# France bans psychological abuse between married and domestic partners **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 6, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976 "2010-01-06T23:39:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/41 "2010-01-11T15:06:56Z")
Yet more evidence for social conservatives to argue that the French do not share our values. Yes, psychological abuse between married and domestic partners comes very close to being a “value.” ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/42 "2010-01-11T16:19:46Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > Yet more evidence for social conservatives to argue that the French do not share our values. > > Yes, psychological abuse between married and domestic partners comes very close to being a “value.” People arguing against this law are not arguing in favour of abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/43 "2010-01-11T18:30:29Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Well, your article makes it pretty clear the law is about protecting women from men, so I’ll assume that’s also the purpose of the workplace law. We already have harassment laws in the US. That does nothing for a depressed minimum wage slave working for a rotten boss who hates him/her and is just looking for an excuse to fire them, and constantly gives them the worst hours, or cuts their hours, and gives them all the shit work until finally you end up with an unemployed alcoholic suffering from PTSD. The law would protect men and women but, yes, the tone of the article is about man on woman violence. Here is the rest of NPR’s story, which features an interview with a expert in the subject of [psychological abuse](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122372371). The workplace harassment law is not just about sexual harassment as it is here in the USA. These laws cover general [workplace bullying](http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bciclr/27_2/10_TXT.htm). > [@Malthus](#): > > You may have missed the infamous “recovered memory” scandal, which occurred the last time there was a major push to allow the “expert” psychologist/psychiatrists’ testimony based on their diagnosis alone to form the basis of criminal charges. > > Suffice it to say that this did not provide a great basis for such confidence that a healthcare professional’s testimony as to the truthfulness of an alleged victim’s testimony forms a great basis for criminal procedures. > > It would appear that there exists the potential for something of a feedback mechanism between such professionals and the “victim” - the professional, comming from the angle of wishing to uncover abuse, encourages the “victim” to mold the narrative of their memories into one of abuse, often unconciously. This leads to an excessive number of false positives. > > What you are missing is that there is a great deal of difference between a “diagnosis” for purposes of therapy and “evidence” for the purposes of a criminal procedure. The standard for a criminal conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A healthcare professional’s assessment based on their review of a “victim” will rarely if ever meet that standard; and other forms of proof will be difficult to come by, and not be very persuasive. After you posted this garbage did you realize a little later that it had absolutely no relationship with ongoing psychological abuse in an intimate relationship? I hope you did, because that will make it easy for you to see why recovered memory of childhood abuse as adults has nothing at all to do with ongoing abuse covered by this law. Also you will suddenly remember the earlier discussion where it was mentioned that a psychological interview would only be a part of the evidence. After you remember this you will notice the earlier post that briefly describes a means by which the police can make an arrest without a psychologist’s contribution. Finally, after you realize all this, you will stop to remember that child abuse is still illegal and expert testimony from psychologists is welcomed despite the scandal from a couple of decades ago. Hopefully these predictions will come true. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/44 "2010-01-11T19:22:37Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > After you posted this garbage did you realize a little later that it had absolutely no relationship with ongoing psychological abuse in an intimate relationship? I hope you did, because that will make it easy for you to see why recovered memory of childhood abuse as adults has nothing at all to do with ongoing abuse covered by this law. Also you will suddenly remember the earlier discussion where it was mentioned that a psychological interview would only be a part of the evidence. After you remember this you will notice the earlier post that briefly describes a means by which the police can make an arrest without a psychologist’s contribution. > > Finally, after you realize all this, you will stop to remember that child abuse is still illegal and expert testimony from psychologists is welcomed despite the scandal from a couple of decades ago. > > Hopefully these predictions will come true. Heh, I’m