IVS Final Paper

Running Head: SAME-SEX BATTERING: THREATS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
THEORIES
Same-Sex Battering: Threats to Domestic Violence Theories
Skyler Saunders
Department of Sociology
University of Iowa
Word Count: 2,967

SAME-SEX BATTERING 2
Abstract
This paper critically examines the leading theories on intimate partner violence (IPV) and shows
how certain perspectives are no longer viable in their perceptions of domestic violence. The
biological perspective that focuses on aggression, the gender-based feminist theory, and the
integrated social-psychological model are three main perspectives of domestic violence we
critically examine. Consistent with biological theory, studies on aggression show that males are
more aggressive than females. Gender role studies seem to be consistent with feminist theories,
where female victimization is always seen as more serious than male victimization. Although
when looking at rates and frequencies, we show that females are more likely to be the perpetrator
of domestic violence. With the advancement of the social-psychological theory, and the steering
away from feminist theory, we hope to prove intimate partner violence is not entirely because of
gender, but rather the societal conditioning and upbringing from childhood. Males are certainly
more violent than females, but are not violent towards their partners because they are females
(this coming from a heterosexual dyad). We aim to show how same-sex intimate partner violence
is a topic rarely studied that needs further research to help this already discriminated minority.
We believe the study of homosexual domestic abuse will further enlighten the findings of
heterosexual domestic violence and will propel lobbyists to change policy implications set forth
by heterosexist trends.

Same-Sex Battering: Threats to Domestic Violence Theories
Domestic violence is a serious problem that is dismissed by many Americans in today’s
society, but research shows that it affects over one million Americans every year (Rennison &
Welchans, 2000). The prevalence rate of domestic violence between heterosexual couples is
estimated at around 25% (Seelau et al., 2003). The United States Department of Justice (2014)
defines domestic violence as "a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by
one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner." Another name
for domestic violence is intimate partner violence and the two can be used interchangeably.
Many people believe that domestic violence is a heterosexual-specific event, but research
shows that this violence occurs in all four dyads (Brand & Kidd, 1986; Kelly & Warshafsky,
1987; Coleman, 1990; Lie et al., 1991). Lie et al. (1991) found that of the lesbians surveyed,
26% reported physical, sexual, or emotional abuse in their present relationship, and Kelly &
Warshafsky (1987) showed that physical aggression was reported as being employed by 46% of
lesbians and gay men as a form of conflict resolution within their relationships. It is generally
agreed upon within research that same-sex couples show similar rates of intimate partner
violence as heterosexual couples (see Brand and Kidd, 1986; Seelau et al., 2003).
Current research into the matter adopts theoretical perspectives that attempt to explain
domestic violence. The most objective perspectives are the evolutionary/biological perspectives
that explain domestic violence at the biological level by saying that men are just more aggressive
and powerful than women (Wolfe and Jaffe, 1999). The feminist perspective explains that
domestic violence is gender-based and is used as a form of patriarchy for men to control women
(Merrill, 1996). Lastly, the social-psychological model agrees this form of violence is gender-
based, but there are other factors (i.e., age, sexual orientation, specific personality traits) that

should be considered (Letellier, 1994). Although these perspectives prove powerful in finding
the sources of intimate partner violence in heterosexual couples, they must be critically examined
to identify which theory proves best in explaining domestic violence between same-sex couples.
Researching domestic violence between same-sex couples can give us insight into the violence
that occurs in heterosexual couples and interpersonal violence in general.
Victims in same-sex couples find it hard to seek the help they need; some attorneys,
psychiatrists, and shelters are not capable of providing for them (McClennen, 2005).
Heterosexual men experiencing violence from their partner may feel the same way. This may be
because when subscribing to the feminist or biological models of domestic violence, it is
assumed that women are always the victim. Men cannot see themselves as victims and will not
report to the police when they are victimized. Future research into this topic is needed because
most research conducted on homosexual domestic violence is outdated. No research has been
done since the legalization of same-sex marriage and civil unions (McClennen, 2005), which
would provide better empirical evidence.
The purpose of this paper is to prove that the existence of same-sex battering can threaten
the current theories about victimization. We will first provide a critical overview of the most
objective explanation, evolutionary theory, then move to the most controversial explanation,
feminist theory, and we end with an overview of the theory we believe can explain same-sex
domestic violence best, social-psychological model. We will also explore the prior research that
supports or refutes each perspective and discuss the gaps in the literature. We will finally expand
on the need for future research and a current explanation for domestic violence.

