Research related to domestic violence issues emerged in the 1970’s but focused mainly on heterosexual couples (Wise & Bowman, 1997). It was not until the late 1980’s that empirical research addressing violence in same-sex relationships began to appear (Merrill, 1998; Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989). More recently, research has begun to focus specifically on violence in lesbian relationships. Lesbian battering is defined as "a pattern of violent and coercive behaviors whereby a lesbian seeks to control the thoughts, beliefs or conduct of her intimate partner or to punish the intimate for resisting the perpetrator’s control over her" (Hart, 1986, p. 173). Some research has revealed that 22% to 46% of lesbians have experienced partner abuse (Elliot, 1996). Leeder has distinguished three kinds of battering: situational battering, chronic battering and emotional battering (Renzetti, 1992). Situational battering occurs one to two times in the relationship and is due to an event that results in crisis. With this kind of battering, abuse ends once the crisis is over. According to Renzetti’s research, 8% of her participants had been in such a situation. A second kind of battering, chronic battering, occurs two or more times in the relationship with increasingly destructive abuse that may be life threatening. A third kind of battering is emotional battering and shares some characteristics with chronic battering, however, it involves psychological or verbal rather than physical abuse. In Renzetti’s research, 11% of the respondents reported psychological abuse while 87% had experienced both psychological and physical abuse.

Morrow and Hawxhurst (1989) note that before the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence of 1986 addressed lesbian partner abuse, this issue was typically ignored by both activists and researchers due to the fear of perpetuating homophobia and to the fear of contradicting current theoretical perspectives. It is proposed that such hesitations continue to limit the attention devoted to this area of research. A review of the literature published over the last two decades addressing this topic produced thirty-nine publications on the PsychLit search engine and the world wide web. From these sources, several secondary sources were obtained. The results revealed a variety of theoretical perspectives used to explain violence in lesbian relationships. Also, three major recurrent themes emerged: myths, relationship dynamics and adequacy of resources.

Although literature explaining domestic violence in heterosexual relationships has proliferated during the last three decades, the literature has devoted little attention to understanding domestic violence in same-sex partnerships (Renzetti, 1997, 1992; Schilit, Lie, & Montagne, 1990; Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montagne, & Reyes, 1991; Lockhart, White, Causby, & Isaac, 1994). Of the literature addressing domestic violence in lesbian relationships, it is not uncommon to find that some theoreticians have borrowed from theories based on partner abuse in heterosexual relationships to explain battering in lesbian relationships. Renzetti (1998) argues that the traditional approach to domestic violence has been a "one model fits all approach," obscuring the variability in domestic violence experiences and restricting services to specific groups, including lesbians. In light of these issues, several researchers and theoreticians agree theories must be developed to address domestic violence in lesbian relationships and to understand those issues unique to this population (Elliot, 1996; Renzetti, 1998; Walder-Haugrud, Gratch, & Magruder, 1997).

Thus, the focus of this section will be devoted to a synopsis of available literature reviewing current theoretical perspectives that have been used to explain domestic violence in lesbian relationships. Several theoretical perspectives on this topic emerged: an Intergenerational Transmission of Violence Model and Social Learning Theory, Feminist Theory, Social-Psychological Theory, Multidimensional Theory, and Systems Theory.

Social learning theory proposes violence is a coping mechanism learned through observation or experience. Modeling is a contributory factor to learning violent behavior as well. Whether or not one exerts violence depends on environmental factors (Lie & Gentlewarrier, 1991). This theory maintains that the likelihood of repeated abusive behavior is contingent upon reinforcement. Thus, if behavior has functional value, that is, if it achieves the results desired, observers are likely to repeat the behavior and incorporate the behavior into their repertoire with practice (Pagelow, 1984). Hence, the intergenerational transmission of violence model is one component of social learning theory (Coleman, 1994). This model maintains that children who witness or experience violence in their family of origin are more likely to integrate violence into their behavioral repertoire. This perspective identifies role models as integral figures in a child’s socialization process.

According to the intergenerational transmission of violence model, there are several research studies linking exposure with violence during childhood and experiences with violence as an adult in a lesbian relationship. Lie, et al. (1991) conducted a correlational study that examined the relationship between witnessing or experiencing violence in the family of origin and violence in lesbian relationships. Results suggested that participants who witnessed aggression between members of their family of origin were more likely to have been a victim of aggression with a current lesbian partner, to have used aggression in this relationship, or to have been both the victim and the aggressor in this relationship. Furthermore, victimization in the family of origin was significantly associated with being both a user and a victim of aggression in a past lesbian relationship.

In addition, a study that examined patterns of violence among both gay and lesbian perpetrators, found physical and sexual abuse in the family of origin was common (Farley, 1996). In fact, all of the men and women who were assessed, reported having been psychologically abused as children. Even more disturbing, 81% of the women and 80% of the men reported their parents or guardians were abused as children indicating a predictable pattern of violence. Also, Lockhart, et al. (1994) conducted a survey with lesbians in committed relationships. These researchers found participants who reported they were raped during their childhood by a relative or non-relative and whose parents physically and emotionally abused them were more likely to report physical violence in their relationships.

While these studies produced results supporting the intergenerational transmission of violence model, Renzetti (1992) declares an inconsistency in results confirming this theory. She says that out of 40 interviews with women, over half reported they never witnessed or experienced abuse in their family of origin. In fact, only 11 of the women interviewed revealed they witnessed and/or experienced abuse during their childhood. Moreover, 15 respondents reported their partners were raised in non-abusive households and 15 respondents revealed their partners were abused by their parents. Three participants indicated their partners witnessed violence between their parents, 12 reported their partners were victimized by their parents, and 2 revealed their partners were both witnesses and victims (Renzetti, 1992).

