Does your partner shout to get feelings across? Does your partner behave passive one day and aggressive the next? Does your partner throw criticisms, make accusations or verbal threats to keep you on the edge? Does your partner withhold intimacy to punish you? Do you behave differently, diminish your integrity, to please your partner?

Most people will agree that those who answer yes to any of the above questions are in an emotionally abusive relationship with a partner who is not only miserable with their own life but who expects their partner to fix his/her problems. If your partner uses manipulating tactics to suggest that you change who you are to serve a fantasy of his/hers, you are in a loveless relationship. But perhaps because people are often not well educated about emotional abuse, they think it’s okay. After all, most people do not recognize emotional abuse because unlike physical abuse, the scars of emotional abuse are invisible.

While it's not Okay to suffer any kind of abuse, emotional abusers are skilled manipulators who know that what they are doing is wrong. But if you feed into their deceit, you only encourage them to keep pushing your buttons until you feel so lost in the relationship that you become desperate to repair it.

Look at the relationship. Does your partner refuse to face reality and accept responsibility for what happens in the relationship, and instead blames you, society, the world for his/her problems? Then, you can count on him/her never having the guts to take responsibility, because like children, they are dependent. They never lived independently, unless they are forced to because their partner ends the relationship. And if they do live independently, they live poorly. Unlike stable people who do live independently, abusers lack the ability to have an objective outlook on reality. They never learn nor understand the impact of their abuse on their partner because they are self-absorbed, simple minded frauds who thrive on playing the victim game.

When rationally minded people are in a good mood, they feel high energy and little tension. When we are in a bad mood, we feel low physical energy and high tension. It’s important to tune into your moods and keep a balance between negative moods and your sanity. But of course, most of us have the sense to talk ourselves out of a negative mood because we know that if we behave negatively, a price will be had for our behavior.

Emotional abusers are different. Because they lack the discipline and maturity to control their moods they have the tendency to overdramatize and respond recklessly to what’s happening around them. (This is a changeable personality that most psychologists call a schizophrenic personality. http://www.schizophrenia.com)

A changeable personality is a defect in the cortex part of the brain responsible for reliable and normal response or action. The job of the brain’s cortex is to stop impulsive and negative behavior. Those with a cortex defect cannot control the impulsive behavior long enough to consider the consequences of their actions so they behave in destructive ways.

Personality disorders occur as a result of severe, on-going emotional, sexual or physical abuse. Although schizophrenia and multiple personality disorders are commonly linked, maltreatment patterns, severe sexual, physical neglect or severe physical and emotional abuse showed the highest degree of personality disorder.
(www.psychologistanywhereanytime.com)

A study conducted on the potential causes of schizophrenia (read www.springerlink.com) discovered that emotional abuse had the greatest correlation between schizophrenia and dissociative symptoms, corroborating that emotional abuse and schizophrenia are linked.

Although debatable, physical abuse is not considered as prevalent when the perpetrator is female, but emotional abuse definitely is. Unfortunately, we live in a society where the abuse of men is not a mainstream concern and society refuses to recognize that female perpetrators are as abusive as males. (It is common for mothers who sexually abuse their sons to rely on emotional manipulation and control. www.kalimunro.com)

As long as you let them, they will blame you for their bad behavior and imply that they behave the way they do because you don’t love them enough. But it won't stop there. Tomorrow he/she will have another excuse for their negative behavior.

Love should make you feel good about yourself. To behave naturally and reveal yourself to another person is what we should desire to feel into our relationship. A positive partner is a luxury, not a necessity. You don’t need him/her to feel complete. You were complete long before you let him/her into your life. Knowing all this, how can you trust or believe in someone who refuses to change his/ her behavior to better the relationship? How can you feel anything but despair, especially when the time you do spend together is usually emotionally abusive? Maybe it's time to let go.

REFERENCES

www.healthzine.org/mental-health, www.springerlink.com, www.guidetopsychology.com, www.askmen.com - "Vanquish Her Emotional Abuse" by Lawrence Mitchell.

In May 14, 2007, a study conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health discovered an association between environmental exposures and asthma, a strong indication that women in highly stressful domestic violence relationships are prone to developing asthma. (www.myasthmacentral.com)

The volunteers for the study were asked not only if anyone in the household suffered from asthma, but also of their history of experiencing or witnessing domestic violence. Together with the data gathered by the Harvard researchers, they had included other factors associated with asthma, exposure to tobacco smoke, the level of education and income.

