiz: initiated the fight by hurling objects; decided to come back twice after Erickson carried her out of the apartment; repeatedly kicked the apartment door; caused Erickson two minor injuries, one of them to his pitching arm; and herself suffered no injuries.” He has also been charged with assault as well, which makes it hard to determine if there are false allegations on one side, or if it is mutually abusive. According to Celebrity Watch, ”Baltimore Orioles baseball player Scott Erickson was charged with second-degree assault in 2002 after a fight with his live-in girlfriend, Lisa Ortiz. After Ortiz accused Erickson of cheating on her, he grabbed her and threw her out of their apartment. Police say that Ortiz attempted to get back into the apartment and bit Erickson while trying to do so. He then threw her into an elevator. Ortiz said in a statement, ‘This is a private matter between Scott and myself…Scott has never been physically abusive toward me, and in no way do I feel threatened.’ Charges against Erickson were eventually dropped.”

    • Chad Foreman, by Virginia Graham Foreman (eldest daughter of Billy Graham)
      

      According to the Smoking Gun, the eldest daughter of Billy Graham, who is also an author of several Christian-oriented books, was arrested on domestic violence charges against her husband. She choked and pushed her husband.

    • David Gest, by Liza Minelli
      

      According to his lawsuit against her, she had a history of violence during alchoholic episodes. The case has not been settled yet.

    • Chuck Finley, Cleveland Indians pitcher
      

      According to MSNBC, September 18, 2002: ”Actress Tawny Kitaen agreed Wednesday to a plea bargain on spousal abuse and battery charges alleging she attacked her husband, St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Chuck Finley. Under the deal, Kitaen did not admit guilt but agreed to enter a spousal battery counseling program. If she completes the program and other conditions of the deal, the case could eventually be dropped. The bargain also requires Kitaen, 40, to avoid contact with her husband, stay away from their Newport Beach home and return to court for a progress report.Orange County Superior Court Judge Pamela Iles also ordered Kitaen to make a $500 donation to a battered-woman’s shelter, pay $400 in court costs …

      Kitaen, who appeared in such movies as “Bachelor Party” and “California Girls,” was accused of attacking her husband April 1 as the two were returning home from dinner. Police who responded to the couples Newport Beach home said they saw abrasions and scrapes on Finley’s body. … Kitaen was previously married to David Coverdale, lead singer for the British heavy metal band Whitesnake. Finley was playing for the Cleveland Indians at the time of the April incident. He was later traded to St. Louis.

      The Smoking Gun also has information on this.

    • William Green/Asia Gray
      

      Westlake, Ohio Nov. 20, 2003 NewsChannel5 Cleaveland Browns running back William Green’s fiancee is out of jail. … after posting bond. … Asia Gray, 22, appeared in court on felonious assault and domestic violence charges after Green was hopitalized Wednesday afternoon with a knife wound to his back. A temporary restraining order was also issued. … According to Westlake police Gray called 911 requesting an ambulance for him, saying that Green had cut himself. … Green suffered a puncture would to his back below his left shoulder blade. He said he suffered the wound when he fell going up a flight of stairs while carrying some times, including the knife. An investigation, however, indicated the injury may have stemmed from a domestic dispute between Green and Gray. … Green and Gray have two daughters together, who are staying with family and friends.

    • Phil Hartman, actor and comedian
      

      Phil Cook’s essay: The Death of Phil Hartman

    • Stephen Hawking, physicicist
      

      According to many articles, Stephen Hawkings was an abused man.

    • Deidra Lane/Fred Lane
      

      Charlotee, NC AP Nov 5, 2003 The widow of NFL running back Fred Lane was sentenced to nearly eight years in prison Wednesday for shooting her husband to death three years ago as he walked in the front door. … She pleaded guilty in August to voluntary manslaughter. … Judge Timothy Patti gave her the maximum sentence, ruling the slaying was premeditated and deliberate, that Lane acted with malice, and that she shot her husband a second time after the first shot rendered him helpless. … Fred Lane, a 24-year-old running back for the Carolina Panthers who had recentlybeen traded to Indianapolis, was found dead just inside the front door of his Charolette home in 2000, his keys still in the lock.

    • Abraham Lincoln
      

      In an article posted on MenWeb, correspondent Barry Daniels interviewed Michael Burlingame, professor of history at Connecticut College and author of the book, The Inner World of Abraham LincolnUniversity of Illinois Press. Daniels notes: As Pokorski noted in his lengthy report, historians have long known that Lincoln’s relationship with his wife, Mary, was sometimes tempestuous.

      But beyond that, Pokorski reported, the new book ‘cites evidence that Mary was both physically and verbally abusive toward Lincoln’ and that the marriage was ‘so truly miserable’ that ‘Lincoln’s desire to be away from Mary probably contributed to him becoming president’.

      Or, as author Burlingame more delicately puts it, had Lincoln married a more, uh, congenial wife, he might more likely ‘have been satisfied with the modest emoluments of a country lawyer’s practice’ and contented himself ‘in the delights of an inviting and happy home’.

      So I asked Burlingame, who put in 10 years researching his book, would it be fair to describe Lincoln as, in the language of today, a ‘battered husband.’

      ‘Well, yes, he was one,’ replied Burlingame unhesitatingly. ‘He was in a sense a victim of spousal abuse.’

      For instance, when the Lincoln’s were residing in Springfield, in the old home that is now a shrine, one day Abe didn’t put more wood on the fire soon enough to suit Mary, so she bopped him with a piece of firewood. ‘The next day,’ says Burlingames’s book, Lincoln showed up for work ‘with a plaster (bandage) covering his nose.’ On another occasion, the meat Lincoln bought for breakfast wasn’t what Mary wanted. Bam! She smacked him in the face and drew blood. The book also cites incidents, as noted above, in which Mary let old Abe have it with hot coffee, broomsticks, and fast-pitch potatoes.

      It got so bad that, according to the book, Lincoln, as a Springfield lawyer, kept a couch in the office where he often spent the night. He also took refuge on occasion with neighbors and friends.

      And being married to Mary and what the book calls her ‘ungovernable temper’ obviously didn’t get any easier after Lincoln became president and had the Oval Office to hide out in.

