IS DIVORCE (SOMETIMES) ABUSE?

I would suggest reading my previous post, regarding Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder (PTRD) before reading this post.  It points out how a person can be traumatized by the ending of a relationship, which then sets the stage for considering whether or not divorce can be a form of abuse.

Before going any further, please understand that the views expressed in this blog entry, and in my blog, in general, are my views, and my opinions, and as such, not necessarily reflective of mainstream thought in psychology, or mainstream thought, in general.  Also, I admit to choosing a somewhat provocative title, deliberately, because I would like to, well, provoke thought.  I understand there are other viewpoints, and I welcome you to express those.

In considering the question, I think it is first important to consider what we define as abuse.  When you type in the word "abuse" in Google, Merriam-Webster does not have a definition of abuse that accounts for emotional or psychological abuse.  However, Wikipedia does have such a definition.  According to Wikipedia,  Psychological abuse (also referred to as psychological violence, emotional abuse or mental abuse) is a form of abuse, characterized by a person subjecting, or exposing, another person to behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder.^[1][2][3] 

Based on this definition, it does not seem a stretch to conclude that divorce can, at least in some situations, be a form of psychological abuse, because it often results in psychological trauma, such as anxiety, or chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (or what has been referred to as Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder).  The reason that I say that it is "at least in some situations," is that there are times when it is quite clear to anyone who analyzes the situation that a divorce was the proper approach to the situation, because the other person in the relationship was a victim of terroristic behavior (i.e. physical abuse, sexual abuse, significant emotional abuse, etc).  However, there are other times when it is not so clear, and in such cases, I believe it is fair game to consider the possibility that the person doing the divorce is being psychologically or emotionally abusive.

I think, before going any further, it is important to reflect on our current definition of psychological abuse.  It used to be that the definition was very narrow...perhaps it was only used in situations in which the victim was subjected to extreme emotional stress, such as perhaps that which might occur in a torture situation, or in an extreme interrogation session, etc.  However, as we, as a society, have explored this topic more, we have come up with a broader, and more inclusive definition of psychological abuse.  Now, it can be considered psychological abuse if a parent neglects their child, for instance neglecting to act when their child is being bullied in school, or neglecting to act when their child is being put under emotional stress by the other parent, or by another person, etc.  And, it is considered emotionally or psychologically abusive to call someone a bad name, or to tease them mercilessly, or to bully them verbally.  Racism, or other types of 'isms' can also be forms of psychological abuse.  If you agree with that, then it seems that we now consider it psychological abuse if we behave in a manner that causes the other to experience unnecessary or extreme emotional pain.  And, in your personal life, I am sure you can probably come up with other examples of what you would consider psychological or emotional abuse.  Or, perhaps you can think of a situation in our society, or somewhere in the world, where there is psychological or emotional abuse that has not been identified as of yet, or even that which has already been identified, but which was not mentioned here.

If one accepts that psychological abuse can come in various forms, and that it should be considered a possibility when the effect of the action of one person is that the other person is traumatized, then one may also want to consider that divorce can be, at least in some situations, a form of psychological abuse.

In many of the cases that I've come across, one of the people in the relationship does not want the divorce, while the other does.  We, as a society, have come to a point that divorce is an accepted part of a relationship; the legal system supports divorce, there is not a lot of resistance, on a society level, to divorce, and it is considered to be an acceptable solution to difficulties in a marriage.  No-one has to get approval for a divorce; one can get one even if the other person does not want it, and it is actually considered rather inappropriate or even sadistic to require a person to remain in a marriage if they want a divorce.  So, from a societal point of view, nothing is stopping someone from getting a divorce.  The sentiment is, I believe, that if it feels as if that is the right thing to do, then so be it.

However, what of the person who does not want the divorce?  What do we think, or feel, for that person?  Do we tell ourselves 'Well, they probably deserved it' and write it off in that manner?  Or, do we say, of the person who initiated the divorce,  'Good for them for not staying in a bad situation?'  Or, do we feel sadness for them, or does our heart go out for them?  Perhaps we make our decision about how to feel based on the information we have about the divorce.  If it sounds as if the person who did not want the divorce was a nasty person, then perhaps we feel no empathy for them, and decide they got what they deserved.  If it sounds as if the person who initiated the divorce was a victim, we may cheer for them and feel the other person was just getting their karma.  There are probably many ways in which we justify divorces, or absolve the person who initiated the divorce of any responsibility.  And, as I am sure some of you will argue, there are times when that is completely appropriate, and where there should be sympathy for the 'victim' and no sympathy for the 'perpetrator.'  However, in some of the other situations, is it fair to perhaps see the person who initiates the divorce as being the perpetrator, and the other person as being the victim?  And, in those cases, does it make sense that the person may develop Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder?

