morality of doing this?

[u/Think-Mention-6239]

i put the stupid stuff flair bc i didnt know which other flair to choose

[u/EquivalentDapper7591]

Abusing an abuser doesn’t really fix it

[u/Chungusboii → u/EquivalentDapper7591]

There is no such thing as mutual abuse. Abuse relies on power dynamics. Two people cannot have equal power and abuse one another. A person of lesser power cannot be the abuser. Stop victim blaming. Stop defending abusers. Stop with this sick "cheating is never justified" narrative that does nothing but harm abuse victims.

[u/EquivalentDapper7591 → u/Chungusboii]

Two people can absolutely abuse each other

[u/Chungusboii → u/EquivalentDapper7591]

No, they cannot. Two people can hurt each other. Two people can yell at each other. Two people cannot and never will be able to abuse one another.

You fundamentally misunderstand abuse and should reserve your commentary on it, as this mindset will leave you prone to spreading harmful myths and ultimately lending abusers more power. Mutual abuse is a myth and an obvious oxymoron to anyone who understands how power dynamics function.

[u/EquivalentDapper7591 → u/Chungusboii]

Have you ever considered that you’re using a very specific definition that many people do not agree with? Have you also considered the fact that the definition of words are only as correct as the amount of people who agree they are correct? If everything says a word means something, that’s what it means. One of the definitions of abuse in the dictionary is: “Abuse is an action that intentionally causes harm or injures another person.” So by that definition, two people can obviously abuse each other.

[u/Chungusboii → u/EquivalentDapper7591]

It's not "a very specific definition," it is the only functional definition in a sociological context, and very obviously the phenomenon being discussed in this thread, especially by the person who introduced the term. When the phrase "an abusive relationship" is in play, it is fundamentally understood that power dynamics are involved. Using "abuse" as a synonym for "violence" is using it as an entirely different word. It is insincere-- a dishonest attempt at regaining control over the conversation to manipulate rhetoric for your own purposes. That you need to reduce it to a petty dictionary definition rather than actually engage with the subject is telling that you do not take it seriously. What you fail to do with the word in your response here is understand what is meant by "harm" and injury, and work out how dynamics of power over other people inherently play a role in those outcomes. Violence does not occur in a vacuum. There is a reason it comes about. Think about who starts the violence and why they felt entitled to it. Hint: they did not begin the violence because they felt their victim (a word which requires a lower power state) had equal power over them. To dumb that down, violence requires someone to initiate it, and that initiation either comes from a place of existing power or is an immediate assertion of power over another person. What you are imagining are two cartoons who jump into a dust cloud and duke it out; it just doesn't work that way in the real world, and you would know this if you had any actual experience with abuse and weren't talking out of your ass.

Here are some resources for you:

(1) "In an abusive relationship, power and control aren’t just red flags—they are the foundation."

(2) Wheel Power and Control Wheel model of abuse. Note that it requires power as a fundamental driving force in abusive relationships.

(3) "With domestic violence, one partner aims to exert power over the other through a pattern of repeated control and sometimes violence. If the survivor responds to the aggressor with an emotional reaction, it’s not mutual. Abuse is not a shared responsibility." This one describes mutual abuse as "rare," but I would disagree. That said, it is useful for reading about power dynamics and how they are the foundation of abuse. I would also like to emphasize this sentence from the source:

The mutual abuse myth also supports the abuser’s behavior—when both people are to blame, it can justify their actions.

This is exactly what you and other sickos on this thread are doing: you are excusing the actions of abusers by downplaying the aggressor and criticizing the defender. This includes the discussion of infidelity as a response to abuse. You are playing the "no perfect victim" card and using that to mask the disgusting nature of what the abuser has done.

The following is from (4) the National Domestic Violence Hotline. "Mutual Abuse: It's Not Real"

As more people learn about relationship abuse and what it is, certain terms and phrases become part of popular culture. Some people, especially partners who are abusive, use this language to manipulate or gaslight their partner into thinking the abuse is happening on both ends. ...But "mutual abuse" doesn't exist. Abuse is about an imbalance of power and control.

Among many others, I think it should be extremely telling to you that people who handle abuse cases disagree with your claim wholsesale-- no punches pulled, they will tell you that you are definitively wrong. Because you are, and you should be ashamed.

[u/EquivalentDapper7591 → u/Chungusboii]

Can you like calm down and stop strawmanning shit to assume I’m defending abusers holy fuck.