BACKGROUND
Biological Argument
Assumptions
It is logical to start with the biological theory of domestic violence as it is the least
subjective of the three theories presented. According to Wolfe and Jaffe (1999), within this
theory “violent behavior is biological and organic, and can be explained by genetics,
biochemistry, and changes in brain development due to trauma.” Much of the research in these
biological models is focused on aggression. The theory argues that men are more likely to be
biologically predisposed to aggression than women, making them more violent (Parsons, 1980).
The theory also argues from an evolutionary standpoint, saying that aggression used to be a
survival mechanism for our ancestors and men are more aggressive just because of higher
testosterone levels (Burke & Follingstad, 1999).
Issues with Same-Sex Domestic Violence
This theory of domestic violence seems like it can help explain same-sex battering in gay
males because it argues that men are more aggressive than women based on biological factors.
What the theory does not account for is violence that occurs in lesbian relationships. It also
assumes that all violence is predetermined by a person’s genetic make-up, and violence cannot
be learned or socially constructed. We find this problematic; although it makes sense that men
are more naturally aggressive, we believe that violence is learned.
Feminist Argument
Assumptions
The next perspective that has proved to be the most controversial in the realm of
domestic violence is the feminist theory. Historically, the domestic violence movement has been

exclusively focused on heterosexual women. The feminist movement of the 1970s made intimate
partner violence an event based in sexism and gender where the man is always looking to control
and show his power over the woman in a relationship (Schecter, 1982; Letellier, 1994). The
movement brought this issue to the forefront and sparked the initial definition of domestic abuse
as “a gender-based phenomenon, and socially-based illness, used as a tool of the patriarchy to
keep women down” (Merrill, 1996). This step in the right direction unfortunately left out a main
concept; men were not allowed to be the victim but only the perpetrator, and women could be the
victims but were never deemed the offender. This gender-based theory views offenders as
“oversocialized males who rigidly adhere to sexist patriarchal values” (Hamberger & Hastings,
1988) and the victims are always female.
Issues with Same-Sex Domestic Violence
Consistently, these theories completely ignore same-sex domestic violence, where both
partners can be male or female, therefore making it non-existent in feminist literature. Some
feminists attempt to integrate lesbian and gay male victims into the theory by saying that they are
portraying heterosexual gender roles where one partner is seen as “masculine” and the other is
seen as “feminine”. They argue that the more masculine partner would be the one to attempt to
control and overpower the more feminine partner (Letellier, 1994), but assuming gender identity
can be problematic. Domestic violence within homosexual couples cannot be fully addressed by
a theory that assumes the offender is a powerful male trying to control the female. Sexism alone
cannot explain why violence occurs in same-sex couples at the same frequency and severity as
heterosexual couples (Merrill, 1996).

Social-Psychological Argument
The final perspective we overview is the social-psychological model of domestic violence which
provides a way to combine feminist theory and a psychological theory into one model to view
intimate partner violence.
Psychological Theory
Since the social-psychological model is a combination of two theories, it is important to
briefly describe psychological theory, which actually opposes the feminist perspective. Created
by Island and Letellier (1991), the psychological theory argues that feminist theory is
heterosexist (a system of beliefs that are generally in favor of heterosexual couples) while also
arguing that domestic violence is not a gender issue (Island and Letellier, 1991). Island argues
that feminist theory has focused completely on the battered woman, and does not explain the
psychology of the offender (i.e., why do some men/women batter their partner and others do
not?). Instead of gender, batterers should be recognized by their behavior (Letellier, 1994).
Social-Psychological Model
This model integrates the two theories by challenging the “gender is the only issue”
assumption of the feminist theorists, but also not completely ignoring gender like the
psychological theorists suggest. Supporters of this model recognize that gender and sexism are
issues that are hard to ignore, but gender is not the only factor that can predict domestic violence.
The absence of gender inequity, like in same-sex couples, does not mean that violence will not
occur (Merrill, 1996).
Issues with Same-Sex Domestic violence
The only way to fully explain the occurrence of same-sex battering is by seeing domestic
violence as both psychological and social: “Feminist theory and psychological theory are not