Some people use leaving, or ending a relationship, as a form of retaliation.  This seems to be an incontrovertible thought, in this writers' opinion, though certainly I am willing to entertain alternate viewpoints.  In my opinion, there are some who will 'punish' the other person for whatever slights or transgressions they have committed by withdrawing from the relationship.  And, in some instances, they do so by beginning another relationship while still in the marriage, and use their dissatisfaction with their mate as the justification for doing so; in other words, they let themselves off the hook for behavior that traumatizes the other, because they feel the other 'deserved' it.  However, cut the picture in half, and look only at how the 'leaver' is behaving towards their mate, and what do you see?  Cruel, uncaring, traumatizing behavior.  So, does the end justify the means?

I believe, in the final analysis, that anytime we get to a point, as a society, that we can brush aside trauma as being 'deserved' or 'expected' or necessary, then we become a bit more calloused, and a bit more cruel, and a bit more like those who we do not want to be like.   And, while one may tell oneself that it is ok for them to be that way, because of the circumstances, it is still cruelty, and it is still traumatizing.

One of the reasons it seems that this is a valid point of view is that the aftermath seems to be consistent with trauma.  In all too many cases, after a divorce, there is a protracted war of tit for tat.  One person fires the first shot, and the other returns fire, and this continues, back and forth, back and forth, sometimes for years.  The former couple uses the children, money, or property to harm the other, in this perpetual game of attack and retaliation.  And, if one traces the conflict back to its roots, at least in some instances, it starts with one of the people in the relationship feeling as if they have been harmed, and then justifying retaliation as the appropriate reaction to being harmed.  But in the process, what terrible things each person can do:  I have seen cases where the children are used as weapons to get at the other, perhaps by not letting the other see their kids, or perhaps by poisoning the children's thinking about the other, or perhaps by attempting to use custody limitations as a form of retaliation.  I have seen couples work hard to assassinate the character of the other, and who have done dastardly deeds in the name of being a victim.  I have seen couples who abuse the court system, with attacks and retaliation occurring between lawyers, over and over and over.  It seems clear to me, then, that there is deep hurt, and one person or both giving themselves permission to be cruel or terrible to the other, based on how they feel they were a victim.  So, it seems that if someone is convinced they are a victim of the other, such as if they have Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder, they do not feel any guilt for engaging in cruel, retaliatory behavior that they would otherwise find to be very wrong.

The solution?  That is not so easy.  We live in a country where free will is valued above most other things.  No-one should be forced, in my opinion, to remain in a situation they want desperately to escape.  However, I do believe we should raise our children to think in conciliatory ways, and we should teach them how to express themselves, set limits, and how to take care of themselves in a relationship, so that hopefully they do not reach a point that they feel they are a victim, or do not get to a point that they are a victim.  And, we should encourage them to think with caution when they begin to describe themselves as a victim, because there are situations in which it takes two to tango, and they should be aware of their side of the dance.  And, we should encourage our children not to go from feeling a victim, to giving themselves permission to be cruel, without at least some thought, and without at least some consideration of alternative approaches.  And, for ourselves, I think it is wise to attempt to devise methods of coping that do not involve cruelty, and that do not traumatize others, regardless of our justification.  And, when possible, we should make amends, with amends being more than just lip service to an ideal.  And, we would be wise to remember the saying that is popular in 12-Step programs:  Wherever you go, there you are.  

Do you have to like your spouse/lover?

One of the things that I think psychology promotes, or at least many psychologists/mental health workers promotes, it the idea that you can dislike someone's behavior, but not the person.  That is something that is repeated, over and over, by many thought leaders in the field.  However, is it really doable?  Is it an advisable way of being?  Is it human?

