The Permutations of Sexuality

I am presenting on the dynamics of LGBTQ+ perpetrators of domestic violence soon. While I am an advocate for the LGBTQ+ community, I feel cautious in speaking about a community I am not a member of. I have to be aware of my privilege, and work to be clear with myself and my audience that while my knowledge might be built on years of working with individuals and groups within the community, I make no presumption about my ability to understand or appreciate the experience of those who have struggled their whole lives for acceptance, validation, and equality. This article is designed to create more dialog about sexuality in batterer intervention and domestic violence groups, but also can create greater dialog in general about the layers of sexuality.

One of the big barriers to society in accepting, validating, and creating equality for the LGBTQ+ community is a willful ignorance and not wanting to understand or care about people who do not fit into the status quo of heterosexuality, and a belief that this status quo is a model of how "things should be done." The problem is that sexuality is mostly seen in binary terms. You're either gay or straight. Bisexuality is not even a part of the equation. People who might identify as bisexual are dismissed or ridiculed, because after all if they are a man in a relationship with a man they must be gay, right? Or a woman who is married to a man but says she is bisexual can't be sexually interested in both men and women because she is obviously with a man.

If we can't allow people to self-identify as being sexually interested in both men and women, how can we possibly move to understand other forms of sexuality? If sexuality is seen in binary terms, how can we have any discussions about sexual orientation without turning it into an "us vs. them" argument?

Binary understanding of sexuality is only a part of the confusion. There has been much public debate about transgender rights, and we've gotten confused about the difference between sexuality and gender identity. Someone who is transgender can be any sexual orientation. If you have a binary understanding, you get confused. If someone is M-F transgender, and is sexually attracted to men, I have certainly heard people wondering if that makes the person gay or straight. When people do not honor someone's identification, and stick to a "this or that" idea of sexuality, it becomes very difficult to properly gender an individual - not for the purposes of labeling, but rather the ability to properly respect their identification. If an individual is M-F transgender, they identify as FEMALE. If they are sexually interested in men, they are HETEROSEXUAL. Gender identity is separate from sexuality.

In this article, I am also not addressing Queer identity, as it goes along a few different categories - someone can be genderqueer, where they do not identify with any specific gender, or identify as both genders, or can also be associated with not identifying with a specific sexual orientation or interest. For such individuals, they can also be Questioning, and their not identifying might have more to do with an exploration of what identity they fit into as opposed to intentionally deciding and declaring a lack of association with an identity. Someone's choice to not identity should be honored as much as someone's choice not to disclose their identity, or someone's choice to be open about their identity.

To work against binary identification, consider that there are three layers of sexuality: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Frequency, and Romantic/Emotional Connection. The one we obsess over is sexual orientation, but understanding the other two layers creates a permutation of five sexual orientations, six sexual frequencies, and six romantic/emotional orientations leading to a total of 180 possible combinations of sexuality.

Layers of Sexual Orientation:
This layer is relatively static. Human beings start in life with a specific sexual interest, which develops in awareness and understanding as a child enters puberty, and it doesn't tend to change over the course of a lifetime. This is sometimes hard for people to accept, particularly because we talk about "coming out of the closet," or know someone who may have been married and has biological children but then "decided" they were gay. Someone could have been gay all their life, but never felt safe or comfortable telling others their sexual attraction. An individual could have attempted to squash that desire down and force themselves to be with someone not of their own gender. Some think of sexual orientation as a choice, but is it really a choice when our society has a number of consequences (both directly stated and implied) for telling others about a sexual orientation other than heterosexual? Who you are attracted to is not a choice, how you present that to the world is. Sexual behavior is not necessarily an accurate indicator of sexual orientation.


Heterosexuality is sexual attraction to someone of the "opposite sex". That term is problematic if you understand the idea of multiple genders (as well as genetic sexual traits) - however colloquially we get the idea, and accept it overall. The idea of multiple genders can make heterosexuality complicated, as when considering attraction and sexual interest, is it purely about someone's genitalia, or is there more to it than that? Homosexuality is sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.

The concept of "bi" in sexual orientation (and in layers of emotional/romantic attraction) refer to a person who is not limited to sexual attraction toward one sex. Bisexuality can be someone's identity even if he/she is in a relationship with one person of same or opposite sex. Someone can be attracted to one sex, but together with another - which is part of the confusion some experience when they label others or do not accept their stated identification.

The other two sexual orientations get even more confusing with a binary focus. Transamorous is a form of sexual orientation where someone is sexually attracted to a transgender person. It is important to distinguish the difference between transamorous and someone who has a sexual fetish, as a fetish to a specific body part would better fit as a paraphilia, below. One does not need to have surgery to be considered "transitioned." Many trans people never get bottom surgery, for a multitude of reasons, but when the individual says they have transitioned, then they have regardless of the current state of their genitalia. Someone who is transamorous has sexual desire specifically for someone who identifies as transgender, and there is often an element of queerromantic emotional attachment as a part of this orientation.

Paraphilias, of which there are several, are also relatively rare but help to explain some things we often as a society do not want to understand. Often associated and categorized as disorders, the label can be problematic - particularly with paraphilias that do not harm other people. Objectophilia has gotten some attention on television shows over the past few years. It is where a person is sexually attracted to an object. While one example might be the movie, "Lars and the Real Girl" that explores a man's relationship with a sex doll, there are also shows which highlight a man in a relationship (sexually and emotionally) with his car, a woman who has sexual desire and wants to marry an amusement park ride, etc. This is bizarre to most people, and difficult to comprehend on several levels. Just because you do not understand does not mean it fails to exist. The most commonly focused on paraphilia is pedophilia - the sexual attraction toward children. This can be very important to consider, as if you remember earlier in this article there being a comment about sexual orientation being STATIC. It tends not to change over the course of one's life. That means that there is no real "treatment" for making a pedophile stop wanting to have sex with children, as there is no treatment to stop someone from being gay. It is a sexual desire, and when I did work at a sex offender treatment program, therapists often discussed how with pedophiles the only thing to do is lifelong intensive monitoring, supervision, and treatment. There are other paraphilias, but for the sake of keeping this article manageable, consider these two as an example of this orientation.

Sexual Frequency:
When it comes to sexual frequency, many of these labels are thought to be sexual orientations, which like binary association of sexuality cause much confusion. Regardless of sexual interest (orientation), every person has a desired frequency of sexual activity. This can create any number of relationship issues, and domestic violence intervention programs hopefully spend time speaking directly to frequency issues in relationships as it can often contribute to an abuser's sense of entitlement and disconnect from a partner. Frequency, unlike orientation, is fluid over a lifespan. This means that as a human being gets older, sexual drive may change, and sometimes may stop for an individual due to medical, social, spiritual and other factors in that person's life. Being aware of sexual frequency can help to navigate several issues, and understand some contexts of sexual interactions that otherwise are confounding.

Allosexual is possibly the most common sexual frequency, yet most people have never heard of the term. It indicates sexual desire within "normal" boundaries. Research has spent time trying to figure out what the definition of normal is in terms of sexual frequency, and often studies look at the relationship status of the individual as a part of this analysis. The theory is that if someone is in a committed relationship (married being one such example), then the couple will most likely have sex more regularly. This is not necessarily the case, and with technology and "dating" apps on phones and computers, this research may not hold up under the current social environment of anonymous contacts and casual sex being both more socially acceptable, and easier (and safer by being more discreet) to engage in.

Hypersexual is normally understood by the name itself, even if someone has not thought of it as a label. This is someone who frequently desires sex, and may have sex multiple times daily if possible. Sometimes, this drive is associated with mental health issues (such as bipolar disorder) when someone is in a manic state. Since sexual frequency is a fluid and changeable form of sexuality, this makes sense that a person may go through stages of wanting sex at rates much higher than average.

Asexuality is an oft maligned form of sexual frequency, and I am thankful to the asexual community for discussing the multi-layered dynamic of sexuality for many years. Sometimes people dismiss asexuality like they dismiss bisexuality, thinking it is a choice and placing their own sense of the world, their own perceptions, onto someone with radically different life experiences, perceptions, and desired frequency. People can understand if someone has medical issues which prevent them from having sex, but sometimes even someone within this category still DESIRES sex even if they cannot have it. Asexuality is simply the lack of sexual desire, but someone may still have a specific sexual orientation even if they do not have desire. For someone who identifies as asexual, their orientation may not be very important to them because they lack that interest altogether, and so there is an illusion that asexuality is an orientation in itself. However, there are heterosexual asexuals, homosexual asexuals, bisexual asexuals, etc.

Greysexuality is infrequent sexual desire, and is very similar to asexuality - but a major difference is that the person who is greysexual will still occasionally want to have sex, but but not have sexual activity very often. People can be greysexual due to life experiences where they may have been hurt, have been sick, or experienced social, religious, or relationship issues that lead to a reduction in sexual desire they once had. There are several reasons someone might be greysexual, and in a relationship where one person is allosexual and another is greysexual - there could be several relationship issues that might develop from this mismatched frequency.