Renzetti (1998) offers an explanation for this inconsistency in findings. She asserts the discrepancy can partly be attributed to methodological problems. She proposes that most of the available literature examining violence in lesbian relationships looks to test the intergenerational transmission of violence model only with adult participants who are asked to disclose information in retrospect. Renzetti suggests this method may lead to inconsistent results for two reasons: 1) our memories are influenced by our current experiences; and 2) respondents who are aware of this hypothesis are likely to excuse the abuse.

Also, Renzetti (1992) argues that the intergenerational transmission of violence hypothesis has weaknesses. She suggests the relationship between childhood experiences with violence and adult violence or victimization is much more complex than professionals and lay people tend to believe. Her findings led her to propose that given the proper intervening variables (e.g., the age of the child at which the abuse occurred, the severity of the abuse), childhood exposure to violence may or may not trigger abusive behavior.

Feminist Theory

Up until the 1960’s and 70’s, research and explanations for domestic violence typically blamed the victim (Merrill, 1996; Martin, 1981). With the growth of the feminist movement in the United States, feminists have focused on helping women raise their awareness of ascribed gender roles and oppressive social status through social action. Hence, the issue of domestic violence has been ripe for examination from a different perspective. According to this sociopolitical theory, domestic violence is a manifestation of gender-based oppression, which promotes rigid family and societal roles, thereby limiting economic opportunity for women. Merrill (1996) states that despite both sexism and those who believe victims hold some accountability for the abuse, this gender-based theory has become the most commonly accepted explanation for domestic violence.

In spite of the impact of the feminist movement on the battered women’s movement, feminist theory has yet to adequately explain the prevalence and incidence of domestic violence in lesbian relationships. As Letellier (1994) puts it, "feminist theory, with its doctrine of male victimizers and female victims, has also contributed to the invisibility of gay and lesbian domestic violence because it precludes the possibility of such occurring" (p. 95). Merrill (1996) attributes the lack of effort to incorporate explanations of same-sex partner abuse into feminist theory to these four misconceptions: 1) gay male domestic violence is logical because all or most men are prone to domestic violence, but lesbian domestic violence does not occur because women are not prone; 2) same-sex partner abuse is not as severe as when a woman is battered by a man; 3) same-sex partner abuse implies mutual abuse; and 4) the perpetrator must be the "man" or the "butch" and the victim must be the "woman" or the "femme" in emulation of heterosexual relationships.

According to Island and Letellier, feminist theory is heterosexist in its analysis of same-sex partner abuse (Merrill, 1996). In response to feminist theory, Island and Letellier offer a theory that is "gender-neutral" in its approach explaining same-sex abuse and focusing on the batterer's psychological dynamics. Despite their attempts to create a theory distinct from feminist theory, Merrill (1996) suggests Island and Letellier’s theory and feminist theory may not be as mutually exclusive as they propose. Although these two theories address domestic violence with two different perspectives, Merrill notices that both analyses agree on several ideas. One commonality is that batterers create victims who do not necessarily have to have pathology to become a victim. Also, Merrill notes that both theories define victims as people who do not necessarily warrant treatment beyond the scope of counseling and advocacy. Further, both analyses have devoted a considerable amount of attention to the discussion that male batterers tend to equate masculinity with violence.

However, Merrill (1996) finds weaknesses in Island and Letellier’s model. He says if domestic violence in same-sex relationships requires a gender-neutral analysis to accurately understand the issue, then it would be assumed that men and women have an equal opportunity to abuse. He argues, like feminist theory, which cannot adequately explain same-sex partner abuse, this theory, a gender-neutral approach, cannot fully explain the disproportionate number of men who abuse in heterosexual relationships.

Critique of these theories led Merrill (1996) to suggest that a social-psychological model is sufficient when examining domestic violence in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships. He recommends an integration of feminist theory and Island and Letellier’s theory facilitating a better understanding of battering in same-sex relationships. According to this model, the cause of battering is divided into three steps: learning to abuse, having the opportunity to abuse, and choosing to abuse. The model suggests three psychological processes abusive individuals learn in their family of origin: direct instruction, modeling or learning through observation, and reinforced violent behavior. There is an emphasis that learning violent behavior does not necessarily predict the utilization of abuse. In fact, the individual must have an opportunity to abuse without acquiring negative consequences. Unfortunately, the oppressive forces of homophobia and heterosexism prevent batterers from experiencing negative consequences. These pervasive oppressive forces isolate lesbians from society, leaving little possibility for access to adequate social intervention and increasing the likelihood that violence will persist (Coleman, 1994; Merrill, 1996).

According to this social-psychological theory, abuse is also unlikely to be committed by a person who perceives another as having greater power or having the power to bring effective negative consequences. However, a person is likely to be abusive when he or she perceives another as having equal or lesser power and/or minimal capacity to bring negative consequences. Finally, the paradigm stresses that individuals must make a conscious choice to abuse which holds them solely responsible for the choice to commit abusive acts (Merrill, 1996).

While feminist theory, social learning theory, and the intergenerational transmission of violence model have had the most appeal as explanations for domestic violence, several of the more recent theories have addressed psychopathology and individual differences. Coleman (1994) argues to fully understand the occurrence of domestic violence, individual personality traits among batterers must be examined. She states that many professionals in the field of domestic violence have chosen not to acknowledge this idea because they fear Coleman’s multidimensional approach, in contrast to the sociopolitical analysis, will better explain partner abuse. Yet, Coleman's argument suggests rather than deny the importance of social influences, professionals should consider individual factors as mediating variables in domestic violence. Further, individual personality traits can complement sociological and sociopolitical perspectives by not only having implications for more effective treatment, but also for having more effective legal and social policies (Coleman, 1994).

