Has anyone's marriage successfully overcome domestic violence?

[Anonymous]

The only cases I know of where a couple overcame this, it was because there was a specific identifiable (and treatable) mental issue on the abuser's part that was contributing to the violence, and the abuser eventually acknowledged it and sought real help.

One case was an older relative returning from Vietnam in the 70s. PTSD wasn't really discussed or identified much at the time, but looking back on it he was really suffering from what he had seen and lived during the war. For his first couple of years back home, he lashed out at everyone, especially his wife. Violence and a "kill or be killed" mentality was just so ingrained by that point, and a need to have control over something - anything - in his life. Started taking drugs, drinking too much. Eventually he sought counseling, quit all alcohol/drugs. It took a lot of time and work, but he eventually returned (mostly) to his pre-war personality. I don't think he was ever completely the same, but much improved from the first couple of years home.

Another case, the husband was prone to rages that grew worse in his 30s. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Once we went on medication, the rages subsided. It took a long time, and a couple of hospitalizations, to get dosages and related therapies right, but now he's very stable.

The common theme in both cases is a treatable mental illness on the part of the abuser. Otherwise I firmly believe "once an abuser, always an abuser".

[Anonymous]

For those still following this thread, any experience (in your own life, as a prosecutor, what have you) of things changing once the abuser is sober? I realize that DH is an alcoholic, he knows it too. Our marriage counselor has helped us identify a lot of reasons why we believe both act (and react) the way we do. Therapy has also helped me recognize that while the physical violence hasn’t happened in a while, and is infrequent, he is still violent. I never considered throwing things to be so bad, I thought, at least he’s not coming after me. But that is still out of control, and I recognize we can’t continue like this. We have kids and I can’t ignore the damage this is doing this them any longer. But could reconciliation be possible and/or wise to consider if he were sober? Almost every incident I can think of, he was drinking. He started going to AA, he knows he needs help. Could it ever improve?

[Anonymous]

My brother was/is in an abusive relationship. His wife abused him both emotionally and physically.

She is now on medication, she went back to work (SAH was not a good fit for her) and their kids are older and life is just less stressful. Things have been much better the last couple of years but I have no doubt that if life got really hard again and she was very stressed / depressed, that she would again be abusive.

They stayed together. There is a lot of stigma about men as victims - many people told him she was this way because young kids / PPD / stress / needing more support etc.

They seem reasonably happy now but it impacted my brother and he just isn't the same person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the previous prosecutor poster coming back to comment on the last two posts. As much as I appreciate their perspectives, I get frustrated when people chalk up DV to "anger issues." DV is about so much more than anger problems. If it were only about his anger, he'd also hit his children, parents, boss, server at a restaurant, other drivers on the road etc. etc. when they made him angry too. There's an additional pathology with domestic abusers that's less fixable than someone who just has problems controlling their anger.

This isn't true. Many people with anger issues can control it in some contexts and choose to release it in others. The idea that someone with anger issues will lash out in the same way at everyone in their lives is not how people function. Sometimes DV is about anger and getting angry. Not all DV is the same, nor is the motivations of the abuser the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP back again. I don't know exactly. Probably some combination of misogyny, control issues, and good old fashioned "not being wired right." My ex was Ivy-educated, had a great job, and came from a decent family with no history of abuse. I'm entirely convinced that he was just wired wrong.

People often don't want to hear it, but I agree with your statement. Some people seem to be overly reactive from birth.

I think there could be some truth to this. I had an abusive ex-BF. I left him as soon as it became physical, but in retrospect it had been emotional for a while.

In his case, he was diagnosed with BPD. I learned later that he had previously been violent once with another LT GF and even with his mother when he was a young teen. He was super smart, Ivy-league educated, and really gentle and kind day-to-day. I'm not saying that as a gaslighting victim, that's how his friends would describe him. I was first tipped off to his issues when he got so angry in a silly conversation with him, me, and a mutual (male) friend that he ended yelling at both of us and walking out...but I somehow stuck around longer. I did know about the BPD dx, and I think he sometimes used that as an excuse for how he treated people. But in retrospect, a really close friend's mom has treated BPD, and she's never been violent (the friend is so close there's no way she wouldn't have told...she tells me everything else that's hard/wrong in her life). My DH definitely can have a temper, but he deals with it in a very healthy way that is never scary or directed at me. I know he gets angry at things I wouldn't, but I've never for a second been scared of DH. So I think it's not just anger issues, per se, but they can probably play a role.