Pansexuality and omnisexuality are two terms with an overlap within their definition - a person who has an interest in others beyond their gender identity, and whose sexual frequency desire is not inherently tied to their sexual orientation. While a person experiencing a hypersexual frequency will want increased sexual activity within their sexual orientation (ex. a heterosexual hypersexual who is male who wants to have a lot of sex with women), an omnisexual might have sex when the opportunity presents itself, no matter the other person's sex or gender. HOWEVER, just because someone wants to have sex with anyone does not inherently make them bisexual, or homosexual if they choose sex with someone of the same sex. This becomes very confusing in certain circumstances, such as with men who have sex at rest areas. Some of these men identify as straight, and take offense at direct or indirect accusations of being gay. For these men, sex is sex, and getting it whenever possible is the goal - not whether it is a man or a woman. For someone with a binary understanding of sexuality this makes zero sense, after all if a man is having sex with a man doesn't that mean he's gay? Or at the very least bisexual? No - because someone's sexual orientation does not always play out in how they act sexually. Pan/omnisexual is a start in explaining this. 

 Histories of orgies also explain some of this behavior, where group sex might just be about having sex with anyone in the context of a party as opposed to a context of sexual orientation. There is also discussion about pansexuality being its own orientation, where someone is attracted to others by their personality or "soul" as opposed to sex/gender. Pansexuals are willing to have sex with people regardless of their orientation or gender, but due to the construct of openness and definitional complications that exist within that, it is challenging to generalize features of pansexuals as a whole. However, in considering the layer of frequency as a part of sexuality, it opens up a greater understanding of how some people can be primarily sexually oriented in one way, but during certain events act sexually in another way.

Demisexuality and sapeosexuality has to do with desire that is mixed with emotional/mental ties. The next layer of sexuality (romantic/emotional connection) is specifically about that dynamic, and these categorize more as a frequency than an emotional tie. Demisexuality is desire for sex ONLY if there is an emotional connection, whereas a similar type, sapeosexuality is sexual desire only with an interest in someone's intellect. This may mean that someone will not engage in sexual behavior with another person unless they feel a certain emotional/mental bond. This can complicate intimate partner relationships if someone has a lowered sense of emotional connection, and therefore does not desire sex with their partner. While on some levels, this is a normal and reasonable impact of harm in a relationship, on other levels there can be little or no harm and still someone may have an increase or decrease in desire based on that connection. I have heard many participants in batterer intervention programs talk about their partners not wanting to have sex anymore, and this could be one of several reasons why this might be the case. People who are demi/sapeosexual may be less likely to cheat, or may only cheat in very specific circumstances (or develop emotional affairs). They may have a harder time developing a relationship, regardless of sexual orientation. Often someone within this category may seem allosexual, but circumstances and context help to guide understanding about where someone might fit here instead.

Romantic/Emotional Attachment:
Everyone has different ways in which they emotionally bond with others. We often consider this as something separate from sexuality - but consider what it can mean if it is not so separate after all. To me, this category can help explain many relationship challenges, and motivations for abusive behavior in relationships. This layer of sexuality is tied specifically to whom someone is truly connected to, both inside and outside of an intimate partner relationship. This layer is also fluid and changes throughout someone's life due to circumstance, choice, and as new bonds form with others. Consider the following categories of this layer:


Heteroromantic is about how someone seeks out and fosters relationships mainly with people of the opposite sex. This layer has nothing to do with sexual desire, but rather emotional desire. Many of these categories harbor certain challenges. In this category, one can be a man who is only interested in developing friendships and close emotional ties with women. Consider the challenge of a man who is heterosexual, in a relationship with a woman, but his friends, mentors, and support network are overwhelmingly women. If his intimate partner does not understand these bonds as purely emotional, this might lead to various relationship challenges if she becomes jealous over the content and context of these connections. Sometimes, experiences in childhood (particularly trauma) can influence this emotional connection. For example, a boy who is bullied by other boys or who witnesses and experiences harm from a father or father figure may disassociate from boys and men, and find that they only create emotional connections with women. This could potentially lead an individual into having an emotional affair, where they share secrets and emotional connection with a person who is not their intimate partner.

Homoromantic can be more common due to gender role training. Early in childhood, boys and girls begin to notice differences in sex and begin to harbor stereotypes about the opposite sex, and while doing so, mostly create emotional bonds with and friendships to those who are the same sex. While children grow into dating ages and begin to develop sexual interests, emotional connections often change and the individual develops emotional connections to both sexes. For some, their connection emotionally to people of the same sex continues to be dominant, and people who are homoromantic might have a difficult time with connections in general with the opposite sex. I believe there are a significant number of male, heterosexual, domestic violence offenders who are homoromantic - and this explains much of their challenges in intimate partner relationships. They are only sexually interested in women, but all their emotional ties are to men. Their friends, their support, their sense of entertainment are all tied to other men. They can sometimes actively dislike women on emotional and mental levels (and be misogynistic as a part of this), and have a very difficult time creating any sort of bonds outside of sex. Some men will flit from sexual encounter to sexual encounter, have children with several women, but never have a relationship that lasts beyond a short time frame. Gender role training often greatly supports this kind of emotional connection, and homoromantic leanings can lead to fathers having a difficult time with daughters, and mothers having a difficult time with sons.

Biromantic seems like an emotional/romantic attachment that has the potential to be the healthiest, in that this person will form bonds with both men and women. They often are simply interested in connection with others who share values and meaning, who have similar interests, who they enjoy spending time with - and all of these not attached specifically to the person's sex.

Each of these three romantic/emotional connections discussed so far can feed into heterosexism, cissexism, and homophobia in different ways. For a heteroromantic, they may in their distaste for the same sex have great disdain for people who are gay, cannot imagine an emotional connection at all, and for someone who is gay, they may be oppressive toward other gay people due to this distaste and can create toxic relationships. Someone who is homoromantic may recognize (consciously or subconsciously) that they only are interested in friendships with the same sex, and may adamantly oppose the idea of homosexuality due to fears that their connection with the same sex might make people think they are gay. This distaste or hatred of people who are gay can be a combination of self-loathing, judgment of sexual behavior, or even a judgment of emotional attachment. Someone who is biromantic might enjoy connection with both men and women, but be judgmental of people who are transgender, or still make assumptions about how sexual behavior should happen despite that more balanced emotional connection.

Queerromantic is attachments mainly to people who are in the LGBTQ+ community. On occasion this emotional/romantic attraction is specific to one aspect of the community (such as romantic/emotional ties to transgender people), but due to the more validating nature of a community with common ties, this individual might have a difficult time forming connections with anyone outside of that community.

Aromantic is someone who does not like having emotional ties to anyone. They often are introverted, exclude themselves from social gatherings, and have few, if any friends or supports. With someone who is aromantic, they may keep distance between themselves and others (such as main sources of interaction being connected to online interactions), or cut ties with people who they once were associated with (such as distance from family). Someone who is aromantic, may still have layers of desired frequency and sexual orientation, but may fulfill these desires mainly via masturbation and/or sexually explicit media.

Greyromantic, like greysexual, is infrequent interest in connections with others. This may be much like aromantic, but this person will have a few close ties to others, or have occasional desire to have social interaction. It may ebb and flow, but this person is just as (or even more) content to be alone as having a specific intimate partner relationship.

In conclusion, understanding these layers of sexuality can be critical to respectful dialog, but also can be very useful in considering some specific circumstances of an abuser's pattern of relationship choices, history of emotional connections in general, and where discussion of a healthy support system may fit. I created a graphical representation of these 180 sexualities in the chart below:

Permutations of Sexuality - may be used with credit attached

**This article would not have been possible without discussions and information I have gathered from the asexual online community. I have had direct chats with individuals who I do not have names for, and have been particularly inspired by work focused on romantic/emotional connections via this graphic (I am unclear on the identity of the original author).
***Thank you specifically to Darlene Pineda for specific wording and feedback regarding the section on transamory. 
****An excellent additional resource to consider is Decolonizing Gender by malcolm & kheri

Leveraging Privilege: A Primer for Domestic Violence Intervention and Other Anti-Oppression Work by Oppressor Classes

[I often add links to deepen the discussion of topics I write about, to illustrate points, and to reference my work - however in this article, reading some of these links is critical if you feel discomfort at a topic, get angry at the article, or don't understand a section. Please read the links to see if they answer your questions, anger, or confusion - particularly if you feel a desire to help, but at the same time feel that oppressed people treat you poorly, are angry at your contributions, or do not help you to better understand. This article was written with much discussion and feedback with friends, mentors, and peers - and thank you to you all for the challenges, the arguments, and the work that resulted from your feedback.]

