Controlling behaviours of male partners
You and your boyfriend just made things official, but he already wants to spend so much time with you. And he wants to know everything about you. And he wants to make sure you make it home—or even to and from work—safely. Um, if it feels like too much, it probably is. But it's not always easy to distinguish true love from a controlling relationship.SEE VIDEO BY TOPIC: 10 Signs You're Being Manipulated
SEE VIDEO BY TOPIC: 8 Things Controlling Personalities Do To Keep You Under ThemContent:
- 5 Controlling And Manipulative Relationship Signs To Watch Out For
- Controlling Behavior: Signs, Causes, and What To Do About It
- Controlling behaviours of male partners
- How do you know if your partner is trying to control you?
- 10 Signs You Have A Controlling Boyfriend
- Controlling behaviours of male partners
- 5 Subtle Signs Your Partner Is Controlling and What to Do About It
- 10 Signs You Have A Controlling Boyfriend
- Controlling Men: Empowering Advice For Women Involved With Bullies
5 Controlling And Manipulative Relationship Signs To Watch Out For
Metrics details. Controlling behavior is more common and can be equally or more threatening than physical or sexual violence. This study used secondary data from a cross-sectional nationally-representative survey collected by face-to-face interviews from women aged 15 - 49 years in the Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. Utilizing a stratified two-stage cluster sample design, data was collected frrm 19 eligible with the DHS domestic violence module, which is based on the Conflict Tactics Scale CTS.
In contrast, women who had decision-making autonomy had lower likelihood of experiencing physical and sexual violence. Findings emphasize the need to adopt a proactive integrated approach to controlling behavior and intimate partner violence within the society.
Peer Review reports. It is commonly accepted that control and power are underlying factors for sexual and other forms of violence by intimate partners [ 1 , 2 ]. Control in intimate partner relationships can be conceptualized as a problem of one partner commonly the man using threats and emotional abuse to maintain control over the other partner commonly the women [ 3 , 4 ].
Studies have shown that controlling behavior among men is significantly associated with higher likelihood of physical violence [ 5 , 6 ], and sexual violence [ 7 , 8 ], given that controlling behaviors reflect a power motive. Men who justify wife beating to control and discipline their wife are more physically aggressive than those who do not support such beliefs [ 9 ]. Few studies have however focused on controlling behavior as the crux of their research, more so in the sub-Saharan African context; most of the existing studies have mainly been carried out in North America [ 7 ], the United Kingdom [ 10 ], Asia [ 11 ], and the Middle East [ 12 ].
Focusing on the role of control in intimate relationships will increase our understanding of the etiology and consequences of male-to-female physical and sexual violence and is important in informing efforts towards prevention and reduction of IPV against women, given that controlling behavior is more common than physical or sexual violence, and can be equally or more threatening than physical or sexual violence [ 13 , 14 ].
Being controlled by an intimate partner and the use of emotional threats are highly injurious behaviors resulting in adverse effects on well-being [ 15 ], and warrants as much focus as other forms of violence, such as physical and sexual violence [ 4 , 14 , 16 ].
The approach in this study takes into consideration that control within the relationship has multiple forms and sources, and its manifestation may be influenced by personal attributes, institutional roles and cultural contexts [ 8 ].
It examines different dimensions of control within the Nigerian context in emphasizing some of the theoretical concepts offered for the causes of intimate partner violence. Patriarchal perspectives posit that violence may occur as a response to a man's feeling of powerlessness as well as of being threatened by a loss of control over an independent spouse [ 18 ].
Resource perspectives on the other hand posit that it is the relative resources of male partners and women rather than social roles or norms that determine the balance of power within intimate relationships thereby increasing the risk of IPV [ 7 ]. A key element when examining control within relationships is the unequal social distribution of power between sexes as well as economic dependence i.
Individuals with less power are often the victims of control by those with more power. The dimensions of inequality within the relationship used in this study include spouses' relative earning, spouses' relative education, spouses' relative age, and type of marital union. Relationships of equally dependent partners that embrace egalitarian decision-making and an equal division of power within the family often report low levels of conflict, control, and violence [ 19 , 20 ].
Women who differ from the societal gender roles may be regarded as challenging their partner's masculinity as provider or breadwinner; these partners may resort to using control tactics to curtail such "deviant" behavior, which may result in violence [ 21 ]. For instance, women whose economic resources approached or exceeded their partners' resources were more likely to report experiencing control and violence acts [ 19 ]. Thus, in certain contexts the greater the equality or less inequality between partners, the higher the women's risk of exposure to violence as this threatens men's position of power [ 3 , 22 ].
