Intimate Violence: Types, Incidences, and Impacts

Introduction 

The American and global societies face an era of increased belief systems that heighten sensitivity to issues previously swept under the rug because of misconstrued perceptions of gender roles and intimate relationships. Women empowerment has been central to the giant leap in recognition of the social ills that bedeviled the society for many years. Intimate partner violence is one such social problem with immense implications on the relationship of those concerned and their lives. Intimate violence is a form of domestic violence that occurs in a domestic relationship. The CDC defines IPV as physical, sexual, or psychological harm perpetrated by a current or former spouse or dating partner. The significance of the social problem is evident in the efforts of the state and private agencies and Violence Against Women Acts by Congress directed towards its mitigation. Women are often the victims of intimate partner violence, but victimizations transcend the boundaries of gender and sexual orientation. The situation is exacerbated by the proliferation of LGBT couples. The prevalence of intimate violence varies with socioeconomic factors. According to the study by Malcoe, Duran, and Montgomery (2004), at least 60% of Native American women had been victims of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Couples in intimate relationships may have difficulties determining the boundaries of what is acceptable and what qualifies as intimate partner violence. Highlighting the trends in the tide and possible causes is a crucial step towards establishing cognizance of the problem to inform mitigation strategies.

Types, Incidence, and Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence 

Intimate violence takes a number of forms including verbal, emotional, physical, sexual, or economic abuse. According to Smith and Segal (2010), the underlying concept of domestic abuse including IPV is the need to gain and maintain control over the victim. Abusive partners deploy different tactics to exert power over their spouse including dominance, humiliation, isolation, intimidation, threats, denial, and blame. Sexual abuse is a common phenomenon in IPV with the victims forced into participating in unwanted, unsafe, or degrading sexual activity. Intimate partner violence may operate in a number of dynamics. Situational couple violence, seen as the most common type of domestic violence, arises from conflicts that lead to argument and finally violence. Situational forms of IPV have no pattern of control and are infrequent. Intimate terrorism is a form of IPV characterized by an ongoing pattern of physical, emotional, or sexual control. Other forms of IPV include violence resistance, which is self-defense perpetrated by victims against abusive partners; common couple violence where both couples are active perpetrators; and mutual violent control where the actions of both partners are geared towards exerting control. In most circumstances, IPV involves physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression that may be isolated or occur together.

In the US, victims of IPV are approximated to be 10 million annually (CDC, 2017). The data from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) shows that IPV is very common. Approximately 1 in 4 adult women and 1 in 7 adult men report have experienced a severe form of intimate violence from a partner in their lifetime. Contact sexual violence including rape, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, being forced into sex with someone else, was experienced by 16% of women and 7% of men. On the same note, women and men who reported being stalked by an intimate partner were 10% and 2% respectively (CDC, 2017). It is important to understand that the statistics are not limited to partners in heterosexual relationships. Empirical evidence shows that individuals are equally affected regardless of sexual orientation. Lesbian, gays, and bisexuals are equally likely to experience physical violence, sexual violence, or stalking. Heavy (2013) cited evidence showing some LGBT groups to be more vulnerable than the general population. According to Heavy, the CDC reported 44% of IPV among women was by lesbians, 61% by bisexuals, and 31% by heterosexuals. Men reported 26% violence among gays, 37% by bisexuals, and 29% by heterosexuals. The findings were consistent where rape was involved. In regards to stalking, 60% of female victims, and 43% of men reported being stalked by a current or former partner. However, women remain the most vulnerable victims of IPV. The findings by CDC are consistent and corroborate those by Schafer, Caetano, and Clark (1998) two decades ago showing a high incidence and prevalence of intimate partner violence in the US.

Potential Causes of IPV 

The socioeconomic theory is often put forward to explain IPV owing to the male quest for identity and control. However, the WHO (2012) argued that the phenomenon could best be understood using the ecological model that depicts outcomes of factors operating at the individual, relationship, community, and societal level. The risk factors are tabulated below.

Impacts of Intimate Partner Violence 

The consequences of IPV are diverse and span social, economic, physical, and psychological paradigms. The CDC posited that approximately half of all female homicide victims are murdered by intimate partners, statistics that cut across all racial and ethnic groups. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, it equates to three women daily, which is a major public concern by any standards. The NCJS also reported that 30-60% perpetrators of IPV also abuse children. Approximately 20% of children are witnesses to IPV, which is a risk of to them in the future. Such children are at a higher risk of sexual assault compared to the national average. Intimate partner violence disrupts families leading to child neglect and violence, a precursor of child abuse and neglect fatalities, in addition to homelessness.

The societal implications of IPV are evidenced in the damages sustained by victims. Approximately 41% and 14% of female and male survivors sustain some form of physical injury. Other health problem experiences by victims include cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, reproductive, musculoskeletal, and nervous system conditions, of which many are chronic (CDC, 2017). Victims may also experience mental problems including depression and PTSD. The conditions increase their likelihood of engaging in risky behavior that further endangers their health. Victims of IPV loss an estimated 8.0 million of paid workdays annually, and 21-60% of the victims lose their jobs due to reasons from abuse. The total cost of IPV is at least $8.3 billion annually. Overall, IPV is a major detriment to the social, economic, and health wellbeing of the society.

Conclusion and Suggestions 

There is sufficient empirical evidence showing that IPV is common and substantial, a trend that has been sustained over the years. Individuals across the divides are at risk of victimizations, making the practice major public concern that must be addressed with haste. Dealing with IPV requires a rethink of existing frameworks given the challenges in rooting out the risk factors. Acceptance and recognition of the existence of the problem is the best starting point to encourage victims to come forward and report their cases. Trust under such circumstances is dependent on reforming existing civil and criminal laws, and conducting extensive advocacy campaigns to create awareness. Women being the most at risk, it is imperative to strengthen their civil rights appertaining to divorce, child support and custody, and property. In addition, communication of behavior change is necessary through collaborative efforts of the government and civil societies. Integration of life skills in the education curriculum is crucial to nurture non-violent behavior. Lastly, at risk families must be provided with the necessary intervention services. Fighting IPV is a significant challenge because the practice has its roots deep into the societal fabric that in some instances, perceives it as a norm. Success can only be realized by pulling stakeholders and resources together in the development of the necessary evidence-based strategies.

References

CDC. (2017). Preventing intimate partner violence . Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv-factsheet.pdf.

Heavy, S. (2013). Data shows domestic violence, rape an issue for gays. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gays-violence/data-shows-domestic-violence-rape-an-issue-for-gays-idUSBRE90O11W20130125.

Malcoe, L. H., Duran, B. M., & Montgomery, J. M. (2004). Socioeconomic disparities in intimate partner violence against Native American women: a cross-sectional study.  BMC medicine ,  2 (1), 2-20.

Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. L. (1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States.  American journal of public health ,  88 (11), 1702-1704.

Smith, M., & Segal, J. (2010). Domestic violence and abuse: Signs of abuse and abusive relationships.  Helpguuide.org. Retrieved from https://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/domestic-violence-and-abuse.htm.

WHO. (2017). Understanding and addressing violence against women: Intimate partner violence . Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77432/who_rhr_12.36_eng.pdf;jsessionid=1F532945F0E9CB570CBB109660D1852A?sequence=1.