Bourne Adam, Amos Natalie, Donovan Catherine, Carman Marina, Parsons Matthew, Lusby Stephanie, Lyons Anthony, Hill Adam O
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Kirby Insitute, UNSW Sydney, Australia.
J Interpers Violence. 2023 Mar;38(5-6):4589-4615. doi: 10.1177/08862605221119722. Epub 2022 Aug 29.
Dominant framings of intimate partner violence (IPV) construct the experience as one where a cisgender man enacts violence against a cisgender woman. While often the case, this framing obfuscates the experiences of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender diverse, or queer (LGBTQ) and may challenge their ability to conceive of their relationship-based experiences as abusive or violent. The extent to which hostile experiences from family of origin violence (FOV) members are conceived or named as violence is also unclear. A large, online, national survey of LGBTQ adults separately assessed experiences of IPV and FOV in two ways: a direct question relating to abuse from a partner/s or family member/s, and a second question (asked irrespective of the previous answer) which sought to establish experience of a nuanced list of abusive acts that can constitute violence (including emotional abuse, LGBTQ-specific forms of violence, and enforced social isolation). Following comparison of responses, multiple regression analyses were performed to assess variation by demographic characteristics. Among the full sample of 6,835 individuals, when asked directly, 30.93% ( = 2,108) of participants indicated that they had ever experienced FOV and 41.73% ( = 2,846) indicated that they had ever experienced IPV. However, when asked about experiences of FOV using the second nuanced question, 43.18% ( = 2,675) responded in ways that indicated that they had ever experienced FOV and 60.71% ( = 3,716) with respect to IPV. The recognition of violence, as indicated by responses to the direct question varied by numerous characteristics, including age, gender, and educational attainment. These findings indicate some LGBTQ people may struggle to recognize or name their family or relationship experiences as abusive or violent, which may complicate their ability or willingness to access professional support. More expansive framings, policies, and responses to IPV and FOV are required.
亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)的主流框架将这种经历构建为一个顺性别男性对顺性别女性实施暴力的过程。虽然情况往往如此,但这种框架掩盖了那些认同自己为女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别者、多元性别者或酷儿(LGBTQ)的人的经历,可能会挑战他们将基于关系的经历视为虐待或暴力的认知能力。来自原生家庭暴力(FOV)成员的敌意经历在多大程度上被视为或被称为暴力也不清楚。一项针对LGBTQ成年人的大型在线全国性调查,以两种方式分别评估了IPV和FOV的经历:一个与来自伴侣或家庭成员的虐待相关的直接问题,以及第二个问题(无论之前的答案如何都会被问到),该问题旨在确定一系列可能构成暴力的细微虐待行为的经历(包括情感虐待、针对LGBTQ群体的特定形式暴力以及强制社会隔离)。在对回答进行比较之后,进行了多元回归分析以评估人口统计学特征的差异。在6835名个体的完整样本中,当被直接询问时,30.93%(n = 2108)的参与者表示他们曾经历过原生家庭暴力,41.73%(n = 2846)表示他们曾经历过亲密伴侣暴力。然而,当使用第二个细微问题询问原生家庭暴力经历时,43.18%(n = 2675)的回答表明他们曾经历过原生家庭暴力,而对于亲密伴侣暴力,这一比例为60.71%(n = 3716)。对直接问题的回答所表明的对暴力的认知因包括年龄、性别和教育程度在内的众多特征而有所不同。这些发现表明,一些LGBTQ群体的人可能难以将他们的家庭或关系经历视为虐待或暴力,这可能会使他们获得专业支持的能力或意愿变得复杂。需要更广泛的框架、政策以及对亲密伴侣暴力和原生家庭暴力的应对措施。