Thus, this study uses variables reflecting relationship inequalities to assess the resource perspectives. A variant of the resource perspective, social exchange theory , also posits that interpersonal dimensions of control and power can be expressed by decision-making autonomy, and the ability to engage in actions against a partner's wishes.
Decision-making autonomy is used to assess social exchange theory in this study. I hypothesized that women who reported less power within their relationship would most likely be victims of controlling behavior and be at a increased risk of physical and sexual IPV. This is a cross-sectional population-based survey that utilizes a stratified two-stage cluster sample design based on the list of enumeration areas developed from the Population Census sampling frame.
A full report and detailed description of the sampling procedures are presented elsewhere [ 23 ]. This was carried out in accordance with the World Health Organization's ethical and safety recommendations for research on domestic violence [ 25 ].
These recommendations aim at ensuring women's safety, maximizing disclosure of actual violence by providing adequate training and support to field workers, making sure informed consent is obtained, and guaranteeing the privacy of respondents. IPV exposure is defined as any acts of physical, emotional and sexual abuse by a current or former partner whether cohabiting or not [ 26 ]. Using the CTS, two outcome variables of violence were created: physical and sexual violence. Physical violence referred to any exposure to one or several of the following acts against women by a current or former husband or partner ever: i pushing, shaking or throwing something at her; ii slapping her or twisting her arm; iii punching or hitting her with something harmful; iv kicking or dragging her; v strangling or burning her; vi threatening her with a weapon e.
Sexual violence referred to any exposure to one or several of the following acts against women by a current or former husband or partner ever: i forced sexual intercourse; and ii other sexual acts when undesired. Exposure to each of these types of violent acts were scored as 1 any experience of violence ever and 0 no experience of violence ever.
Women who responded "yes" to one or several of the control questions formed one group of the dichotomy, and the women that responded "no" to all the controlling attitude questions formed the other group of the dichotomy. Similar scales have been used in other studies [ 27 , 28 ]. Cronbach's alpha for controlling behavior was. Responses were transformed into a single dichotomous "yes" or "no" variable. Women who responded "yes" to one or several of these attitude questions formed one group of the dichotomy, and women who responded "no" to all the attitude questions formed the other group of the dichotomy.
Cronbach's alpha for justifies wife beating was. Cronbach's alpha for autonomy in domestic decisions was. This study is based on analysis of secondary data with all participant identifiers removed. Model 2 added variables reflecting other measures of control in relationships justifies wife beating and decision-making autonomy , and Model 3 further added variables reflecting possible relationship inequality spouses' relative earning, spouses' relative education, spouses' relative age, and type of union.
Model 4 included demographic and socioeconomic characteristics women's age, women's education, women's occupation, partner's occupation, and place of residence. Missing data were excluded from the analyses. The proportion of respondents who reported items measuring controlling behavior are presented according to physical and sexual IPV in Figure 1. Proportion of respondents who reported items used to measure controlling behavior by intimate partner violence.
In the final model Model 4 , other measures of controlling behavior justifies wife beating and decision-making autonomy , relationship inequalities spouses' relative earnings , demographic and socioeconomic characteristics women's occupation and place of residence were significantly associated with physical violence after adjusting for possible confounding with these variables.
All other variables in Tables 2 and 3 had no statistically significant effect on the risks of physical and sexual violence after adjusting for possible confounding. Findings stress the need to adopt a multidimensional approach to interventions for IPV. This finding is in support of the feminist theory [ 32 ], and is also in favor of the hypothesis that controlling behavior is associated with increased likelihood of violence, most likely acting as precursor to violence.
However, other factors may be needed to adequately explain this level of violence. Of particular interest also in this study is the variation in the strength of the effects of controlling behavior between physical and sexual violent acts. This level of societal response to partner violence may influence controlling behavior abuse and consequently the likelihood of physical violence [ 33 ], and sexual IPV, and is in support of the feminist theory. Decision-making autonomy was associated with reduced likelihood of both physical and sexual IPV, consistent with findings from other studies [ 34 ], and contrary to other others [ 7 ].
This study also provides evidence of relationship inequalities women earning more than their spouse being a strong correlating factor for physical violence, and an even stronger correlating factor for sexual violence, consistent with another study [ 37 ], thereby providing support for the resource perspectives.
This may be connected with the fact that within the Nigerian social context, having to combine such physically demanding jobs with domestic responsibilities may not entitle such women the option to redistribution of their domestic responsibilities. The resulting increased tensions within the relationship due to neglected domestic duties, increases the use of controlling behavior and the women's risk of experiencing IPV; similar comments having been raised in another study [ 39 ].