necessarily mutually exclusive… if synthesized and placed together, they can enhance our
vision,” (Merrill, 1996). By integrating the feminist theory, which posits gender-based motives,
with the psychological theory, which examines the traits of the perpetrator, this social-
psychological model becomes an acceptable way of including same-sex couples (Letellier,
1994).
PRIOR RESEARCH
Aggression
Men are inherently more violent than women. It can be seen through common examples
of everyday life: street gangs are predominantly male and men constantly fought wars. Research
by evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, who are specialists in the realm
of homicide, have shown just how violent men can be. In their study of thirty-five homicide data
sets, from fourteen different countries, they found men, on average, commit homicides twenty-
six times more than women, (Daly & Wilson, 1994). Daly and Wilson, along with other
evolutionary psychologists, found men are typically 70% of the victims in homicides with a
startling climb to 90% in other societies outside of the United States, showing, once more, men
are more likely to be involved in aggressive acts of violence (Daly, Wilson, 1988; Berkowitz,
1993; and Buss, Duntley, 2002). Another study, by K. Gerbasi, analyzed cruelty sex and cruelty
in animal violence. He categorized four different types of animal cruelty and seen how sex
differentiations contrasted the violence. The male to female animal violence findings by Gerbasi
are as follows: “beatings – 38 to 1, shootings – 16 to 1, torture – 20 to 1, burning – 17 to 1”
(Gerbasi, 2004). This evidence helps show men are more likely to be aggressive and violent
because it is engrained in their biological roots (Daly & Wilson, 1994).

Gender Roles
Note: because it is difficult to test these theories of domestic violence in a lab, the studies
we outline that attend to gender roles and seem to back feminist theory are based on perceptions
of participants. Although perceptions can be flawed, we believe they can help construct the
social reality.
Before 1994, there had been no studies done on perceptions of domestic violence within
same-sex couples as opposed to heterosexual couples. Harris and Cook (1994) produced a study
where participants read one of three different fictitious newspaper reports where one third of the
stories were a husband abusing his wife, one third were a wife abusing her husband, and one
third were a male abusing his husband. After reading, they completed an eleven item
questionnaire where each question was on a 7-point scale. Questions included were: “(1) as
crimes go, how violent was the incident? (1=not violent to, 7=very violent) and (2) in this case
should the batterer be convicted of assault?” (1=definitely, 7=definitely not) (Harris & Cook,
1994). Results showed that the wife-battered situation was always seen as more violent than
either of the other two situations. Participants also felt that the battering husband should be
convicted for assault more than the battering wife. When looking at the gay partner battering, the
results were unclear (Harris & Cook, 1994).
In agreement with feminist theory, gender roles seem to play the biggest part when
participants are asked to look at seriousness of domestic violence. Eric and Sheila Seelau
published two studies that look at these gender-role stereotypes and examine if sexual orientation
matter. Results were consistent with the Harris and Cook (1994) study. They found victim and
offender sex plays the biggest role in responses, rather than sexual orientation. A husband
battering his wife was always seen as most serious, “domestic violence perpetrated by men or

against women was judged more serious than violence perpetrated by women or against men”
(Seelau & Seelau, 2005). When asking participants if the offender should receive a guilty
verdict, they also found that these were most common when the victim was a female (Seelau et
al. 2003). Sexual orientation seemed to not be a factor when determining seriousness of domestic
violence.
Although these findings show that people are not judging seriousness of the crime based
on sexual orientation of the couple, they prove that people are judging domestic violence where a
female is a victim as more serious. This could be because people have adhered so strongly with
the feminist theory of domestic violence. These studies also prove that gender roles are strong
predictors of domestic violence, which is in line with feminist theory. They also seem to give
some counter evidence to social-psychological models that say that sexual orientation is a factor
that matters in incidence of domestic violence. These gender role studies still have no real
explanation for same-sex battering and they are all perceptually based. They are outdated and
need to be replicated with current information.
Rates and Frequencies
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the best source for information
about violence and violent crimes within the United States (Felson, 2002). Through a series of
questions, household respondents answer about circumstances that happened within the past six
months and are interviewed extensively to ensure all violent crimes and incidences are reported.
Through these answers, the researchers are able to document all cases and produce an accurate
response to crime levels within the country. The NCVS, however, has been scrutinized for both
over counting and undercounting certain levels of violent crime, which may come from the
respondents lacking in answering certain questions out of fear of repercussions or embarrassment