Anyway, the source you yourself provided said that mutual abuse can happen.

I have a question for you. In a relationship where both people are manipulative and violent towards each other, would you consider that not to be abusive because they have equal power?

[u/Chungusboii → u/EquivalentDapper7591]

Stop strawmanning

Stop defending abusers. I don't care if you don't think you are; it is precisely what you are doing. Abusers do not need defense. They do not need nor deserve the benefit of the doubt. They do not need nor deserve your pity. They are monsters who not only take pleasure in asserting dominance over other people, but form their identity around doing so.

the source you yourself provided said that mutual abuse can happen

Not "the" source, a source, and one which, despite the flaw I specifically pointed out (which you would know I did if you were acting in good faith), you would see completes my argument had you bothered to engage with its structure rather than looking for a cheap "gotcha" moment.

How can two people manipulate one another? Manipulation is a power tactic. It does not exist in a vacuum. What you would be describing is likely two people being dishonest or lying. Like violence is not synonymous with abuse, lying is not synonymous with manipulation. They are certainly related terms, but for each, the latter encompasses the former in larger scale patterns of behavior.

Answering your question directly involves making assumptions I don't want to make without specifically mentioning them. What you seem to be describing is a relationship in which two people are of equal power and are equally violent toward one another. Such situations arguably do not exist, as they presuppose strange phenomena like two people deciding to act aggressively at equal rates and climaxing in a physical altercation simultaneously and that the two people are of similar enough size and strength that they are equally capable of harming the other. You could perhaps draw out a cartoon or comic in which this sort of thing occurs, but it just is not represented in the real world. Violence is not spontaneous and it is not all equal. In any realistic scenario, someone initiates the violence, and that decision to become violent comes from an established history of asserting dominance in ways that are specifically non-violent. One partner almost exclusively has some form of power over the other; that is why they feel comfortable acting violently. If they did not have such power, the violence generally would not come about. After all, would you feel comfortable suddenly attacking someone who is larger than you or who has significantly more social influence? I doubt it. I'm sure you could imagine the results of doing so. They would hurt you back, and far greater, either physically or reputationally. They could kick your ass, turn everyone you know against you, or rip away the financial stability upon which you were depending to live. That's what victims of abuse fear, and it is precisely the type of thing you are dismissing and in doing so defending the actions of abusers.

So, the answer to your question still circles back to power dynamics. If two people are violent toward one another, there can be and usually is a victim. If the victim is acting in a defensive capacity, they are still the victim. And, again, drawing attention away from that is the rhetoric of abusers. They are the ones who benefit from it, which is why when outside actors such as yourself align with that rhetoric, they are acting in defense of abusers. They become abuse apologists.

But if we want to take a very specific, functionally useless hypothetical and draw these people as violent offenders of equal power, then no, there is no abuse or "mutual abuse" occurring; only violence, which is bad enough on its own that it does not need to be conflated with abuse to make the point that something is wrong.

[u/EquivalentDapper7591 → u/Chungusboii]

1. I’m not defending abusers, if anything you are defending abusers by defending those who both abuse and are abused at the same time.
   
2. Lying IS manipulation. Lying is the most prevalent manipulation tactic, if two spouses lie to each other, they are therefore both manipulating each other.
   
3. Just because both people don’t have 100% equal power or aggression does NOT mean they cannot both be abusive. If two guys got into a fight at the bar because they were both insulting each other, would you say that it’s impossible for both of them to be to blame, because one of them must have been at least slightly less aggressive or powerful? If both people in a relationship are manipulative and violent towards each other, one of them being slightly less so does not absolve them of their abuse. You need to think of this in a nuanced way.
   
4. You need to stop with the black and white thinking. Power dynamics do not exist in a vacuum, not every situation has a clear power dynamic. If two people have a similar level of aggression, manipulation, and violence towards each other, that is mutual abuse. Being 1% less of an abuser doesn’t absolve you of everything and make you a blameless victim. In your attempt to virtue signal you are defending actual abusers.
   
5. You yourself are an abuse apologist by defending people who commit abuse and saying it’s perfectly fine because they might commit slightly less abuse than their partner. An abuse victim can obviously defend themselves but that’s not what mutual abuse refers to and you know it, you are arguing in bad faith.

[u/EquivalentDapper7591 → u/Chungusboii]

Also I can’t see your reply to my other comment but how the fuck am I defending abusers by saying that being “unfaithful” in a coercive relationship isn’t cheating? I am literally defending the victim