The reality is that some personalities naturally gel well with other personalities, and some do not.  One could argue that there is some sort of 'ideal' personality, perhaps the one everyone aspires to be, that would be likable by everyone.  However, I do not believe that is a supportable goal.  Also, when one thinks of trying to become the most likable person around, one is usually thinking of getting into politics.  :)  But, for the rest of us, it is my (somewhat informed) opinion that it is natural that some will like us, and some will not, and you will like some people, and will not like other people.

One of the most famous psychologists in the field, B.F. Skinner, made a claim years ago that he could take anyone and change them into whatever was desired.  However, that is, in my opinion, a quite misinformed statement, and most definitely not likely to be able to be done.  And, even if it is possible to be done, it is not a desirable way of working with people, because the stress of being the agent of change is very high, and the stress on the individual who is being made to change is also very high.  And, typically, in high stress situations, people leave.  Thus, not only is trying to change someone stressful for both the changer and the changee, it is also quite likely to result in either the changer or the changee breaking off the connection between the two.

I think that one of the most dangerous applications of this type of thinking is in marriages or in long-term romantic relationships.  If you believe that you can 'make' your spouse likable to you by providing them with input, and by setting limits with them so that they only have success in their interactions with you if they keep working on themselves to be more likable to you, you are playing with fire, and more than likely headed towards a rupture in the relationship.  The fact of the matter is, given the choice between becoming more likable, and leaving, most will leave.

So, you may ask, what do I do when I am in a relationship with someone I do not like?  Does it mean that I have to just be with them, and continue to not like them?  Or, am I to leave them, because I do not like them?  What do I do?

In answer to that, first things first:  Why did you end up with someone you do not like?  How is it that you missed that little detail when you were making the decision to be with that person?  Why didn't you notice that, and stop yourself from getting into the relationship?  Because, in answer to the question about whether or not you should stay with someone you don't like, you do realize, don't you, that you would never have had to be confronted with that question if you had vetted your partner a bit better, in the beginning?  So, again, why didn't you do that?

I suppose, in the general scheme of things, it is not that unusual for two people to get together, who eventually learn that the do not like each other.  There are so many reasons this can happen, from unplanned pregnancies, lovers who are good at covering their unlikable traits, lovers who are unskilled in noticing unlikable traits in others, lovers who believe they can change the other, lovers who believe they can change their basic personality, lovers who lie, etc etc.

If you are in a relationship with someone you do not like, be prepared for a great deal of stress, a great deal of conflict, and the (probable) eventual ending of the relationship.  If this is distressing for you, I am so very sorry.  No-one plans to get into a relationship with the goal of ending the relationship.  However, the reality is, particularly in this day and age, there is so little encouragement for people to remain in an uncomfortable situation, and so much encouragement for people to not remain in a uncomfortable situation, that stressful relationships will most likely end.

Is it possible for people in an uncomfortable relationship to resolve this, and to actually reach a point that they are in a comfortable relationship, and able to get along well?  I believe so.  But, in order for that to happen, both people have to be committed to working on that which is problematic, and both have to have the resolve and 'stick-to-it-ness' to work on things until resolution has been reached.  And, one could argue that it is better to stick in a relationship that is uncomfortable (given that it is not a traumatic relationship, such as one in which one or both are traumatizing the other), because 50% of the uncomfortableness is coming from you, and thus, you probably have things you need to change about yourself.  So, if both you and the other person have the same attitude, and both work to eliminate the 50% they contribute to the relationship that is causing the relationship to be uncomfortable, then theoretically, the relationship should reach a point of comfort once each makes the changes necessary for that to happen.  Thus, in that way, it is possible that an unlikable person can become likable, on both ends.

If that sounds like too much work, or it that sounds sadistic to you, or masochistic, then by no means agree to the ideas promoted in the previous paragraph, and by no means have those sort of expectations on yourself.  The alternate approach to the approach suggested in the previous paragraph is to make a decision that you will not allow people in your life whom you do not like, and you will make sure that you become very good at not allowing someone to fool you into thinking they are someone you would like, when in fact they are not.  This means getting good at knowing what you like, and what you do not like, and becoming equally good at setting limits with someone once you realize you do not like them.  Pay attention to body cues that may let you know you do not like someone, such as, perhaps, stomach pains, or heart pains, or muscle twitches, etc...your body will let you know when you are stressed, and if you notice that your body always lets you know you are stressed whenever you are around a particular person, it probably means you don't like them, or, at the very least, they are causing you stress, which may in turn be a sign you do not like them.

