Domestic violence remains a relatively new field of study among social scientists but it is already a popular research paper subject within college and university students. Only within the past 4 decades have scholars recognized domestic violence as a social problem. Initially, domestic violence research focused on child abuse. Thereafter, researchers focused on wife abuse and used this concept interchangeably with domestic violence. Within the past 20 years, researchers have acknowledged that other forms of violent relationships exist, including dating violence, battered males, and gay domestic violence. Moreover, academicians have recognized a subcategory within the field of criminal justice: victimology (the scientific study of victims). Throughout the United States, colleges and universities have been creating victimology courses, and even more specifically, family violence and interpersonal violence courses.

The media have informed us that domestic violence is so commonplace that the public has unfortunately grown accustomed to reading and hearing about husbands killing their wives, mothers killing their children, or parents neglecting their children. While it is understood that these offenses take place, the explanations as to what factors contributed to them remain unclear. In order to prevent future violence, it is imperative to understand its roots. There is no one causal explanation for domestic violence; however, there are numerous factors which may help explain these unjustified acts of violence. Highly publicized cases such as the O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson trials have shown the world that alleged murderers may not resemble the deranged sociopath depicted in horror films. Rather, they can be handsome, charming, and well-liked by society. In addition, court-centered programming on television continuously publicizes cases of violence within the home informing the public that we are potentially at risk by our caregivers and other loved ones. There is the case of the au pair Elizabeth Woodward convicted of shaking and killing Matthew Eappen, the child entrusted to her care. Some of the most highly publicized cases have also focused on mothers who kill. America was stunned as it heard the cases of Susan Smith and Andrea Yates. Both women were convicted of brutally killing their own children. Many asked how loving mothers could turn into cold-blooded killers.

this is another reason we need the police to come in ... that passable have taken a class on this ...kids of violence to handle it ... all kids can come on to play ... drugs ... a person who feel their life would be better if they had no kids ... and doing this for someone else in a relationship where some men do not want to deal with children ... I have heard this scenario before... it is
mind crushing ... to do that too your child ... they fell know way out ... and I believe thy should be incarcerated...

I think the term 'abuse' has been so broadened as to being difficult to prove or pinpoint. If a person does not feel abused, can they still be abused? How can the claim be made that their partner intended to abuse them if the person themselves did not feel abused? If the victim is not sure they are a victim, how can the victimizer be expected to be certain or even know they are victimizing?

Beyond bruises and scarring, there is little definitive distinction of what will qualify as 'abuse'. That is one thing.

Another thing is that often people allow themselves to become isolated from others to the point where there is no world or support outside of the spouse, making the thought of leaving overwhelming, especially when kids are involved.

Another thing, the double edged sword imho, is that we (rightly) strive culturally to keep our families in tact and together. We strive to work things through and to believe that working things through is a possibility.

And then, there is tremendous pressure and stereotyping. The idea that we as females cannot instigate or abuse ourselves, that we can not push buttons, that a push or even an instinctive slap BACK, constitutes abuse when the person is a male, but is much more lightly viewed, if at all, if the person is a female. There is also the approach of society to divide couples and families into 'victim' and 'victimizer', instead of looking at them as a couple in need of help together. I was young when I got married. We were both young.

He had not yet developed into a man who had mature coping skills. We had a terrible domestic incident one night, under the influence of alcohol, which put me in hospital. Current philosophy would have had people all in my ear swearing he would never stop and would someday kill me. The reality was he went to counseling for a year. We had one of the best years ever in our relationship. And he never laid hands on me again.

We need to leave people room and opportunities to grow and change. That is what life is about. We also need to be able to teach that it is okay to love from a distance, closing that gap more and more as things improve, if they improve.

I am not talking, of course, about spouses that are regularly at hospital, terrified to speak or disagree with or upset their spouse for fear of physical retaliation. I do not consider that merely 'domestic abuse', but domestic terrorism, which is much less likely to evolve into anything good.

been thru domestic violence myself in my early 20s. cops never cared or helped when they were called. this has been a problem for many for centuries, nothing new here.
im just sorry for the woman that he killed, it could of been me. he got what he deserved in spending the rest of his life in prison.

