Coercive control in LGBTQ+ intimate relationships

Author: Anna Rose Wehren, Loughborough University, UK

Coercive control is a form of domestic abuse characterised by a pattern of behaviors intended to harm, punish, or instill fear in an individual (Home Office, 2023). This abuse often manifests through tactics such as intimidation, isolation, humiliation, exploitation, and attempts to regulate or micromanage a person’s autonomy (Hess, 2020). The primary goal of these behaviors is to entrap someone within a relationship, creating a dependency on the person causing harm while simultaneously alienating them from their support systems (Duron et al., 2021). While this type of abuse is often discussed within the context of heteronormative relationships, it is crucial to recognise that coercive control also significantly impacts the LGBTQ+ community.

The Issue

Domestic abuse is rightly framed as a gendered crime that disproportionately affects women within heteronormative relationships (Walby & Towers, 2018). However, abuse in intimate relationships is largely shaped by unequal power dynamics, which are not solely dependent on sex, gender, or sexuality (Stark & Hester, 2019). In the context of LGBTQ+ relationships, these dynamics can be even more complex and less understood, yet they remain critically important.

Research on coercive control within LGBTQ+ relationships is scarce, but existing studies reveal the troubling reality that LGBTQ+ individuals are overtly impacted by domestic abuse (Ristock, 2011). According to SafeLives' (2020), LGBTQ+ individuals face significantly higher risks of experiencing coercive control, jealousy, harassment, stalking, and various forms of physical and sexual abuse compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Moreover, they are more likely to face abuse from multiple perpetrators, attempt suicide or self-harm as a result of abuse, and present with higher levels of complex needs due to the abuse they endure.

The lack of research on coercive control in LGBTQ+ relationships should not be mistaken for a lack of abuse within the LGBTQ+ community; rather, it highlights a significant gap in academic attention to this issue. The absence of research is particularly concerning given the unique challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, many of whom belong to multiple minority groups.

Barriers to Support

In addition to the internal power dynamics within relationships, LGBTQ+ individuals often encounter structural and cultural barriers that hinder access to support services. These barriers include homo/bi/transphobia, hate crimes, identity-based harassment, and other forms of prejudice (Harvey et al., 2014). Such factors not only underscore the minority status of LGBTQ+ people but also contribute to a phenomenon known as minority stress. First proposed by Meyer (2003), minority stress refers to the heightened stress and adverse health outcomes that result from the intersection of minority status and prevailing societal norms.

LGBTQ+ individuals additionally face unique stressors, such as concealing their true identities and dealing with internalised homophobia (McConnell et al., 2018; Meyer, 2003). Resulting from this, the stigma and shame associated with non-conforming Queer identities can lead to lowered expectations for relationships and a troubling normalisation of abusive behaviors (Donovan & Barnes, 2019). These dynamics make it even more challenging for LGBTQ+ individuals to seek help or support when experiencing coercive control in intimate relationships.

Research indicates that LGBTQ+ individuals who use harm often face significant barriers when seeking help (Donovan & Barnes, 2020). These include the perception that domestic abuse or behavioral change services are heteronormative, which can make Queer individuals feel marginalised and underserved (Harvey et al., 2014). By the time these individuals do seek help, they may already be at an increased risk of causing harm, presenting with complex needs (Stonewall, 2021)

The Need for Inclusivity in Support Services

The tools and approaches currently used by practitioners to identify and address coercive control are predominantly designed from a heteronormative perspective (Stonewall, 2021). This design neglects the specific risks and behaviors that LGBTQ+ individuals face, thereby hindering effective support and help-seeking for those involved in abusive relationships (Stonewall, 2021).

Moreover, there is a significant disparity between domestic abuse services and LGBTQ+ services. Domestic abuse services often fail to promote LGBTQ+ inclusivity and, in some cases, do not respect gender identity, contributing to LGBTQ+ individuals not perceiving their abuse as serious enough to warrant seeking help (Donovan & Barnes, 2020). On the other hand, LGBTQ+ services primarily focus on supporting victims rather than those perpetrating abuse. This duality leaves LGBTQ+ people who are affected by domestic abuse at a heightened risk of prolonged abuse. Due to the close-knit nature of the LGBTQ+ community, individuals may also hesitate to disclose their experiences of abuse, further complicating their ability to access support (Donovan & Barnes, 2020).

Conclusion

The ongoing cycle of coercive control and abuse within the LGBTQ+ community, coupled with the inadequacies of existing support systems, highlights a critical need for more research and tailored interventions. Addressing this issue requires a comprehensive understanding of the unique dynamics at play in LGBTQ+ relationships and the development of inclusive support services that effectively cater to the needs of LGBTQ+ individuals. Without such efforts, the cycle of abuse will persist, leaving many in the community at an increased risk of harm.

---

References

Donovan, C., & Barnes, R. (2019). Help-Seeking Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and/or Transgender Victims/Survivors of Domestic Violence and Abuse: The Impacts of Cisgendered Heteronormativity and Invisibility. Journal of Sociology, 56(4), p554-570. 

Donovan, C., & Barnes, R. (2020). Queering Narratives of Domestic Violence and Abuse, Victims and/or Perpetrators?. Palgrave, Cambridge. 

Duron, J. F., Hoge, G. L., Johnson, L., Postmus, J. L. (2021). Observing Coercive Control Beyond Intimate Partner Violence: Examining the Perceptions of Professionals About Common Tactics Used in Victimization. Psychology of Violence, 11(2), p144-154. 

Harvey, S., Mitchell, M., Keeble, J., McNaughton-Nicholls, C., & Rahim N. (2014). Barriers Faced by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People in Accessing Domestic Abuse, Stalking, Harassment and Sexual Violence Services. National Centre for Social Research, Rhif/Number: 48/2014. (Accessed: 02/09/2024). 

Hess, O. A. (2020). Ready to Bridge the Disconnect: Implementing England and Wales’s Coercive Control Model for Criminalizing Domestic Abuse in the United States. Indiana International & Comprehensive Law Review, 30(3), p383-448. 

Home Office. (2023). Controlling and Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship: Statutory Guidance Framework. London, Home Office. (Accessed: 02/09/2024).

McConnell,E. A., Janulis, P., Phillips, G., Truong, R., & Birkett, M. (2018). Multiple Minority Stress and LGBT Community Resilience among Sexual Minority Men. Psychology of Sex Orientated Gender Diversity, 5(1), p1-12.  

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, p674–697.

Ristock, J. (2011) ‘Introduction: Intimate Partner Violence in LGBTQ Lives’. Routledge.

Safelives. (2020). SafeLives’ 2019 Survey of Domestic Abuse Practitioners in England and Wales. Ending Domestic Abuse. (Accessed: 02/09/2024).  

Stark, E & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive Control: Update and Review. Violence against women, 25(1), p81-104.

Stonewall. (2021). Risk Assessment Checklists and LGBT+ Victims / Survivors. (Accessed: 02/09/2024). 

Walby, S., & Towers, J. (2018). Untangling the Concept of Coercive Control: Theorizing Domestic Violent Crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), p7-28.