Since his inauguration, there have been an unprecedented number of protests against US President Donald Trump. The rallies and marches have sought to put light on women's rights, and to a lesser extent, human rights as a whole which protestors believe are heavily threatened by President Trump and his policies. In a prior article, I discussed the nuances of how political leanings contribute to domestic violence responses - but politics impact much more than that.

Protesting Trump and his policies is one potential tactic of resistance, but there need to be mindful reflections on how to leverage privilege and be aware of the impact of personal power and what it means to be an oppressor class who is working to stand against oppression. This article is designed to challenge readers to question places in their lives where they are blind to the struggles of those with relatively less power. As such, this article will most likely make many people uncomfortable, perhaps even angry - and that is a feature, not a fault of this article. We don't move forward and improve by being comfortable, and if you have not felt discomfort in working to end domestic violence (or in any other anti-oppression or human rights work) - you might need to reconsider your strategies and self-reflection.

1) What is Oppression Theory?
Before discussing leveraging, we need to talk about and identify oppression as a concept. While we may talk about it in different ways, unless the concept is clear and workable, it is not going to be possible to make efforts to end it. There are several methods of understanding oppression theory (some examples include Iris Young or Paulo Freire), each offering complementary insight into the phenomenon of oppression. My initial exposure to Oppression Theory came from attending a domestic violence conference early in the start of my career thanks to a presentation by the Midvalley Women's Crisis Center (now Center for Hope and Safety).

The presenters discussed Oppression as built by three components: Power, Privilege, and Prejudice. All three had to exist in order for oppression to manifest. Power is defined as the ability to change yourself and others. Privilege is the history of that power and where it comes from. Prejudice is attitudes, behavior, and thoughts about someone not based on who they are as an individual, but based on characteristics of a group that person represents.

The presenters immediately explained why concepts such as "reverse-oppression" do not exist. For instance, with racism as a form of oppression, someone who is non-white may have prejudice against someone who is white... But without power within society, and without that privileged history of having power that prejudiced, non-white individual does not have the societal precedent and acceptance of that prejudice necessary to reach the level of oppression. Prejudice is problematic, sure, but separating prejudice as a concept separate from (but a part of) oppression helps to create clarity for ending racism (in this example) or other forms of oppression.

This discussion led to a woman in the audience (I was the only man present, in a room of approximately 30 women) claiming that this was ridiculous as a concept because an example about women not feeling safe alone at night walking down a street was not true for her. She felt perfectly comfortable in her neighborhood, therefore women who feel fear about potentially being harmed by men were just being overly sensitive. The presenters (two women) responded by saying that this woman, in making that statement, was diminishing and eliminating the experience of any woman who had been sexually or physically assaulted by a man, or had experienced fear due to the threat. While her individual experience may have been to not have fear, it is important when considering oppression, for each individual to resist putting their sense of safety onto someone who may not feel that same level of safety.

Then the presenters turned to me, which in the moment shocked me. They said, "and you, as a man, not taking a moment to speak out against her claim that women were overly sensitive if they felt afraid - your silence supported that statement. Having the power and privilege you inherit by being a man means your silence supports your own power and privilege." This was how I began to understand what it means to leverage privilege. To start, it means not being silent when witnessing oppressive statements or behavior that support your personal power and privilege, and at the same time knowing that in places where I have power, I have a layer of impunity to harms that oppressed groups feel regularly.

2) What is Intersectionality?
Oppression Theory is the concept of the interaction between Power, Privilege, and Prejudice - and it leads into an opportunity to understand Intersectionality. While the idea of interactions of varying kinds of oppression is not new - Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term in 1989 when working to communicate the difference between white and non-white women responding to sexism.

Crenshaw outlined the experience of Black women as being often excluded from feminist theory and anti-racist politics. A big part of her analysis focused on the idea of a "single axis framework" that was used to view feminism and racism. Over time, feminism has often focused on white women's experiences. Racism has often focused on men of color. The feminist concerns of Black women were often assumed to be addressed by the feminist concerns of "all women" - the difference and nuance of their experiences, as Black women, was excluded.  Black women's experience of racism, similarly, were often assumed to be included in the "racism" framework, and their experience as women was excluded. Crenshaw argued that for Black women, there is a multi-layered experience of oppression that needs to be considered beyond a singular axis of understanding.

When I attended the Women of Color Network conference in 2010, the focus was on looking at where experiences of victims and survivors of domestic violence fit in the realm of intersectionality. The conference attendees were divided into three groups - women of color, white women, and men (of the 500ish attendees, only 50 or so were men, leading to a smaller combined group). Throughout the conference, I heard white women complaining about being divided from women of color. Many were hurt by this division, and there was arguing and conflict throughout the conference driven by these same white women. This "white feminism" seeks to make experiences of sexism "single axis" - making the experiences of all women the same when considering men's oppressive behavior toward women, but the reality is that women of color experience different layers within that oppression.

In work to end domestic violence, and when intervening with domestic violence offenders, understanding intersectionality can prevent BIP/DVIP classes from narrowly considering abusive, violent, and controlling behavior as being a product solely of sexism (male privilege). Abusers have many levels where they believe in their superiority over their partners/victims/children, believe others are less than they are, and believe in being personally deserving of special consideration and care from those they harm. In work to empower victims/survivors of domestic violence, intersectionality offers opportunities to analyze environments of shelters, accommodations that are culturally sensitive, and an ongoing reflection on the significant variance in experiences of those harmed by domestic violence.

While sexism is, certainly, often a predominant factor in men's abuse of women, many male abusers can also be controlling and abusive due to class (more financial resources or control, more educational experience or value), race, ability (whether their partner/victim is disabled mentally or physically), faith/religion, or any other oppressive advantage they might hold over their partner. Viewing these intersections of oppressive behavior can provide insight into understanding an abuser's patterns of harm, but can also offer avenues to insight and empathy for oppression the abuser has personally experienced (this may involve trauma-informed responses to domestic violence offenders).

3) What does it mean to "leverage" privilege?
Privilege is the history of power in different categories. To begin the process of leveraging, first it is critical to understand where you individually have power in your life. To use myself as an example, I have many layers of power that I hold due to history and groups which have had patterns of controlling others with less power. To describe what it means to leverage privilege, I will use these examples to highlight some of the many places privilege brings invisibility to people who are oppressed.

I am white, and as a white person, I need to understand the history of colonialism that is behind this racial designation and identity, as well as the illusion being white holds. If I am doing work to end racism, I need to listen to those who have been the victims of racism and colonialism - and I need to be able to understand how white people are blind to the experience of non-whites, and often fail to listen or care about perspectives of non-whites who describe experiences of harm. To leverage my privilege in this category of being white, I need to speak to others who are white, work to communicate these experiences and work to shed light on experiences that are often made invisible. I need to pay careful attention to my silence when racism and colonialism are topics discussed around me, and work to stand against racism and not dismiss when non-white people shed light on their experiences.

I am heterosexual, cisgender, and I need to understand how homophobia and heterosexism fit as a weapon of sexism. I need to be able to notice and see how transgender people are discriminated against and harmed by misgendering, direct and indirect violence, and their experiences ignored even within LGBTQ+ movements. A part of listening to those with less power, and leveraging privilege, involves an ongoing dedication to learning about threats to communities and gaining cultural learning in cultures which I am not a part of. Heterosexual people simply "supporting" the LGBTQ+ community are not leveraging privilege, and in fact can often be practicing silence and maintaining blindness to those they have power over. This is a main reason the concept of being an "ally" can be problematic, and there has been a shift within some communities to work on utilizing the concept of being an "accomplice" in working alongside oppressed groups toward gaining footing and influence (if you struggle with thinking the term "accomplice" seems criminal, it might be important to click on the link).

There are several articles naming and describing male privilege, and it has its own wedge dedicated on the Duluth Model's Power and Control Wheel. Like much that fits into being an oppressor class, being male does not automatically mean harm and disrespect toward women and girls. Part of the challenge in leveraging privilege is understanding that power is often not a chosen thing and can be neutral, destructive and disrespectful, or constructive and healthy (or anywhere in-between). As a man, I have more ability to speak to men and hold them accountable than women might be able - because like other oppressor classes, men can easily make women's experiences or feedback invisible. I can leverage that privilege by working as an accomplice to my female co-facilitator in BIP/DVIP groups, listening to her experiences and amplifying her voice to men who have been abusive and may not hear her words or examples. I can be mindful of my behavior and attitude and where my privilege as a man might make it easy to dismiss her as a cofacilitator, and as a partner in the groups.

Men often want to be given recognition for their "good behavior," and invest in anti-sexism causes on occasion to gain congratulations and thanks for work that women have been struggling over forever. Women feel compelled to reward men for doing anti-sexism work, joining at rallies or marches, or giving support. Leveraging, in part, means being able to do work without asking for recognition or reward, and being able to directly speak to your motives for doing that work. If the answer in part has to do with "feeling good" it may be playing to that power, not helping to address it.