Wow..very interesting stuff...great work. Thanks..

First, msharmony brings up many valid points to consider on a personal level.

However, the way I read your OP is you are looking more at a species trait than individual traits. I offer a bit of speculation. It would help to clarify with some historical studies but that's something you might want to look into.

There are many human traits changing in severity as our world population continues to grow. As the gene pool grows (and dilutes), some traits get enhanced, some fall away.
Not necessarily the drive for domestic violence but species insanity is on the rise.
With this population driven insanity there are more examples of violent traits becoming prevalent.
World-wide communication technology has a dark side too.
Society is in a state of media overload, individual stress levels are rising which is directly proportional to population increase.
Living within the morals and trends of society is stressful because people are often expected to live in such a way that is not natural for them.

With all this stress comes the inability of individuals to gain emotional control.
Many people are angry but have no idea why they are angry so they lash out on those around them. This may be why many abusers will have remorse after the act.

The growing awareness you speak of is not just awareness but a growing number of incidences. There are more people with less emotional control so there are more incidences of violence.

I recall reading about how populations reach a turning point where albinism starts to occur. Where once a genetic saturation is reached, the organism species starts producing albinos and other genetic mutations.
It makes sense that the same might happen in the human species in emotional states. We already have albino humans on this planet. We already have genetic aberration in our gene pool.

The mind is part of the body. Without a body we can have no mind so might our rising population also be affecting our ability to control emotional states?

Being 'civilized' is a learned trait we adopted because we are a social species. Our 'civilized controls' hide or try to replace our natural animalistic urges. Human beings are not passive, we are a warlike, aggressive species. We are at the top of the food chain and we didn't get there by being passive.

Being an aggressive species and at the top of the food chain there is no outside species to conquer so we try to change our natural way to be more passive.
While it works for many, it doesn't work for all.

Perhaps it is a natural species trait to self-cull when it reaches a certain population/saturation? This inter-species violence may be a natural result of over-population. Perhaps it is instinctual and not a conscious decision?
It's certainly related to a person's emotional maturity and ability to compensate for stress. Both of which are influenced by society and our primitive urges.

Has there been a study on domestic violence in isolated subjects?
We know domestic violence occurs a lot in cities but does the prevalence decrease or vanish with subsequently smaller or isolated groups?
Is there a direct link to violence related to media exposure? Societal pressure? Community stress levels?

In any scientific study there is result groups and a control group.
When studying domestic violence and victimology, data gleaned from only looking at the domestic violence and victimology is one-sided data.
To find the common denominator you must first examine all parts of the whole.
Consideration must be given to the non-violent/non-victimology as well.
Focusing on a single trait will yield no usable data to affect a change.

Focusing only on individual cases will not reveal species wide traits and while you might be able to 'fix' an individual, the species will continue to self-destruct.
To fully understand (and possibly change) our species inter-violence we must first understand our species as a whole. We must look at the influences upon our species which drives these traits to the front. Influences which are of our own making, driven by our population saturation and our inability to control our emotional states.

No matter the data or focus of today's state of occurrence, we are not at the beginning, we are in the middle of the change. Domestic violence and victimology has been around for a very long time. Since the very first act.
We have no baseline control group as a species. All our studies are lop-sided.

Since there is no pristine control group, the only baseline we can use is 'contaminated'. Its like trying to differentiate red from red. Our entire species is subject to primitive urges. The goal shouldn't be to identify the primitive urges but to identify why some individuals in our species act on those urges and why others do not.
Finding the common trigger (species wide) allows that trigger to be rendered inoperable. Until this 'trigger' is identified, those guns will continue to fire.

Inner-species violence is a population driven self-culling trait which will grow exponentially as our population grows. Our 'civilized' society may very well be the trigger because it requires people to act in contrast to their natural urges. This brings stress and emotional turmoil will grow with our population.

