|
|
Post by adventura on Jul 20, 2016 21:52:55 GMT -5
The Verbally Abusive Relationship by Patricia Evans.
Some reviewers on Amazon have panned it because its definition of verbal abuse is so broad; others don't like it because the author uses the female pronoun for the abusee and the male pronoun for the abuser. She explains why in the introduction, and I agree with her reasoning but I can see why a male reader would need a very open mind to switch the pronouns throughout the entire book. The men here are empaths, though, so I think you can manage that and will get a lot out of it.
It's the best thing I've read on the power dynamic that underlies troubled and failing relationships, and although it doesn't talk specifically about sexlessness, it lists avoidance of intimacy in all its forms as the abuser's motivation for maintaining control. As has been discussed here many times, it's not just about the lack of sex - rather, sexlessness is a symptom of a deeper psychological problem. I believe it's almost always based on fear of intimacy and letting go.
|
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jul 20, 2016 22:54:22 GMT -5
Not 100% on topic, but worth mentioning -
- I saw a documentary the other night about a study undertaken by The University of Dunedin in New Zealand concerning relationship abuse.
Their research (which stretched over 10 years) they found NO GENDER DIFFERENCE in the levels of physical violence perpetrated in relationships.
That is to say, women are just as likely to hit husbands as husbands are to hit wives.
The only difference was that blokes - generally - inflict greater damage because they hit harder.
And, husbands are far less likely to report such incidents to the authorities.
-
Apparently another study in Denmark has produced the same results and the early evaluation of another study (in Ireland I think) is also showing this.
-
Thing is, no-one else believes the research results at this point. (the Dunedin University study didn't believe what the results were saying either, initially, until they had exhaustively gone through the data again)
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jul 20, 2016 23:16:00 GMT -5
do you have a "compromising, give in" vocabulary? {I do} like, " i would like to.or what if, or how about, or would you like to, or when you feel like it, or when you have the time, etc..." Not much desicion making, leadership sounds in those words, are there? There is truth in what you say, but some finer points... For me, it is "mediator's language". State what you want, don't ask permission. But do it in a cushioned way that allows for a counter opinion or a graceful rebuttal without forcing polarity. For example: "I am / I will / I need..." leave no wiggle room. You're being absolute, making a declaration; be prepared for a polarized reaction. "I'm filing for divorce tomorrow." (Though smart strategy would be for them to learn this when the process server delivers the papers.) "I want to / We should..." are statements of opinion, but leave room for discussion. "We should just get divorced." "I want / I want YOU to / Will you..." are requests, surrendering all the power to the other party. "I want a divorce." Not trying to go all grammar crazy here, but you make an important point that the words we use determine whether you're retaining or surrendering the decision authority. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jul 22, 2016 14:15:16 GMT -5
do you have a "compromising, give in" vocabulary? {I do} like, " i would like to.or what if, or how about, or would you like to, or when you feel like it, or when you have the time, etc..." Not much desicion making, leadership sounds in those words, are there? There is truth in what you say, but some finer points... For me, it is "mediator's language". State what you want, don't ask permission. But do it in a cushioned way that allows for a counter opinion or a graceful rebuttal without forcing polarity. For example: "I am / I will / I need..." leave no wiggle room. You're being absolute, making a declaration; be prepared for a polarized reaction. "I'm filing for divorce tomorrow." (Though smart strategy would be for them to learn this when the process server delivers the papers.) "I want to / We should..." are statements of opinion, but leave room for discussion. "We should just get divorced." "I want / I want YOU to / Will you..." are requests, surrendering all the power to the other party. "I want a divorce." Not trying to go all grammar crazy here, but you make an important point that the words we use determine whether you're retaining or surrendering the decision authority. I really like your answer about " mediator's Language". To tie this into the original post, I believe that can have a lot to do with your personality from your up bringing and surroundings. Like being a husband ,father, dad, neighbor, care giver. loking back I remember my Boy Scout motto. Kind, brave, thrifty, clean, obedient and reverent. All my jobs were based on following orders, being reliable, getting along, having a good work ethic, being sociable, able to work alone or with others, having a cheerful attitude,and being part of a team. It all seemed like good training, and good life skills. Then came a job after college, being a store manager. Authority, leadership, directing, planning. My vocabulary stunk at it! The same is true at home, I am great as a team player. Head coach? ,not my gift. While looking back, makes me realize it is not in my training. Does that mean I have to be a single man the rest of my life? I don't believe so. It does play a role in my next career choice and my future choices with other people, and activities. |
|