Although the idea of examining psychopathology and individual differences has been well documented with heterosexual batterers, this has not been the case with lesbian batterers. Dutton (1994) maintains that there is a high prevalence of psychopathology among heterosexual batterers. In fact, in a study of abusive men, approximately 80% to 90% of both court-referred and self-referred men exhibited diagnosable psychopathology, typically personality disorders. Few studies have given attention to characteristics that lesbians exhibit. Of the available literature, results have revealed lesbian batterers tend to demonstrate personality traits similar to those that heterosexual batterers exhibit (Schilit, et al., 1990; Renzetti, 1992). Research has suggested abusive lesbians may possess traits of personality disorders such as borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder (Letellier, 1994; Coleman, 1994; Renzetti, 1998; Dutton, 1994). The American Psychiatric Association (1994) emphasizes that maladaptive personality traits that do not meet the threshold of a disorder can be noted on Axis II. Coleman (1994) warns that while the identification of traits associated with personality disorders is necessary in fully understanding and effectively treating a batterer, professionals must be aware of the pejorative connotations that come with these labels.

Object relations theory proposes a perspective to further understand the development of borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. This theory explains how splitting, along with other defense mechanisms, is used to prevent the destruction of the good self and the object representation (Coleman, 1994). She maintains lesbian batterers have the tendency to internalize homophobia, the bad object, which becomes an external bad object when the batterer projects that oppressive force onto her partner. When the bad object is projected, the batterer perceives the partner as a threat and as something that must be destroyed or controlled. However, once the batterer uses defenses, such as devaluation or attack with the external bad object, the honeymoon phase begins.

Object relations theory submits people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder have reached the separation/individuation stage, however, struggle with accepting their mother’s rejection of their sudden individuation (Corey, 1996). Typical behaviors associated with this disorder include: fear of abandonment, instability, identity disturbance, impulsive anger, recurrent threats, and mood disturbances (Corey, 1996; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Coleman (1994) asserts lesbian batterers tend to exhibit borderline personality disorder traits. For example, she says that the batterer lacks self-cohesion and fears abandonment, causing her to seek merger with another. When the partner attempts to assume autonomy, the batterer's fear intensifies, disrupting her self-cohesion. In an attempt to prevent splitting and to maintain good object representation, the batterer becomes aggressive with her partner.

Object relations theory also offers an explanation to further understand the development of narcissistic personality disorder. Psychoanalysts maintain that people who are fixated at the symbiotic stage of development have the capacity to develop this disorder (Corey, 1996). Trauma during this period of emotional attunement with the mother can result in the child using narcissism as a coping mechanism. These children are not able to differentiate and lack the opportunity to attend to others’ needs while taking pride in themselves. Characteristics these people usually exhibit are: grandiose self-importance, preoccupation with power or ideal love, excessive need for admiration, lack of empathy, and unreasonable expectations for others (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Unlike batterers with borderline personality disorder traits, those with narcissistic personality disorder traits attempt to prevent fragmentation and maintain self-esteem through mirroring and idealizing self objects. When the batterer fails to mirror her self-object or if the self-object is unavailable, the original trauma ignites feelings of powerlessness and worthlessness, activating narcissistic rage and replacing those feelings with grandiosity and omnipotence (Coleman, 1994). The end result is that the batterer who exhibits narcissistic traits attempts to increase self-esteem by obtaining revenge.

Unlike abusive heterosexual relationships, lesbian relationships tend to be stigmatized in our society (Renzetti, 1989). Research indicates that lesbian relationships usually exist as closed systems in response to the oppression and hostility existing in the larger community. Krestan and Bepko (1980) propose that as a subsystem existing within a larger system, the lesbian couple must define itself by creating its own rules and boundaries, which differentiate it from the larger society. However, when these rules and boundaries are unrecognized, the larger system labels them as pathological (Krestan and Bepko, 1980). Thus, they argue that if a lesbian couple attempts to define the boundaries surrounding their relationship and if the larger system responds in a negative way or does not respond at all, the lesbian couple will likely develop more rigid boundaries, making the relationship even more closed. Since the creation of rigid boundaries is a survival response, a closed relationship is fostered and the likelihood of fusion increases.

Partners' relative dependency on one another has been found to be strongly associated with abuse in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships. Krestan and Bepko (1980) identify dysfunctional boundaries in understanding fusion in abusive relationships. They describe fusion as "the intense anxiety over any desire for separateness or autonomy within the relationship" (p. 277). Research that addresses battering in lesbian relationships suggests perpetrators have high dependency needs. Several research studies have yielded results that identify evidence of dysfunctional boundaries. Renzetti (1998) found significant correlations in her research suggesting that the greater the batterer's dependency on her partner and the greater the victim's urge to be independent, the more likely it was for the abuser to inflict abuse with increased frequency. Renzetti links the dependency and the choice to exercise force over others with poor self-concept and low self-esteem. Farley (1996) reports from a study that assessed the history of battering in the lives of 119 gays and 169 lesbians, 80% of the men and 94% of the women have been an abuser in a previous relationship. An important thing to note is that 54% of the men and 63% of the women reported that they were dependent.

Research reveals a variety of myths surrounding abuse in lesbian relationships. According to Browning, Reynolds and Dworkin (1991), lesbians do not encounter relationship violence because of an assumed equal status. By living in a heterosexist society with strict gender roles, women have been socialized to be less aggressive than their male counterparts, and therefore, it is believed that women are incapable of physically battering their partners.