      In 1864, with the Civil War still raging around him, the book recounts – by way of illustraqting how Lincoln viewed life and strife with Mary – an incident in which Lincoln pardoned a young Union soldier who had been sentenced to death for deserting the army to mary his sweetheart.

      As he signed the pardon, Lincoln commented in an aside to a witness that: ‘I want to punish the young man. Probably in less than a year, he will wish I had withheld the pardon.’

    • Warren Moon?
      

      After deliberating for just half an hour, a jury acquitted Minnesota Vikings quarterback Warren Moon of assaulting his wife, Felicia. The incident occurred in July 1995 at the couple’s home, and their terrified seven-year-old son called the police. Felicia Moon originally told police that she had been beaten by her husband; she had visible injuries. She later insisted to police and to the jury that she had struck first and her husband was merely trying to restrain her. Prosecutors had used a controversial new Texas law to force Felicia to testify against her husband. In interviews after the verdict, the Moons declined to criticize the law, saying simply that it was mis-used in their case. Prosecutors disagreed.

    • Randy McMichael, Miami Dolphins tight end
      

      ”Randy McMichael had been out celebrating his 25th birthday on Monday. He returned home early Tuesday. He became ill in a downstairs bathroom. His wife came into the room yelling at him and questioning his whereabouts and who he had been with.The argument began to escalate. McMichael told deputies his wife hit him across the head with a hand. McMichael said he pushed his wife and she fell to the floor. He denied hitting her.

      Cawanna McMichael, who was weeping and upset when questioned, admitted the escalating argument. She at first said she was not struck. Then she said she had been grabbed by her right shoulder and struck several times. She would not say where.

      “We noticed slight swelling on her left cheek and minor abrasions on her right arm,” says the deputies report.

      A taped statement was taken from Cawanna McMichael while photos were taken of her.

      McMichael was charged with aggravated battery on a pregnant female, a second-degree felony that is punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

      Cawanna McMichael was charged with domestic battery.”

      Dolphins tight end, wife arrested on domestic violence counts

    • Patrizai Reggiani
      

      In 1998, Patrizai Reggiani, dubbed the ”Black Widow” by the Italian press, was sentenced to 29 years in prison for ordering the murder of her ex-husband Maurizio Gucci, heir to the Gucci fortune. Four other accomplices, including her personal psychic who helped arrange the murder, received similar sentences.

    • Darren Silver
      

      Darren Silver was the boyfriend of Tanya Harding. In March 2000, Former Olympic figure skater Tonya Harding pleaded not guilty to charges that she hit her boyfriend, Darren Silver, in the face with a hubcap and her fists. (REUTERS) HARDINGS LIVE-IN BOYFRIEND OF THREE YEARS, DARREN SILVER, 28, AND TWO WITNESSES SAID HARDING REPEATEDLY PUNCHED SILVER AND THREW A METAL HUBCAP IN HIS FACE, LEAVING HIM BLOODIED AND BRUISED. … WITNESSES SAID HARDING PUNCHED HIM SEVERAL TIMES AND KNEED HIM IN THE GROIN.

    • Christian Slater
      

      According to news accounts, Christian Slater’s wife is abusive, and he may be as well. wife is abusive, and he may be as well. In January 1998, actor Christian Slater, who pleaded no-contest to two counts of battery and one count of being under the influence of cocaine, began serving his 90-day jail sentence just one day after he attended the Hollywood premiere of his current movie, “Hard Rain.”

    • Tyrone Williams, Green Bay Packers Linebacker
      

      Williams troubled at home

    Abused women

    • See: Celebrity Watch

    Abused gay men

    • Glenn Boyanowski, boyfriend of Richard Hatch
      

      Survivor I winner Richard Hatch was found guilty in September 2001, of domestic assault. Hatch was sentenced to one year of probation for an August incident in which he allegedly shoved his ex-boyfriend, Glenn Boyanowski, down a flight of stairs. Hatch intends to appeal the verdict.

    • Greg Louganis
      

      Greg Louganis, an Olympic diver, was abused, according to “No More Secrets, Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” by Janice L. Ristock. She doesn’t give many particulars other than he experienced intimate physical abuse at the hands of his partner.

    Abused women

    • Amanda Bearse
      

      Amanda Berase, actress, was abused, according to “No More Secrets, Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” by Janice L. Ristock. She doesn’t give many particulars other than she experienced intimate physical abuse at the hands of her partner.

    • Vivianne Gilchrist
      

      The drug-dealing daughter of evil Big Mags Haney has split with her lesbian partner after a violent bust-up.Vivianne Gilchrist was left bruised and needed 11 stitches in a cut above her eye after she was battered by Valerie Haney.

SAFE ESSAYS
 

Review of Linda Mill’s Insult to Injury – Dr. Jack Turteltaub reviews Linda Mill’s book. 



Well-known domestic violence victims – A list of prominent cases of abused men (straight), and abused same-sex victims. 



Review of Thomas James’ Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren’t Supposed to Know – Dr. Jack Turteltaub reviews Thomas James’ book 



An Unbiased Domestic Violence Awareness Month – Richard L. Davis on the legal aspects of domestic violence 



Myths, Factoids, and Facts about Domestic Violence – lists commonly abused factoids and the truth about each one.



Are you being stalked? – Kim S. describes how to know if you’re being stalked, and what to do if you are. 



Recommendations for Re-Authorization of the Violence Against Women Act 2005 



Becoming Part of The Solution – an essay by SAFE speaker Richard L. Davis. 



Domestic Violence in Massachusetts – an essay by SAFE speaker Richard L. Davis 



At The End of the Rainbow – A study by Mark Lehman on domestic violence for gay men. 



Review of Violent Partners by Linda Mills 

(c) 2001 Bill Kuhl 

Domestic violence against men is the subject of my graduate thesis.  From my research, I have come to realize that, despite the increased media attention it has received lately, people still know very little about this form of abuse – especially two of its most common components.

   The first is that men, as a group, endure about as much violence to their possessions as they do to their bodies.  My research has uncovered scores of anecdotes from men who have experienced, what I call, “domestic vandalism.”  Typically, their stories are punctuated with moments where the abuser, “bashed out the windows of my cherry red Camaro” or “cut up my varsity letter from high school.”  In spite of all the anecdotal information, I have yet to come across any published material specifically on domestic vandalism.  Nor have I ever heard of anyone calculating a total cost of men’s destroyed possessions.  Whatever the monetary cost is, the emotional cost is likely to be higher; it is not at all uncommon for abusers to purposely choose a keepsake as the object to be bashed in or cut up.