Some questions might be posed.
Can society affect a change which causes individuals to gain emotional control?
Would such a change, in turn, forever change society?

Should we, as a species, be trying to stop inner-species aggression and violence?
Right now, there are 7.8 billion people on this planet. Do we really want 10 billion or 20 billion? Imagine for a moment what life will be like when there are 15.6 billion people on this planet. That's twice our current number.

If the op should return . It is common academic practice to acknowledge any source if the writing is not your own ...all of this post appears to be taken from the criminal justice research site ...

http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-research-topics/

️️

Chill, she is not writing a thesis, she is on Mingle. If she uses others words to express her opinion, who cares? Good topic, insightful and very apt for today. Give your opinion, not a plagiarism check please.

As to the topic... I have too many friends experiencing domestic violence, but they are accustomed to it now. It breaks my heart that women put up with what they do. My sister has been stalked by her ex for almost 3 years. In NZ they are really looking at ways to combat this. Research suggests when the man is removed from the home and not the woman and children sent off to a Women's Refuge there is a better outcome for all. He stops abusing, the victim and her children are safer. We have a long way to go..

I agree with Blondey. The OP should've quoted by using this mark " " or // and attached the source. I know we are on Mingle, still we have to give respect to any intellectual property rights and copyright. Apart from that, the topic is interesting.

I also agree that respect to the intellectual property rights.. as you can see one person (above) seem to think that the OP was ehr own saying "good work" LOL..

I think that there is most likely a member, here, where who wanted this to be put out on the forums and used a pseudo (new)account.. most likely for discussion...



and I don't agree it is safer for the abused person to stay in their home, a lot of women/person that I know actually have to go into hiding because of the threats and abuse...

Help me to understand why scientists are researching domestic violence. I can't see how this topic would fall into their scope of practice.

Nailed it, Msharmony!

I don’t think it’s researched because “domestic violence “ is not a personality trait. You can probably find a correlation between aggression and domestic violence, but the road will more than likely end there. There’s nothing to research.

Any scientist worth their salt wouldn’t touch that. “Social” scientists are a farce. They are a bunch of nobody’s that couldn’t make it as a real scientist. They get their degrees written in crayon by a university that will take EVERY fool’s money. Then they just get dopey people or bogus committees with an agenda to believe their theories on incomplete data. Perhaps OP was looking for studies from these types of people.

Domestic violence can be genetic passed down from a father.
Father was abusive to his wife, So son is abusive to his wife, whenever he marries.

Maybe more a learned trait from an environment, rather than genetic.

I had good reason to suspect a female neighbour was suffering abuse but had no concrete proof , there was no way I could approach her about it , while talking to another lady neighbour I mentioned this in passing an suggested she could have a quiet word , A few days later the husband who I am not frightened of was at my door about spreading rumours about him,I denied it and told him to come back with his source of information,He never did but later in the week his wife had another "fall" , so much for trying to help !

Saying something about somebody without evidence or "concrete proof" is by definition, spreading rumours. He had every right to confront you, and playing a victim doesn't negate that.

If you really wanted to help, you could donate time or money to women's shelters.

He had no evidence or concrete proof that I spoke to anyone , just someones word against mine,the person in question was unwilling to confirm with me what She claims I said

donating any amount of time or money to womens shelters will not stop my neighbour getting regular beatings ,that was my main concern,as for evidence this all happens behind closed doors as does child abuse ,the only time I may get proof could well be too late ,or his wife reports him

,I thought I was speaking in confidence to the woman who must have told him, I don't consider myself a victim just frustrated at my attempt to save a nice lady from suffering any more .

I find your answer unhelpful and lightweight

That's because you didn't really want to help. You wanted to stick your nose in other people's business and wanted some sort of validation.

What a ridiculous statement ! If someone business is beating his wife sure I will stick my nose in , I have just reported my concern to the police