not claiming that the two are the same. I’m merely refuting your statement that the opinion of a psychologist based on a clinical interview would offer compelling proof sufficient to meet the _criminal_ burden of proof. The fact is that the two - ‘recovered memory’ and this proposed “psychological abuse”- are similar in _one critical respect_ (and differ from current physical or sexual abuse in the same respect) - in both cases, actual evidence corroberating the _subjective opinion or memory of the alleged victim_ is very likely to be difficult to come by - in the one case by the passage of time and in the other because no person, other than the victim, is in a position to say whether any particular incident is or is not part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour, or indeed whether a particular "damage’ was caused by it. Sure, other folks _may_ come forward to say that the perp was always mean to the alleged victim, put them down all the time, or whatever. Such evidence is likely to have limited value; so will evidence from a “health care professional” assigning causitive _blame_ for low self esteem etc. How, exactly, is one to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the depression one suffers was _caused_ by your partner being “mentally cruel” for stuff that mostly happens in private? How does one prove that the “abuse” you are complaining of rises above the ordinary arguments that adults have - which no-one in their right mind would want to _criminalize_? The problem here is that if you define “abuse” too loosely, a very large purportion of people would “suffer” from it - making the law incredibly invasive. Your own link is an excellent example. One in four relationships qualify as containing ‘abuse’ according to your cited expert: > [@](#): > > Dr. STOSNY: Well, psychological abuse is very prevalent. It’s probably about one in four relationships go through some period where they will have psychological abuse. Which is it? Are you advocating a provision which will only be used very rarely, or one potentially affecting **one-quarter of all relationships**? To my mind, if I was sitting on a jury and I heard an expert saying that one-quarter of all relationships are (in his or her opinion) “abusive” at times, I’d be _very, very reluctant_ to convict a person based on this expert’s assessment that their relationship was “abusive”. I hope I don’t have to point out why. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/45 "2010-01-13T05:13:54Z")
**Malthus** , thanks for the interesting conversation but I think this has come full circle. Once again, the worry that this law will be used to punish people during minor conflicts in an intimate relationship is brought up. This is not how the law will be used. In the link, Dr. Stosny does say that 1/4 of relationships go through periods of psychological abuse. He also, quite clearly, before mentioning this statistic, without doubt or hesitation in his knowledgeable voice, with no reservations, no caveats or modifiers says that you must “distinguish between abusive acts and an abusive relationship”. I guess you saw that but didn’t quite recognize that this is the point I am making and this is also the point the French law makes. Hurling abuse on your significant other during a stressful time is quite common and within the normal range of human behavior. The French law is not attempting to punish people for this type of behavior. It is attempting to address what happens when this behavior ceases to be part of the normal human range of behavior and has the consequences that Dr. Stosny clearly described. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/46 "2010-01-13T05:28:05Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Where is it that you can get a ticket in the United States for following the speed limit? (Not counting hazardous road conditions.) Everywhere there is a speed limit in California according the the online driving school I recently had to fudge my way through to avoid paying for 5 miles over for the rest of my life via insurance charges. Call me crazy, but I bet the other 49 states are precisely the same. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/47 "2010-01-13T05:29:54Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Thank you **Dahnlor**. > > Anyway, I heard that if you’re slowing down traffic by going the speed limit you could get a ticket, but maybe the court case that \*\*Dahnlor \*\*mentioned changed that. At any rate since it’s hard for me to find a site, I’ll withdraw my remarks in the hope that this thread can move back on track and we can talk about the French law. Thank you. No, Dhalnor is probably referring to speed trap cases where the speed limit must be set where 85% of the traffic is if you are planning to enforce it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/48 "2010-01-13T05:56:45Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > **Malthus** , thanks for the interesting conversation but I think this has come full circle. Once again, the worry that this law will be used to punish people during minor conflicts in an intimate relationship is brought up. _ **This is not how the law will be used.