Talk:Cycle of abuse

Although very important, this page is copied from another page ( http://www.domesticviolence.org/cycle-of-violence/ ) that has a posted copyright. I'm removing the copyrighted content and reverting. Graham^talk/mail/e 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC) There is also generational abuse and episodic abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.223.190 (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

doesnt make sense

much of this article doesnt make sense to me, Surely typically the initial stage of abuse is superficial charm or grooming by the abuser to lure the victim using psychological manipulation.--Penbat (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A victim will drawn into a relationship by the superficial charm and it will be used in the honeymoon phase to hold the victim in the cycle once it has been established. Why does that not make sense? How if I add "once established" to the lead?--Expsychobabbler (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well shouldnt superficial charm be phase 1 rather than tension building ?--Penbat (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also what about the cycle of abuse from one generation to the next ? --Penbat (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point no reason why not. It is a cycle so has no defined starting or ending point once in motion. The passing on of abusive behavior to the next generation is hardly a cycle, more a poisonous inheritance going forward down the generations.--Expsychobabbler (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite often heard the expression "cycle of abuse" in the context of abuse being passed from one generation to another. It doesnt mean a genetic disposition for psychopathy within a family, it means how often the abused victim in generation 1, often ether becomes an abuser in generation 2 (as the behaviour has become normalised or the victim wants to take out his anger on somebody else) or the victim from generation 1 may team up with an abuser as a dependent person ( a sort of folie a deux). Thus abuse in generation 1 causes a chain reaction of abuse through the generations.--Penbat (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victim vs Survivor

The word victim has been changed to the word survivor. In the domestic violence recovery industry this word is used because it more accurately describes the behaviour. Abuse isn't a hurricane that charges through and cannot be stopped or prevented. A person isn't victimized by violence, they survive it. They make active efforts to do whatever they can to do their best in the circumstances.

Original research

This section, placed in the intro, seems to be original research:

Walker's theory rests on the idea that abusive relationships, once established, are characterized by a predictable repetitious pattern of abuse, whether emotional, psychological or physical, with psychological abuse nearly always preceding and accompanying physical abuse. Additionally, Walker suggested that sustained periods of living in such a cycle may lead to learned helplessness and battered person syndrome.

Is there a source of information? How can it be integrated into the body of the article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What this leaves out, is the dynamics of relationships where both partners are abusive, but one in a hidden way.

As a child with parents in such a relationship, it’s always shocking, how much everyone always acts as if sneaky psycho-terror “isn’t real” or “doesn’t count”, “because it’s just words”. And how everybody calls the person the only evil one, who isn’t as strong with words, and has only bodily violence as an option of self-defense against the psychological abuse. (I mean the whole fact that it’s called “physical violence”… as if psychological violence somehow didn’t cause real physical scars inside the brain of the victim. Even though this can and has been measured reliably with tomographic scanners.)

The problem is, that the cycle described in the article looks extremely similar to this kind of cycle, when observed from the outside, or described from the perspective of the hidden abuser.
And that the psychological abuser is almost always the woman, while the bodily abuser is the man, simply because that’s what they are strongest in. So that the anecdotes the hypothesis described in this article is based on came solely from women makes it almost impossible to distinguish what type of relationship it had been, and if she had maybe been just as abusive. It’s just not known. And that skews the results to uselessness.

Oh, and INB4 apologists.

— 87.78.179.226 (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]