   The other component of domestic violence against men that few people seem to be aware of is the method with which women usually gain the upper hand in violent encounters.  As much of the research points out, women are often able to neutralize men’s greater strength, or at times even dominate them, by using a weapon.  But after digesting the accounts of numerous male victims, I have concluded that it is not physical weapons that give women the upper hand.  What puts women in a position to cause serious injury is the weapon that all good generals throughout history have known to be the most effective – the element of surprise.  In countless cases where men were seriously injured, the abuser used surprise as her chief weapon.  One such victim appeared on an Oprah Winfrey telecast devoted to domestic violence against men.  He reported that, in one instance, he was not aware his wife was behind him as he started down the stairs of their home.  She gave him a good shove causing him to tumble down the steps; he ended up with a concussion.

    The resultant problem for male victims is that, like everybody, they have to eat, sleep, shower and just take it easy.  Living with a spouse whose number one weapon is surprise, male victims are likely to be constantly on guard  –  a frame of mind that could produce a psychological toll as well.  With this in mind, the need for shelters for male victims becomes even more imperative.  Yet, such shelters are practically nonexistent.  Some cities offer very short term services such as two or three free nights at a hotel, while others offer space at only the most inaccessible shelters.  Among the 20 or more women’s shelters in Los Angeles, the only one that also accepts men is about 70 miles from downtown L.A.

    Why no services for men?  Because no funding exists.  According to the Bangor Daily News, “the Violence Against Women Act allocates $3.3 billion to help abused women but contains no money to help male victims.”  Legislators allot no money for men even though a mammoth body of scientific research dating back to the 1970’s shows women to be as frequently violent in relationships as men.  (For a list of 122 such scholarly articles see: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm) Plus, researchers agree that many domestic assaults against men are probably not being reported because of the humiliation the victims would suffer.

    Perhaps more shameful than society’s lack of funding for male victims is the greater problem from which this slight seems to stem  –  our compulsion to use partisanship rather than principles as a basis for public policy, a stance that has only produced divisiveness.  It is high time men and women started working together to stop abuse ….. no matter the gender doling it out.

Fundamentals of Research Writing
ENG 377 – Linfield College
Professor Donna Reid

August 16, 2001

by Nancy Wolf

What is the face of domestic violence? In the past, my answer would have fallen within a range that I suspect most of us see – a range that includes women’s faces, battered and bloodied; women’s bodies, bruised and battle-scarred; women’s psyches, shattered and broken; women’s souls, lost and without hope.

This is indeed a face of domestic violence – an awful fact of life for many thousands of women, a shameful act by many thousands of men. Everywhere in the popular press and media we are repeatedly told – with no reference to the original sources – the appalling statistics: domestic violence occurring every 14 seconds (Murphy-Milano, 1996), six million women victimized by their male partners each year (Berry, 2000), women are 95% of all domestic violence victims (“Rogue of the Week,” 2001), one out of two wives abused (Marecek, 1999).

But are these statistics accurate? Do they tell the whole story? Is woman-as-victim the only face of domestic violence?

I started asking myself that question when the comedic actor Phil Hartman was murdered in May 1998 by his wife of 11 years, Brynn Hartman, who then committed suicide (moviething.com). In each news item that I recall, his death was described simply as a homicide.

This made me think about the coverage of the murder of O. J. Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman in June 1994 (law.umkc.edu). In each news story that I recall, the term “victim of domestic violence” was prominent. Phil Hartman was no less a victim of domestic violence than Nicole Simpson had been, yet I never heard the term used in connection with his death. I wondered if the words “domestic violence” are the exclusive property of one class of victim – women – and if so, why? And I wondered how many men are victims of domestic violence.

What I have found is summed up by David Crary (2001) of the Associated Press: “That [battered] men exist in America, suffering one-sided physical abuse from their female partners, is widely accepted. Almost every other aspect of the topic – including the numbers of abused men and the gravity of their plight – is heatedly disputed” (p. 1).

The number of research-documented male victims of domestic violence is much higher than indicated by the popular press and generally acknowledged in the public consciousness. An Irish study of 530 heterosexual couples seeking marriage counseling (McKeown, 2001) found that 48% of those couples experience violence in their relationship, in which 33% are mutually combative, male-perpetrated violence occurs in 26%, and in 41% of the couples the woman initiates the violence, “?leading us to conclude that women are more likely than men to be the perpetrators of domestic violence” (p. 1). The researchers “cite research from the US, Britain, Canada and New Zealand which, they say, shows that the ‘prevalence of domestic violence among men and women, both as victims and as perpetrators, is broadly similar for all types of violence, both psychological and physical, minor and severe. In addition, both men and women are about equally likely to initiate domestic violence and seem to give broadly similar reasons for doing so'” (p. 1).

John Fekete (1994) refers to dozens of surveys conducted over a 30-year period in Canada and the United States that “show that women in relationships with men commit comparatively as many or more acts of physical violence as men do, at every level of severity” (p. 9). Martin Fiebert (1997) cites “85 scholarly investigations, 70 empirical studies, and 15 reviews and/or analyses which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 58,000” (p. 1). Coramae Mann (1996) cites a 1983 Chicago homicide study that showed “?black males are twice as likely to be killed by their female intimates than to kill them” (p. 83). Armin Brott (1994) analyzed the National [U.S.] Family Violence Survey and states that “among couples reporting violence, the man struck the first blow in 27 percent of the cases [and] the woman in 24 percent [of the cases]” (pp. 53-54).

Why are these findings so shocking? Why is it so hard to believe that in domestic violence cases men are victims – and women are perpetrators – at nearly equal rates? While the answers are complex and many-faceted, two aspects that my research kept turning up are social stereotypes and personal embarrassment.