(Felson, 2002). Still, this survey remains the most pertinent source of information to the insight
of intimate partner violence. When viewing the gender differences in partner violence, numerous
studies (Arias & Johnson, 1989; Pan, Heidig, & O’Leary, 1994; Stets & Straus, 1990; and Straus
and Gelles, 1986) have shown woman are more likely to become involved within physical
violence, with greater frequency, towards their partners (Archer, 2000). Men, on the other hand,
are more likely to injure their partners during an altercation (Felson, 2002). When injuries are
studied, rather than the acts of violence committed, the more violent side of men is unleashed
(Archer, 2000). When viewing same-sex intimate partner violence, it can be seen that
heterosexual men are no more violent than homosexual men, thus casting further doubt on the
feminist theory of male dominance over women in society (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).
Analyzing data collected from 1993 to 1999 produced a result of 10% of intimate partner
violence accounts against males involved male partners (Felson, 2002). Laumann et al. (1994)
discovered 3% of men had prescribed to same-sex endeavors in 1994, which implied, with the
data collected from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, gay men are more likely to become violent
with their lovers than straight men are with theirs.
DISCUSSION
To attempt to explain domestic violence, three distinct theories have been developed. The
biological theory asserts that domestic violence occurs because men are simply more aggressive
due to their biological make-up. The feminist theory explains it as a gender-based phenomenon
where the man is always attempting to control and overpower the woman. Finally, the social-
psychological model integrates feminism and psychology by saying that domestic violence is a
gender issue, but there are other factors that can help predict incidence.
With regards to existing research, we found that men exhibit a higher level of aggression

than women. We also found that gender roles seem to play a role in domestic violence, at least
when testing perceptions. Female victimization is considered more serious than male
victimization, according to these studies. Finally when considering rates and frequencies, results
show that women actually commit domestic violence at a higher rate than men, but when men
perpetrate, they are more powerful and hurt the woman more.
While examining the current perspectives of domestic violence and reviewing the
previous research conducted, we found the social-psychological model as the correct current
theory to describe domestic violence in general and the best to capture same-sex battering.
Although it works best, we do believe that future research needs to be specifically done in this
framework. There has not been much research that has looked at the cultural and societal factors
discussed in the social-psychological model as potential predictors of domestic violence. Future
research needs to test things like sexual orientation, personality traits, and race. There is also a
need for more research on gender identity rather than gender only. Domestic violence studies
should ask how participants identify, not only their biological sex. This could give us insight into
masculinity and femininity and how it plays into domestic violence. Finally, we think that most
of the previous research conducted in the realm of same-sex battering is outdated. We need new
research to look at the societal changes within the past twenty years, including the gay rights
movement and same-sex marriage legalization.
Based on the research shown, domestic violence is clearly a societal problem in America.
Although we have shown gender role studies that fall under the feminist framework, seeing
female victimization as more serious than male victimization can cause many problems. For
example, men may be reluctant to report being abused by their spouse because it is not seen as
serious. Same-sex victims also are less likely to report if they feel like the criminal justice system

will not take the abuse within their relationship as seriously as a heterosexual relationship. As
tolerance for things like marriage equality continue to grow, we need to make sure that this
tolerance is in all systems of our society. Considering same-sex domestic violence is as prevalent
as heterosexual domestic violence, we need to make sure we provide the same tools and
resources to gay victims that we provide to heterosexual victims.

