A recent case involving Paula, the wife of a Metropolitan police officer, highlights the serious issues surrounding coercive control, gaslighting, and the misrepresentation of what is often called 'reactive abuse.'
The Guardian reported that for over ten years, Paula suffered a range of escalating abusive behaviors, including physical attacks. In one instance, her husband assaulted her with a knife. Beyond physical violence, Paula's husband secretly recorded 24 hours a day for years, turning her life into a constant surveillance nightmare. His strategy was to deliberately provoke her emotionally, capturing her reactions to use as evidence against her.
"He would provoke me, and when I shouted back, he remained calm because he knew the cameras were on," Paula said. "He wouldn’t let me sleep at night, and I became irritable with my child at times. He edited those moments into a video and had me arrested for child cruelty."
Her husband’s manipulation of these recordings led to Paula being arrested, and her contact with her children was limited to supervised visits. For months, she was allowed only two visits per week. The officer investigating her case didn’t even bother to view the footage before presenting it in court. Now, three years later, Paula continues to fight for custody of her child.
Challenging the Concept of "Reactive Abuse"
In my opinion, the term "reactive abuse" inaccurately portrays what truly happens in cases like Paula's. The term typically refers to the defensive reactions of victims to prolonged abuse, such as emotional outbursts or physical retaliation when provoked. Unfortunately, this term unfairly shifts the blame to the victim, framing their responses as abusive behavior in and of themselves.
In reality, these reactions are more accurately described as "reactive defense," a natural response to the ongoing emotional, psychological, and physical torment victims endure. Paula's emotional reactions were the result of years of sleep deprivation, deliberate provocations, and gaslighting. Calling these reactions "abuse" ignores the abusive power dynamics and the toxic environment her husband created to provoke such responses.
The Manipulation of Victims' Reactions
Abusers frequently exploit their victims' reactions to paint themselves as the ones being harmed. By intentionally provoking emotional or aggressive responses, they flip the narrative to make it appear as though they are the true victims.
In Paula's case, her ex-husband used carefully edited footage of her emotional outbursts to depict her as unstable and unfit to care for her children. By isolating her reactions from the context of his deliberate provocations, he effectively erased his role in the abuse.
Gaslighting and Coercive Control: The Role of Manipulation
Paula’s experience highlights the insidious nature of gaslighting, a manipulative tactic where abusers distort the truth to make their victims doubt their own reality. In Paula's case, her husband used footage of her reactions to present a false narrative to the court, one where her emotional responses to abuse were the primary issue.
This manipulation, commonly seen in coercive control situations, traps victims in cycles of self-blame and confusion, making it harder for them to understand their own experiences.
Gaslighting is particularly harmful because it not only affects how the victim perceives their situation but also how outsiders, such as courts and authorities, view it. Paula's husband manipulated the family court system to focus on her emotional responses rather than his abusive behavior, diverting attention from his role in the situation.
Reframing the Concept in Legal Settings
Paula’s case demonstrates that the legal system urgently needs to rethink how it handles physical and emotional reactions to prolonged abuse. The term "reactive abuse" is not only misleading but also harmful to victims, as it implies that their defensive responses are forms of abuse. In reality, these reactions are protective measures in response to sustained provocation.
By shifting to the term "reactive defense," we can better recognize the power imbalances and manipulative tactics that victims face. Courts need to become more educated on the nuances of coercive control and gaslighting so they can accurately assess these cases. Victims must not be penalized for their natural responses to prolonged abuse.
Featured image: Reactive defense. Source: Viacheslav Yakobchuk / Adobe Stock.
One form of 'abuse' I frequently see women engage in - women who are in relationships with physically violent men, and/or men who cheat on them, is - they attempt to lay out rules about where their dangerous and untrustworthy partners can go, and who they can see.
The families of the violent men always, always, point to these examples of 'controlling' behavior, and says 'See?? She's the REAL abuser here!!'
It makes me crazy.
For one thing, if you ask these violent men, not only will they loudly and gleefully tell you how much they hate their partner, they also invariably dislike the family they are supposedly being 'prevented' from visiting. For another, these men DO, in fact, visit with said family whenever the mood strikes them. Nothing their stressed, miserable wife says or does actually stops them from doing whatever they want to do.
I suspect that interacting with the 'forbidden' family worsens the abuser's private behavior, so his victim is attempting to do what society has trained her do to from infancy: manage her partner's mood, and prevent his worst tendencies. We tell women that they are personally responsible for the behavior of their partners, and then, when they try to manage violent men, they are called abusive, and blamed for that man's violence.
Now, I do, unfortunately, personally know narcissistic, controlling women. The difference? Their partners aren't violent. Their partners aren't cheaters. Their partners never say a bad word about them.
When a violent, cheating man claims he's being 'controlled' by his partner, it's bullshit. What's being controlled is the narrative, and he's always, ALWAYS, the one pulling the strings.
My ex abused me for years. The second that I couldn’t absorb it anymore and reacted, I was painted as the abuser, forever and ever, amen.
Is “reactive abuse” an actual legal term? I’ve never heard of it before. I’m more familiar with the term “use of force” which I learned from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.