In our culture men are expected to be independent and stoic. From Gary Cooper to John Wayne to Clint Eastwood, the strong, silent type is the American idol and ideal. Conversely, women are seen as nurturers, the domestic glue that binds the strong man to the home fires that she keeps burning. While we may acknowledge the occasional, isolated instance of a woman physically hurting a man, in general this is seen as a comical event. Who hasn’t seen the “amusing” caricature of the scowling woman with the frying pan, standing with arms crossed and foot tapping, ready to wallop the miscreant man; we can only guess his transgression – out late with the boys? less than appreciative of the home-cooked meal? spending part of his paycheck instead of bringing it all home to “the little woman”? Sitcoms and commercials abound with examples, presented as comedy, of women hitting, threatening or belittling men; after all, as Cathy Young (1999) points out, “comedians are in the business of exaggerating [social] stereotypes for effect” (p. 29). If the genders were reversed, and the image of a man hitting, threatening or belittling a woman was presented to sell products or entertain viewers, the public outcry would be audible.

An attack on a man by a woman is a humiliating, isolating event. Eric Schmidt (Fox TV) reported about the “wimp factor,” noting that “most men would rather not admit they’ve been beaten up by a woman.” He interviewed Jade Rubick, who spoke of being hit, scratched and bitten by his now-former wife during their two-year marriage. “It’s embarrassing,” he said, “and you’re considered a wimp if your partner is abusing you in a relationship.” Mr. Rubick went on to found Stop Abuse for Everyone (S.A.F.E.), a nonprofit organization aimed at increasing public awareness about all victims of domestic violence. Certainly no one would call a professional football player like running back Fred Lane (Indianapolis Colts) a wimp, but when he was killed by his wife last year relatively little news coverage was given to the domestic violence aspect of his death. An opportunity to educate the public about male victims – particularly to invalidate the “wimp factor” – was lost.

Another stereotype is woman-as-victim. If a woman attacks a man, it must be self-defense, even if that man is asleep, intoxicated, or otherwise incapacitated. In 1993, Lorena Bobbitt (courttv.com) cut off her husband’s penis as he slept; defense attorneys argued that because she was a victim of domestic violence, she was not responsible for her actions. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to 45 days of observation. Her action is held up as understandable, even justifiable – even heroic – by some self-declared feminists (Miller, 1995). An increasing number of women, however, are refusing the victim label in order to reclaim their dignity and regain their sense of personal power. Kate Fillion (1996) was asked by one such woman to “please don’t call me a victim?I know I was a victim, but that’s not all I am or ever will be?I can’t change the fact that it happened, but I have suffered enough for it, and I refuse to give that [expletive deleted] the power to define my entire identity” (p.252).

Finally, because “men are very reluctant to consider themselves to be victims” (George, 1993, p. 192), male victims themselves sometimes don’t recognize domestic violence even when, so to speak, it hits them in the head. I recently asked a friend if he had ever been the victim of domestic violence; he answered, “No, of course not.” I then asked him if he had ever been hit by a woman he was intimate with; he told me about a night his live-in girlfriend got angry because he was drinking. She came up behind him, hit him in the head, and knocked him unconscious. He woke up about 20 minutes later and she told him that he had made her so mad she had no choice but to do what she did; they remained together several more months.

We’ve examined some of the reasons the general public has difficulty believing the documented research showing the prevalence of domestic violence against heterosexual men, but what of the experts? There’s no lack of bona fide as well as self-appointed experts in the field of domestic violence, yet many (and based upon my research, I daresay most) of them dispute the validity of this well-documented research. Many refer repeatedly to the undocumented, vaguely documented or improperly analyzed statistics cited in the second paragraph of this paper. Even patently false urban myths are repeated as fact, such as that more women are beaten on Super Bowl Sunday (Updike, 1999) and that the expression “rule of thumb” comes from English canon law that a man could beat his wife with a branch no larger around than his thumb (“Ten Myths,” 2001).

There’s no controlling urban myths, of course, and the world is full of innocent distortions. In a recent documentary about the Cedar Point Amusement Park (Discovery Channel) a man standing next to the general manager stated that he rides the roller coaster several times a day; the general manager immediately stated that “50 million people have ridden our roller coaster.” Obviously, “50 million people” have not ridden it, because many people have ridden it more than once.

Misstatements about carnival rides are one thing; sloppy reporting of distorted statistics about violence and reporting urban myths as facts are quite another. A journalist must know – or find out – that when it is said that “the American Medical Association reports that?at least one out of five women [treated in the emergency room] has been injured by a current or former husband or boyfriend” (Berry, 2000, p. 8) the study being cited was published in 1984 based on results of a self-administered patient questionnaire given to a small sample of patients in one Detroit hospital, the question about domestic abuse was about any historical abuse and not just this particular visit, and the researchers “did not find a statistically significant difference between the number of male and female domestic violence victims” (Cook, 1997, p. 4). These facts certainly cast a different light on this commonly accepted emergency room statistic, but they don’t make for nearly as compelling a sound bite for the media. Obviously, it is incumbent upon the astute reader to critically examine any undocumented statistics and unfounded generalizations.

Yet beyond sloppy reporting and sIanting of data to favor a particular world view, I continually found examples of denial, even hostility, while researching this topic. Self-declared feminists such as Kate Orman (2001) find the Internet a useful tool to set up personal websites to proclaim that “anti-feminists” are behind the “claims” that women are as likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence as men are. Gottman and Jacobson (1998), each a Ph.D. college professor and marital therapist, state unequivocally that “it is hard to find women who are even capable [their emphasis] of battering their husbands” (p. 35). Jones and Schechter (1992) appear to absolve women of all personal responsibility when they state that when domestic abuse occurs, women are the only victims despite the fact that “they may even throw the first punch” (p. 312).

Why do so many people who are active in the domestic violence field find the statistics that show the prevalence of domestic violence against men threatening? Phil Cook, whose book Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence (1997) may well be the first to focus on this issue in a comprehensive way, cited four reasons when I interviewed him on July 25, 2001: “First, fear that funds for women might be taken away or diffused by adding a new class of victim. Second, it makes the job of providing services and counseling more difficult because it makes it more complex. Domestic violence isn’t simple [but] a simple paradigm is easier to deal with than a complex one. Third, politics and power. Being the exclusive victim class makes women more powerful in terms of getting funds, attention and clout. A dilution of that exclusive victim class is threatening to that political power. Fourth, gender-feminist theory, which is not a theory of equality but a theory of female powerlessness in the domestic household while at the same time promulgating a theory of power or potential power in other realms. There is no place for male victims in this theory.”