According to Taylor and Chandler (1995) and Ristock (1997), the myth of the "butch-femme" lesbian further reinforces gender-role stereotypes and is analogous to power differentials associated with heterosexual relationships. Frequently, society assumes the "butch" lesbian is similar to the male counterpart in heterosexual dyads and as a result, her masculinity is a factor predisposing her to violent tendencies. Renzetti (1998) found in her research that the abuser is no more masculine than the victim with respect to mannerisms, physical appearance and size. In fact, there were numerous abuser lesbians who reported that in comparison with their partners, they were smaller in size and displayed more feminine-like qualities. Strict adherence to this myth has negative implications because it presupposes that feminine women are incapable of displaying aggression. Contrary to popular belief, research has shown lesbians are in fact capable of inflicting serious harm upon their lovers. Similar to abusers in heterosexual relationships, abusers in lesbian relationships have the need to possess and dominate the victim, believing she exists solely for the abuser’s welfare.

Furthermore, there is a belief that lesbian violence occurs only as a result of alcohol or chemical dependency making such drug abuse directly responsible for violence inflicted on the partner (Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989; Taylor & Chandler, 1995). In reality, neither alcohol nor substances are causal factors for partner abuse. The core issue is the abuse itself. The urge to use violence and to rationalize such behavior was present even before the perpetrator began consuming alcohol or other chemical substances.

The idea that violence in lesbian relationships occurs strictly in sado-masochistic relationships is another fallacy. Unlike lesbian battering, sado-masochism is a consensual act and does not constitute abuse. To equate a sado-masochistic act with battering underscores a woman’s experience with partner abuse. While it is true abuse can occur in a sado-masochistic relationship, it is erroneous to believe the abuse is manifested strictly in this context. A second myth pertaining to sado-masochism is lesbians who participate in the practice enjoy abusive violence. It is dangerous for one to believe the abuse occurs as a result of deviant sexual practices because it disempowers victims from seeking professional help and reinforces the belief that one is in fact responsible for abuse encountered in the relationship (Taylor & Chandler, 1995).

Violence in lesbian relationships is further complicated when African-American lesbian women are involved in abusive situations. One such myth surrounding abuse in African-American lesbian relationships is that these women are viewed as emotionally distressed and promiscuous. Unfortunately, such a view portrays African-American women as potential abusers or as people who deserve to be abused because of their attitudes and behaviors. However, in reality, these women are no more likely to inflict violence, coerce their lovers through force or be the victims of abuse than are lesbians from any other race or ethnic background (Taylor & Chandler, 1995).

One final myth is the belief that partner abuse can be attributed to a history of violence perpetuated in the family over multiple generations. Taylor and Chandler (1995) state the cycle of abuse transmitted across generations predicts that those batterers who were abused during childhood will develop into abusers once they get older. In essence, this is a false explanation for abuse in intimate lesbian relationships. While one should not ignore the idea that childhood abuse may be a factor in adult violence, it is essential for one to realize that an abusive childhood does not necessarily mean one will develop into an abusive adult. The abuse one experiences as a child only serves as a partial explanation for an adult’s urge to inflict abuse on a partner.

There are a variety of dynamics in abusive lesbian relationships. While some of the dynamics are representative of both heterosexual and same-sex relationships, others are specific to lesbian partnerships. The dynamics that appear to be a part of all abusive relationships are: types of violence, cycle of violence and power differences.

There are commonalties between heterosexual and same-sex relationships in terms of the types of violence committed by perpetrators (Elliot, 1996; Wise & Bowman, 1997; Renzetti, 1992). Elliot (1996) describes these kinds of violence as they occur in violent lesbian relationships. Emotional or psychological abuse involves such acts as putting the partner down by insulting or shaming her. Other examples of emotional abuse are threatening to kill pets, threatening to kill oneself and controlling the household finances. One kind of psychological abuse unique to lesbian relationships involves threatening to "out" the partner by telling others she is a lesbian.

Physical abuse involves slapping, pushing, scratching and hitting. In her research, Renzetti (1992) found disturbing evidence that in a small minority of cases, lesbians experience being stabbed, being shot, being burned with a cigarette and having guns or knives put into the vagina. Sexual abuse involves "any non-consensual sexual act (rape) or demeaning language" (Elliot, 1996, p. 4). Examples of this kind of abuse are minimizing a partner’s feelings about sex, withholding sex and making negative remarks about a person’s body. Even though all three kinds of abuse are experienced in abusive relationships, research suggests the most common forms of abuse in lesbian relationships are verbal and psychological (Lie, et al., 1991; Lockhart et al., 1994).

Another aspect of domestic violence occurring in all abusive relationships, including lesbian relationships, involves a cycle of violence (Wise & Bowman, 1997; Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989; Elliot, 1996). The cycle appears to incorporate three main stages. The first phase, the tension-building phase, includes stress, frustration, communication problems and attempts by the victim to pacify the abuser. In the second phase, violence is the predominant characteristic encompassing not only physical abuse, but also psychological, emotional and sexual abuse. This stage can be sudden and brief or prolonged for as long as weeks. The third phase is the "honeymoon phase." During this phase, the perpetrator is repentant and remorseful for abusive actions. The abuser is often apologetic promising the abuse will never happen again. Usually, this is not the case. In fact, as the abuse becomes more frequent, the tension-building and "honeymoon" phases become shorter in duration (Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989; Renzetti, 1992).

The balance of power between two partners also appears to play a role in same-sex domestic violence (Elliot, 1996). Caldwell and Peplau (1984) found in their study with lesbians, that 40% of the women thought the balance of power in their current relationship was unequal even though they thought shared power was ideal. Interestingly, they found that the women in their study had less power if they were more involved in the relationship, had less education or had less income than did the partner. They also found that women in unequal relationships were less satisfied with the relationship, felt less closeness with the partner, scored lower on a measure of liking for the partner, anticipated more problems in the relationship and were less confident the relationship would continue.