Residence in rural areas was a risk factor for physical IPV, consistent with another study [ 40 ], and in contrasts to findings others [ 41 ]. This may be as a result of rural populations adapting more traditional gender roles than in urban areas, which tends to create environments in which violence in intimate relationships is considered to be more socially acceptable, as recently shown [ 42 ].
In addition, poverty tends to be more common in rural areas than in urban or suburban areas; it greatly contributes to family and relationship stress, limits victims' ability to leave abusive intimate partner relationships and increases the vulnerability of the women to physical violence [ 43 ]. Other characteristics of rural areas, such as geographic and social isolation, may also increase risks of violence for rural women, and decrease the opportunity for those women who experience violence to seek the resources they need.
Results of the logistic regression analysis were expressed as relative risks RRs because relative risks and odds ratios are essentially equivalent under certain circumstances. The rare disease assumption i. The large numbers of respondents, the survey being nationally-representative and enabling the generalization of the results across the country, variables in the DHS surveys being defined similarly across countries making results comparable across countries are major strengths of this study.
The limitations of this study include its use of single types of abuse in isolation from the others, which does not control for co-occurrence with other types of violence and its significance for understanding the effects of abuse on victims.
However, this is considered to be fairly accurate estimates [ 2 ]. This study provided evidence that in countries such as Nigeria in which intimate partner violence is widely accepted in response to women's transgression of traditional gender norms, power within intimate relationships is multidimensional, relative, dependent on the social and cultural contexts, and involves some level of inequity in the distribution of resources. This author believes like others [ 38 ], that increasing women's economic resources empower them to bargain for a better situation for them or to leave, therefore, reducing their risk of IPV.
Examples of economic interventions, such as microcredit programmer, economic livelihoods, and conditional cash transfers CCTs , have the potential to enhance decision-making abilities and even reduce IPV [ 46 ], through empowerment, as well as address the structural pathways resulting from women's experience of poverty.
Another important step toward eliminating this practice is for societies to create social environments that are intolerant towards IPV that would both make it more difficult for perpetrators to persist in their violent behavior and make it less difficult for women to report acts of intimate partner violence [ 47 ].
It also indicates the importance of increasing women's decision-making autonomy as a means of reducing the risk of controlling behavior and acts of physical and sexual violence against women. This study provides evidence for the need for a proactive integrated approach to empower women economically, promote social environments that are intolerant towards controlling behavior and intimate partner violence, thus breaking the norms that sustain women's vulnerability to violence within the society.
Jewkes R: Intimate partner violence: causation and primary prevention. Johnson MP: Patriarchal terrorism and common. J Marriage Fam. Violence Against Women. Population Reports Series L No Johnson MP: Conflict and control: Images of symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence.
Couples in conflict. Arch Sex Behav. Sex Roles. Meta-Analytic Review. J Fam Violence. J Interpers Violence. Krantz G, Vung ND: The role of controlling behavior in intimate partner violence and its health effects: a population based study from rural Vietnam.
BMC Public Health. DeKeseredy WS: Current controversies on defining nonlethal violence against women in intimate heterosexual relationships: Empirical implications. Burks BK: Emotional abuse of women.
Intimate violence against women: When spouses, partners, or lovers attack. Am J Public Health. Schwartz MD: The Past and the future of violence against women. Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Edited by: Yllo K, Bograd M. Kaukinen C: Status compatibility, physical violence, and emotional abuse in intimate relationships.
Controlling Behavior: Signs, Causes, and What To Do About It
Findings from the Australian component of the International violence against women survey IVAWS have been presented in a report titled Women's experiences of male violence. The report not only outlines information on women as victims of male physical and sexual violence, but also reports on women's experiences of emotional abuse and controlling behaviours by male partners. Results from the analysis of IVAWS found that women who experience controlling behaviours are more likely to experience higher levels of violence. During the 12 months preceding the survey, about three per cent of women reported that they experienced any violence from a current intimate partner.
Excluding IPV victimisation from the multivariate models; perpetrating controlling behaviours was associated with a higher number of ACE, higher anger expression England and severe physical IPV perpetration Brazil , and perpetrating TFA was associated with younger age. Including both IPV victimisation and perpetration in the multivariate models; perpetrating controlling behaviour was associated with experiencing a higher number of ACE, higher anger expression England , emotional IPV victimisation England and experiencing controlling behaviour from a partner England. Technological progress provides opportunities for perpetrators to control and abuse their partners. Drug Alcohol Rev ;—63]. Controlling behaviour in the intimate terrorism typology i.