With these formidable political, social and personal obstacles, Mr. Cook expects it will take at least another 10 to 15 years for the general public to understand and accept the extent of the problem of domestic violence against men. He noted that one of the first comprehensive books about female victims of domestic violence was published in 1974, and that the extent of the problem was not generally acknowledged by the public until about 1985 (11 years later). He expects that a general acceptance of male victims will take a bit longer.

Mr. Cook not only writes and lectures extensively to bring this problem to increased public awareness, he also spends considerable time volunteering with the nonprofit organization Stop Abuse for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) mentioned earlier in this paper. He has appeared on local and national talk shows and news broadcasts, and is one of the nation’s foremost experts on the subject of male victims of domestic violence. I asked him what he thinks of in moments of discouragement; what keeps him going in the face of so many obstacles? “The small steps forward,” he told me. “Each and every step is an important one.”

I posed this same question to Jade Rubick, founder of S.A.F.E. and another tireless worker against domestic violence, when I interviewed him on August 7, 2001. “When I get discouraged, I think of a man who wrote to me and said that he had been feeling terribly alone and suicidal in his abusive relationship. He felt I had saved his life. He had left his abusive relationship and was giving back to the community by helping others who had been in similar situations. Letters like that make it all worth it, because sometimes you don’t see how your efforts are making a difference.”

There are encouraging signs of progress. Mr. Rubick was contacted last month by Heather Rutman, Hearst Entertainment, to assist on a story about female perpetrators on Lifetime Television. Ms. Rutman had worked with the producers of the recent CBS movie “Unforgivable,” the true story of an abused man who sought and received help and started a support group for other abused men. Abigail Van Buren and Ann Landers (2001) write very popular advice columns and have repeatedly used those columns to educate the general public that men, too, are victims of domestic violence. Magazine articles about domestic violence are beginning to mention men as victims, even if just in a sidebar (Osmundson, 2001). Eyler and Cohen (1999) were careful to keep their medical journal article gender-neutral, acknowledging that male as well as female patients are often hesitant to speak out about abuse they are suffering, and specifically brought attention to the fact that “unless specifically mentioned, the remarks in this article are true for situations in which men and women are the abusers” (p. 2569).

Acknowledging the extent to which men suffer from domestic abuse does not in any way negate or diminish the fact that women suffer from domestic abuse. Violence hurts people, individual beings, not genders or ideological groups. People need to be educated about this topic in order to overcome society’s collective denial about the topic of male victims and female perpetrators so that both groups can receive the support and services they need. As David Thomas (1993) points out, “neither sex has the monopoly on virtue or vice?Men do not wear the black hats, nor women the white. We are all of us fallible souls decked out in shades of gray” (p. 251).

References

Berry, D.B. (2000). The domestic violence sourcebook. Lincolnwood, IL: Lowell

House.

Brott, A. (1994, August 8-14). The facts take a battering. The Washington Post

National Weekly Edition. Reprinted in Violence against women, ed. James

Torr, Greenhaven Press: San Diego. 1999.

Cook, P. (1997). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence. Westport,

CT: Praeger Publishers.

courttv.com. Retrieved July 28, 2001, from the Court TV website library on the

World Wide Web: http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/verdicts/bobbitt.html

Crary, D. (2001, June 16). In the gender wars, another flashpoint: battered men.

The Seattle Times. Nation and World Section, p. 1.

Discovery Channel. (2001, July 21). The world’s largest amusement park.

Eyler, A.E. & Cohen, M. (1999, December). American Family Physician, 60,

2569-76.

Fekete, J. (1994) Moral panic: Biopolitics rising. Quebec: Robert Davies

Publishing.

Fiebert, M. (1997, May 24) References examining assaults by women on their

spouses/partners: An annotated bibliography. Paper presented to the

American Psychological Society Convention, Washington, D.C.

Fillion, K. (1996). Lip service: The truth about women’s darker side in love, sex,

and friendship. Toronto: HarperCollins.

Fox Television News. (2001, May 9). Battered men.

George, M. (1993). In Thomas, D., Not guilty: The case in defense of men. New

York: William Morrow and Company.

Gottman, J.M., & Jacobson, N.S. (1998). When men batter women. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Indianapolis Colts web page, retrieved July 29, 2001, from the World Wide Web:

http://www.charlotte.com/panthers/00/docs/0421lanechrono.htm

Jones, A., & Schechter, S. (1992). When love goes wrong. New York:

HarperCollins.

Landers, A. (2001, June 19). Advice column. Washington Post. p. C12.

law.umkc.edu, biography of Orenthal J. Simpson, retrieved July 28, 2001, from

the World Wide Web: http://www.law.umkc.edu.

Mann, C.R. (1996). When women kill. Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press.

Marecek, M. (1999). Breaking free from partner abuse. Buena Park, CA: Morning

Glory Press.

McKeown, K. (2001, June 13). Marriage and relationship counselling (sic)

services study (Dublin, Ireland). Quoted in The Irish Times (2001, June

14). p. 1.

Miller, M.S. (1995). No visible wounds: Identifying nonphysical abuse of women

by their men. Chicago: Contemporary Books.

moviething.com, biography of Phil Hartman, retrieved July 28, 2001 from the

World Wide Web: http://www.moviething.com.

Murphy-Milano, S. (1996). Defending our lives: Getting away from domestic

violence & staying safe. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday.

Orman, K. (2001). The battered husband controversy. Retrieved June 17, 2001,

from the World Wide Web: http://www.zip.com.au/~korman/dv/controversy.

Osmundson, L. (2001, July 9). For abused women: It’s not hopeless. Christian

Science Sentinel. p. 11.

Rogue of the week. (2001, July 11). Willamette Week. p. 9.

Ten myths. (2001, April 18). Daily Bruin UCLA Student Newspaper. Ad placed by

the Independent Women’s Forum. (page unknown).

Thomas, D. (1993). Not guilty: The case in defense of men. New York: William

Morrow and Company.

Updike, N. (1999, May/June). Hitting the wall. Mother Jones Magazine.

Reprinted in Family violence. (2001). ed. J.D. Loyd. San Diego:

Greenhaven Press.