While some research suggests the person with more power is likely to be the abuser, other research indicates abuse occurs because the abuser lacks power or views her power as decreasing (Renzetti, 1992). In her study, Renzetti (1992) found there was a power imbalance between her respondents and their partners, the batterers. She found that the abuser was more powerful in terms of decision making (i.e., deciding what to do on a weekend and initiating sex). She noted, however, that such a decision making process may have been established after the abuse started. Unfortunately, her questionnaire did not address this. Interestingly, she found that more than half of her respondents earned more money and had more education while a third had a more prestigious occupation than did the abusive partner. Furthermore, a few of the indices of power balance in her study were associated with some of the most severe forms of physical and psychological abuse. For example, as differences in intelligence increased as a problem in the relationship, so did abusive behaviors such as forcing the partner to get high or drunk, forcing the partner to have sex and hitting the partner with an object. Similarly, as differences in social class increased as a problem, so did abuse through hitting the partner with a fist or open hand and hitting the partner with an object.

While there are similarities in the dynamics of heterosexual and same-sex abusive relationships, there are also dynamics that are unique to lesbian partnerships. Isolation of lesbian couples within society appears to be a critical factor in such abusive relationships (Waldron, 1996; Renzetti, 1992; Elliot, 1996; Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989).

There are a variety of reasons for the isolation experienced in abusive lesbian relationships. One contributing factor is the oppressive force of homophobia. Because of the widespread nature of homophobia in society, many lesbians do not disclose their sexual orientation to family, friends and acquaintances. It seems even more likely that such information would be hidden from others when an individual is in an abusive relationship. The person may fear that if the information is revealed, it may increase homophobia and support attitudes that homosexuality is pathological (Tuel & Russell, 1998; Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989; Waldron, 1996). As a result, lesbians who are in abusive relationships usually do not have a support network to rely on. Often, the battering partner is the main person the battered partner has contact with. Ironically, the one the battered partner trusts is also the one whom the partner fears (Waldron, 1996). Furthermore, the single person the victim has as a support is also the one who uses homophobia to control her. In such instances, the batterer may threaten to "out" the partner, may tell her she deserves no better, may tell her she will not find help because she is a lesbian and may tell the partner she is not a "real lesbian" especially if she was in previous heterosexual relationships (Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989).

There are other potential reasons for the isolation lesbian couples experience. Related to the homophobic attitudes of people within society, is the internalized homophobia lesbians may experience perpetuating their isolation. Internalized homophobia occurs when homosexuals "accept heterosexual society’s negative evaluations of them and incorporate these into their self-concepts" (Renzetti, 1998, p. 122). Because lesbians have often been raised to believe intimacy is to be shared with a man, they may begin to internalize the belief that lesbian relationships have a second-class status (Krestan & Bepko, 1980). When such internalized homophobia occurs, a woman may feel being in an abusive lesbian relationship is not important enough to be addressed.

Another component contributing to such isolation may be that lesbians believe the relationship is supposed to meet all of the partners’ needs (Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989). In such cases, they may feel they do not need other sources of support. Furthermore, many lesbians may be isolated because there has been a perpetuation of the myth that lesbian relationships are loving and supportive and never violent (Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989). If they disclose that abuse occurs in such partnerships, the myth may be dispelled, but negative attitudes of homosexuality may become even more rampant.

Finally, the isolation may result from being restricted when using the legal system as a source of protection. Not only do lesbians lack Civil Rights protection, they also lack adequate access to the legal system. Such access is limited because the current definition of domestic violence does not address homosexual relationships (Elliot, 1996).

A second dynamic common to abusive lesbian relationships involves dependency. Dependency experienced within these relationships may be a result of isolation and may be an explanation for the increase in violence (Waldner-Haugrud, et al., 1997). Some researchers identify the isolation and dependence occurring within such relationships as "fusion" (Lindenbaum, 1985; Waldner-Haugrud , et al., 1997). Krestan and Bepko (1980) hypothesize that when society does not respond to or views lesbian boundaries as negative, lesbians feel the need to rigidify the boundaries around the relationship causing the system to be even more closed. During such times, there can be an increase in the fusion and the cutting off of others.

Krestan and Bepko (1980) further explain the "Demand-Bid" phenomenon in which a lesbian is faced with the reactive response of others to the knowledge that she is a lesbian. Disclosing one’s homosexuality reframes the relationship of the lesbian and the person she is telling. As a result, many lesbians are not willing to risk such a disclosure. In the end, they are often reluctant to participate in social gatherings both as individuals and as a couple. The alternative, being alone with their partner most of the time, only rigidifies the boundaries increasing the likelihood of dependency.

Lewis, Kozac, Milardo and Grosnick (1981) found significant differences between lesbians and gay males in three areas. First of all, lesbians had rarer thoughts of breaking up. Second, lesbians reported confiding in their partner and thought living together was valuable. Third, lesbians, in contrast to gay males, reported talking things over more with their partner. The researchers also reported findings that yielded non-significant results. In comparison to gay males, lesbians reported having greater dyadic interaction, spending less time with friends, being happy with the partner, having common interests and spending more evenings with the partner all of which involve intradyadic commitment. Regarding extradyadic commitment, lesbians reported being irritated by the intrusion of friends on the relationship, wanting to know when a partner was non-exclusive and receiving fewer invitations to meals from their families.