The study revealed that women who had experienced domestic violence in the past year had a 37 percent increased risk of asthma. The women who had not experienced domestic violence themselves but had lived in a household where some women had been beaten, there was a 21 percent increased risk of asthma than for women who did not live in violent households. As well, women living in a household where she experienced domestic violence also increased the risk of reported asthma in children and adult men.

Although the Harvard researchers could not conclude the association between domestic violence and asthma 100 percent, there is evidence of several mechanisms explaining a strong relationship between the two. Exposure to violence, and other psychological and social stressors in fact affect the immune system, and in turn that inflammation in the system plays a role in the development of asthma. And those exposed to violence may adopt certain coping behaviors that may predispose them to asthma, such as cigarette smoking.

This is the first study to examine the relationship between violence and asthma in India, where domestic violence is at high levels, and where the World Health Organization estimates 15-20 million asthmatics live. "Asthma is socially patterned with a higher prevalence among lower socio-economic groups, probably because of greater exposure to adverse environmental and social circumstances," Dr. S.V. Subramanian of the Harvard School of Public Health expressed.

Although the study had established the strong link of women in domestic violence relationships developing asthma, the Harvard researchers failed to conduct a study on how men who are in domestic violence relationships are affected with asthma. In all fairness, two separate studies would explain how men in abusive relationships are affected with asthma as well. However, the Harvard study ignored half the population. What was the scientific basis for the Harvard School of Public Health to exclude the battered men from its study on domestic violence and asthma, even though the study indicated that "asthma risk was also higher among the men living in violent households?"

Because men experience domestic violence with health impact, more research is needed to determine the best ways for doctors to ask men if they have experienced violence, and how best to help them into couple counseling, leaving their abusive partners or getting protection orders. (The National Domestic Violence Hotline is toll free 1-800-799-SAFE, www.sciencedaily.com for further information on how domestic violence affects men's health.)

The latest data from the Center for Disease Control had shown that in the United States alone and every year, approximately 1.5 million (six months ago) women and 800,000 men are raped or physically assaulted by a partner. However, there is no data available to establish how 14% of the men in abusive relationships (and who require medical attention) are affected with asthma. (http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract - The University of Pennsylvania emergency room.)

There is no doubt that if an unbiased scientific study were fairly conducted, medical researchers would discover that the same factors found in women in domestic violence environments apply to men with the same respiratory conditions as addressed by the Harvard School of Public Health.

REFERENCES

http://www.nfvlrc.org, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu, http://www.scienceblog.com, http://www.newsvine.com, www.psychcentral.com/news/2008/05/19/, www.health.usnews.com/usnews/health

The popular asthma drug, Singulair, may be linked to suicide. The FDA (May 15, 2008 - Bottom Line Publication) is investigating the "montelukast" drug because anecdotal accounts suggest an association between the drug and suicidal thoughts and behavior. The person taking this drug should be alert to changes in mood and/or behavior and report the chemical affects to their doctor perhaps to switch to another drug.

How much is too much television watching? And how positive are the programs that network stations encourage our children to watch today?

Nielsen Media Research had once reported that the average person watches 28 hours of television a week, while Business Week reported that half the country's more than 102 million households tune in.

Most children, in particular, begin watching television as early as six months, and are intense viewers by the time they reach 2-3 years of age. Televised viewing increased with age, but gradually lessens by the time the child becomes an adolescent, according to researchers and psychologists and whether that particular child was raised without watching violent content on television, which is far more important than the amount of television he or she watches while growing up.

Most parents and television viewers in general will argue that times have changed. That there was a time when public stations actually cared about what the American people watched (especially our children.) However, in recent years, if television viewers did not watch a new program, the network station would immediately pull the plug on the program, regardless if the parents felt that the educational or entertaining program had a positive influence on their children.

This could mean that parents-children viewers are not who television broadcast stations rely on for their ratings. Viewers’ opinions about what occurs with our public stations have become obsolete, with lesser educational and entertaining programs, while the increase in programs that depict/promote nudity, vulgarity, brutal fighting, characters who hit their partners and violence has risen. Public stations' ratings have taken precedence over programs that interest viewers in a positive way.

Although not as strongly as in the last 10 years, responsible parents do write to local television stations (and movie networks) to state, not only to cut the violence and inappropriate content for children, but especially to provide challenging, constructive, educational and entertaining programs suitable for the minds of our children. Those parents make a difference by demanding public stations to take responsibility for the inappropriate television programs that would eventually change the attitudes of their children in a negative way and instead of focusing on their network ratings as a primary goal.

