Log In | Register
Young women and teenage girls often face efforts by male partners to sabotage birth control or coerce pregnancy -- including damaging condoms and destroying contraceptives -- and these efforts, defined as "reproductive coercion," frequently are associated with physical or sexual violence, a study by a team of researchers led by UC Davis has found.
Reproductive Coercion Often Is Accompanied by Physical or Sexual Violence, Study Finds
Seeded on Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:14 PM EST
Article Source: Science Daily- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (19)
"This study highlights an under-recognized phenomenon where male partners actively attempt to promote pregnancy against the will of their female partners," said lead study author Elizabeth Miller, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the UC Davis School of Medicine and a practitioner at UC Davis Children's Hospital. "Not only is reproductive coercion associated with violence from male partners, but when women report experiencing both reproductive coercion and partner violence, the risk for unintended pregnancy increases significantly."
- 3 votes
#1 - Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:15 PM ESTThis information is unfortunately not shocking enough to me. I know it has gone on, and plainly, don't know what to do to promote stopping it. It tends to happen privately, and I think people are left wondering if they might be getting lied to, and hold off getting involved, as both sides are going to be telling a separate story about what really goes on. It saddens me.
One sad fact coming out of this is that the males who get the female to conceive after doing this, often are sorry mates for their partner/child. And, their genes get into the next generation.
I've seen multiple studies which offer up that males have over history used enough coercion to get access to reproduction possibilities, and then, no more. This leads me to believe it is a long-term mating strategy for too many males which is designed to defeat female reproductive choice, and to create more children than they could otherwise do so if they only had a single mate and helped her raise the child.
I continue to stand firmly in the belief that females should have access to "morning after" solutions, so that when they feel this has happened to them, they can avoid pregnancy, and possibly be able to get out of the "relationship" before getting hurt worse, or even killed. Or other solutions if it isn't the "morning after".
Both parties should have free choice in reproductive matters, and neither party should ever be given even implicit permission to use any type of coercion or force on any other party to obtain reproductive access. Nor should they be allowed to force their own will upon the female. If she has been coerced, and chooses to not become pregnant, or to terminate that pregnancy, the male in these cases has NO RIGHTS at all to become involved in what is plainly her own personal decisions and actions.
I am all for NOT allowing cooersion/rape type genetics into future generations.
- 1 vote
#2 - Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:51 PM ESTThis technique is also used to prevent women from leaving the relationship. If she is pregnant or has (a) child(ren), she is less likely to leave, regardless of abusive behaviour.
Most of these types of men are not really interested in the children, they just want the control.
- 2 votes
#3 - Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:09 PM ESTI also believe this is true.
Why else would the males who do this have virtually no interest in thier own children?
The really narcissistic males compound this even further, suddenly valuing their children if having them around is seen by them to "make them look better", or even to get access to their young friends, and then to abandon them again once they can't be used like "props" anymore.
This is an outstanding reason why elective "morning after" or early abortion should be available.
I think the scumbags reproduce early and often as if their mate-victims caught on they would surely be scorned.
- 2 votes
I don´t think just men do it..women trap men with pregnancy and have for a long time. I know a girl who would put holes in her boyfriends condems with a safety pin to sabatoge the birth control. She also was skipping pills on purpose by flushing certain ones down the toilet as if she had taken them...she ended up pregnant like she wanted and he left...I somehow don´t think she thought that he would leave..but he did as soon as she told him that she was pregnant. He told her´I told you that I had one daughter to raise as a single father(he was raising his child alone) and that I didn´t want another one right now because I cannot afford it. He packed his stuff and he left....kicker is he didn´t just leave, he left the country...so she couldn´t even get child support.
- 1 vote
#4 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 12:21 AM ESTThat may be true, but women don't use reproductive coercion along with physical and sexual violence. That's a huge difference. Are you aware that domestic violence often escalates during pregnancy, and that the #1 reason for death during pregnancy is murder by the man who impregnated her?
- 2 votes
Loretta, are you saying that women are never guilty of domestic violence? Really?
Yes, domestic violence is a problem in many places...but painting all men as evil and women as innocent victims isn´t right either.
Women are also violent..against their children..murdered children are often murdered by their mother...Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, etc. Women also can be sex offenders..just look at the sex offender lists sometime.
- 1 vote
It never ceases to amaze me how when we talk about a problem that primarily affects women, in this case reproductive coercion accompanied by physical and sexual violence, someone shows up to say "but what about the mens?"
Feminists have a word for that: phallusy
Yes, domestic violence is a problem in many places...but painting all men as evil and women as innocent victims isn´t right either.