Shame - Your Achilles Heel

As you may recall, the Achilles Heel is that one vulnerability that you have that can, if triggered, or exploited, bring you to your knees, emotionally.  For some, it is shame.  For a person for which their Achilles Heel is shame, one must only self-inflict shame, or someone else can inflict the shame, and the person is brought to their knees.  The problem is that shame is a relatively useless feeling...it weakens a person much more than it possibly motivates them, and it lowers self-esteem every time it is used.  It is a powerful weapon in the 'right' hands, in that someone who knows how to use another's shame can keep that individual under tight control, and can keep the upper hand in the relationship. It is also sadistic to use shame to control someone, and demonstrates a lack of compassion or grace.  People who have been reared on shame both have this as their Achilles Heel, and inadvertently use the technique of delivering shame on others.  Two people in a relationship who are skilled in using this technique will 'grind each other down,' over time, until the relationship implodes.  A person who has had this technique used against them will suffer from low self-esteem, self-doubts, and perhaps depression and anxiety.  And, they will be resentful or angry, and will hold in them a desire to retaliate against the person who has used the shame technique.  Shame does not produce anything positive, and is not constructive.  For most people, it is unwittingly used; for a select few, it is a weapon of choice.  While shame can be a powerful method of retaliation against misdeeds or improper behavior, it comes at the cost of the relationship, and of the mental health of both the deliverer, and of the receiver.  It is akin to using a nuclear weapon to clean out the bugs in your house...it will work, but at a terrible price.

If you are a deliverer of this technique, and wish to reform yourself, consider the situation, and the reason you wish to use this technique.  Then, re-check whether this is indeed what you wish to do, and think of other possible methods of addressing the situation.  Resist the urge to resort to shame, and challenge yourself to find another way.  Consider the possibility that the relationship is broken, if it seems that using shame is a good idea.  Try to learn how to avoid being in such situations, in the future, either by avoiding relationships where this comes up as a solution, or by avoiding frustrations that generate the desire to utilize this technique.  If the relationship is an important one to you, give yourself a rule that you will not use shame, and do your best not to deviate from this.  Consider the emotional cost of shame, both to yourself, and to the other person.   Delivering shame can be a form of abuse, and doing so costs you, in that you must allow dark feelings into your psyche, and must allow intense negativity to reside in your soul.   If you are the recipient of shame, turn it away, without considering its' merit, and ask the person delivering the shame to use a different way to communicate what they wish to communicate.  Protect yourself from those who seem to resort to this technique on a chronic basis; it can be a form of abuse.  Recognize the signs that you are being shamed.

What Is Love?

It seems the word 'love' is thrown around a lot, but what exactly is it?  Lovers use that word, after they meet, to explain to the other the overflowing feeling of happiness and warmth they feel for the other.  Parents use the word to describe that feeling of devotion and attachment they feel for their children.  Married couples use the word to describe the sense of connection and attachment, and warmness they feel for their spouse.  Brother and sister use it to describe their attachment to each other, and to express their loyalty and dedication to family.  All around us, the word is used for so many relationships, and for so many purposes.

However, what is love?  Isn't love a feeling that is, by definition, a feeling that trumps all others...the final destination...the ultimate feeling?  Is it not THE feeling that we all crave, because it comes with it a promise of 'forever' and a steadiness that is unwavering?  Isn't it the strongest of all positive feelings; the one that does not change?

If love is all of these things, then why, so often, does it seem as if it does not live up to its' promise?  Is it that the concept is wrong?  Is it perhaps true that nothing lasts forever, including love?  Is it perhaps true that love is not the ultimate feeling, that love is not for forever, and that love is not really steadfast and unwavering?  Or, is it perhaps the case that the word is used too easily, and without a full understanding of what it is supposed to mean?  Perhaps in reality, a true feeling of love is rare, and people should really be using lesser variations of the concept, such as 'like,' or 'enjoy' or 'appreciate' or 'feel close to' or 'feel attached to,' etc.  Or, perhaps one should simply know that it is a feeling that develops over time, with work and commitment, and should not permit others to use the term so glibly when describing how they feel towards them.