I have an advanced college degree, a master's of social work, and I am of middle socioeconomic class. Some layers of privilege do not shift, or only shift when changing location. Monetary resources can fluctuate over a lifetime, as educational access can shift when someone is able to learn more through a trade or school. I had to work to gain my MSW, but I also had to have financial ability to go back to gain this education. I have been impoverished and experienced financial devastation in my past, but I also grew up surrounded by family who assisted me a number of times to keep me from being completely destitute. People of middle or upper socioeconomic classes can easily develop power and privilege and be blind to the reality of skill sets (and social rules) being different by class. As my class position has shifted over the years, to leverage my privilege when I am in more advantageous places of power, I need to remember my experiences and my sense of safety without imposing my experience on others.

An ongoing challenge in anti-oppression work overall is when people in positions of power (oppressor classes) take their knowledge and experiences in life and believe others should have or do have the same sense of comfort and safety as they have. As I mentioned, I have experienced financial devastation in my life - but I had family to help at the worst times. If I took that sense of having a safety net and projected that experience onto someone without family supports, it would be oppressive of me (as I would be speaking from my power and privilege, and would be prejudging someone and expecting them to have the same resources I had when I was in financial hardship).

Power is about ability to change self or others, and gaining recognition for standing against oppression may change how you feel about yourself, and change how others feel about you. This is not to say that feeling satisfaction is wrong or bad, but speaks to motivation and begs the question: If you do not get recognized or rewarded, will you feel resentful toward an event or toward a group due to that lack of kudos? As a man, if a woman feels slighted for you getting recognition over her, is that man able to listen to anger without being upset or becoming oppressive as a response?

A huge challenge for leveraging privilege - if you are in a privileged class, the freedom, agency, health, safety, and well-being of other groups are not tied to you. As a man, I can always step away from the struggle to end violence against women and girls and it would not impact my privilege as a man. As a white person, I can do nothing to try and end racism and my life is not in any way changed if non-white people continue to be oppressed, subjugated, murdered, and scapegoated. I have to take my privilege personally, and I have to choose to leverage it outside of personal benefit because often the personal benefit is not there. If I make getting praised my benefit, then I struggle for my own desires, not for freedom, respect, and agency for others.

4) What are some ways to leverage privilege?
I hear the question "what actions can I take?" and that question can sometimes be a genuine request to become more involved in addressing oppression, and is sometimes a defeatist question where the person believes they cannot do anything that will make any difference. Both reasons for asking that question can have the same results, and the same sorts of answers. It's not enough to do independent action, and often it's hard to measure impacts by doing so. The best starting point, as mentioned above, is to actively educate and reflect on a personal level.

For most anti-oppression work, and for most efforts at leveraging privilege, there are many groups that work to end oppression - and a big part is simply joining groups and becoming willing to listen to their experience and wisdom. Go to an LGBTQ+ training. Attend an anti-racism event and ask about being more involved. Volunteer at a domestic violence program. Any of these actions is contributing to efforts. The key component, for those who represent an oppressor class the group is resisting, is humility

An oft used tool in leveraging the privilege and power of middle and upper socioeconomic class involves donating money to charity. The challenge in this leveraging is that many donations are given with little thought to where funding might be more effective. Donating $200 to a large nonprofit might not do much in their overall efforts, but that same amount given to a local agency that struggles to maintain services might be significantly more useful. Researching the needs in your local area and finding ways to give with impact, or to volunteer time or efforts to support the work can make a big difference, and while all the challenges and warnings above still apply (particularly the "savior complex" of wanting recognition and reward), it is a simple and direct way to leverage.

If you are white, then understand why an anti-racist group might be suspicious of a white person asking to join or assist. If you are heterosexual, it is possible that you might experience distance from the LGBTQ+ community when starting to join in efforts. It is possible that fears of being seen as a racist, or as a homophobe (or fears of others thinking you are not straight), lead to discomfort. Be okay with that discomfort, and notice where that is a process of leveraging privilege. Because leveraging privilege means resisting the power you have, and being okay with doing that at the same time you use it in respectful and healthy ways (being an accomplice).

Speaking up to those who are in the same group as you are is an important part of leveraging privilege. Calling out attitudes, statements, or beliefs which are oppressive is often difficult but ultimately critical to making the invisible, visible. If you are not effective in calling out your peers, or if you receive anger from groups you are trying to help - don't focus on others as the problem, rather think about how you can be more effective in listening or intervening.

When encountering resistance - it is not about others, it is about YOU. Think again about oppression theory and intersectionality. When people are oppressed, they resist. If you are being resisted, it might be due to a layer of oppression you might be relying on to try and get your points across. In doing so, you are likely enhancing the layer of oppression you represent, and making the oppression you are trying to work against worse.

To make a direct comparison to BIP/DVIP work - when doing intervention with domestic violence offenders, facilitators of groups have direct power of their class (their position as facilitator, power over participants regarding potential termination and/or reporting to referral source, often educational or monetary advantages over participants, and race or ability may play a factor as well). Participants sometimes resist material in the classes, and if that comes up, facilitators need to reflect and consider ways the material presented may not have worked to intervene.

Sometimes resistance comes from an oppressor being angry at getting called out for abusive, disrespectful, and hurtful behavior. Sometimes resistance comes from a participant feeling oppressed by the facilitators or the system. Sometimes it might be that the material is not effective because of how the facilitators present it. There are many factors that may be involved, but ultimately, it is up to the facilitators to consider their own complex interplay of privilege, position, and intersectionality as a part of the class and where that interplay fits.

To summarize these leveraging tactics:

• Work to understand the history behind your privilege, and the impact of the power behind that privilege.
• Work to practice cultural humility and learning; expand your experiences in understanding groups who are oppressed.
• Work to notice how oppressed people's voices are ignored or silenced by people with power and privilege (including ways you might personally ignore or silence others).
• Work to understand suspicion or wariness oppressed groups or individuals might be toward places of your personal privilege and power, and learn to both be okay with that suspicion and not be defensive as a response to it.
• Know your motives behind doing anti-oppression work and question yourself - are you motivated primarily (or in a large part) to receive recognition or congratulations for your efforts?
• Engage in community trainings, volunteer with groups, donate effectively, and research current services in your community before starting your own work.
• Know who is in your own groups of power and privilege and use those connections to educate, intervene, and discuss with people who might ignore those who are oppressed.
• Work to understand resistance both in terms of feedback about your efforts, and as a way to understand more how others experience you.
• Make commitments to be active in ending oppression, and to constantly seek education and learning formally and informally.

Leveraging privilege is a process, and is constantly evolving if you are open to personal growth and the struggle with others to seek respect, health, equality, and justice for all. To conclude, here are some examples of people leveraging their privilege:

• Timothy Dempsey, a high school history teacher who has co-facilitated BIP/DVIP groups in addition to teaching history, he writes about how teachers can leverage their privilege and power within their classrooms. 
• Sandra Kim and B. Cole discuss leveraging privilege from an organizational standpoint, and the need for personal reflection as a part of leveraging.
• Cynthia Silva Parker analyzes her layers of privilege and her responsibilities in leveraging the privileges she has in her life.
• Anthony J. Williams talks about looking at his privileges by stating "although my Blackness and my queerness affect my treatment in a structurally racist, classist, heterosexist, and ableist society, I’m still a man in a patriarchal society" - and then considers how he needs to use that privilege to work for rights of people who are transgender.
• Kevin Powell works to use his personal reflections, and leverage his platform and voice as a public speaker and educator to both do anti-oppression work and lead discussions on respect and health.
• Food Not Bombs is an organization that I have seen consistently work on several levels of intersectionality as they fight for food as a right, and leverage their privilege as they do so - if nothing else in here moves you to action, consider volunteering and learning more from them.

Is Domestic Violence a Bipartisan Issue?

By Christopher Hall

I've found comfort during several political seasons in remembering that as a society, we tend to be against domestic violence. We've reached a point in history where there are several different criminal charges that can be brought up in DV situations. Most states have guidelines and standards that create certain quality assurances for intervention programs. While I have my own political views, I can be comforted -- win or lose -- that victims and perpetrators of domestic violence will be addressed, and societal laws and politicians will work to support such efforts.

Are there differing political positions regarding domestic violence?

Let's consider the history of intervening in domestic violence. I have spent a prior article discussing some of the challenges of how the United States of America responded to the issue. The nation started on the concept of certain "unalienable human rights" and noted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the values we held to be "self-evident." At the time, being "equal" meant something very specific: male, white, an adult of age, and own land. "Equality" was only for some people, and there were several justifications as to why these rights were not to be held by all.