I'm not sure what you mean by "many places." The place I'm talking about is the US where 25% of women are DV victims at some point during their life. Many, if not most, of these victims endure the abuse for years.
Please don't put words in my mouth or in the mouths of other posters. No one here has said all men are evil or all women are innocent. That's a red herring meant to derail the topic.
Please stick to the topic of this seed. If you want to discuss topics you believe are related, I'm sure there are other places you can do so, including your own column.
- 1 vote
I am a woman Loretta and if a woman faces the abuse for years she CHOOSES to do so in the US...she has an out. In foreign countries they don´t always have the choice. I FACED an abuser and was an abused child by a female...my mother. I had no out as they called several times but back then kids just weren´t taken away for abuse. I left her home on my own and never went back...that is how you deal with an abuser. You don´t stay and cry that you are the victim. I helped a woman leave her abuser 4 times..by that time I decided she evidently LIKED being abused...once even rented her an apartment and found her a job so she could support herself and her child...she went right back to him again...I won´t do it again I was disgusted at how you can remove someone from the situation and they go back and back and back for more.
This is very related to the topic...deleting valid posts will get you reported to Tyler..follow the rules Loreetta..because you don´t like the post doesn´t mean you delete it.
- 2 votes
I'm a woman too and if a woman " chooses" to face, or in this case "not face" any abuse it may be because women are more likely to be killed by their abuser(s) when they actually attempt to leave a relationship, lx chel.
Loretta, this is, ( the seed) unfortunately, not new....
- 2 votes
#5 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 9:48 AM ESTNot only are they more likely to be killed (70% of women who are murdered by their intimate partners are murdered when they try to escape his control), they are further victimized by threats to kill whoever they love if they don't return, have few financial resources and are continuously stalked to prevent them from establishing a new life.
The constant relentless abuse they've endured and continue to endure creates an overpowering feeling of hopelessness and helplessness that is hard to combat. They do not know who to trust because their abuser has isolated them to a drastic degree. There are too few resource centers to help them get away permanently. As long as he can find them, he will not let them go because he needs his victim to survive emotionally.
This page gives a short list of why women have a hard time leaving:
- 3 votes
I've myself been threatened with death by an ex-husband with what I think was the purpose of scaring me away, and then - in his mind - forcing me to leave so that he could continue to threaten his ex-wife into cooperation with his ongoing wishes. Death threats often also result from getting the ex-wives onto state mediated (read: can't escape it) child-support. This often results in another round of death threats.
Beyond my own direct experience, other guys I know have also commented about receiving threats, etc., from ex's when they dating their ex-wives. The wise among use don't ignore such threats, as they are often coming from persons with a legal history of either accusations of - or convictions involving - physical violence.
Law enforcement - unfortunately - seems apathetic about responding to death threats. If you can't give them a recording or a document containing the threat, no action is often the result. My advice to all who have received threats: let their threats run into voice-mail, or have a small recording device handy, as that will allow the responding LE to point to that, and have them charged legally with making unlawful threats.
Relationship violence therefore - in my own mind - takes on at least two forms: direct physical and indirect threats of physical violence. Both are significant.
Crime is recognized as being a matter of "opportunity". Therefore, it isn't too surprising that both genders can be doing it, each with their own angle on how to go about it. While the male gender seems better documented, it remains to be seen how much "hidden" female relationship coercion might be out there, unreported/undocumented for whatever reason(s).
- 1 vote
Domestic abusers will also murder others after murdering their wives and/or children. Many go on to annihilate their entire family, her entire family, her friends or people in their workplace. New lovers or spouses of their victims are also targets.
The threats to do harm to other people is an effective way of keeping their victim isolated. That includes their own children.
Even though they demanded their victims bear their children, they often refuse to fulfill the role of parent, refusing to "babysit" while the wife works or spend time with them in any way except when it comes to "punishing" them. I put quotes around "punishing" because too often the child did nothing except exist.
The abuse of children becomes one more way to abuse the primary victim. Men who murder their children usually do it to punish the mother or in addition to murdering the mother.
When abusers have the mind set of children as pawns, their actions appear erratic to others but make perfect sense when it comes to continuing to be in her life and controlling her. Forcing a woman to have children creates a lifetime link she cannot sever.
If she leaves, he refuses to pay child support, acting as if she is destroying his life through vindictiveness. It doesn't matter that the court requires every child to have child support or that she cannot obtain welfare without the DA obtaining a child support order. According to the abuser, she is the one controlling the child support strings and using them vindictively.
He makes no effort to see his children except as a means of keeping tabs on her life and as a means of continuing to control her. He uses the courts to argue over the children as another means to force her to continue to deal with him. He continues to threaten her by using threats to take away her children, either through the courts or death.
