Is it reasonable for a wife to pressure her husband to spend most evenings at home? Or for a husband to insist his wife stop wearing provocative clothing in public? Is it reasonable to tell an adult living in your apartment that it’s your home and your rules? The It’s On Us organization might have you answering “no” to each question. Such behaviors fit the definition of “intimate partner violence” propagated by a recent It’s On Us online seminar.
The seminar’s primary speaker was Adrianna Branin, an Assistant Director of Training for It’s On Us. She defined “intimate partner violence” as “exerting power or control over a person that you have or previously have had a relationship with.” This includes “physical, sexual, financial and emotional abuse.” She defined a “healthy relationship” as one in which “you are able to live your life the way you want.” Equating “abuse” with “violence” is an obvious oddity. Aside from that, Branin’s definitions might seem reasonable. But let’s look at what she really means.
How It’s On Us defines “rape” is a useful point of reference. Some laws now require so-called “affirmative consent.” These claim that “passive acceptance” doesn’t equal “active approval.” Legal experts have extensive reasons for criticizing them. But such laws do generally recognize that consent can be given both by words and actions. It’s On Us is more radical. It insists that people can’t “rely on body language, past sexual interactions, or any other nonverbal cues.” Having sex with a person who expressed consent by actions is declared “rape.” How It’s On Us defines “consent” is even more bizarre—“mutual agreement for sexual activity without any coercion or persuasion involved." Persuasion approximates to coercion. Persuading someone to have sex constitutes rape. “Consent” doesn’t just mean making a choice. It means making an uninfluenced choice.
Persuasion, in other words, is a way of “exerting power or control.” That means that if you act under persuasion you are not “living your life the way you want.” And remember that “exerting power or control” is “intimate partner violence.” Being “able to live your life the way you want” is the mark of a “healthy relationship.”
One example Branin gave of “financial abuse” shows just how bizarre her theory is. Her scenario? A boyfriend telling his live-in girlfriend that her residence in his apartment is contingent on certain behaviors. Obviously insisting on some behaviors is abusive. Insisting on others is reasonable. Requiring clothes be put away is different than demanding access to an email account. The odd thing is Branin’s categorization of such “requirements” as financial abuse. Here’s her thought process: If a boyfriend makes certain behaviors a prerequisite of his girlfriend’s residence he “controls where she lives.” For her to live elsewhere will cost her more. Making her move means “forcing her” to spend money on another residence.
Branin’s mindset is further exemplified by her claims about what “teaches girls to accept abuse.” The culprit? Two common explanations given to girls about why boys tease them: 1) Boys tease girls they are attracted to. 2) “Boys will be boys.” Until recently, everybody accepted the obvious. These statements refer to immature traits of prepubescent males. The implication—understood by children themselves—is that boys will grow out of them. Nobody ever thought they concerned acceptable adult male behavior. Branin insists that #1 teaches girls to equate mistreatment with attraction. She claims that #2 teaches them to assume mistreatment is inevitable.
It’s On Us did not invent such ideas out of nothing. They are based in flawed psychological and philosophical theories. The former claim that unpleasant experiences are inherently harmful to mental health. Hence they must be minimized. Psychiatrist Sally Satel and philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers have critiqued how many teachers refuse to honestly point out students’ errors. They fear students will be psychologically harmed if faced with their shortcomings. Branin accepts this belief in psychological fragility. Her lecture was preceded by a “warning” that assumed discussing the mildest “abuse” could be “traumatic.” Those who think human psychology is that fragile can construe reasonable criticism of an “intimate partner” as “psychological abuse.”
The philosophical problem places “absolute individual autonomy” above rationality. This worldview refuses to accept that there are objectively reasonable and unreasonable behaviors. All that matters is what people desire and that their choices be affirmed. Even persuasion can impede this.