Relationships between men and women at that time, and for nearly 200 years after, were rigidly defined. Adult White rich men were the ones with equality so they were the ones to set the standards. Deviation from that standard, and showing care and value for women and children was perhaps looked favorably upon, but wasn't a requirement. The main focus was on maintaining the ability to control women and children—making them do things they did not want to do, and keeping them from doing things they wanted to do.

During that period, one could argue that domestic violence was indeed a bipartisan issue. Neither side of the political fence held a particular interest in women's rights, or rights for anyone who did not meet the standards of being deserving of "equality." Their focus was much different at the time, working on creating independence and empire, establishing a stable government (as 1777 to 1789 were particularly precarious due to the Articles of Confederation), and demonizing Native American peoples.

English Common Law established the "Rule of Thumb" allowing men the ability to apply "moderate chastisement" of their wives with an implement no wider than their thumb. Much of early laws in the United States did not directly address women's safety, but instead enforced what men were and were not allowed to do to their wives. It wasn't until 1871 that there was any direct movement to prevent or reduce domestic violence (outside of some work within the Puritan church in the 1600s, read Elizabeth Pleck's work "Domestic Tyranny" for details of how that system operated similarly to our criminal justice system today). During the post-Civil War Reconstruction, notions of slavery and freedom became political hot topics.

While analysis of the foundation of domestic violence law focuses on the "Rule of Thumb," it is important to consider the politics of "English Poor Laws" from the 1500s. The distinction between the "deserving" and "undeserving" is strong within that history, and as far as domestic violence law and societal responses are concerned, women and children as victims of harms were seen as not deserving of protection. Legal responses -- and media reporting -- to this day find ways to blame victims for their own experienced abuses, finding "loopholes" to justify the harms, and making it easy to drop charges of domestic violence if a victim refuses to testify (and in some cases, courts seeking to charge victims if they do not testify [1] [2] [3]).

In efforts to weigh political support against domestic violence, analyzing this history and these foundations are important in understanding conservative and liberal viewpoints of fairness and societal responsibility. Conservatives believe in tradition and hierarchy. Fear is a strong motivating factor, along with purity of moral values (often religious), and individual ability being more important for one's success in life. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in societal progress and creation of egalitarian systems. Equality and fairness are strong motivating factors, along with purity of environment and body. Environmental surroundings contributing to individual success are considered, and left-leaning people tend to want power and wealth to be redistributed to create what is thought to be a more just system.

Taking these differences in value systems and orientations to differences in societal ethics and morals, each apply differently to domestic violence responses. Conservative beliefs of traditional family roles, and support of patriarchy can lead to responses that come from religious settings (such as Christian churches) and aversion to public airing of circumstances that might be seen as private. Intervention can be seen as a "do what I say" educational approach using materials that lecture and create comparisons to "good" vs "bad" behavior. Use of law enforcement and punishment are important conservative responses that lead to changes and reduction of domestic violence based on ideas of fear as a change agent. Judgments of domestic violence offenders as having moral failings, and the need to shame such individuals into ending their hurtful behavior are also strong desires for right-leaning responses.

Liberal beliefs in societal progress, and in egalitarian systems, focus on the ability of abusers to make changes through guidance and education, and consider the challenges and grey areas of relationship issues and domestic violence. A focus on self-care, and a look at an individual abuser's environment can be important factors, and non-traditional family systems are kept in mind as a part of where such environments might be respectful and healthy or disrespectful and hurtful. While law enforcement is still often a factor in liberal responses, it is looked at as a way to push people into entering into education/counseling/intervention. Domestic violence can be looked at as an aspect of toxic masculinities, sexism, or other forms of oppressive values and beliefs.

Both sides of the political fence, due to these ideas of ethics and morals, will consistently argue and push for different sorts of interventions, legal responses, and funding for programming. The first major federal focus on addressing domestic violence was the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which was mostly focused on law enforcement responses and creation of grants to fund hotlines and educational programs. As both conservative and liberal perspectives value the involvement of law enforcement (for much different reasons), the initial voting in 1993 was partially bipartisan. Of the Senate, there were 67 sponsors of the bill with 50 Democrats, and 17 Republicans. In the House, of the 225 sponsors, there were 185 Democrats (including Bernie Sanders as an independent), and 40 Republicans.

This bill was seen as a great success for the United States, and created a global leading stance on addressing domestic and sexual violence. The only major component of the initial bill that was challenged, and later removed as unconstitutional, dealt with civil rights of a victim/survivor to sue an abuser directly. While this limits civil lawsuits in cases of domestic violence, VAWA created a more consolidated response to abuse and violence in relationships across the nation.

However, VAWA was also a part of a greater bill, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which created increased incarceration funding (while eliminating inmate education programs), added funding for 100,000 new law-enforcement officers around the country, and VAWA accounted for 16% of the budget of the overall bill.

In the name of bipartisanship, the greater bill included things that both sides wanted. On one hand, law-and-order politics have been a great boon to conservatives since the 1960s. On the other hand, quality-of-life concerns for the oppressed are a part of liberal agenda, and VAWA became a way of addressing domestic and sexual violence within the system in ways it had mostly been ignored before.

Vice President Joe Biden was the initial sponsor for VAWA, and has been proud of that aspect of the bill even if he and other Democrats have expressed reservations about where the bill has been directly associated with increased incarceration, sentencing minimums (such as a federal "three strikes" policy), and overstepping of police authority. Domestic violence advocates have questioned the wisdom behind much of the funding for law enforcement but little to no resources provided for restorative justice, transitional housing, and methods of creating prevention and treatment/counseling options. In the rush to legitimize systematic responses to domestic violence, there has been a question if we as a society went too heavily into punishment, and not enough into opportunities for treatment, empowerment, and cultural change.

Politically, we find ourselves in an interesting situation where conservatives have had their desire for law and order (to assuage their fear of crime) met by liberals enacting law to protect victims/survivors. Both sides come down hard on abusers who commit acts that have historically been seen as private affairs against people who are considered less important or valid than their aggressors. Democrats felt a sense of success behind validating the experiences of the downtrodden victims of violence, but only upon reflection noticed the side effects of their compromises in the name of law and order.

Biden noted his desire to create "holistic" reforms, and while initially focused on easing penalties for drug offenses in the name of better treatment options, added in the idea of addressing family violence as a part of this. Unfortunately, the reforms have been far from holistic. VAWA has evolved, somewhat, from its initial setup - adding in some "second chance" clauses - but it has not addressed aspects of racial disparity, issues of mandatory sentencing guidelines, has not included victims/survivors in decisions about legal responses and penalties, and has not provided funding options for prevention and education.

Included in the 2013 update were provisions to protect LGBTQ+ victims, and ability for Native American Tribal Authorities to more directly respond to non-tribal offenders on reservations. These provisions were hotly debated by Republicans, and a bill that had once been mostly bipartisan, fell much more along party lines.

The question of domestic violence as a political issue is that it is inherently partisan. It is a issue about values and beliefs, not about mental illness or addiction. The ethics and morals against domestic violence are going to be held by both sides, but unfortunately the values and beliefs about how to address it are vastly different. Liberals take action to try and help those who are hurt, and try to offer changes and education to those who are doing the hurting. Conservatives take action to stop those doing the hurting, while narrowly defining who is worthy of assistance and support out of fear of being "unfair" toward men, and helping those who are undeserving (this also serves to support the social hierarchy).

For those with right-leaning ideas, treatment and potential for change is not as important as getting those offenders out of the picture, by both shaming and claiming "batterers never change." Even if our reflection and experience with treating offenders through shaming them demonstrates such responses are ineffective and potentially inflict greater damages on individuals and communities, there has been a rise in shame-based responses to crime in general over recent years.

President Barack Obama, taking a liberal approach to leading the nation, successfully implemented changes that worked toward equal treatment for the LGBTQ community, created the White House Council on Women and Girls, and ushered in the Affordable Care Act to address health insurance disparities for the poor. His policies and responses have supported domestic violence work as it has been conducted with VAWA funding, and added in additional protections for communities that had previously been ignored and invisible to systematic responses.

With an incoming president who has a history of admitting to inappropriate sexual behavior with women, has engaged in direct physical assaults of women, someone who has been directly accused of domestic and sexual violence (albeit retracted), and denies that "marital rape" is a thing - where will we tread in our responses to domestic violence as our society moves forward? To project potential answers, it's important to reflect on Donald Trump as a candidate that is in many ways a personification of viewpoints politicians held in the early years of the nation.

Trump is one of those White, wealthy, male landowners who can afford to ignore the perspectives and experiences of groups that are often the targets of hurtful, controlling, and abusive behavior. He would like to keep his personal affairs private, and sees no conflict of interests in having his family continue to run his global businesses while he makes decisions that lead our nation. He is quick to mete out compliments to those he believes are deserving, and viciously attack those who he believes are undeserving. Trump believes in the hierarchy of his control over everyone and everything. He uses fear to motivate others, and believes he is solely responsible for his own success.

