Lesbian Partner Abuse: Implications for Therapists

SUSAN L. MORROW and DONNA M. HAWXHURST

Silence surrounds the issue of lesbian battering. Lesbian victims of partner abuse are even less likely than are their heterosexual counterparts to seek help in shelters or from counselors because of the overlay of homophobia that exists both in the battered women's movement and among mental health professionals. In addition, many lesbian and many lesbian-supportive therapists hold an idealized and unrealistic picture of the nature of lesbian relationships, leading them to deny the existence of battering among lesbian couples. The nature, severity, and prevalence of abuse in lesbian relationships is addressed; current counseling and treatment models dealing with battering relationships are analyzed; and a counselor advocacy model for working with lesbian partner abuse, drawing from the experience of activists in the battered women's movement and our clinical experience, is suggested.

Shame. Silence.

Not he.

She.

I didn't correct him.....

From 'What Did He Hit You With?' The Doctor Said" (Chrystos, 1986)

ccording to Hart (1986), lesbian battering is "that pattern of violent and coercive behaviors whereby a lesbian seeks to control the thoughts, beliefs or conduct of her intimate partner or to punish the intimate for resisting the perpetrator's control over her" (p. 173). Although therapists, especially those who work with lesbians, are becoming increasingly aware of the prevalence of lesbian partner abuse, the topic remains shrouded in silence. Because the issue of lesbian battering is a relatively new area of inquiry, most resources in the area consist of information from the domestic violence movement focusing primarily on battering in heterosexual relationships, undocumented personal testimonies by battered lesbians, studies currently in progress, and anecdotal and clinical experience.

The issue of violence in lesbian relationships had been discussed by activists in the battered women's movement since 1978 but was not made public until the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) conference in 1986, in which the silence that had surrounded the topic was finally broken. Prior to that time, resistance had come both from lesbian and heterosexual activists in the battered women's movement. Lesbians thought that public discussion would reinforce homophobia, while heterosexuals were concerned that a focus on lesbian abuse survivors would endanger funding and harm the public image of the battered women's movement. Both lesbian and nonlesbian feminists feared that the acknowledgment of battered lesbians would endanger a feminist gender-specific analysis of battering that viewed battering as a consequence of male privilege and power in society (Kelly, 1986).

58

Lesbian victims of battering have themselves been reluctant to seek help for a number of reasons (Hammond, 1986). Some of those reasons parallel the reasons that heterosexual female victims of battering keep silent: the victim's belief that she is responsible, her fear of confronting the contradiction inherent in loving someone who is brutal to her, economic and emotional dependence, low self-esteem, a hope that things will get better in time. Although many battered women's shelters are open to lesbian victims of abuse, the staffs are often ill-equipped or homophobic; even when staff members are informed, heterosexual residents may be unaccepting of the battered lesbian (Geraci, 1986).

The lesbian victim of battering often has no one to turn to among her friends, because the victim's support system is also frequently her lover. She is faced not only with embarrassing her lover in front of their friends, but she risks further violence if her lover discovers that she has told others. Battered women, as a group, often encounter difficulty seeking help or leaving abusive partners; lesbian relationships often are characterized by additional pressures that increase these difficulties. First, lesbians in relationships are often not only lovers-partners but best friends as well; thus confronting the abuse also means endangering the friendship. It is common for lesbians, when separating, to go to great lengths to transform the lover relationship into a family-type relationship, thereby preserving their friendship. A characteristic of couples in which abuse is a problem is isolation from family, friends, and other support resources. Lesbian couples frequently isolate themselves from larger community support because the relationship is expected to meet all of each partner's needs because lesbian communities have not guarded the primacy of the couple relationship (Brown, 1985) and because the homophobia of the larger society causes battered lesbians to believe they have no options to staying in an abusive relationship (Hammond, 1986).

Lesbian communities can make it difficult for abuse victims to find support and help. Especially among feminist lesbians, there is an insistence upon supporting the myth that lesbian relationships are egalitarian, loving, passionate, but never violent. Lesbians who have been active in the battered women's movement for years ignore the signs of violence when confronted with those signs among lesbians. A lesbian victim challenges our hopes and beliefs in the ideal relationship (Enos & Rollins, 1988).

Therapists, especially those with a feminist perspective, have been reluctant to acknowledge the possibility of battering in lesbian relationships. A search through the literature on lesbian relationships reveals topics such as alcoholism, jealousy, mediation, feminist systems therapy, and sexuality (including lesbian sexual sadomasochism). Battering is noticeably absent

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989 VOL. 68

throughout. In our early clinical experience with lesbian couples, we encountered what we believed to be fighting, even physical fighting,, without recognizing it as battering. Hart (1986) distinguished between incidents of violence and the phenomenon of battering. The crucial ingredient that characterizes battering is the use of abusive or violent behavior to gain power and control over the partner. The danger in battering (as opposed to isolated incidents of violence) is that it becomes progressively worse and more dangerous to the victim.