Young, C. (1999). Ceasefire! Why women and men must join forces to achieve

true equality. New York: The Free Press.

by David L. Fontes, Psy.D., CEAP
9728 Kent St., Suite C
Elk Grove, CA 95624

(916) 685-5258, ext. 8
E-mail: maledv@citlink.net

September 23, 1999

What domestic violence presenters don’t tell you.

• How many know that the same research which is used to say that a woman is severely assaulted by her husband/boyfriend every 15 second in this country, also indicated that a man is severely assaulted by his wife/girlfriend every 14.6 seconds.

(Straus, M. A., 1977)

• How many know that although most Archival research (data which comes from police arrest reports, hospital records, judicial reports, and domestic violence shelters usually set up to help female victims) indicates only a small percentage of male victims of domestic violence, that the vast majority of scientific Survey research continues to indicate that husbands and wives are assaulting each other at nearly the same rate, a range from 35 to 50 percent male victims.

(Straus, M. A., 1977; Steinmetz, 1978; Brutz & Ingoldby 1981; Makepeace 1981; Makepeace 1983; Elliot, D. S. et al., 1985; Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R., 1986; Meredith et al. 1986; Szinovacz, 1987; Barling et al., 1987; Mason & Blankenship, 1987; O’Leary & Arias, 1988; Malcolm, G., 1994; Dunn, K., 1994; Coochey, J., 1995; Carrado et al., 1996)

• How many know that when Feminist groups and domestic violence workers are exposed to these facts they will immediately minimize the importance of these studies by raising the argument that even if women do assault their partner it is usually for reason of self-defense, yet they produce no scientific research to support this claim other than some case studies or anecdotal information. Although limited, scientific research data suggests that only 10-20% of women assault their male partners for reasons of self-defense. Domestic violence shelters are likely to see these women and are less likely to see the 80-90% of women who assault their husbands/boyfriends for reasons other than self-defense. Interestingly, about 30% of the men said they assaulted their partner in self-defense.

(Carrado, et al., 1996; Sommer, 1992)

• How many know that survey research suggest that women who are assaulted are 9 times more likely to report to police and 5 times more likely to tell a friend/relative than men who are assaulted by their wives. (Stets, J. & Straus, M. A., 1990) In general only about 8-10% of women who are assaulted and 1-2% of men who are assaulted report the assault to an agency/authority. (Fontes, 1998) This is likely why archival data indicates more female victims.

• How many know that most assaults between partners are mutual 48.6%, men only 25.5%, and women only 25.9%. Or that women are more likely to stick the first blow against their intimate partner, as reported by women themselves. (Straus, 1997) One study showed that 83% of the couples studies engaged in “bi-directional or mutual physical aggression.” (Jennifer Langhinrich-Rohling et al., 1996).

• How many know that 60% of women who are arrested for domestic violence against their husbands have previous criminal records.

(Jurik, N. C., 1989; Jurik, N. C., & Gregware, P., 1989)

• How many know that although women are seven times more likely to report they needed to see a doctor as a result of being assaulted by their husband (Gelles, 1996), one does not know if they are seven times more likely to actually be injured by their husbands than husbands are by their wives. Only 3% of the women reported they needed to see a doctor and only 0.4% of the men reported they need to see a doctor as a result of being assaulted. (Straus, M. A., 1997) Women are nearly twice as like to use an object when she assaults a male partner which can equalize the level of injury he receives. (Straus & Gelles, 1986)

 
To learn more about male victims of domestic violence the following literature is suggested:

• Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence by Philip Cook, publisher: Praeger, 1997. ISBN: 0-275-95862-0

• When she was bad: Violent women and the myth of innocence by Patricia Pearson, publisher: Viking, 1997. ISBN: 0-670-85925-7

• Ceasefire: Why women and men must join forces to achieve true equality by Cathy Young, publisher: Free Press, 1999. ISBN: o-684-83442-1

• Who stole feminism: How women have betrayed women by Christina Hoff Sommers, publisher: Simon and Schuster, 1996. ISBN: 0-684-80156-6

• The myth of male power by Warren Farrell, publisher: New York: Berkley, 1993. ISBN: 0-425-15523-4

• Violent Touch: Breaking Through the Stereotype.

(45 page paper) by David L. Fontes, Psy.D., 1998.

$12.50 per copy includes shipping and handling.

• Battered by their wives. ABC 20/20 video, September 19, 1997, $29.95, call

1-800-913-3434

© Kim S., Professional Speaker, 2004
http://www.kimsawareness.com/

Most everyone has experienced a painful break-up at one point in their lives, so it is easy to sympathize with someone else who is having difficulty letting go – who continues phoning, or sending flowers, letters, and gifts to an estranged partner in an attempt to reconcile with him/her. Many of us have also had romantic crushes on another person, so we can relate to the kinds of tactics people sometimes use to get the attention of their objects of affection.

When you are on the receiving end of these types of pursuit, it can be very flattering; but, when it crosses an invisible line, and makes you feel increasingly uneasy, then that is your instinct telling you something very important – that you are being stalked, and you might very well be in danger.

Trust Your Instincts:

Listen to your gut feeling. If you are a target of unwanted pursuit, and the situation makes you feel afraid, then you probably have good reason to be afraid. If you can relate to any of the below emotional signs in yourself, read on to learn more about the law, potential health consequences for victims of stalking, the types of stalking behaviors, and what you can do to protect yourself from potentially becoming another statistic:

Do you feel …

• resentment toward your pursuer or others who enable his/her behavior?
• fear of what your pursuer might do?
• vulnerable, unsafe, and not sure of whom you can trust?
• confused by your pursuer’s intentions and uncertain about how you should be feeling?
• frustrated and isolated because those around you can’t understand why you might be feeling afraid?
• hopeless and powerless to make your pursuer leave you alone?
• that your personal safety at work/home has diminished?
• that you’ve lost control of your life due to the constant pursuit?
• powerless to change the situation?
• overly anxious, nervous, and impatient?
• depressed, overwhelmed, and easily brought to tears?