Honestly, ex-BF understands his issues, but he's tried lots of therapy and medication...and it just seems to be a pattern he repeats over-and-over with women in his life that he cares about. He's married now, and I sometimes wonder about how he treats his wife. I don't have any direct contact with him anymore, but I know a little about him through mutual friends. It's not coming across in this post, but there is nothing about him that would make you even suspect he could be an abuser from the outside, though. It's really insidious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those still following this thread, any experience (in your own life, as a prosecutor, what have you) of things changing once the abuser is sober? I realize that DH is an alcoholic, he knows it too. Our marriage counselor has helped us identify a lot of reasons why we believe both act (and react) the way we do. Therapy has also helped me recognize that while the physical violence hasn’t happened in a while, and is infrequent, he is still violent. I never considered throwing things to be so bad, I thought, at least he’s not coming after me. But that is still out of control, and I recognize we can’t continue like this. We have kids and I can’t ignore the damage this is doing this them any longer. But could reconciliation be possible and/or wise to consider if he were sober? Almost every incident I can think of, he was drinking. He started going to AA, he knows he needs help. Could it ever improve?

In my experience being partnered with someone in recovery (14 years sober and active in AA), sobriety changes just about everything. My partner was never abusive nor even unkind to anyone when an active alcoholic, but his sobriety has changed the way he engages with the world in fundamental ways. He used to be arrogant, resistant to input about how he affected people or how he was hurting himself, and closed off to any kind of problem solving about his troubled youth apart from self-medicating with alcohol and excessive hours at work. He was always a gentle and fiercely loyal person, but his personality traits and drinking were destructive. He's 180-degrees different now. Humble (in AA speak right-sized), realistic, communicative, successfully dealing with underlying issues, profoundly interested in other people's points of view.

That being said, sobriety doesn't only mean not taking a drink for a certain amount of time. It means active, daily, lifelong work in recovery. AA isn't just a way to avoid taking one drink. It's a series of habits of mind, ways to live and interact, and moral frameworks into which a wide variety of destructive behaviors just won't fit.

A person who is not only *not drinking* but is actively committed to sobriety and recovery will be very different than when they were an untreated alcoholic. Whether underlying rage or violence goes away isn't something in my experience. I'm not in Al Anon but you should look into it. People there will know a lot about this.

[Anonymous]

Actually I DO think cultural expectations are relevant to determining what counts as "abuse," not necessarily in a legal sense, but when it comes to understanding motivation and likelihood of change.

Think of parent-child relationships. In some jurisdictions, using physical force to punish a child is a crime, period. In others, it's not. Say a parent comes from a culture that views spanking as part of "healthy" discipline for children. In that context, the occasional spanking is unlikely to presage ongoing or worsening "abuse," even if that parent moves to a jurisdiction in which it is unlawful, because the parent is not spanking the kid because he is out of control and violent. This is not the same as saying I think spanking is ok - just noting that context does matter.

I think a lot of people grow up in contexts in which an arm grab, a cheek slap, or a shoulder shake is NOT considered abusive. That doesn't mean no abusers use these tactics, it just means that not everyone who does this from time to time is a died in the wool abuser who will never change.

I agree, however, that there is no moral or cultural universe that I would tolerate in which choking, stabbing, threats with guns, broken bones, punches, etc. count as anything other than abuse.

All this is a long way of saying, OP, that i think people CAN learn to control "minor" bad habits. I am not sure they can ever learn to change the really nasty stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually I DO think cultural expectations are relevant to determining what counts as "abuse," not necessarily in a legal sense, but when it comes to understanding motivation and likelihood of change.

Think of parent-child relationships. In some jurisdictions, using physical force to punish a child is a crime, period. In others, it's not. Say a parent comes from a culture that views spanking as part of "healthy" discipline for children. In that context, the occasional spanking is unlikely to presage ongoing or worsening "abuse," even if that parent moves to a jurisdiction in which it is unlawful, because the parent is not spanking the kid because he is out of control and violent. This is not the same as saying I think spanking is ok - just noting that context does matter.

I think a lot of people grow up in contexts in which an arm grab, a cheek slap, or a shoulder shake is NOT considered abusive. That doesn't mean no abusers use these tactics, it just means that not everyone who does this from time to time is a died in the wool abuser who will never change.

I agree, however, that there is no moral or cultural universe that I would tolerate in which choking, stabbing, threats with guns, broken bones, punches, etc. count as anything other than abuse.

All this is a long way of saying, OP, that i think people CAN learn to control "minor" bad habits. I am not sure they can ever learn to change the really nasty stuff.

Is there a difference between the minor stuff vs major stuff as you described? Yes. Would I ever tolerate it? No. Dh is a foot taller and over a 100 pounds heavier than me. Even if he was never obviously violent towards me/only used his strength to intimidate me, the minor stuff would still be frightening. It would make me feel unsafe and that is unacceptable in any healthy relationship.Your marriage is the one place where you're supposed to be safe and your partner should never threaten your physical safety even if the threat is implied.