Given the high correlation of IPSV with other types of intimate partner violence (IPV), IPSVS could be – and is often – treated as one of many tools used to dominate, coerce, and terrorize women in their homes. According to most common theories of IPSV, physical and sexual violence are used in combination with other types of controlling behaviors to keep the victim in a state of powerlessness. In the well-known Duluth power and control model, for example, there are nine common strategies men used to terrorize women in their own homes: using intimidation; using emotional abuse; using coercion and threats; using economic abuse; using male privilege; using control over the children; using isolation; and minimizing, denying, and blaming (Domestic
…show more content…
In 1982, Russell published a groundbreaking work on wife rape. Based on interviews with 930 randomly selected women, Russell delineated a continuum based on the ratio of sexual assault to battering. On one end of the spectrum, women reported being raped by their husbands with “minimal force”. These participants experienced no other abuse or forms of intimate partner violence. They often described their relationships as equitable in regards to decision making. In other words, these women did not fit the stereotypical characterization of a battered woman. On the other end of the spectrum, women reported their husbands battered them yet never raped them. In the middle of the spectrum, women reported their husband both battered and raped them in relatively equal proportion; only 23% of women fell in this category. Russell’s spectrum perspective indicates that not all women who experience IPV experience IPSV, and visa versa. It brings forth the conclusion that IPSV is a separate category of violence from other types of IPV, likely with a different impact on survivors. Russell argued that IPSV could not be considered a type of IPV: “Wife rape,” she asserts, “cannot be subsumed under the battered women rubric,” (p.
In 1982, Russell published a groundbreaking work on wife rape. Based on interviews with 930 randomly selected women, Russell delineated a continuum based on the ratio of sexual assault to battering. On one end of the spectrum, women reported being raped by their husbands with “minimal force”. These participants experienced no other abuse or forms of intimate partner violence. They often described their relationships as equitable in regards to decision making. In other words, these women did not fit the stereotypical characterization of a battered woman. On the other end of the spectrum, women reported their husbands battered them yet never raped them. In the middle of the spectrum, women reported their husband both battered and raped them in relatively equal proportion; only 23% of women fell in this category. Russell’s spectrum perspective indicates that not all women who experience IPV experience IPSV, and visa versa. It brings forth the conclusion that IPSV is a separate category of violence from other types of IPV, likely with a different impact on survivors. Russell argued that IPSV could not be considered a type of IPV: “Wife rape,” she asserts, “cannot be subsumed under the battered women rubric,” (p.