** _ (Emphasis mine) How do you know this? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/49 "2010-01-13T09:42:37Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Everywhere there is a speed limit in California according the the online driving school I recently had to fudge my way through to avoid paying for 5 miles over for the rest of my life via insurance charges. > > Call me crazy, but I bet the other 49 states are precisely the same. I have no idea what you’re meaning to communicate here. Odesio ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/50 "2010-01-13T13:51:21Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > (Emphasis mine) > > How do you know this? Several ways. One, current domestic violence laws do not and can not enforce the law against every single instance of one partner pushing, shoving, or even hitting another partner. Two, not a single expert or legislator involved with the bill has said this law would cover what Dr. Stosny described as instances of psychologically abusive behaviors. All such individuals have been clear to distinguish between the short-term and common behavior from repeated abuse. It’s the difference between feeling bad for a day or two and having major depressive disorder. Third, articles that are actually [reporting the news](http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/lifestylenews/view/1030079/1/.html) and not acting as the [reporter’s retarded opinion](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6942834/Nagging-your-husband-is-not-a-crime.html) in disguise make clear that normal occurrences of psychologically abusive behavior are not being legislated against. Fourth, somebody posted a bit about the police procedure and it seems they are being trained to keep an eye out for repetitive behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/51 "2010-01-13T14:56:45Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > **Malthus** , thanks for the interesting conversation but I think this has come full circle. Once again, the worry that this law will be used to punish people during minor conflicts in an intimate relationship is brought up. This is not how the law will be used. Wait, is a “period of abuse” a minor thing? Not according to the good doctor. > [@](#): > > In the link, Dr. Stosny does say that 1/4 of relationships go through periods of psychological abuse. He also, quite clearly, before mentioning this statistic, without doubt or hesitation in his knowledgeable voice, with no reservations, no caveats or modifiers says that you must “distinguish between abusive acts and an abusive relationship”. I guess you saw that but didn’t quite recognize that this is the point I am making and this is also the point the French law makes. I invite you to read the interview again. > [@](#): > > Dr. STEVEN STOSNY (Psychologist; Author, “Love Without Hurt”): You have to distinguish between abusive acts and an abusive relationship. Psychological abusive behavior is just hurting the feelings of someone, trying to make them feel inferior; they are not as good as you. And that can happen in any relationship. You’re upset, you say the wrong thing, you call a name, you’re insulting or demeaning. But then you apologize for it and you reconnect. An abusive relationship is where you do those behaviors systematically to control or dominate another person, to get them to submit to what you want. And you don’t apologize. You feel self-righteous. You made me do it or you had it coming, or if you were a better person, I wouldn’t have to do that. > > NORRIS: How prevalent is that in relationships? > > Dr. STOSNY: Well, psychological abuse is very prevalent. It’s probably -about one in four relationships go through some period where they will have psychological abuse. > > NORRIS: One in four? > > Dr. STOSNY: Yes. It’s a precursor to violence; about 40 percent of them will become domestic violence. But psychologically speaking, it actually does more damage than physical abuse. The only time that’s not true is if the physical abuse does some kind of crippling or maiming or disfigurement. Otherwise, psychological abuse is more - has more psychological effects. You feel worse about yourself for longer. - The doc distinguishes between “abusive acts” and an “abusive relationship”, in the first paragraph. The former is the minor stuff everyone does, the latter is characterized by using abuse to “control or dominate”. Then, the interviewer asks “how prevelant is that?” - asking about the **latter** , not the former. In the second paragraph, the doc says “about one in four relationships go through some period where they will have psychological abuse”. The interviewer expresses incredulity (“One in four?”) and the doc reaffirms that this is exactly what he meant (“Yes. It’s a precursor to violence … But psychologically speaking, it actually does more damage than physical abuse …”). Your read of the interview is simply incorrect. The doc isn’t saying that one in four relationships have the minor name-calling and fighting that is of no concern. He’s of the opinion that _everyone_ does that. The “one in four” refers to abusive relationships which are exactly what is of copncern under this law. > [@](#): > > Hurling