The above results give an indication to the level of commitment many lesbians have to a relationship. Togetherness is a major component in lesbian relationships. Frequently they involve their partner in all of their activities and interests (Cotton, 1975). Women have a tendency to make the relationship a priority over individuation. This tendency is strengthened and maintained because of a woman’s psychological propensity to do so which is often socialized (Lindenbaum, 1985). In society, women are often the primary caretakers who are socialized to put another person’s needs and feelings ahead of their own (Krestan & Bepko, 1980). In fact, some women may see separation-individuation as a threat to relatedness, but according to Lindenbaum (1985), "the capacity for adult intimacy depends on each partner’s ability to appropriately lose and establish psychological boundaries in relation to the other. Furthermore, the longevity of the relationship is enhanced by the recognition of and capacity to tolerate the partner as separate and different from the self" (p. 87).

Dependency and fusion in lesbian relationships becomes problematic when one partner is overdependent and the other is seeking autonomy. In such situations the chances of physical violence increase. In her research, Renzetti (1992) administered a questionnaire that measured dependency versus autonomy. In correlational analyses of the dependency/autonomy and abuse factors, she found "the greater the respondents’ desire to be independent and the greater their partners’ dependency, the more likely the batterer was to inflict more types of abuse with greater frequency" (p. 34). While the independent partner may feel responsible for the dependent partner’s well-being, she may also have feelings of resentment. In contrast, the dependent partner may feel ashamed of her weakness, which goes against lesbian feminism whereby women seek to be independent, autonomous and self-actualizing. Frequently, she will abuse as a way of coping with her dependency (Renzetti, 1992; Waldner-Haugrud et al., 1997).

Another dynamic that appears to be unique to abusive lesbian relationships involves fighting back. In comparison to heterosexual women, lesbians report fighting back against their partners more often (Marrujo & Kreger, 1996). In 1987, Bologna, Waterman and Dawson surveyed 70 gay male and female college students. They found that 40% of the lesbians reported being victims of violence in their current relationships while 54% of the women said they had used violence in their current relationship. Of the respondents who had past relationships, 64% of the lesbians had been victims of violence. Fifty-six percent of the women had used violence in past relationships (Lie, et al., 1991).

In a study to determine if women in the sample made a distinction between using aggression as a defense or using it in mutual aggression, Lie et al. (1991) surveyed 169 lesbians (66 responded). Findings revealed that 30.3% used aggression as self-defense, 39.4% used mutual aggression and 30.3% used a combination of self-defense and mutual aggression. While 49.1% of the respondents said the aggression was partner initiated, 36.4% said the aggression was mutually initiated. Of those who reported, only 14.5% initiated the aggression. Aggression with female partners was described more as mutual aggression or a combination of self-defense and mutual aggression.

Last year about half of 3,327 domestic violence cases by gays and lesbians in twelve U.S. cities involved lesbian and bisexual women (Mantilla, 1998). The high incidence of such abuse suggests a need for social services for lesbian victims of domestic violence. Yet, recent research has found the services available to this population to be inadequate. As much as these services are needed, researchers postulate that they may not be available due to funding considerations. Researchers are concerned that there would be a threat to withdraw funding if shelters and/or domestic violence agencies extended services to lesbians (Renzetti, 1996; Browning, et al., 1991). The perception of available services may play a large role in determining whether a battered lesbian seeks assistance. Many lesbian victims of relationship violence believe staff in social service agencies are homophobic and/or heterosexist (Lie & Gentlewarrier, 1991). Furthermore, many battered lesbians seeking social services believe the services to be specifically for heterosexual women (Renzetti, 1996).

In order to ascertain the quality of social services available to this population, Renzetti (1996) surveyed 566 service providers across the U.S. Her results revealed that while many service providers claim to be receptive to having lesbian clients, few provided the necessary training and outreach services needed to effectively assist battered lesbians. Renzetti found that many service providers did not require anti-homophobia training and less than half of those surveyed provided training specific to lesbian domestic violence. Even more disturbing, is the fact that counselors who work with lesbians receive little training in this area. Buhrke revealed in a study of 213 female doctoral students, approximately one-third of the sample revealed their courses had not discussed gay and lesbian issues. In fact, the average number of classes addressing this issue was 1.61. Moreover, approximately half of the respondents reported they had never counseled an identified homosexual client and felt more comfortable counseling a heterosexual client (Wise & Bowman, 1997) Even though the American Psychological Association and the American Counseling Association have ethical standards encouraging mental health professionals to be knowledgeable about issues pertaining to gays and lesbians, few counselors receive training and experience in this area (Wise & Bowman, 1997).

Not surprising then, is the finding that many battered lesbians receiving social services do not find them helpful (Wise & Bowman, 1997; Renzetti, 1989). Renzetti, (1989) surveyed 100 lesbians who were victims of domestic violence. She found that most of those surveyed perceived mental health professionals (e.g., counselors, therapists) the most helpful, while shelters and hotlines were the least helpful.

Typically, the first line of defense for victims of abuse is the criminal justice system. Yet, the relationship between police and minority communities is dubious (Merrill, 1998; Mendez, 1996). Many minority groups are mistrustful of police officers believing they are slow to respond and lack sensitivity (Waldron, 1996). In her survey, Renzetti (1989) found abused lesbians reported police and religious professionals as least helpful of the community resources available to them. One respondent reported an incident during which the responding officer called her a "Queer devil," and told her she was responsible for her abuse because she was a lesbian (Renzetti, 1989, p. 160). Many ethnic minority lesbians and gays are especially fearful of the police. Mendez (1996) explains that the threat of reporting the victim to immigration officials is severe in cultures where, "gays are often picked up by the police and later found in a mass grave," (p. 56). In addition to the homophobia in the police force, battered lesbians of color have the added fear of racism (Mendez, 1996; Waldron, 1996).

