Coercive Control: Why Don't Women Just Leave?

The dynamics of coercive control can terrorise victims, leaving them helpless.

Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer Ph.D.

Key points

• Coercive control is multi-faceted and manipulative, including threats of suicide as well as murder.
• Victims of abuse and coercive control may be most at risk when leaving the relationship.
• Assumptions about why women don't just leave abusive relationships neglect the reality of toxic relationships.
• Abusive relationships can cause psychological damage, creating a deep sense of helplessness and passivity.

Why don’t abused women leave violent relationships?

The question is deceptive, as it assumes that women, and others in abusive relationships have choices and agency. In fact, the dynamics of abuse, including coercive control and gaslighting, can make it difficult or even impossible for victims to recognise either the risk they face, or the avenues for escape.

Methods of coercive control can be insidious, engendering in the victim a sense that she is wholly responsible for the health and welfare of her partner, and that any violence or threats to which she is subjected are her fault, "Look what you made me do," says the abuser as he not only harms his victim but also tells her she provoked it. Far from feeling powerless, the victim of coercive control starts to feel she is powerful in that she is responsible for the pain and outrage her partner feels. If he reveals his vulnerability, his sense of being unworthy or unloveable, this reinforces her sense of having to "rescue" and save him. If he threatens suicide, if she leaves him, she feels unable to walk away. At other times, he may say that if she tries to leave, he will kill her. Another tactic is to threaten that loved ones like children or other family members will be harmed unless she stays. The total domination of financial, social and household matters is a marker of coercive control and domestic abuse. So why do partners stay in these relationships, sometimes only being freed if they eventually turn violent themselves, even killing their violent partners?

As early as 1989, the psychologist Angela Browne pointed out that the question "Why don’t battered women leave?" is based on the erroneous assumption that leaving will end the violence. In fact, leaving is the point of greatest risk for women. Domestic violence often follows a pattern in which tensions escalate to the point of an actual physical assault, followed by acts of contrition, pleading, and a period of calm before the cycle begins again and another act of aggression takes place. During the contrition and remorse phase of the cycle, the abused partner feels hopeful, agreeing to forgive her partner and give him another chance. This maintains the status quo of the relationship. Dutton (2007) describes how such relationships develop in the context of two individuals with insecure attachment, whose partnership reflects their deepest fears of abandonment, betrayal, rejection, and loss. Social forces that glorify marriage and loyalty can also lead to people choosing to remain in fundamentally dangerous relationships.

The outcomes of serious domestic violence and coercive control can be fatalities, perhaps even more than is currently estimated at 2 a week in the UK. The researcher and former detective Jane Monkton Smith writes: "Suicides related to domestic abuse have only recently been counted, though estimates have suggested that anywhere between three and nine women take their lives in such circumstances every week. There are also the so-called hidden homicides – these are even more difficult to count as they are recorded as falls, accidents, or misadventure, for example." Angela Browne interviewed women who killed their violent partners, fearing for their own lives.

Browne (1987) outlines three important reasons why women do not, or cannot, leave their violent partners:

1. Practical difficulties in effecting separation

2. Fear of retaliation

3. The effects of severe abuse on the victim

This question of why women don’t leave violent relationships assumes that women who are in situations of domestic terrorism have the choice to leave, that they have alternatives, and that leaving is safer than staying. However, all of these assumptions may, in fact, be wrong.

The notion of choice is complex and raises important philosophical as well as psychological issues. While I would argue that all individuals who are embroiled in violent relationships could reach the point (with practical, cultural, and emotional support) where they feel that leaving is possible and within their power, there are many reasons why the notion of "choice" may simply not be applicable. Some of these have to do with cultural and religious beliefs that prohibit women from leaving marriages and even sanction coercion and control within marriage, as well as threaten those who do leave with social and familial isolation and exile or with the punishment of death. Others may have reached the point of "psychic death," where they feel so helpless and hopeless that the possibility of changing their situation is beyond their conception. In cases of economic dependence on the abusive partner, leaving may not be viable, particularly in the absence of family support, without alternative accommodation, and with childcare commitments that prohibit employment.

Many women in abusive relationships value their partners’ relationships with their children and could not imagine subjecting them to separation. The impact of exposure to abuse on children is often denied or minimized, making it even harder for parents to consider that, for some children, separation from the parent who is abusive may be desirable. The degree to which children are affected by exposure to abuse, even if not direct victims of it, is significant and destructive across a range of domains.

Gaslighting and other forms of psychological manipulation of victims can lead to a sense that there is no reason to leave, that the woman or victim is "making things up," is "overreacting" or "crazy." This constant invalidation of what may be accurate perceptions will further prevent a victim from taking action to remove herself from a dangerous situation. She has been gradually convinced to relinquish her own reality and its validity and to accept the distorted world of her abuser. As physical, emotional, and even sexual violence against her or other family members become normalised, her points of reference are further distorted. Shame and fear may prevent her from sharing her perceptions with others and increase her dependence on the abuser, who has now succeeded in imprisoning and terrorising her, ensuring that he will not be left alone. For these reasons, leaving is often more difficult than staying.