Intimate Partner Violence is a saddening reality for a large number of individuals in relationships. Such a situation is difficult to handle and has consistently been discussed in the psychology field in terms of applicable measures of action. Traditionally, the Duluth Model was adopted to deal with IPV cases, eliciting considerable success in regions where it was integrated to help perpetrators of IPV alleviate these negative traits. Contemporary society, however, poses a challenge to existing models developed to curb IP. LGBTQ individuals and male victims of domestic violence have been largely ignored when creating systems to deal with Intimate Partner Violence. The essay aims at exploring the nature of treatment plans for couples, their efficacy, admissibility, and feasibility in light of the prevailing adoption of the Duluth Model. In this manner, it would be easier to develop an aftercare plan that involves considerations for special cases as in the ones elicited above.
Conflicts are a part of any healthy relationship. However, there are extremes to which such arguments can go, resulting in an intimate partnership being mired with violence. In such situations, psychologists have often disagreed on the most effective manner to handle the case, with the preference being a rehabilitation of the perpetrator and therapy for the victim. However, some psychologists argue that couples’ therapy is helpful in this situation, which illustrates a conflicting standpoint among psychologists with regard to the effectiveness of current treatment plans developed for couples. As such, the essay aims at developing an accurate conception of treatment plans for couples and their relevance in current psychology practice (Kimmel, 2002).
Firstly, it is important to consider the efficacy of treatment programs developed for couples. Currently, psychologists differ in their approach to the subject, where some propose joint couples’ therapy while others suggest that couples should come in at different times for psychology sessions. Others, moreover, are insistent that such plans do not work as the victim may be exposed to more harm if they state something that their spouse deems inappropriate. In this way, it is likely that they will remain silent or diverge wrong information to avoid being harmed. In a situation involving couples, established treatment programs are inadequate as they are more focused on female victims, ignoring them as perpetrators and thus making the system flawed (Antunes-Alves and Stefano, 2013).
Information used to design the systems currently employed in the psychologist field is hinged upon the assumption that men are the perpetrators of violence. If in any case, a male victim shows up claiming to file abuse charges, they are likely to be deemed the crooks and the female party will be assumed to have inflicted harm on the male party in self-defense. Such a system cannot be deemed acceptable as it also ignores the plight of LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer) victims where some individuals remain silent to protect their interests. This is because of different legal systems where an individual may be denied parental privileges because of being in a LGBTQ relationship (having adopted a child) in a state where it is considered illegal (Antunes-Alves and Stefano, 2013).
Current treatment plans involving couples are focused on conventional marriages that were elicited in previous generations. With the current upscale of women in the job market, there has been a shift in the power dynamic, with women holding more power than in previous eras. In this manner, it would be prudent to inculcate variables relating to male victims when developing a treatment plan for couples (Tillyer and Wright, 2013).
The Duluth Model has been adopted in developed nations such as the United States as a standard measure for aiding in developing an IPV perpetrator, victims, and creating a customized system aimed at alleviating the socially inculcated traits of male dominance in a spouse. In this manner, it can be seen that the Duluth Model fails to consider the male spouse as a victim of IPV. This may not be in the form of physical violence, and thus it would be better for psychologists to modernize the Duluth Model to consider LGBTQ victims in IPV cases and male victims of violence in relationships (Tillyer and Wright, 2013).
Victims of domestic violence and batterers require special treatment to ensure they do not fall back into the same patterns once the treatment is over. As such, psychological institutions have continuously developed treatment plans with an aftercare option designed to prevent future IPV cases in a couple. However, these aftercare plans are defective in that they cannot control the actions of an individual after treatment. Considering that, the main issues focused on in current programs have certain blind spots such as failure to consider female perpetrators. Therefore, there is a likelihood that a couple’s problems could continue to fester beyond the treatment period (Stare and Fernando, 2014).
Moreover, when an individual is exposed to their oppressor, regardless of the situation, they are likely to curl up and avoid confrontations that may cause them physical harm. In this manner, the perpetrator will most likely dominate the therapy sessions, whether they are the man or woman. Some psychologists determine these sessions helpful, as they are able to view the couple together and observe the dynamics of their relationship. However, current systems do not view the woman as the oppressor, nor do they cover LGBTQ individuals in states where their marriages are illegal. Therefore, male victims of IPV are continuously ignored while female victims remain afraid of confronting their issues, as couples’ therapy remains relevant despite opposition from critics with valid input (Stare and Fernando, 2014).
Current treatment practices emphasize on male spouses as the perpetrator of violence while their female batterers are excused on the notion of self-defense. It is necessary to develop institutions that deviate from this practice to focus on other victim profiles and thus develop better treatment processes to help couples. Where a male spouse elicits signs of abuse such as physical marks, or any other form of IPV, it is important for a psychologist to keep an open mind when addressing their case. In this way, more male victims would be inclined to report when their spouse abuses them. This is because they would view the system, not as the oppressor but an avenue for help, an issue that cannot be said of the current system (Kimmel, 2002).
In addition to this, LGBTQ individuals in abusive relationships face significantly more problems than their heterosexual counterparts. This can be partly attributed to state laws that differ in terms of eligibility of marriage and stigmatization. The former leads to issues where the oppressed individual in a violent relationship has a child but cannot go to the authorities claiming assault because their case could lead to the child being put in foster care. Stigmatization occurs where society commonly perceives homosexual relationships as more troublesome than heterosexual ones. For that reason, such individuals find it hard going to the authorities because they do not want to prove society right on the issue. It would be better to develop special hotlines that can be used by such people and thus provide them with anonymity when seeking help (Tillyer and Wright, 2013).
