The French are examining a law that outlaws Psychological violence between partners.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8440199.stm
Great idea in theory * ut*....how would you judge it what is or isn't PV i.e. word against word.
How would you enforce it? Would it be equally enforced gender wise?
Is it a bridge too far police intruding into the private lives of the couples?

I'm struggling to come up with a coherent comment for this. Part of me thinks it is retarded to even attempt to police decency and another part suggests psychological violence is already policed. You CAN be done for assault if you put the fear of God into someone. The hard part is proving it.

I believe there is also countless on-going examples of domestic violence that doesn't involved physical contact. My old man was a tyrant when I was young and the damage that did to my mum was horrendous for her spirit, her health, and her general well being.

Really, I think people need to take responsibility for their own lives and figure out what they will and won't tolerate in a relationship. Psychological violence seems to me to either be a precursor to further physical violence if the couple are starting out or its basically been enabled by the victim through tolerating behaviour that becomes habit and 'not wanting to rock the boat'. My mother inlaw is the latter.

Dear Examinator,

I think that this law may be a step in
the right direction. Of course it's not
going to be easy to prove, and does have
the potential of being mis-used. However,
the same things were said about bullying
and harrassment in the workplace - and we
now have laws in place for them. Psychological
abuse can be just as damaging, and in some cases,
even more damaging then physical violence.
The echoes can last a life-time. The results
can be devastating - as your website points out.

However if certain safeguards are put in place,
such as assessments by professionals, profiling,
and so on - a law such as this one may just save
quite a few lives from being destroyed. Or at the
very least - may make people aware that their words
do have consequences. That "sticks and stones," are
not the only things that can do damage. Words do hurt
as well!

unPsychologically believable!

So the wife nags:
"You're drinking too much"!

The husband reply's: "Your constant nagging is driving me to drink"!

The judge just scratches his head in total dismay and then charges them both for psychological violence against him :)

What a load of Krudd!

Every day the world witnesses political fools who have nothing better to do than to think of ways to psychological violate sane people!

I give up, this world is not worth arguing about. The sooner someone drops the bomb the better!

Oh and I've just demanded charges against the original poster for psychological violence against this group ;)

Well, I think we've jumped the gun a bit?

Do we not need to start with a definition?

What does in the view of OLO members:

1. Psychological mean?

&

2. What does violence mean?

Perhaps a quick scan of "Common Law" at say:
www.austlii.edu.au

will reveal any determinations as to what this country's law considers to be "sustained non physical abuse/intimidation" if anything.

Research of course suggests that psychological abuse during a child's formative years can have serious consequences.

My God. That'll put about 90% of women in deep "Poo Poo" won't it.

It'll never happen. The courts won't let you say a women has psychologicaly abused a man anyway. They are supposed to be the weaker sex & have to be protected from "men." Advice from a Lawyer.

Australia already has such a law it is in the Family Law Act.
It is currently used to imprison partners in South Australia,especially it is focused on Aboriginals.
The French act will target Arabs in France.
Again Australia leads the way in discrimination.

I think it's a great idea even if it only spreads awareness of the issue of psychological abuse. A lot of abusers are without the faintest inkling, I suspect, that they're offending, believing that their intimidatory conduct (usually aimed by men at women and children) is the manly way to represent oneself. Of course I haven't defined my notion of psychological abuse. Perhaps later.

Squeers: believing that their intimidatory conduct (usually aimed by men at women and children)

Ah Ha. See the mistaken belief. ALWAYS blame men.

Of course I haven't defined my notion of psychological abuse. Perhaps later.

Well here's a few from women to men to start with; nagging, silent treatment, never do anything right, withholding sex as a punishment, crying as a tool to get your own way OR ELSE, demanding your own way OR ELSE, Sulking to get your own way OR ELSE, threatening to take the children away or not to see again, stalking (Fact: There have been more cases against women than against men).

The start of a long list that I'll leave for others to finish. Keep it going men.

JayB said - My God. That'll put about 90% of women in deep Poo Poo won't it.

Then JayB replied to Squeers -Ah Ha. See the mistaken belief. ALWAYS blame men.

Think hypocrisy. Why is it okay for JayB to make a derogatory comment about women but not okay for Squeers write a similar comment about men.

Back to the content. This could be minefield depending on how it is applied and defined.

As StG said how would you prove an extreme case of psychological abuse, and what one person thinks is nagging another person might think is just asking someone to help with a chore (either gender applies). Would saying you look fat in those pants count as abuse?

How far should government's go in interfering in people's lives? There is a horrible PC world bandied about - enabling - but in some ways those who are being bullied or harassed in the home by constant put downs also enable the behaviour by staying. If it is that bad get out. Men and women who bully only continue to do so when there are no repercussions or if they get away with it.