Stalking Is Illegal:

Subsection 264 of the Criminal Code states:

(1) No person shall, without lawful authority, and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in the conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them; (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them; (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them resides, works, carries on business, or happens to be; or (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

In plain English, below are some examples that better describe the Stalking/Criminal Harassment behaviors referred to in subsection 264 of the Criminal Code:

• repeated, unwanted contact by telephone calls/hang-ups, letters, cards, faxes
• repeated, unwanted contact over the Internet in chat rooms, newsgroups, or through email (also known as “cyber stalking”)
• sending unwanted gifts of any kind (pleasant gifts such as flowers, candy, toys, books, jewelry, pictures, et cetera; or, strange gifts such as bullet casings, lockets of hair, bloody clothing, et cetera)
• showing up uninvited wherever you happen to be
• stealing/opening your personal mail to find out more about you
• ordering/canceling goods or services on your behalf
• following you, watching you, maintaining surveillance on you
• threatening to harm you, your family, friends or pets
• harassing your family, friends, colleagues, or your employer
• convincing his/her friends to spy on you, or harass you (sometimes referred to as “stalking by proxy”)
• filing multiple frivolous court claims against you in order to harass or simply keep in touch with you
• vandalizing your property
• breaking into your home/office
• kidnapping you, holding you hostage
• assaulting you

If convicted of this offense, men/women can face up to five years in prison. However, in order for their conduct to be considered Stalking/Criminal Harassment in a court of law, it must first meet the following five key elements:

• The offender engaged in the conduct described in subsection 264(2):

One overtly threatening attack can justify a charge of Criminal Harassment, such as verbally or physically threatening another person’s physical safety or life. However, statistics have shown that stalking behavior need not be overtly threatening in order to be potentially dangerous later on; therefore, repeated contact that poses an implicit threat to the victim is also grounds for a charge by police. When using the word “repeated,” this means that the offender carried out any of the above-mentioned behaviors more than once or twice.

• The offender did not have lawful authority to engage in the prohibited conduct:

Sorry – but you can’t charge creditors with stalking, even if you fear their repeated phone calls! Unfortunately, they have lawful authority to collect on any debt if your payments are in arrears.

On a more serious note: unlike the creditor, a past union or marriage between the offender and his/her victim does not constitute lawful authority. This means that an estranged husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, brother/sister, et cetera, does not have the right to continually contact you if you have asked to be left alone. Everyone has the right to end a consensual relationship if and when they choose to end it; so, if your ex won’t leave you alone and this frightens you, you have the right to protection under this law.

• The offender knew that the victim was harassed, or was reckless/willfully blind as to whether the victim was harassed:

A lack of intent to harass or cause fear is not a defense. The issue is the effect the stalking had on the victim.

When prosecuting Stalking/Criminal Harassment cases, the Crown does not have to prove that the offender knew the victim feared for his/her safety, or that the offender was warned the behavior in question was a criminal offense. The victim does not even have to be forceful in rebuffing the defendant’s attention. In other words, it is expected that the offender should have known that repeatedly bothering his/her victim would, reasonably, have the affect of making him/her feel harassed.

To be safe, victims of stalking should contact the police early on, file a formal complaint with them, and request that an officer contact the offender with a warning. If this does not put a stop to the offender’s behavior altogether, it will at least tell the stalker that his/her victim has a protective barrier in place, and it will also help the Crown Prosecutor’s case in convicting the offender later on.

• The conduct causes the victim to fear for his/her safety or the safety of someone known to them:

Fear for safety is not restricted to a victim’s fear for his/her life or physical safety. If a victim fears for his/her mental, psychological, and/or emotional safety, this is enough to warrant a charge of Stalking/Criminal Harassment.

• The victim’s fear must be reasonable in all the circumstances:

Determining reasonableness of fear requires that a subjective test be done to learn the effects the offender’s harassment had on the victim: What is the entire history between the victim and the accused? What was the sequence of events that led up to the victim’s present state of distress? Has the victim provided physical evidence and/or a detailed log of these events? Does the victim appear to be a credible witness who is telling the truth, or someone who is lying to police in order to avenge the accused?

In cases where there is one or more overtly threatening assault on the victim, reasonableness of fear can be more easily determined; however, history tells us that escalation of any of the above behavioral patterns is cause for concern. The very fact that the accused engaged in the repeated, unwanted pursuit of his/her victim is a strong indicator that something is very wrong. Another sign is the victim’s current state of health in comparison to where they started.

The Health Effects of Stalking on Victims:

In the beginning of this article, we discussed some of the universal emotions victims of stalking report feeling. The sad truth is that the potential health consequences don’t stop there – not by a long shot. Not only can this type of harassment affect an individual’s mental and emotional wellbeing, but many also experience serious physiological reactions as indicated below:

• Potential Effects of Stalking on a Victim’s Mental and Emotional Health:

Denial and self-doubt Self-blame
Insecurity Shame and embarrassment
Frustration Low self-esteem
Self-consciousness Shock and confusion
Irritability Anxiety
Fear Guilt
Anger Depression
Emotional numbness Isolation/disconnection from other people
Being easily startled A loss of interest in once enjoyable activities
Feeling suicidal A loss of trust in others and in one’s own perception

• Potential Effects of Stalking on a Victim’s Physiological Health:

Sleep disturbances Nightmares/flashbacks
Problems with intimacy/sex Low concentration levels
Lethargy Phobias and panic attacks
Digestive problems Fluctuations in weight
Dermatological breakouts Headaches
Dizziness Shortness of breath
Self-medication with alcohol/drugs Heart palpitations and sweating

After suffering from prolonged stalking, or one severe/threatening incident of Criminal Harassment, a victim’s symptoms may even be triggered by other people, objects, or situations that remind them – either consciously or unconsciously – of the trauma they experienced. This is a sign that they may be suffering from Acute/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and that they require immediate medical care through psychotherapy, medications, or a combination of the two.

As we are about to learn, when discussing the typologies of stalkers, another real “health concern” for victims of stalking is the possibility of sexual/physical assault or murder. This threat is very real. It should never be taken lightly and escalates the importance of reporting any stalking incidents to police right away.

Typologies of Stalkers:

There are three main types of stalkers: Erotomaniacs, Love Obsessional Stalkers, and Simple Obsessional Stalkers (also known as Ex Intimate Partner Stalkers). What they have in common is an unhealthy fixation on their targeted victims. What separates them is their motivation in pursuing those victims.