Because she has children, her options are limited. She is not as free as a childless woman to move away, to get a new job, or start a new life.
So it does not surprise me that coerced reproduction is commonly found in abusive relationships.
- 1 vote
In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, at iii (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm
(it isn´t as rare as you thought and the discussion is physical and or sexual violence so I am on topic)
Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/183781.htm
Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 197838, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief: Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, at 1 (2003), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf
According to the Stalking Resource Center:
- 1,006,970 women and 370,990 men are stalked annually in the United States.
- 1 in 12 women and 1 in 45 men will be stalked in their lifetime.
- 77% of female and 64% of male victims know their stalker.
- 87% of stalkers are men.
- 59% of female victims and 30% of male victims are stalked by an intimate partner.
- 81% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also physically assaulted by that partner.
- 31% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also sexually assaulted by that partner.
- The average duration of stalking is 1.8 years.
- If stalking involves intimate partners, the average duration of stalking increases to 2.2 years.
- 61% of stalkers made unwanted phone calls; 33% sent or left unwanted letters or items; 29% vandalized property; and 9% killed or threatened to kill a family pet.
- 28% of female victims and 10% of male victims obtained a protective order. 69% of female victims and 81% of male victims had the protection order violated.
Stalking Resource Ctr., The Nat'l Ctr. for Victims of Crime, Stalking Fact Sheet, http://www.ncvc.org/src/Main.aspx (citing Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Justice, NCJ 169592, Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (1998)
The Effect of Protection Orders
- Reports indicate some 86% of the women who received a protection order state the abuse either stopped or was greatly reduced.
James Ptacek, Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Response (1999), (reviewed in Meda Chesney-Lind, James Ptacek, Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Response, 35 Crime, L. & Soc. Change 363 (2001)
- Children are 51% of all domestic violence cases...The Facts on Children and Domestic Violence, (2005), available at http://endabuse.org/resources/facts/Children.pdf (Aug 1, 2005).
- 1 vote
In all of those stats, I did not see any that directly addressed coerced reproduction forced on females by abusive males.
Not sure why you keep avoiding discussing what this seed is about. I ask again: what points that were in the seed do you want to discuss?
- 2 votes
You seed is about physical and sexual violence as well.
I question the reliability of your study that was given in Contraception magazine, they simply questioned 1300 women from a young age group if they had experienced coerced reproduction...of those 15% said they had...question is why didn´t they question males about the same thing? Your implication seems to be that they are more likely than men to experience coerced reproduction..so wouldn´t they need a comparison study from a male group? Why would men intentionally get themselves into a child support obligation? Women have choices..abortion, morning after pill, IUD, noraplant, depoprovera, all long term BC that can be used to keep them from being forced into a pregnancy..however men do not have the option if a woman gets pregnant even by trickery he is stuck.
Out of those 1300 only 195 claimed to have experienced this..and only half those said violence accompanied it..so 97 people out of 1300. To further the problem with this study is that it was just conducted in Northern California.
"Has someone you were dating or going out with ever told you not to use any birth control" or "… said he would leave you if you would not get pregnant?" "Has someone you were dating or going out with ever taken off the condom while you were having sex so that you would get pregnant?"
A person can say anything they want..but you can still say NO and let them leave..that is not violence..it is trying to coerce your partner..but not violence. However, you still have the control. Further again..why were no men studied? why only Northern California? This is long from being any reliable study.
In Stephen K. v. Roni L., 105 Cal. App. 3d 640, 164 Cal. Rptr. 2d 618 (1980), the court conveniently decided to disregard the assertions of a man whose partner lied to him in order to conceive, saying that it would not interfere in the "promises made between the parties in the bedroom concerning their private sexual conduct." The court added further that he should have taken better contraceptive precautions "regardless of the representations made to him"
A woman who is raped, or a woman who has sex while impaired and therefore unable to give consent, or a minor girl who is considered by law to be unable to give consent and is therefore statutorily raped, has full recourse to abortion. She is encouraged to abort the pregnancy because she was violated; no one expects her to become a parent to a child that was forced upon her or one that she conceived when she was too young to understand the consequences of her actions.
But...A minor boy, considered by law to be unable to give consent to anything, who is statutorily raped by an older woman whom he inadvertently impregnates, is, thanks to the decision of a judge (in State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane Seyer, a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978. Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.) completely and utterly responsible for the financial well being of the resulting child until that child turns eighteen, regardless of the fact that the child resulted due to his having been violated. The judge in this case declared "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of a minor child born of such activity." (emphasis mine)
So not only was this little boy raped by a woman, but he was also forced to pay child support for her resulting pregnancy...see what I am saying now?