Remember that the core ethic and value against domestic violence is common to both sides, but the ideas on to address it are not. We will certainly be bipartisan in condemning violence and abuse in relationships, but moving forward with a conservative-empowered government, our methods of intervention will likely turn in a different direction. Under President George W. Bush, there was a certain focus on religious-based responses to family violence and other national policy issues. With Trump's take on right-leaning politics, chances are we will begin to lean toward punishment, shaming, and incarcerating offenders. In these responses, we will be more apt to question the stories of victims/survivors, holding those experiencing pain and fear to certain standards of "being deserving" of assistance, and increasing funding for law enforcement while reducing or eliminating funding for treatment options, education, prevention, and resources for both victims and perpetrators.

I know there are people working to end domestic violence on both sides of the political fence. Each side has had various things to contribute to the cause, some that have been successful, some that have not. Domestic violence is an inherently political issue, and those of you working in intervention need to know where you stand, both politically, but also within your values, ethics, and morals in doing this work and what you are trying to accomplish when you say you are working to end domestic violence and create a safer state of family.

Stalking Behavior: Building Hurtful Patterns

January is National Stalking Awareness Month, and a time for highlighting a pattern of behavior that often gets portrayed in extremes with little detail on where it might originate, and how it builds over time. In general, when asking people to think about stalking, these extreme examples portrayed by entertainment media and focused on by news sources are the commonly discussed and explored aspects.

Sadly, such a focus leaves little room or opportunity for intervention - it leaves us picking up the pieces and wondering what went wrong rather than actively seeking methods of noticing and stopping patterns of behavior as they build and develop. In this article, I'm going to be breaking down some different categories of hurtful behavior and addressing ways irritating and alienating behavior in relationships might build to stalking behavior. So I hope you take some time this month to use this to reflect on opportunities for intervention, both to honor the purpose of the awareness month, but also for your own ability to adequately and appropriately respond to danger signs.

Emotional Harms:
Broadly defined, emotional harms entail patterns of behavior which create distress in others. This is a huge category of ways abusers might commit acts we commonly define as domestic violence, and as such, it is useful to be as specific as possible when considering emotional harms. I find in my BIP/DVIP groups, a part of the classes involve creating clarity for terms and concepts that are often poorly understood or identified. Emotions are some of the most common terms and concepts that people may feel instinctively, but can be unable to adequately express or discuss due to lack of concrete definitions.

A big part of this confusion is due to the fact that as children, some of the first words we learn are emotions. Parents identify behavior patterns and name them as emotions, such as "Johnny, you're angry right now" or "aren't you happy your friend is visiting?" So we associate those sensations with words, rather than being able to break down why we feel them, or what to do about them.

Stalking is a heavily emotional-based pattern of behavior. Abusers stalk their victims/partners/survivors due to justifications of jealousy, anger, desire for revenge, suspicion, or even projecting their own lack of fidelity onto others.

I enjoy doing an exercise of attempting to define emotions using two criteria - do not use another emotional word within the definition, and do not use an example of the emotion itself. When people go to define emotions, that is the default method of describing what something feels like rather than identifying what it actually is.

An example of this in action is considering the emotion of jealousy. When I define it, I talk about jealousy being an emotion that gives you signals that someone is doing something you would like to be a part of, and gives you energy to do something about it. When defined like this, it is simple to understand that jealousy is not a "negative" emotion, but the actions that come out of it might be.

Abusers who choose to stalk their partners find various things they want to know about or be involved with in that person's life. Over time, this desire grows and an abuser may want to know all details and be present at all times. Emotionally, abusers can create distress in their partners/victims by increasingly pushing boundaries and denying personal space. It starts small, however, and often for many it can seem endearing.

After all, "he wants to spend all his time with her! Isn't that sweet? I wish MY partner wanted to spend more time with me! Honey, you should just appreciate him for the attention he gives to you because it won't last forever!" This is an example of how we readily place our sense of safety onto someone who may not have safety in their life or relationship. It is also an example of how common these warning signs present themselves to family, friends, coworkers, and others - and how often they are ignored or pushed away because considering the danger, or the unhealthy display of control is frightening to others who want to believe the patterns fit into healthy pro-social patterns.

While it is not practical to associate all desires to be together in a relationship as a warning sign for stalking, considering an overall pattern, and listening/noticing discomfort or distress in the person who is the object of these "affections" is critical to prevention and providing support and opportunities for reflection - both for victims/survivors, but also for perpetrators who may be clueless for how their patterns violate boundaries and are problematic due to their justifications and thinking they are just attempting to be loving.

Spiritual Harms:
It behooves BIP/DVIP to discuss spirituality and culture directly during groups. That is, what provides value and meaning to each participant's life, how do they understand their cultural background and conflicts in culture between them and their partners, and how any religious beliefs fit into both areas in their relationship with themselves and others.

Stalking behavior is in part based in a foundation where the stalker values a sense of omnipresence and omnipotence - seeing/hearing all, and knowing all. This can overlap in values and beliefs on several levels. Men who believe in patriarchy and control of women by men can easily have a value in questioning and finding information and desperately seeking discrepancies to justify those behavior. And part of the charm behind initial buildup of stalking is that victims/survivors often feel a sense of protection and care by the behavior (abusers may think they do it in their partner's "best interests"). The abuser might try to limit contact with friends and family, but says the only reason given is due to the expense of the visits, or that they should spend more time together, or that certain family are mean or abusive or have bad history. All of these justifications sound, on surface level, like caring gestures - but under that surface is the potential to build patterns of isolation, monitoring, and stalking.

This pattern may build up through the use of technology and social media, scouring of mail and records, seemingly innocent questions to friends and family. Asking a partner to use Foursquare/Swarm/Facebook to check-in wherever they go might be a simple way of playing a game together, or might be a way of knowing where a partner is, and questioning when a check-in does not occur. Going through mail and internally keeping track of various correspondence until there is an inconsistency or material that is not mentioned might be an organizational method, or might be a way of pressuring someone to divulge random information that appears unimportant. Inquiring about a partner's childhood or prior relationships with friends and family could be small talk, or could be information to use later.

Some of these examples appear on surface level to be a more "simple" form of control, and not stalking, but that is in part what makes these methods so effective. Stalking is often not obvious at its start, or as it builds, but only makes sense in hindsight. This is a major challenge of intervention, is being open to the idea that side comments and random patterns might be a small piece of a bigger, dangerous attack against a partner's agency. The goal of stalking in these cases is more about creating dependence and removing a partner's ability to think or make decisions. These values and meaning behind the control suffuse a person's life until their values become their abuser's values. Their beliefs mirror their stalker's beliefs because disagreeing is not allowed.

This form of stalking is often not addressed, or is addressed in indirect ways because it can be so hard to put a finger on. As mentioned at the start of this section, including extensive reflection on culture, beliefs, values, and meaning in life can help ferret out patterns and discover patterns that are otherwise easily obscured.

Sexual harms:
BIP/DVIP can easily skirt around discussions of sex outside of rape or other forms of assault. Talking about sexual health and respect can be awkward for facilitators and participants if they are uncomfortable with the topic, or do not fully understand how pervasive human sexuality is as a part of relationships.

The layers of harm in sexual behavior are also often missed. How frequently have BIP/DVIP groups discussed "selfish sex," non-sexual flirting with others, how they talk about their sexual desires or dislikes in their relationships, or discontent with frequency and how to communicate this?

Stalking behavior pushes boundaries. Stalking behavior seeks domination, omnipotence, and omnipresence - and sexual behavior can provide illusions or reality for those things. Extreme behavior that is often mentioned with stalking involve things such as the stalker smelling/investigating a partner's panties or genitals as a method of determining sexual behavior outside of the relationship. This is, of course, a humiliating and horrible experience for victims/survivors, but that extreme does not start at that level.

A stalker who suspects a partner of cheating may do these investigations without that partner knowing. That stalker may ask probing questions about contact with friends, or even discuss his/her own sexual past in attempts to gain info from their partner. If the information does not come up during that discussion - that is fodder for tactical attacks about personal vulnerability and the partner not reciprocating. If the information does come up from the stalker's partner, that sexual past can be used to compare, judge, and save for later control.

Even if a victim/survivor is cheating, how does the abuser/stalker handle this information? Some stalkers are actually seemingly happier with this information, because it is an instant trump card to be used during arguments, and justify any controlling behavior from that point forward. When abusers discuss their partner cheating on them, and their desire to continue their relationship despite this, interventionists need to ask probing questions about reasons for this decision as well as gain more details about their relationship's sexual history.