Some commonalities to watch for in stalkers are as follows:

• They often abuse alcohol and/or drugs
• They generally have a low self-esteem coupled with an obsessive personality
• They have had few personal relationships
• They have a desire for power and control over their victims
• They will most likely deny that they have a problem, or that they are doing anything wrong, and will try to minimize the reactions their victims have to their behavior
• They will rationalize their behavior by blaming their victims, or anyone else who tries to intervene
• They will often reject arguments by their victims, or others, to cease their stalking behaviors and seek psychological help from a medical professional

 

The differences between the three main stalking typologies are as follows:

Erotomania Stalking

Erotomaniacs are the most well known type of stalkers, as their targets are generally public figures or celebrities, and, consequently, the media often profiles their cases. In actuality, this type of stalker is the least common of the three typologies and, historically, the least dangerous.

Erotomaniacs are delusional, most of them suffering from some sort of mental disorder such as schizophrenia. They stalk because they believe they have a relationship with their target, even if they’ve never personally met him/her.

A prime example of this type of stalker is Margaret R. Ray – the woman who pursued the popular late night talk show host, David Letterman, with the belief that she was his wife, and their love was mutual.

Love Obsessional Stalking

Love Obsessional stalkers are similar to Erotomaniacs in that their victims can be complete strangers to them; however, these stalkers sometimes also target casual aquaintances such as coworkers or neighbors.

Unlike the Erotomaniac, they do not have the delusion that a relationship already exists, and most suffer from a personality disorder rather than a mental illness. They are motivated to stalk in an attempt to establish a more personal relationship with their object of affection. They may go so far as to invent detailed fantasies of the relationship they want with that victim (such as, creating scrapbooks filled with pictures of themselves and the victim); and, if they cannot have a positive relationship with their target, they will often settle for a negative relationship instead.

One of the most notorious Love Obsessional stalkers is Mark David Chapman – the man who claimed to be John Lennon’s biggest fan, but then shot him to death outside his home. Chapman was so desperate to have any kind of relationship/association with Lennon that when his affection was not reciprocated, he settled for violence instead. In a very tragic sense, he got his wish: he will forever be associated with Lennon.

Another case of Love Obsessional Stalking that actually precipitated the creation of anti-stalking legislation in 1993 was the Laura Black case. Laura Black was an average, everyday person being romantically pursued by one of her male coworkers. When she did not reciprocate his advances, and he subsequently lost his job due to his repeated harassment of her, he responded by returning to the workplace in a murderous rage. This resulted in Laura’s death, and the death of several of her coworkers, before he finally turned the gun on himself and committed suicide.

(a reader wrote and said:
LAURA IS NOT DEAD. HER STALKER IS NOT DEAD. HE IS ON DEATH ROW.)

Simple Obsessional (sometimes referred to as Ex-Intimate Partner) Stalking

Police regard Simple Obsessional stalkers as the most common and potentially dangerous of all the typologies. They account for more than 60% of all reported stalking cases, and arise from the end of a consensual relationship between a husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, or other domestic partner.

These stalkers are highly disturbed due to the loss of their partner, and pursue that person in an attempt to continue controlling him/her after the relationship has ended. In many of these cases, there was a history of domestic abuse – emotional, verbal, and/or physical abuse – in the relationship, making the potential for violence even greater. The “If I can’t have you, then no one can!” attitude is a common – and dangerous – trait in this type of stalker. What might have begun as an attempt to reconcile with his/her estranged partner can ultimately result in a murder/suicide.

What To Do If You Are Being Stalked:

Say no ONCE then do not have any further personal contact with the person pursuing you. Do not reply to any future phone calls, not even to tell him/her, “Leave me alone!” If you do, chances are the only thing that person will understand is that it takes “x” number of phone calls to get you to answer, and he/she will continue pursuit in full force with the hopes you will respond again.

The reality is that, in most cases, a victim of stalking will not be able to correct the situation on his/her own. Very few stalkers desist from pursuing their targets until after law enforcement officials have intervened. Therefore, below is a list of precautions you can take to better your chances of getting the help you need:

• Do everything you can to avoid all contact with your stalker
• Inform those close to you (family, friends, coworkers) about what is going on
• Obtain a restraining order or peace bond
• Make sure you have quick access to critical telephone numbers and transportation
• Arrange a safe alternative place to go if needed
• Keep your doors locked at all times (house and vehicle)
• Park your vehicle in well-lit areas, and do not go out to the parking lot alone
• Change your routine (such as traveling a different route to work each day) in order to avoid any activities that may be predictable to your stalker
• Report all incidents of stalking to your local police
• As the police require evidence in order to charge an offender with stalking, be diligent in keeping all physical evidence you have received (such as letters, gifts, voice mails, and emails), and keep a written log of the intangibles (such as dates, times, and locations where you saw your stalker following or watching you, and the names/numbers of other witnesses)

  The most important thing you can do to help yourself, or your loved ones, in stalking situations is to be informed, and make sure that those around you are also informed. You do not have control over a stalker’s behaviour, and it is nearly impossible to predict who may become a target of stalking. But if you know the symptoms to watch for, and are aware of the law, then your chances of resolving the issue early on will be that much greater.

  * * *

  Kim S. is a published author, award-winning speaker, and creator/presenter of The Awareness Series speaking series. Her mission is to deal head-on with stigmatized social issues such as workplace harassment, domestic abuse, depression, and single parenting. Each of these presentations is a must-see, delivered from the most alluring viewpoint there is: that of the survivor.

By Daily Pakistan Global 11/01/2015

“…Indecent or sexual assault on others, men or women, now carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison. In the former law, the clause “others” meant only “women”. The amendment was passed by the top legislature in August, Xinhua news agency reported. …”

Read the entire article: http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/viral/male-rape-now-a-crime-in-china/

By Mail Tribune 08/31/2015

“… Shawna Marie Nerby, 25, of Lower Lake, Calif., was sentenced to five years’ probation after pleading guilty to attempted first-degree sodomy, attempted first-degree rape and attempted second-degree rape. She is a former resident of the trailer park. …”

Read the entire article: http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20150831/NEWS/150839937

By New York Post 10/04/2015

“… In “The Clintons’ War On Women” (Skyhorse), out Oct. 13, political strategist Roger Stone details Hillary’s abusive behavior — dating back to the Clintons’ days in Arkansas, where Bill served as governor. …”

Read the entire article: http://nypost.com/2015/10/04/hillary-has-long-history-of-beating-up-bill-behind-closed-doors-book/