Even if a man doesn't even have intercourse with a woman, but agrees to receive oral sex from her after which she inseminates herself with the contents of the condom, completely unbeknownst to him, he is still made to pay child support for the resulting baby, as the court ruled in State of Louisiana v. Frisard, 694 So. 2d 1032 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
I have just given you three cases that went to court on forced reproduction by women against men and children who are male so the study is unreliable.
I can give you more by th way. Why this bothers me is because the study is misleading and out right wrong...you can set a study up to say anything you want...you have to conduct it in an open, widespread, and honest way for it to be accurate. In other words you cannot be looking for a certain outcome..and 15% of 1300 is by far not most.
- 1 vote
5.6: I question the reliability of your study that was given in Contraception magazine, they simply questioned 1300 women from a young age group if they had experienced coerced reproduction
I too have questioned the size of studies. However, as it has been explained to me, very few studies have more than a thousand participants because of cost. Some have much less for the same reason. Here's how the industry works to spread research funds most efficiently:
1) A study is proposed using a tightly defined focus. It is submitted for funding.
2) The panel in charge of granting funds determines whether or not this is a valid study. Some are turned down because similar studies are already in progress or have been completed, thus the new study would be a duplication. Others are funded but only on a limited basis. Thus, only enough funds for fifty or a hundred participants is common.
3) After the limited study is completed, a new proposal can be made for an expanded study based upon the results of the limited study. If this is granted, then a larger grant is obtained and more participants are added to the study.
question is why didn´t they question males about the same thing?
Because of the requirements for a tightly focused study. We don't see cancer patients in the same study with heart attack patients. We don't see female infertility studied in the same grant as male infertility. We don't see zebras in the same study as lions.
That does not mean that other studies don't address the omitted issues or that the study of female infertility is invalid because they didn't study male infertility (or vice versa). It simply means a study was focused on one tightly defined issue.
To further the problem with this study is that it was just conducted in Northern California.
It is normal for studies to be limited in geographic area. There is no reason to try to include a distant place just to include a distant place. All studies are conducted by people working in one area (UCLA for instance). That means their participants will also be from that area. The reason for this is obvious: it would drive up the cost of the study if they had to travel to find other participants. That would further limit how many participants could be in the study.
Out of those 1300 only 195 claimed to have experienced this..and only half those said violence accompanied it..so 97 people out of 1300.
Not sure where you are going with this. I don't believe anyone expected 100% or even the majority of the participants to have experienced reproductive coercion. The experiences of those that did are not invalid because they are not in the majority. Neither does it mean the experiences of those who suffered from emotional coercion are less valid than those who also experienced physical coercion or those who suffered no coercion at all. (and vice versa)
For those who were impacted by reproductive coercion, the impact was deep and lifelong. That is the point of the study, as I view it. It is part of a larger coercion of women in general to be forced into subjugation to men, with their bodies viewed as the property of men and their worth defined as sex objects/babymakers rather than unique, independent individuals who are valuable in their own right.
- 1 vote
The problem I have with the who argument is men have no legal standing over a woman´s reproductive chocies..even if he is the spouse or even if he is the victim. For instance the case I pointed out to you. If we have complete control over our reproductive decisions..even when we rape a young boy and can force him to pay child support(which I found outrageous..don´t know about you, but I suspect you will feel no different) then how can we be coerced into anything? Can´t we get a morning after pill? Get a shot? These are all reproductive choices our partner has no control over...if we give into the partner because they say they will leave that is our choice we can just as easily let him go instead of having the child if it is not a woman´s desire to be pregnant..I enjoyed everyone of my pregnancies and children...it was something that my spouse could not experience like me...he could watch..but he could not feel what I did..and while he could be a father..I would be their mother and he could never be that. I felt completely in control of myself and knew that at any time I could change my mind and no one could stop me. I love being a mother though and I realize some women do not like kids..just like some men do not like kids..others love children and some love others children but don´t want any for themselves. I think this is why it is important to be married before making such a large decision as having a child. Read the below case I want your opinion on it...or am I the only one who thinks it is completely wrong to make this boy pay for the child support in this case...
A minor boy, considered by law to be unable to give consent to anything, who is statutorily raped by an older woman whom he inadvertently impregnates, is, thanks to the decision of a judge (in State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane Seyer, a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978. Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.) completely and utterly responsible for the financial well being of the resulting child until that child turns eighteen, regardless of the fact that the child resulted due to his having been violated. The judge in this case declared "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of a minor child born of such activity." (emphasis mine)
- 1 vote
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