abuse on your significant other during a stressful time is quite common and within the normal range of human behavior. The French law is not attempting to punish people for this type of behavior. It is attempting to address what happens when this behavior ceases to be part of the normal human range of behavior and has the consequences that Dr. Stosny clearly described. The law doesn’t punish people for being bad people, it punishes bad behaviour. If someone is going through a “period” where they are abusive (for whatever value of “abuse”), and abuse is illegal, then arguably they are guilty. As for the ability to distinguish between someone going through a “period of abuse” and an “abusive relationship” (again, _not_ something the doc in your quoted source does) - how, exactly, is one to do that? By its effects on the alleged victim? That merely punishes one partner for the low self esteem/depression of the other. As I’ve noted previously, I am not convinced it is easy or even possible to tell exactly why someone is depressed or has low self esteem. Providing the police the discresion to potentially arrest folks in 1/4 of all relationships and then relying on them not to ever abuse it strikes me as a bad idea, a cure worse than the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/52 "2010-01-13T16:44:49Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Wait, is a “period of abuse” a minor thing? Not according to the good doctor. > > I invite you to read the interview again. > > The doc distinguishes between “abusive acts” and an “abusive relationship”, in the first paragraph. The former is the minor stuff everyone does, the latter is characterized by using abuse to “control or dominate”. Then, the interviewer asks “how prevelant is that?” - asking about the **latter** , not the former. > > In the second paragraph, the doc says “about one in four relationships go through some period where they will have psychological abuse”. The interviewer expresses incredulity (“One in four?”) and the doc reaffirms that this is exactly what he meant (“Yes. It’s a precursor to violence … But psychologically speaking, it actually does more damage than physical abuse …”). > > Your read of the interview is simply incorrect. The doc isn’t saying that one in four relationships have the minor name-calling and fighting that is of no concern. He’s of the opinion that _everyone_ does that. The “one in four” refers to abusive relationships which are exactly what is of copncern under this law. > > The law doesn’t punish people for being bad people, it punishes bad behaviour. If someone is going through a “period” where they are abusive (for whatever value of “abuse”), and abuse is illegal, then arguably they are guilty. > > As for the ability to distinguish between someone going through a “period of abuse” and an “abusive relationship” (again, _not_ something the doc in your quoted source does) - how, exactly, is one to do that? By its effects on the alleged victim? That merely punishes one partner for the low self esteem/depression of the other. As I’ve noted previously, I am not convinced it is easy or even possible to tell exactly why someone is depressed or has low self esteem. > > Providing the police the discresion to potentially arrest folks in 1/4 of all relationships and then relying on them not to ever abuse it strikes me as a bad idea, a cure worse than the problem. Ok now it’s full circle and about ready to finish another lap. Thanks again **Malthus** , but “[this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/quotes).” ---
**Author:** ![Vihaga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Vihaga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vihaga)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976/53 "2010-01-13T19:14:28Z")
I don’t think it’s gone full circle; you have yet to address how anyone is going to sufficiently prove injury from psychological abuse with the stringency required for a criminal conviction. There’s no physical evidence whatsoever, rarely will there be witnesses to more than one or two incidents (which would probably fall under the “normal abusive act” category unless systematically observed and documented over time), and the psychological evidence due to cumulative effects is nearly impossible to pin down to a behavior that almost no one but the victim will observe. I can only see a conviction arising from this if the victim can provide a statement of mental health before the abuse (requiring prescience) as well as careful documentation of every abusive act over a period of time before the accused is brought to trial. I have the feeling that any victim that has his/her shit together enough to do this will be out the door long before the abuser has time to cause permanent psychological injury. Physical abuse cases can be built over time by observing physical injuries and the paper trail left by doctor’s visits or disturbance calls, and they can be observed acutely by the injury or a call to the police. How are these psychological injuries to be observed over time in a useful manner? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-bans-psychological-abuse-between-married-and-domestic-partners/523976.md?page=2)