Several myths concerning lesbian battering have contributed to the secrecy surrounding the issue: the myth that women, because of their socialization, are less aggressive than men and therefore do not batter physically; the myth that battering only occurs because of substance abuse or in bars; the myth that feminist lesbians, because of their commitment to egalitarian relationships, do not batter; and the myth that lesbians, as women, are incapable of inflicting serious harm. In fact, lesbians are capable of inflicting serious physical (and psychological) harm, even to the point of life-threatening injury. Although battering has been associated with substance abuse in some instances, it is not caused by the use of alcohol or other chemicals; batterers can effectively recover from substance abuse and continue to abuse their partners. Feminist lesbians batter; several anonymous reports testify to the existence of lesbian batterers who are active in the feminist, lesbian and gay, and domestic violence movements (Anonymous; Santa Cruz Women's Self Defense Teaching Cooperative; Hart, 1986).

NATURE, SEVERITY, AND PREVALENCE OF BATTERING

Little is known about the prevalence of battering in lesbian relationships. Although conventional wisdom would hold that lesbians, as women, are less likely than are men to perpetrate violence on others, there has been little research in this area. In comparing heterosexual and lesbian couples, Brand and Kidd (1986) found that men were perpetrators of violence in relationships significantly more often than were women. For specific types of violence, men were significantly more violent than were women in the areas of attempted rape and physical abuse but not in other categories such as completed rape or infliction of pain beyond consent when practicing sadomasochism. Russell (1984) reported that .7% of the total number of rapes (44% of 930 randomly selected San Francisco women) were attempted and completed by women. Brand and Kidd (1986), studying date rape among 130 women residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (who were from a women's college and a lesbian discussion group), reported 29%. It was found that heterosexual women were most likely to have been raped by male partners while lesbians were most likely to have been raped by female partners. In our current state of knowledge about lesbian battering (including rape), it seems that lesbians are indeed less likely than are heterosexual men to batter their partners. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to address battering in gay male relationships, it is clear that partner abuse is also a problem in that population (Kelly & Warshafsky, 1987). Our experience as counselors working with lesbians indicates that a far greater number of lesbians are in battering relationships than common wisdom would lead us to believe.

Battering in lesbian relationships includes virtually the same kinds of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse found in heterosexual relationships. In addition, lesbians may use homophobic control, such as threatening to expose the victim's

Lesbian Partner Abuse

sexual orientation to others; convincing the victim that she deserves no better or will never be able to find help because she is a lesbian; or telling her that she is not a "real" lesbian, particularly if she has previously been in relationships with men (Hart, 1986). Battering may include everything from humiliation and threats to rape and murder. As in heterosexual battering relationships, violence usually escalates over time, becoming more and more life threatening.

The cycle of violence defined by Walker (1984) applies equally well to both lesbian and heterosexual battering couples. A tension-building phase begins the cycle, characterized by stress, frustration, communication problems, and efforts by the victim to pacify the abuser. The second phase is violence, which may be sudden and short-lived or prolonged over hours, days, or even weeks. The honeymoon phase follows, with apologies and promises by the batterer that she is sorry and will never do it again; she will frequently buy gifts, bring flowers, and perform other acts to show her partner that she is sincere. Often the honeymoon phase and even the tension-building phase grow shorter over time as violence becomes the norm.

The entire cycle is characterized by denial, often on the part of both the victim and the abuser. Denial on the part of the abuser may be so powerful that she deceives herself about the extent of the violence. Other mechanisms that come into play are justification ("She made me do it") and minimizing ("It's not really so bad"). Chemical abuse may accompany battering but is generally a justification, not a cause, of battering (Powers & Kutash, 1982; Schechter, 1987).

CURRENT APPROACHES TO BATTERING Current approaches to the problem of battering range from the psychological to the political. It should be noted that most existing models are based on clinical work with heterosexual couples. Therefore, although potentially informative, they should be used with caution until more empirical evidence supports their use with lesbian couples. It is our contention that many of the psychological or "treatment" approaches are inherently dangerous for victims of abuse and that counselors must learn from the battered women's movement to work safely and effectively with victims of lesbian partner abuse. We are particularly indebted to Marcia Niemann, formerly of NCADV, for her descriptions and critiques of therapeutic approaches to lesbian battering (M. Niemann, personal communication, March 3, 1988).

Intrapsychic Model

This traditional intrapsychic approach views dynamics from the family of origin as the source of negative effects upon personality development of both the victim and the abuser. The victim may be perceived as masochistic or otherwise "crazy" (Iman, 1987; Schechter, 1987; Walker, 1979). If the therapist is unaware of the behavioral consequences of abuse, therapy for the victim may focus on her personality disorder. For example, one of the authors (S.L.M.) observed therapists staffing a particular abused female client, variously referring to her as "borderline" and "paranoid"; no mention was made of her status as a trauma victim. The batterer may be perceived as either a victim (Waldo, 1987) or psychopath (Walker, 1979). Resultant treatment modalities range from psychoanalytic approaches to anger reduction techniques. Because of traditional attitudes of disdain toward and frustration with victims of

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989 VOL. 68

59