Sadly, with the proliferation of men's rights groups and their large overlap with the "art of seduction" hawkers, there are several techniques taught in these groups to have sex with women. Often these lend themselves to stalking behavior. The concept of "negging" is one which undermines someone's confidence in theory that they will be easier to seduce. Talking to / flirting with another woman who is friends with the "target" in attempts to create interest. That level of manipulation sounds a lot like the interviewing friends and family technique above, doesn't it? Consider how these tactics fit into an overall strategy to remove agency and create dependence.

Manipulative Use of Children:
Children can be excellent tools for parents to use against each other. Even in the healthiest of relationships, there are going to be arguments about parental decisions and care, but in relationships that are respectful, there will be negotiations, compromises, listening and caring during discussions, and consideration of personal desire vs. what the needs/wants are of the children will all be a part of managing parenting styles and decisions.

For an abuser who is out of the familial home, it can be a simple thing to drop by uninvited to "check on the kids," or to drop off things for them. When doing so, adding in comments about new purchases, suspicions of guests the abuser does not approve of, asking probing questions to the children to monitor behavior, or outright sabotaging the household to try and force a situation where the family needs to be reunited (such as leaving water running or turning up heat to make a higher utility bill, refusing to contribute to finances if not living at home, questioning any contributions and where the money is going when they are made).

In BIP/DVIP, these behavior are often separated out from stalking behavior and labeled as "using children" - however, as a pattern these sorts of manipulations feed into methods of gaining that sense of omnipotence and omnipresence. It is no small thing that abusers often fight for full custody during a separation or divorce - having the children is a huge source of control that can be exploited in many ways. It also makes sense why victims/survivors often make clauses in protective orders that allow for visits with children. There is a lot of guilt put forward both by abusers, and by society, for blocking contact with a parent.

Even if an abuser is required to stay away from his/her partner, if there is a clause allowing contact/visitations with children, there are ways to casually ask questions to children to gain information that can make it seem like a stalker is using technological tracking devices. "Does mommy/daddy have any new friends?" "What do you do after school?" "Is there anything new going on around the house?" "Where do you go grocery shopping now?" In these examples, an abuser might learn potential new dating partners, patterns of activity and places a victim/survivor might go after picking up the children from school, different activities that may lead to more intimate knowledge of changes in routine, and even specific locations the children and the other parent go to.

Child visitation centers have workers who are trained to notice these and other questions asked by a visiting parent mainly due to these manipulations. These traps are smooth and work well because they sound so casual, like small talk, and make it seem caring and interested. And since children can often feel saddened by parental separation, they may choose the abusive parent and want to divulge information that they believe will bring their parents back together.

Financial Harms:
Money and finances are an ongoing stressor for most relationships. Negotiation regarding budgeting, individual spending vs. family/couple spending, ideas about "needed" purchases, and financial mistakes are all contributors to this stress. Finances can also be a concrete and "safer" method of stalking a partner/victim.

If a couple shares finances, there are several methods people use to pay bills and separate out responsibilities. Some relationships create a shared pool and pay everything from that pool. Some create a pool based on the percentage earning of each individual, and have independent spending money separate from the pool. Some relationships have one person who pays bills and monitors budgeting. The most focused on economic strategy used by stalkers is the final example, however all the others also can be places where a stalker can build a pattern of monitoring and domination.

Stalking is separate from economic equality. A couple can seem economically partnered and seem independent while behind the scenes, an abuser can make sidelong comments about spending to make a victim/partner question themselves. A stalker can make a majority of the money and assure a partner that he/she doesn't need to worry about finances and then create various checks and balances on that partner's spending. Someone who chooses to be abusive can even buy gifts that seem nice, but have controls connected to them (of course that might include technology with installed tracking and spyware, but it could even be expensive gifts that once accepted are a leveraging point from then on).

Marriage proposals and pregnancy/reproductive coercion can also fit into economic controls. Does the person being abusive choose to make these proposals of having children or entering into marriage when things seem to be falling apart? Does the partner/victim have the option to decline or to wait when considering the request? Is there pressure to make decisions quickly in other aspects of their relationship?

Stalkers commonly press for immediate answers, and hesitation is grounds for suspicion and justifies patterns of monitoring, following, and tracking. Another pattern that is subtle and potentially non-abusive is long term planning for a relationship. The hidden factor may be if the individual's partner has been informed of this plan, had input into this plan, and has had concerns addressed/incorporated into this plan.

There is a fantasy and comfort for stalkers in a world completely planned out, and with technology granting illusions of divinity (virtual omipotence and omipresence) it is a simple thing for any abuser to develop these methods of dominating their partner. The challenge for interventionists is to find the profound in the subtle, the danger in the seemingly innocent, and the intentional in behavior that seems coincidental. It's not just about finding inconsistencies, however, it has a lot to do about caring enough to get to know each abuser as an individual, complicated human being and in doing so begin to put the pieces together of the puzzle of their pattern of hurtful, controlling, abusive, and violent behavior.

Resources:

• Victims of Crime: Stalking Information for teens
• Stalking Resource Center
• RAINN
• CDC Intimate Partner Violence Survey
• Human Rights Campaign: Sexual Assault and the LGBTQ Community
• Rutgers Office for Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance

The Emerge Model - An Overview

When I started working at a domestic violence agency on Long Island (The Retreat), one of the first pieces of community feedback I heard from my executive director was from another batterer intervention program in the area who had heard that I had revamped my program to begin using the Emerge Model. He warned my ED that he had never heard of the "Emerge Model" and attempted to attack my work at the agency and undermine our program.

This is not an uncommon response, sadly. While Emerge is the first agency in the world to start batterer intervention, the history of the work and the variety of models available for use is not a commonly understood part of domestic violence intervention. Most agencies in the United States use what is known as a "Duluth-like" model. The Domestic Abuse Intervention Program (commonly known as the Duluth Model) is most commonly known due to the proliferation of the "Power and Control Wheels." For many individuals and agencies, it is the only model that is known.

It is unfortunate that there is not more discussed and known about the many models that are a part of this history (such as Men Stopping Violence, Oakland Men's Project, ManAlive, AMEND, RAVEN) and since I worked at Emerge for nearly eight years, I was exposed to and interacted with people doing this work all over the world - many of whom were using different ways of intervening with domestic violence offenders.

In 2002, David Adams and Susan Cayouette (Co-Directors of Emerge) wrote an article outlining the approaches Emerge takes as a part of its model of intervention. As I began working there in 2002, I was able to see the evolution in action, and grew to appreciate how Emerge has constantly pushed their work forward.

I have always experienced Emerge as an "organic" model of intervention. The techniques used by facilitators adapt based on individuals in the classes, the group dynamics as they shift, and make considerations on how co-facilitator teams work together. There is no stronger example for this than how Emerge approaches intakes for new participants.

Most agencies I have experienced have conducted intakes by using individual interviews of new class members. These interviews ask about background, use collateral information (such as police reports or child protective service plans) as a part of understanding the individual, do simple psychological testing (such as the MAST/DAST or an adapted Lethality/Risk Assessment). These appointments tend to last from 60-90 minutes, and for some agencies these also serve as the full assessment or "evaluation" for a referral source.

Practices like this may be helpful in mental health or substance abuse settings, where individual treatment plans are created, and insurance may be billed (requiring diagnosing of the client), but this is neither the purpose of BIP/DVIP, nor is it likely that such layered belief systems behind a choice to hurt self and family is going to be revealed in a first time meeting.

Instead, Emerge takes a group educational approach to intakes. Initial paperwork orientation collects basic info on each participant (which they tend to fill out on their own, with an orientation worker reading through the answers and asking follow up questions as needed), and has the Danger Assessment scale intermixed with questions about background and history. Initial Emerge paperwork also includes a "Violent and Controlling Behavior Checklist," a simple check-off the box and circle the items instrument that is a simple identification and reflection on personal choices and behavior (prospective Emerge facilitators must also fill this form out to demonstrate awareness of their own hurtful patterns).

The real work of the intake is the eight class "First Stage" wherein eight educational lessons are discussed in a group setting. The lessons are designed to be interactive, and engage participants to consider where they fit without pushing them to admit to specific behavior. Lessons include the following:

1. What Counts as Violence
2. Self-Talk
3. What Counts as Abuse
4. Quick-Fixes vs. Long-Term Solutions
5. Effects of Domestic Violence on Children
6. Disrespectful Communication
7. Respectful Communication
8. Effects of Domestic Violence on Women

Each lesson provides a background on the impact of harms, identification of a build-up of hurtful behavior, individualizing and understanding the context of harms, and discussing alternative behavior that might lead to repairs and amends. Throughout these eight sessions, individuals are also tasked with discussing their day-to-day interactions with their partner and children, conflict and challenges, identifying their thoughts behind behavior, and humanizing their family members by naming them (this is referred to as a "Short Check-In"). This works to integrate each individual into the classes and humanize them and their behavior.