In addition, there is legislation in place that may inhibit lesbian victims of relationship violence from utilizing the criminal justice system (Merrill, 1998). The laws themselves are written in such a manner as to perpetuate heterosexism through the use of biased language. Renzetti (1998) reports that some states have laws which define domestic violence as "violence between members of the opposite sex or between spouses, former spouses or family members who are related by blood or consanguinity" (p. 124). These state laws clearly deny the civil rights of lesbian and gay victims of violence. The victim may be further re-victimized by the possibility of arrest when reporting abuse to the police. Some states have laws that criminalize same-sex relations, so reporting domestic violence may be self-incriminating (Renzetti, 1998). Also, there are mandatory arrest laws in place that may give police an excuse to arrest both the abuser and the victim by claiming not to know who is responsible (Renzetti, 1998).

Many lesbians do not have the advantage of the usual support systems of victims. Oftentimes they may not be able to turn to family members and friends (Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989). There may also be the fear of reinforcing negative views of lesbian relationships (Renzetti, 1989). Furthermore, some abused lesbians may not have access to family and friends because the abuser often isolates the victim from those supports (Morrow, & Hawxhurst, 1989). This inaccessibility of social support may lead the victim to minimize and deny the abuse.

The aforementioned suggests a number of implications for improving services for lesbian victims of domestic violence. First and foremost is the education of service providers and the community at large, including the lesbian community (Browning et al., 1991). There is a strong need for anti-homophobia training in social service agencies for both staff and volunteers (Renzetti, 1996; Mendez, 1996; Waldron, 1996; Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989). Many researchers propose mandatory in-service workshops for mental health providers because due to the limited staff at most agencies, volunteers have the most contact with clients (Renzetti, 1996; Mendez, 1996; Lie & Gentlewarrier, 1991). Renzetti (1996) further suggests that there should be explicit policies in place for addressing homophobia among staff, volunteers and heterosexual clients. In addition, domestic violence agencies should provide training specifically on violence in lesbian relationships and should use non-heterosexist language in all materials and literature.

Furthermore, the staff within the agency should be diverse and reflect the community served. Some of the service providers surveyed in Renzetti (1996) reported having lesbian staff members, however, there are two cautions here. First, regardless of the workers’ sexual orientation, the agencies did not provide sufficient training. Second, the workers did not necessarily have to be lesbian to effectively assist a battered lesbian. As Waldron (1996) notes, "any caring professional can be helpful if she can be patient and nonjudgmental" (p. 47).

Once the policies and procedures are in place to welcome lesbian victims of relationship violence, it is important for the agency to get involved in community outreach. Studies have shown that gays and lesbians often rely heavily on the gay and lesbian community for social support (Nesmith, Baurton & Cosgrove, 1999). Therefore, it is important that gay and lesbian community resources be utilized in conjunction with efforts to increase awareness about gay and lesbian domestic violence. Mendez (1996) suggests reaching out to local gay and lesbian newspapers. Yet, Waldron (1996) cautions against using gay and lesbian media as the sole method of reaching that community. She reports that many lesbians of color primarily identify themselves by their ethnicity. Therefore, outreach efforts should involve advertising in ethnic newspapers and coordinating with community leaders. In an effort to reach the Latino community, the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project coordinated a special advertising campaign in which posters about domestic violence were written in Spanish. In order to prepare to serve this population, the agency actively recruited Spanish speaking volunteers and provided multi-lingual materials (Mendez, 1996).

Community education must involve reaching out to professionals, such as the police, to educate them about lesbian domestic violence. Service providers must be aware of the reluctance by members of the lesbian community to view the police as resources and must help them to see the police as a source of help (Wise & Bowman, 1997). One way to assure this is for the mental health worker to assist the client in contacting the police and to "walk-her-through" the process. Police advocacy may help facilitate the process of a victim filing a police report. Therefore, social service agencies should provide trained advocates (Wertheimer, 1990). In the same vein, when referring to a shelter or other resources, the worker may need to call to inquire about attitudes towards lesbians (Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989). Lie and Gentlewarrier (1991) found that many abused lesbians prefer client-centered interventions that emphasize ego-strengthening and empowerment.

Violence in lesbian relationships has not been given sufficient attention for several reasons. One reason is that researchers and theoreticians are hesitant to contradict the prevailing domestic violence perspectives, fearing that findings may challenge current explanations. Furthermore, these theories have been applied to same-sex battering relationships even though they were initially developed to explain battering in heterosexual relationships. Also, with respect to the myths about violence in lesbian relationships, popular beliefs contribute to homophobia and reinforce heterosexism in society. These fallacies result in the perpetuation of isolation among homosexuals limiting access to adequate support services Finally, the gay liberation movement must be willing to expose violence not only against homosexuals but also among them (Elliot, 1996).

Available literature reveals a need to fully understand this population for several reasons. First, it is imperative to develop more inclusive theories explaining domestic violence. Second, there is a need to understand same-sex relationships so common misconceptions can be dispelled. This can be done through educating the community as well as providing counselor and staff training that incorporates gay and lesbian affirmative counseling services. Third, it is essential to develop a more comprehensive definition of domestic violence that does not exclude same-sex partner abuse. Once we are more accepting of homosexuality, stigmatization will decrease allowing for more reliable research findings. Instead of relying on a sample based on self-selection, researchers will be able to recruit a random sample and generalize their findings to the population.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Browning, C., Reynolds, A., & Dworkin, S. (1991). Affirmative psychotherapy for lesbian women. The Counseling Psychologist, 19(2), 177-196.

Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1984). The balance of power in lesbian relationships. Sex Roles, 10(7/8), 587-599.