We can only be abused if we let ourselves be abused. (I wish to differentiate this type of abuse from physical abuse as there are other factors at play here although some of the same applies)

Perhaps we need to support those who wish to leave partnerships where there is overt psychological abuse and help them become independent - such as in those cultures where one gender has supreme power over another by virtue of law or cutural values.

There has to be some point where we have to take personal responsibility in our private lives and where there are constraints to that ensure there is support.

Excellent post, Pelican, and I have to acknowledge to Jayb that men also feel themselves to be victims of psychological abuse. In fact, during my first marriage I often felt exactly as he describes, though upon reflection I can see that it was as much my fault as hers. At the end of the day, I think this perennial problem between the sexes is due to a fundamental incompatibility between the sexes in the context of our civilised world. Our ideals of equality are perhaps an imposition upon the state of affairs that might prevail in nature, outside culture. Most, if not all, species have a sex that dominates. In humans, the male seems to take on that role as a rule; women are the patient negotiators within the status quo, they work within the parameters of patriarchal society. This "natural" state of affairs is perhaps disrupted by notions of absolute equality?
I do agree that the last thing we want is to have our lives run by government and regulation, but then cultural constraints are just as intrusive at the psychological level. Indeed, I would question that there is any spontaneity left. Culture pretty much runs itself, and far more dictatorially than government ever could.
At the most basic level, it's probably fair to say that high levels of psychological of physical abuse, in heterosexual relationships, is evidence that culture's got it wrong; or perhaps that humans are still not sufficiently civilised for our cultural ideals.

Most parents who don't smack their kids would be charged by any laws relating to psychological violence. A quick smack on the bum usually prevents much psychological mumbo jumbo.

Dear Pelly,

I agree that we do have to take personal
responsibility for our private lives -
but what about people who for a
variety of reasons aren't able to do that -
much as they might want to?

When we returned from living in Los Angeles - we
moved in with my husband's parents. Life for
me became hell. When things went wrong it was
always, my fault. "You shouldn't use tissues
like that," they'd reprimand me. "They cost
money!" And when the toilet was blocked, it
wasn't because of the old plumbing, it was
because I used too much toilet paper.
"You shouldn't throw out bottles that aren't
quite empty!" they'd scold me, making me realize
that they checked my garbage.

And it got worse, and worse, and worse.
I had been used to doing things
my way, living in Los Angeles. I'd lived in a
progressive, exciting, and stimulating world.
Moving in with my in-laws, I suddenly found myself
in a blinkered, narrow environment, where things were
done only one way - theirs!

They saw the world in terms of black and white
with no shades of grey (or any other colour).
Both of my in-laws were simple,
extremely religious, narrow minded people. They
regarded me as being at the very least, extravagant,
and at the most, a corrupt influence on their only
child, their son.

My father in-law kept a book of "accounts." A little black
book in which he would record all of my "transgressions."

I had never experienced a dictatorial patriarch like
my father-in-law. My own father had been a quiet,
gentle man, an academic. Those years with my in-laws
nearly drove me around the bend. I still have some
of the scars today. Still, as the years flew by, and
after moving out of their home, my relationship with
my in-laws mellowed. I cried like a baby at my
father-in-law's funeral. And today, I look after
my mother-in-law with much love.

The point that I'm making - is that actions,
like constant put-downs, and criticisms, can have
an effect on a person's psyche.

I too believe that such a law would be very hard to police or prove, unless one had a recording of the verbal form of psychological abuse I suppose. These sort of recordings have apparently been brought up in court proceedings -eg from phone calls, or recording conversations in the home/office etc.

Perhaps an community service announcement or information segment on television or internet, as well as written information telling everyone exactly what constitutes psychological violence will assist people to seek help or leave the situation.

Both men and women are guilty of this psychological harm on each other and/or on children. A more extensive psychological violence awareness campaign may be the most logical first step to try before getting into the difficult policing of such behaviour.

My understanding of psychological violence would include behaviours such as:
name-calling or putdowns on a regular basis
keeping a partner from contacting their family or friends
withholding money
stopping a partner from getting or keeping a job
threatened physical harm
stalking
intimidation.

I agree Foxy - psychological abuse would have an effect. Your father-in-law sounds like a control freak.

In my earlier statement I argued that where there are constraints on people taking charge of their lives for whatever reason supports could be put in place to aid that person becoming independent.

Some of the constraints could be cultural, religious (particularly cult communities), geographical isolation or economic ones.

Generally though, it is up to the individual to sort out what they are willing to bear and takes steps either inwardly (self-awareness or coping strategies) or pragmatically by leaving the situation.

It gets much harder if there are children involved of course, giving a reason for the abuser to remain in contact.