Controlling behaviours of male partners
Feeling your partner is too controlling is a serious issue. You may have noticed the warning signs early on, but these are often easy to ignore in a new relationship and, over time, can start to become the norm. Perhaps your partner put a lot of demands on your time, and you just saw it as exciting and dynamic. But, while your partner may have seemed adorably high maintenance at first, controlling behaviour can get worse over time, undermining the good things in your relationship. Before long, you can find yourself feeling trapped, wondering where it all went wrong. Controlling behaviour is a form of abuse. Emotional abuse takes many forms, including ignoring, denying, and making excuses for unpleasant behaviour.
How do you know if your partner is trying to control you?
This article is about controlling abusive behaviour seen in some men. Bonding patterns are the unconscious ways that we have learnt to connect to each other and at the same time build emotional defences to feel safe. Once couples become aware of the bonding pattern there is usually the willingness to work together to heal past hurts and connect more intimately. Here we are talking about controlling behaviour on a different level.
The phenomena of men exercising extreme control over their partners, even to the extent of killing them, arises all the time in news reports here and abroad. Women also exercise this form of control, but it appears largely to be a male problem. What puzzles me is the unanswered question: just what is going on here?
10 Signs You Have A Controlling Boyfriend
Controlling behavior can come from just about anyone in your life. It could be your boss, a family member, a friend, or even your partner. Controlling people are all around.
It turns out, your perfect guy is a control freak who demands that everything is his way or the highway. He has an array of psychological tools at his disposal to ensure you do what he wants or suffer the consequences. The consequences range from ultimatums, manipulation, and threats to shaming, blaming, and shutting you down. Controlling men aren't always the beefed-up tough guys you see in the movies who yell and scream to get their way. They have learned how to fool the smartest, most capable woman, only to reveal their true natures once the woman is hooked.
Controlling behaviours of male partners
Metrics details. Controlling behavior is more common and can be equally or more threatening than physical or sexual violence. This study used secondary data from a cross-sectional nationally-representative survey collected by face-to-face interviews from women aged 15 - 49 years in the Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. Utilizing a stratified two-stage cluster sample design, data was collected frrm 19 eligible with the DHS domestic violence module, which is based on the Conflict Tactics Scale CTS. In contrast, women who had decision-making autonomy had lower likelihood of experiencing physical and sexual violence. Findings emphasize the need to adopt a proactive integrated approach to controlling behavior and intimate partner violence within the society.
Coercive control is a wide reaching form of abuse and, as control is at the heart of all domestic abuse, it overlaps with many other categories, especially sexual abuse and financial abuse. In early research with survivors they talked about how difficult it was to describe the ways they felt abuse affected them. Control is established using threats to harm the woman if she does not comply, or making the atmosphere at home unbearable. Coercive Control became a criminal offence in the UK in , which enables the police and courts to look for patterns of controlling and coercive behaviours rather than specific incidents of abuse or violence. The examples below include a wide range of ways that coercive control operates in relationships.
5 Subtle Signs Your Partner Is Controlling and What to Do About It
Some take control in a very subtle way, gaining a few inches here and there over time through the power of persuasive suggestion. Sure, a controlling person can be more overt about things. Fortunately, while they may be slick about things there are some clear signs you can look for to identify controlling behavior.
10 Signs You Have A Controlling Boyfriend
When it comes to love, our society romanticizes intense, controlling relationships and controlling behavior so much that it can be hard to recognize them for what they are. We have centuries of romantic literature and other art — from Wuthering Heights to Twilight to many other controlling husband and partner archetypes — telling us that real relationships are all about obsession, that real love is all-consuming, and that people who are truly in love have no boundaries or separate lives. But while all that obsession may make for an absorbing romance novel plot, in real life, control, manipulation and obsession aren't signs of true, passionate love — they are signs that your partner is controlling and manipulative. Many of us have been educated about the signs of a potentially abusive partner , and while escalation from control into outright abuse is something to be concerned about, the facts are that being in a controlling and manipulative relationship that never escalates into abuse can be hurtful and damaging, too.
Ты на месте.
Мы должны пойти на. - Слишком поздно, - сказал Стратмор. Он глубоко вздохнул. - Сегодня утром Энсея Танкадо нашли мертвым в городе Севилья, в Испании. ГЛАВА 8 Двухмоторный Лирджет-60 коснулся раскаленной посадочной полосы.
Controlling Men: Empowering Advice For Women Involved With Bullies
Скажи, что ты ушел с поста декана. Дэвид кивнул. - В следующем семестре я возвращаюсь в аудиторию. Сьюзан с облегчением вздохнула: - Туда, где твое подлинное призвание. Дэвид улыбнулся: - Да. Наверное, Испания напомнила мне о том, что по-настоящему важно.
Каждый, кто к нему прикоснется, будет уничтожен. Повисла тишина. Наконец Нуматака спросил: - Где ключ .