Coleman, V. E. (1994). Lesbian battering: The relationship between personality and the perpetration of violence. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 139-152.

Corey, G. (1996). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy. (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA Brooks/Cole.

Cotton, W. L. (1975). Social and sexual relationships of lesbians. The Journal of Sex Research, 11(2), 139-148.

Dutton, D. G. (1994). Patriarchy and wife assault: The ecological fallacy. Violence and Victims 9(2), 167-182.

Elliot, P. (1996). Shattering illusions: Same-sex domestic violence. In C. M. Renzetti & C. H. Miley (Eds.), Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships (pp. 1-8). New York: Harrington Park/Haworth.

Farley, N. (1996). A survey of factors contributing to gay and lesbian domestic violence. In C. M. Renzetti & C. H. Miley (Eds.), Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships (pp. 35-42). New York: Harrington Park/Haworth.

Hart, B. (1986). Lesbian battering: An examination. In K. Lobel (Ed.), Naming the violence (pp. 173-189). Seattle: Seal Press.

Krestan, J., & Bepko, C. S. (1980). The problem of fusion in the lesbian relationship. Family Process, 19, 277-289.

Letellier, P. (1994). Gay and bisexual male domestic violence victimization: Challenges to feminist theory and responses to violence. Violence and Victims 9(2), 95-106.

Lewis, R. A., Kozac, E. B., Milardo, R. M., & Grosnick, W. A. (1981). Commitment in same-sex love relationships. Alternative Lifestyles, 4(1), 22-42.

Lie, G. Y., & Gentlewarrier, S. (1991). Intimate violence in lesbian relationships: Discussion of survey findings and practice implications. Journal of Social Service Research, 15(1/2), 41-59.

Lie, G. Y., Schilit, R., Bush, J., Montagne, M., & Reyes, L. (1991). Lesbians in currently aggressive relationships: How frequently do they report aggressive past relationships? Violence and Victims, 6(2), 121-135.

Lindenbaum, J. P. (1985). The shattering of an illusion: The problem of competition in lesbian relationships. Feminist Studies, 11(1), 85-103.

Lockhart, L. L., White, B. W., Causby, V., & Isaac, A. (1994). Letting out the secret: Violence in lesbian relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9(4), 469-492.

Mantilla, K. (1998, November). Lesbians affected by domestic violence. Off Our Backs, 6.

Marrujo, B., & Kreger, M. (1996). Definition of roles in abusive lesbian relationships. In C. M. Renzetti & C. H. Miley (Eds.), Violence in gay and lesbian domestic relationships (pp. 23-33). New York: Harrington Park/Haworth.

Martin, D. (1981). Battered wives. San Francisco, CA: Volcano Press.

Mendez, J. M. (1996). Serving gays and lesbians of color who are survivors of domestic violence. In C. M. Renzetti, C. H. Miley (Eds.), Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships (pp. 53-59). New York: Harrington Park Press.

Merrill, G. S. (1996). Ruling the exceptions: Same-sex battering and domestic violence theory. In C. M. Renzetti & C. H. Miley (Eds.), Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships (pp. 9-21). New York: Harrington Park/Haworth.

Merrill, G. S. (1998). Understanding domestic violence among gay and bisexual men. In R. K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence. (pp. 129-141). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morrow, S. L., & Hawxhurst, D. M. (1989). Lesbian partner abuse: Implications for therapists. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68, 58-62.

Nesmith, A. A., Burton, D. L., & Cosgrove, T. J. (1999). Gay, lesbian and bisexual youth and young adults: Social support in their own words. Journal of homosexuality 27(1), 95-107.

Pagelow, M. D. (1984). Family violence. New York: Praeger.

Renzetti, C. M. (1989). Building a second closet: Third party responses to victims of lesbian partner abuse. Family Relations, 38, 157-163.

Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Renzetti, C. M. (1996). The poverty of services for battered lesbians. In C. M. Renzetti & C. H. Miley (Eds.), Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships (pp. 61-68). New York: Harrington Park Press.

Renzetti, C. M. (1997). Violence in lesbian and gay relationships. In L. L. O’Toole & J. R. Schiffman (Eds.), Gender violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 285-293). New York: New York University Press.

Renzetti, C. M. (1998). Violence and abuse in lesbian relationships: Theoretical and empirical issues. In R. K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp. 117-127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ristock, J. L. (1997). The cultural politics of abuse in lesbian relationships: Challenges for community action. In Benokraitis, N. V. (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current practice and prospects for change (pp. 279-296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schilit, R., Lie, G. Y., & Montagne, M. (1990). Substance use as a correlate of violence in intimate lesbian relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 19(3), 51-65.

Taylor, J., & Chandler, T. (1995). Lesbians talk: Violent relationships. London: Scarlet Press.

Tuel, B. D., & Russell, R. K. (1998). Self-esteem and depression in battered women: A comparison of lesbian and heterosexual survivors. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 344-362.

Walder-Haugrud, L. K., Gratch, L., & Magruder, B. (1997). Victimization and perpetration rates of violence in gay and lesbian relationships: Gender issues explored. Violence and Victims, 12(2), 173-184.

Waldron, C. M. (1996). Lesbians of color and the domestic violence movement. In C. M. Renzetti & C. H. Miley (Eds.), Violence in gay and domestic relationships (pp.43-51). New York: Harrington Park/Haworth.

Wertheimer, D. M. (1990). Treatment and service interventions for lesbian and gay crime victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5(3), 384-399.

Wise, A. J., & Bowman, S. L. (1997). Comparison of beginning counselors’ responses to lesbian vs. heterosexual partner abuse. Violence and Victims, 12(2), 127-135.