Seventy percent of parents watch television with their children regularly and have noticed the dramatic changes in a variety of programs public stations are providing, and in which they feel will eventually cause their child to behave violently, given the times we live in, where sex and violence are both heavily presented on television.

Reasonable parents are worried that this sort of viewing (despite the discretion caption notice at the beginning of the program) may damage children's faith in the stability of their own family. Children cannot understand violent and/or sexual situations, particularly when they view adults having sex with different partners. Therefore, parents and network stations need to understand how children react and respond to television violence.

Many parents sincerely believe that children (especially boys) often play out and imitate the kids’ cartoon heros on television. Other parents believe that the animated Family Guy program isn't their meaning of a family-oriented program to watch with their children.

Then we have the group of parents who (despite the fact that more violent content is shown on television) do not recognize the affects of watching violent content may have on the minds of their children. Unfortunately, the parents who condone inappropriate television programs for their children outweigh the voices of those parents who do recognize and convey their concerns to the network stations.

Those parents who permit their children to watch television programs wtih sexual and violent content do not believe the research studies indicating that watching sexual scenes or violent content on television influences the underdeveloped minds of their children to behave violently in the the future because in their opinion, despite "viewer discretion," television programs are less violent today than during the time they were growing up. They rationalize that they grew up watching programs with violent content and sexual scenes when they were kids and have not been negatively affected. Therefore, it's unlikely that their own cildren would become negatively influenced by most (viewer discrettion) programs created for children today.

At the other end of the table, we have the group of parents who really believe that in the past 20 years, programs were more educational and entertaining than the programs created for our children today. They also believe that violence today is more prevalent in programs than in the true family-oriented programs of the past. These parents believe that those parents who do not see any problems with the programs for children today have no clue on how harmful the affects of onscreen violence could eventually influence children, particuarly children who copy-cat the violent behavior they view. After all, children believe that whatever adults watch and do is right, even if what they watch is confusing and disturbing to them.

Once upon a time, a group of psychologists believed that children should not be raised with a tolerance for violence and experiments have indicated that watching violence has a "polluting effect on children." These psychologists believe that there is as much onscreen violence as there is in our communities, and if children continue to watch violence on a regular basis, the mind will develop as they grow up believing that what they see on the screen is standard behavior.

The more children watched onscreen violence at the age of eight, the more serious were the crimes they were convicted of by age 30, the more aggressive their behavior when drinking, and the harsher the punishment they inflicted on their own children. This is not to suggest that all children will become insensitive and criminal. There's the group of children who will reach adulthood with a sense of what's right and wrong, what's real and what is make believe, but unfortunately will develop a desensitized attitude. (References noted - The Justice System's Silence toward Our Littlest Criminals.)

However, today there is a handful of psychologists and researchers who do not believe that television violence affects the behavior of children, and that there is less violence on television today than the programs shown in the past therefore there is less tolerance for any type of violence.

Most parents (70%) as those indicated above, find that the previous theory is difficult to understand. Most Americans agree that there is a strong link between disturbance on television and a real-life violent society. And as we all know, what is expertly researched or analyzed is not always fact because the results established by researchers and psychologists are often times answers to what they expect or want to find in the first place.

However, if parents who rely on the research studies/psychologists television violence is less today and that their children will not develop a tolerance for violence, perhaps they should consider watching television programs (with viewer discretion announcements) with their children and explain what is going on in the scene. That is, of course, if the parents are able to recognize bad behavior on the television screen.

Of course, with two groups of parents having diffferent views on this topic, it's difficult to determine which side makes more sense - the researchers/psychologists and parents who believe that onscreen violence is likely to affect the behaviors of their children; or the researchers/psychologists and parents who do not believe that watching violent content for any length of time could affect the mental development of their children?

Everyone has their own thoughts and ideas about what is right and what is wrong for the mental well-being of their children. But what most of us cannot argue is that this nation has appalling statistics for murder in the family - rape, espousal and child emotional and physical abuse, molestation, perversion and vulgarity. Yet, in-depth creations of violence are still offered as entertainment. At minimum, children raised with discipline, rules and parents’ moral authority watch less television.

REFERENCES
http://familyeducation.com, http://helping.apa.org/family/kidtv/viol.html

The first mention of concern over how television affects our children can be found in many congressional hearings as early as the 1950s. The United States Senate Committee on Juvenile Delinquency held a series of hearings in 1954-1955 on the impact of televison programs on juvenile crime. These hearings were only the beginning of continuing congressional investigations by this committee and others from the 1950s to the present.