Love, in my opinion, is an action as much as it is a feeling.  In order to love, one must reach out to the other, emotionally, and must put themselves in the others' shoes; they must feel a strong desire to give of their caring and warmness to the other; to make the well-being of the other as important as their own well-being; to wish for their success; to invest interest in the other, and time in the other; to want to protect the other, and to cherish the other.  Love is not something automatic, in my opinion, but an action that must be consciously made, and continuously made, forever.  It is something that must be always nourished, through consistent attention to it, and to the person for whom you have this feeling.  The feeling must be protected by both of those involved in the connection; actions or settings that harm the feeling must be avoided.  Love requires devotion, and without devotion, love cannot survive. It is not that one will do all of these actions if they love someone, but rather that one will probably love someone if one does all of these actions.

Situational Sociopathy

The term may or may not be new, but the concept is not.  Milgram (1963), developed an experiment in which he was able to obtain obedience from just about everyone he used, compelling them to shock a subject (or so they thought) until severe pain or death.  Ordinary people, with no claim to fame other than that they had been happening to walk past the experiment site, were recruited and demonstrated, unwittingly, that just about anyone can behave in a sociopathic manner. He did not, however, obtain 100% compliance, and there were those who would not continue with the experiment, regardless of what they were told.  Also, in all fairness, Milgram used props to manipulate the research subjects, such as having the researchers use lab coats, and use the most convincing of tones and dialogues, and doing other things to make the site look very official.  So, the participants were convinced this was a real situation, and that their compliance was important.  If they balked, the experimenter would intone "The experiment must go on."  The bottom line is, the majority of people, when put in a situation in which they are able to be convinced they must harm another, or must engage in behavior they would typically find reprehensible, will harm the other, or will engage in the reprehensible behavior.  I refer to this as 'Situational Sociopathy.'  For, for at least a brief time, the person behaves as a sociopath would, without being a sociopath.

What is a sociopath?  If you look at the wikipedia definition of it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopath), a sociopath is one who is bold, disinhibited, and mean.   They have low empathy, are cruel, and have destructive excitement-seeking.  They want instant gratification, and do not control their behavior well.   The majority of the population does not have these traits consistently; if they did,  they might be eligible for the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder; perhaps you would run across one of these individuals in a federal penitentiary.   Or, you might find them running a large corporation, or running a particularly aggressive law practice.  However, the majority of individuals, in my opinion, who exhibit sociopathic behavior do so only some of the time, and perhaps have only behaved in this manner once in their life, and then never again.  This is why I use the term Situational Sociopath.  These are individuals who have, for whatever reason, given themselves permission to step into that realm.  The person may have done so because they feel they are a victim, or because they feel they must in order to punish someone who seems to 'deserve' it, or because the goal they are attempting to accomplish requires a brief foray into that realm and there is no other perceived way of getting there.  Most of the people who do this struggle afterwards; they are hit with extreme feelings of guilt or dysphoria, or regret, and they may work hard to reverse what they accomplished during their brief time as a sociopath.  However, there are some who do not go back, and instead attempt to dispel their thoughts and feelings regarding that situation.  However, it seems unlikely that this will work, long-term, because there are the memories, and there is the victim.  Also, those who venture into the territory of the sociopath repeatedly run the risk of becoming dependent on those forays as their main way of coping.  Eventually, they may be indistinguishable from a true sociopath, because they are essentially functioning as one.  However, the difference is there; while the true sociopath continues blithely on their way, year after year, perhaps stopped only by law enforcement or death, the chronic situational sociopath develops chronic medical issues or chronic mental health issues, such as anxiety or depression, and slowly descends into their own personal hell.  It is not a desirable fate.  I've heard people say "Why doesn't that person get their karma?," but what they do not see is that the person HAS gotten their 'karma'...their Karma is their life, which, if examined closely, is not a life you or I would choose.