At the end of Stage One, an individual is required to complete a "Long Check-In" where they must identify their most recent hurtful behavior, and their "worst" hurtful behavior, as well as the history of their relationships, in brief. This activity helps to build Emerge's "Assessment Report" wherein each individual receives a written report that details the quality and content of their participation, how they describe their hurtful behavior, concerns about the individual's patterns, and recommendations.

The advantage of this approach is that it can create more buy-in to the discussions and allow for reflection over time that may influence a report of harm. I think of it this way - when I meet someone for the first time, I am highly unlikely to tell them about my worst and most embarrassing secrets. Yet in BIP/DVIP, not only is this sometimes expected during a first interview, but is expected each week that someone directly name the reason they are in the classes. This is a shame-based approach that may lead to compliance, but may not lead to work toward changing thinking and behavior.

Emerge's "Second Stage" is more dynamic, and consists of the remaining 32 class sessions (Massachusetts' state requirement by the Department of Public Health mandates all BIP/DVIP to be 40-sessions long). During this time, individuals are tasked with joining in discussions, giving feedback to each other, continuing to disclose the challenges and patterns in their ongoing lives, and to eventually complete an individual activity. The "Relationship History" is the most commonly used exercise where an individual (typically completed somewhere between sessions 25-35) outlines 14 patterns in their relationships. This can be a way for the individual to discover things they had not previously considered, a method of having others in the class see where their patterns may be similar, and can be a great place of practicing respectful and healthy feedback.

Each participant also completes a "Goals" activity in one of their final sessions where their activity is reviewed and they are given an opportunity to outline 5-6 goals for improving their life and relationships while the group separately comes up with 5-6 ideas on goals that might be good for that individual. It is a shared experience that again can expose shared patterns but also is work toward accountability for the future.

Throughout the 40-sessions, Emerge also attempts to conduct "partner/victim contacts" where an advocate initially interviews an abuser's partner or ex-partner by asking for their experiences, then group facilitators check in directly with the partner/ex-partner halfway through the program, and at the end of the participant's time in the classes. All of these contacts involve providing referrals to resources as well as informing about the process of the class sessions and how they work.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Emerge is that it has a much different approach to the Duluth Model in discussing hurtful behavior. Emerge does not use "Power and Control Wheels" in favor of  considering the continuum of harm - how irritating and alienating behavior shift into controlling behavior, which can then shift into abuse or violence. Instead of categorizing harm by type, Emerge takes the approach that any behavior can be hurtful, and the harm is based on the context of the relationship, the history of the partnership, and individual factors that may be involved.

Another major difference focuses on Duluth's primary component: their Community Coordinated Response. This works well within the Duluth city and region, as their population is approximately 250,000 residents and systems can effectively be coordinated to work together and follow similar protocols. Emerge is in Cambridge, MA where the catchment area includes approximately 4.5 million people. With over a dozen probation offices, and about as many individual child protective service offices, it is impossible to create protocols that everyone follows consistently. Emerge follows more of what I think of as a "inside-out" approach, where their reports to referral sources show the values of respect and health, of accountability and responsibility. Facilitators talk to these referral sources on an ongoing basis, answering questions and expressing concerns to hold abusers accountable.

Emerge is a model which engages domestic violence offenders through discussion, like almost all models. There is mindfulness within the agency and model to apply Motivational Interviewing techniques (understanding how to roll with resistance, humanizing interventions, working to understand hurtful behavior patterns that are individualized to the abuser), and their "inside-out" approach provides the ability to interact with community on several levels without coordinating an entire region. Educational activities are designed to be grounded in the complications of relationship issues, while differentiating "normal" human behavior from abuse and violence. Individual activities address unique patterns of harm that may fit for each participant, but have overlap with others.

The agency has also been a national leader in LGBTQ+ interventions in domestic violence, and has both a lesbian and gay men's group. They have been consistent in creating community and cultural specific groups to address varying language and cultural barriers to ending domestic violence. The Emerge model has the advantage of being flexible in how it addresses individual patterns of behavior, as well as considering where unique cultural challenges might need to be addressed in more specific groups. Emerge has a process for developing such groups, and this process involves direct consultation with the communities in question, as well as assessing support and counseling for victims/survivors within the community well before providing services for abusers.

Challenges with the model include the need for facilitators to be conscious of time and agenda setting weeks in advance so that each participant has time to do all the activities in the Second Stage, the need for facilitators to be flexible in discussing topics beyond standard lesson plans, and the need to allow time for weekly check-ins without allowing them to dominate the entire class time. There tend to be more thoughtful and detailed report writing involved as a part of the model as well, which can lead to necessary work outside of classes themselves.

David and Susan recently wrote an end of year newsletter requesting your support, providing an outline of their work in 2016, and discussing some of their referral sources. Another excellent way to support them is to consider attending one of their trainings, purchasing materials, or contacting them for more information. Emerge can be reached at 617-547-9879 or at info@emergedv.com.

Again, in the interest of full disclosure, since I worked at Emerge from 2002-2009, I have a certain buy-in to their model and their methods (I am fond of their administrative practices as well). However, I have also worked to learn more about other models of intervention and try to incorporate other approaches in my own work when I see their value. I hope you join me in making this work a constantly evolving process, both for the individuals in our groups, but also for ourselves as facilitators. In the future, I will try to offer my experience and insights into other models of intervention. Send me an email if you have any questions or would like to see other topics discussed here.

Discussing Holidays in BIP/DVIP Group Sessions

The last quarter of every year is filled with cultural, familial, and individual stressors that impact and increase hurtful patterns of behavior. Everything from children returning to school, Halloween activities, Thanksgiving, Jewish High Holy Days, Christian celebrations of Christmas, and several Muslim holidays can build expectations behind how others follow traditions, create challenging conflicts between family members, and contain mixtures of nostalgia, memories of pain or trauma, and feelings of connection or disconnect.

Every year, batterer intervention / domestic violence intervention (BIP/DVIP) groups struggle with how to discuss holidays and maintain a focus on accountability/responsibility. There seem to be few options, and so many agencies and facilitators choose to ignore the topic altogether, or perform a basic check-in that is more about plans and less about looking at patterns of harm and/or personal trauma.

One option could be to watch a video. During the holidays, the only video I have seen that was helpful was "Deck the Halls" which is nearly impossible to get a copy of (there are only a few copies available at select libraries in the USA).

With that video, when I was at Emerge we would watch it in each group during the month of December. It was short (~20 minutes) and could facilitate discussions about the holidays in a way that was relatively authentic. The clothing and hairstyles were heavily outdated, but the father's decision to treat his family like second class citizens while seeking a promotion are timeless. When the son, in a rage against his father's behavior toward his mother trips and breaks his guitar Christmas present, he laments with a "Merry Christmas" that is both disheartening, and an opportunity to reflect on troubled holiday experiences both as children and adults.

However, are those the only options? Ignore holidays, superficially address them, or watch a video? At times, I think it feels that way, and with the minimal support BIP/DVIP facilitators receive, it's one small component of a greater problem.

If we are limiting our options in how we provide interventions, it makes it harder to provide services that engage men who are abusive in ways that guide respectful and healthy change. If facilitators are thinking in December what they are going to do to discuss holidays, it may be a bit late to plan something thought provoking. If facilitators don't talk among themselves (or get ongoing supervision), then how can the status quo of groups be challenged?

There is also potential to focus on the holidays because of beliefs that domestic and sexual violence increase during those times of the year. Over the years, I have heard many people working in the domestic and sexual violence field spout various statistics that can end up either being unfounded, composed of urban legends, or lacking any specific citations or information on the research being quoted (such as the Superbowl Myth). I've seen this so often I have tried to avoid quoting statistics in my BIP/DVIP groups unless I can reference the research they come from.

The challenges are that entitlement is year-round, disconnect builds over time, and while holidays can be a place of growing expectations and controlling behavior - any reason during any other time of the year can justify hurtful behavior toward a partner, a child, a family, or oneself. Vacations, work stress, health issues, school, conflict with friends or extended family, addiction issues, avoidance, self-centeredness - all these things and more are present regardless of holiday season.

I fully encourage discussions about holidays, to talk about traditions and stress during such times of the year. But on an ongoing basis not connected only to November and December. Connect to the present day lives of the participants in your group. Ask about challenging conversations, arguments, harms to self and others, conflicts outside of the family. Show care toward the members of the class by investing in their lives beyond a focus on their abuse, harm, and control. Develop caring, respectful, benefit-of-the-doubt approaches to conflict and connection with others.

Use such discussions of tradition not only to pinpoint failures, but to expand on successes - to think about times holidays bring families closer and why. To discuss materialism that can flood our culture and how that disconnects us from our relationships with each other. You don't need videos for that. You don't need an educational exercise for that. You need to have an ongoing value in guiding reflection, care, and respect.