Once Removed,
Thank you for sharing your opinion, I would like to comment on some of these.
To want to be in, and partake in a relationship environment that is peaceful, safe, supportive, harmonious and generally "without abuse", is a value.
I think you may have misunderstood me. Allow me to clarify. I was talking about abuse as defined by law, licensed professionals, and the dictionary. Other than the portion of being in a 'safe' environment, the other words that you have used don't necessarily meet a requirement of 'abuse'.
Dictionary definition:
a·buse
verb
/əˈbyo͞oz/
1. use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
"the judge abused his power by imposing the fines"
2. treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.
"riders who abuse their horses should be prosecuted"
noun
/əˈbyo͞os/
1. the improper use of something.
"alcohol abuse"
2. cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal.
"a black eye and other signs of physical abuse"
How do you uphold that value? By first and foremost being a partner that does not engage in a way that isn't peaceful, safe, supportive, and generally is "without abuse" in a way that we define "abuse". Second, by not being in a relationship with a partner who, for whatever reason, doesn't agree - doesnt share our values.
I am going to be pushing back on your statement. Having a different opinion, or not sharing the same values, is not abusive in itself. Mutually agreed compromises are one way to handle the difference of opinion and/or differing values where one respects and values the opinion or value of another, and can work out the differences without abusive behaviors. Alternatively, if a compromise is impractical, then taking turns on making choices is another way to handle this in a mutually agreeable way.
I feel it only becomes abusive, if one imposes their value in a way that does not meet societal standards on compromise through peaceful negotiation to come up with a mutually agreed upon compromise where both can tolerate the outcome even though they may not find it ideally suited to their wants. What I was talking about is abusive behaviors generally through coercion, intimidation, full blown rages, DARVO, gaslighting, and any number of other things licensed professionals have defined as abuse in articles that are medically reviewed by licensed professionals. I definitely was not referring to not sharing the same values, or opinions as a form of abuse as it is not abuse - it is a difference of opinion or values and should not be confused with abuse.
Relationships can be messy, lines can be blurred, one or both parties may (inevitably) act in a way that is not in accordance with their mutual values, or disagreements (inevitably) happen over how we are living them. When that happens, it's important to check in, and work together to get on the same page. Remind each other what we value and are working toward.
All relationships will have disagreements. It is how these disagreements are resolved will determine if a relationship is successful or not. Having a healthy discourse making a compromise or other mutually agreed upon arrangement is the way to go. However, if it involves coercion, or other abusive behaviors as defined by licensed professionals, then it can become abusive in nature.
"All abuse must stop" is a rule contingent on someone elses behavior. It is probably not a realistic one. Why? In part because "abuse" has no real definition beyond what it means to us as individuals.
I can see your point, if an individual defines abuse differently; however, I was referring to what professionals, and independent 3rd party defines as abuse within the context of societal standards whether this is in the form of laws of the land, or medically reviewed articles by licensed professionals. The abuse I was referring to has concise definitions and examples.
If someone else's behavior does not respect the 'all abuse must stop' behavior, it is incumbent on the person on the receiving end of the abuse to enforce that boundary by not participating in the dysregulated persons behavior. That is the enforcement part of this boundary. Example: 1. pwBPD starts an irrational dysregulated yelling rage 2. the person being raged at will respond with a request to stop in a normal tone of voice, if not heeded, then 3. the person being raged at will remove themselves from the vicinity of the pwBPD engaged in a rage. 4. If pwBPD doing the rage, becomes physical in nature, 911 will be called, and 911 will enforce the boundary through the law of the land.
You said:
Everyone can agree that more obvious things like hitting or kicking are abusive. How about the partner that believes they are justified because of how they were treated, eg "you made me do this". They might call it "reactive abuse".
In fact I wrote pretty much the same thing in a different post/thread describing an exgf with NPD/BPD and my wife who is likely BPD/OCPD:
[...]After I left her after dating her briefly, she got in trouble with the law after she couldn't pay her bills due to her impulsive spending, and they found a lot more than missing money, she was front page news on a regional scale for the abuses she did, at least 57 counts of charges.
With my wife, she had repeated suicide gestures/attempts, that I found to be very coercive or manipulative in nature - I had no clue as to mental health issues as the only one I had been formally trained in was Stockholm syndrome, and that was within the context of a ship hijacking so I would know how to respond in a hostage scenario.
I agree it is way too easy to label any difficult relationship issue as abuse or is abusive. I feel that one needs to fully understand, at a minimum what the law defines as abuse, and ideally at a level a licensed professional understands - rather than what pop culture indicates as abuse. If one partner hits, kicks, punches, bites, etc. the law clearly defines this as physical abuse (domestic violence) - there is no room for misinterpretation for physical abuse as it is codified into law. Also, my wife was reported by a mandated reporter, our former couple's therapist, for this kind of behavior, I had no idea that this would happen, neither did she.
If one is subjected to coercion, blackmail, duress, threats, slander, defamation, libel, etc. these too are codified in law and are considered illegal, these too leave very little doubt if the person on the receiving end is being abused.
Likewise being on the receiving end of a rage, that involves yelling, threats of harm, etc. While not clear-cut as physical abuse or other codified illegal behaviors, most would consider this to be abusive in nature too.
However, it is the more grey terms, like gaslighting, DARVO, needling, sarcasm, etc. where one says they are joking, when in fact they are not - the intent of the said 'joke' needs to be determined before it can be labelled as abusive,[...]
That is why it is important to have a licensed professional (an LCSW in our case) make this distinction in our particular situation. My wife was using her own definition, which was 'out there' and very liberally applied, mainly in the needling and was labelled as 'reactive abuse' against me. My definition was very conservative to things like 'hitting or kicking' and other illegal acts and had to be expanded as I generally didn't consider it as abuse or being abusive. It took our couple's therapist to tell me to call 911 the next time certain behaviors my wife did to take place.
The thing was I could not recognize what abuse was, until it was clearly defined by a licensed professional for both of us, so we could have a similar understanding what abuses we were actually talking about.
How about less obvious things, like raising your voice? How about having your feelings hurt, either because your partner said something insensitive, or because you took it that way? Is it realistic to expect that none of those things would ever occur at any time? Especially if they are numbering in the tens of thousands?
I don't consider that as abusive, if I did, then the number would definitely be in the 6-figure range over the lifetime of our relationship. The abuse I am talking about what license professionals define as abuse. Prior to getting this understanding, I only had perceived at least 100 but less than 200 events as abuse, my wife had a whole lot more as the perpetual victim until this was clarified by the therapist.
Moreover, does "reactive abuse" uphold our values, or beget more of the same?
No, it doesn't uphold my values. When it was identified by the therapist, I stopped it immediately - almost like flipping a 'light switch' off as I recognized my sarcasm as being hurtful towards my wife in response to her much more egregious offenses akin to comparing a hand grenade to a nuclear weapon. However, on the rare occasion I am triggered, I do find myself reverting back to this out of habit, my wife reminds me, and I stop it immediately. This 'all abuse must stop' is something between my wife, my self, and our children - anyone can call out the other (a 'time-out' if you will), and they are obligated to stop, and reflect on what they are saying to the other. Each person has age-appropriate tools for dealing when 'mom' becomes dysregulated, which has become much less prevalent and well on its way to being put into remission.
This works for my particular situation, and has been exceptionally effective and has been described by professionals and peers alike as a 'miracle' - I am happy that it works and will continue to use these tools until it no longer works.
If you have any additional questions, observations, or requests for clarification, please let me know.
Take care.
SD