Works Cited
Archer, J. (2000) Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-
Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin. 126. 651-680.
Berkowitz, L. Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control. New York, McGraw-Hill.
1993. Page 45
Burke, L.K., and Folingstad, D.R. Violence in Lesbian and Gay Relationships: Theory,
Prevalence, and Correctional Factors. Clinical Psychology Review. Vol. 19. No. 5. Page
47-512. 1999
Buss, D.M., Duntley, J.D. Murder by Design: The Evolution of Homicide. Behavioral and Brian
Sciences. 2002.
Brand, D.A. and Kidd, A. H. (1986) Frequency of Physical Aggression in Heterosexual and
Female Homosexual Dyads. Psychology Reports, 59, 1307-1313.
Coleman, F. Stalking Behavior and the Cycle of Domestic Violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence. 1990.
Daly, M., Wilson, M. Evolutionary Psychology of Male Violence. Male Violence. (Ed. by J.
Archer). London: Routledge. 1994. pg. 253-288.
Daly, M., Wilson, M. Homicide and Cultural Evolution. Ethology and Sociobiology Vol. 10.
1989. pg. 99-110.
Felson, R. B. Violence and Gender Reexamined. 2002. (Law and Public Policy: Psychology and
the Social Sciences).
Gerbasi, K. Gender and Nonhuman Animal Cruelty Convictions. Society and Animals. Vol 12.
2004. Page 359-365.

Hamberger, L.K. and Hastings, J.E. (1988). Characteristics of Male Spouse Abusers Consistent
with Personality Disorders. Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 39, 763-770.
Harris, R.J., and Cook, C.A. Arbitrations About Spouse Abuse: It Matters Who the Batterers and
Victims Are. Sex Roles. Vol 30. Nov. 7/8, 1994.
Island, D. and Letellier, P. (1991). Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men
in Domestic Violence. Binghampton, New York. Haworth Press.
Kelly, E.E. and Warshafsky, L. (1987). Partner Abuse in Gay Male and Lesbian Couples.
Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., Michaels, S. (1994). The Social Organization of
Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. The University of Chicago Press.
Letellier, P. Gay and Bisexual Male Domestic Violence. Victimization: Challenges to Feminist
Theory and Responses to Violence. Violence and Victims. Vol. 9, 2, 1994. Springer
Publishing Company.
Lie, G., Schlitt, R., Bush, J., Mantagne, N., Reyes, L. (1991). Lesbians in Currently Aggressive
Relationships: How Frequently Do They Report Aggressive Relationships. Violence and
Victims. 6. 121-125.
McClennen, J.C. Domestic Violence Between Same Gender Partners. Frequent Findings and
Future Research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Vol 20. Feb. 2005. Sage Publications
Merrill, G.S. (1996) Ruling the Exceptions. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services.
Parsons, J.E. (ED) (1980). The Psychobiology of Sex Differences and Sex Roles. New York.
McGraw-Hill.
Rennison, C.M. and Welschans, S. Intimate Partner Violence. Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S.
Department of Justice. May 2000.

Schecter, S. (1982). Women and Male Violence: The Vision and Struggles of the Battered
Women’s Movement. Boston: South End Press.
Seelau, E.P., and Seelau. S.M., Poorman, P.B. Gender and Role Base Perceptions of Domestic
Abuse: Does Sexual Orientation Matter? Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 199-214.
2003.
Seelau, S.M., Seelau E.P. Gender Role Stereotypes and Perceptions of Heterosexual, Gay and
Lesbian Domestic Violence. Journal of Family Violence. Vol 20. Dec. 2005.
Stets, J.E., and Straus, M.A. Gender Differences and Reporting Marital Violence and its Medical
and Psychological Consequences. In, M.A. Straus, and R.J. Gelles (Eds.) Physical
Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptation to Violence in 8,145
Families. Pg. 151-165. New Brunswick, NJ. Transaction Books (1989/1990).
Straus, M.A., and Gelles, R.J. Societal Change and Change in Family Violence from 1975-1985
as Revealed by Two National Surveys. Journal of Marriage and Family, 47. 1986. 465-
479.
Tjaden, P., and Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner
Violence. Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice and
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Wolfe, D.A., and Jaffe, P.G. Emerging Strategies in the Prevention of Domestic Violence. The
Future of Children. Winter 1999.

IVS Final Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Similar to IVS Final Paper

Similar to IVS Final Paper (20)

IVS Final Paper