For those who have, at times, been a situational sociopath, all is not lost, in my opinion.  Because the majority of humans have probably been there, it is not outside of the normal human experience.  Learn from the experience, and evolve.  When you evolve, you develop an aversion to giving yourself permission to take a foray into the sociopathic realm, and instead, find other ways of accomplishing your goal.  Or, you modify your goal.  Sometimes the only thing that will stop self-destructive behavior is for the individual to no longer enjoy it, and instead to feel nothing but anxiety in such situations.  But that is only the beginning.  Watch the movie "Unbroken," and you will see what I am referring to...Compassion.  When one is able to feel compassion, AFTER they have reached a point in their life that they were feeling anxiety about their behavior, and after they have 'crashed and burned,' they will be able to feel true compassion.  But, IMO, it must be 'true' compassion, not the compassion a child feels for a bird with a broken wing, but the compassion an adult feels after they have been brought to their knees by life, repeatedly.  It is the compassion perhaps explained by the graphic of a soldier, wounded in battle, lying on the ground, reaching over to another soldier also lying on the ground, and trying to bandage their wound so that they can survive until the medic reaches them.  Compassion, it seems, overrides everything else, and is the emotion that seems to compel the person to rise above their basic human urges and behave a little better.

There is a parable I've told many times, over the years, which I think is very useful in understanding some aspects of human behavior.  It is the story of the frog and the scorpion.  The story goes like this:  Mr. Frog and Mr. Scorpion are standing by the edge of the river.  Mr. Scorpion wants to get to the other side, but of course, he cannot swim, so he is unable to cross.  He approaches Mr. Frog, and asks of Mr. Frog "Mr. Frog, might I catch a ride across the river on your back?"  Mr. Frog scoffs at the request, laughing, and stating "Of course not!  As soon as we get to the middle of the river, you will sting me, and we will both sink to the bottom of the river and drown."  Mr. Scorpion answers "Now, Mr. Frog, why would I do that?  I want to get to the other side...it would be dumb of me to sting you, because then I wouldn't be able to accomplish my goal."  Mr. Frog stops for a minute, and thinks.  "Mr. Scorpion, you are right...it would make no sense for you to sting me.  Hop on, and we will make the trip across the river together."  Mr. Scorpion hops on, and Mr. Frog begins the trip across the river.  At the half-way point, as predicted, Mr. Scorpion stings Mr. Frog.  As paralysis begins to set in, and both he and Mr. Scorpion start to drown, he cries out "Why, Mr. Scorpion, why?"  To which Mr. Scorpion replies, simply "It is in my nature."

The point, at least from the way I see it, is that it is our responsibility to know who will sting, and who will not sting.  And, it is our responsibility to avoid those who sting.  There is another saying I like:  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.   Complaining about being stung, after you have been shown by life who will sting, probably won't get you much sympathy.  You should know.  And sympathy isn't what you need, probably, in the long run.  Sure, it feels nice, and is validating, but there is no strength in sympathy, and no strength in feeling the victim.  If you have been stung, there is no better response; no stronger rebuke, than shaking off the paralysis, bursting out of the water, and saying "NO MORE!"  Find your strength, find your way forward, and live an awesome life!

I've been thinking more about the last post, about Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder (PTRD).  Again, while it is not an official diagnosis, it is something that I am convinced affects many people.  As a male, I have personally experienced this, and I have also talked to many clients, both male and female, who have experienced this trauma.  As with any trauma, repeated exposure to it tends to harden an individual, to the point that they become completely cynical and untrusting, and to the point that future trauma is all but guaranteed because of the lack of trust with which they approach relationships.  Sometimes, people with PTRD never again are able to maintain a long-term relationship, because there is so much unresolved trauma from the initial relationship that caused the PTRD.

And, another, perhaps much more controversial point, when it comes to PTRD.  In instances of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), there is typically a victim, and a perpetrator.  In war situations, it may be harder to identify a particular perpetrator, and we may simply refer to 'the war' as the source of the trauma.  However, in more personalized instances of trauma, such as instances in which an individual assaults another, there is a clear perpetrator, and a clear victim.  What of situations in which an individual develops PTRD?  Is there a perpetrator?

If an individual goes to court to get a PFA, they must identify a perpetrator they want to be protected from.  The court, from my understanding, will validate PFA's in situations in which there has been bodily harm, or threats of bodily harm.  There may be other forms of abuse the court recognizes, but I do not think they recognize relationship trauma as a form of abuse.  And yet, if one agrees that this type of trauma exists, there seems to be no protection for the victim...they must simply endure the trauma associated with the situation, and the stress of being re-exposed to the source of the trauma, over and over, without any response.  In a society that has evolved to the point that the goal is to prevent anyone from experiencing trauma, and to the point of punishing perpetrators of trauma, one wonders where this particular issue rests.