Why Do I Still Love Him After the Abuse?
Published By admin
In the Stanford Prison Experiment, 24 college students—pre-screened for mental stability—were randomly assigned to the roles of guards or prisoners. Although physical violence was explicitly prohibited, the guards exerted control through psychological means, systematically erasing the prisoners’ identities, imposing degrading conditions and manipulating their emotional states.
Before the experiment was terminated, one participant expressed a desire to leave the study, but upon hearing his fellow prisoners label him a “bad prisoner,” he began crying and repeatedly stated, “I can’t leave, I don’t want them to think that I’m a bad prisoner”. This response shows the impact of psychological coercion, even without physical force. It raises a critical question: If brainwashing can turn a promising Stanford student into a “bad prisoner” in just three days, what are the long-term effects on individuals subjected to coercive control for years, or those born into environments of such manipulation?
Similar dynamics operate in domestic violence. Perpetrators of coercive control don’t just dominate through rules or threats; they reshape how victims see themselves, their relationships, and their options. Over time, autonomy is eroded, identity is reconstructed, and submission becomes structurally embedded. It’s not about failing to leave; it’s about being conditioned to believe there is nothing to leave to.
Coercive control restructures attachment itself, turning a basic human need into a tool of entrapment. As Bowlby (1969; 1980) argued, we form emotional bonds to seek safety—especially in times of distress. Perpetrators of coercive control exploit this need by using intermittent reinforcement—alternating affection with punishment—to create confusion, dependency, and emotional instability (Dutton & Painter, 1993; Stark, 2007). This isn’t a one-off act of harm, but a cumulative process that gradually erodes autonomy and reshapes perception. Victims often develop what researchers call trauma bonding (Freyd, 1996), a paradoxical attachment in which the threat of harm and occasional moments of relief reinforce emotional loyalty to the perpetrator (Herman, 1992). The victim remains psychologically tethered in anticipation of approval, reprieve, or a return to affection (Dutton & White, 2012; Johnson, 2008; Williamson, 2010).
Trauma bonding is reinforced by social conditioning. Gender roles that valorise female self-sacrifice, emotional labour, and dependency may teach women to see endurance as love (Gilligan, 1993; Walker, 2009). These norms make abuse easier to rationalise, especially when patriarchy devalues autonomy and frames male authority as natural (Connell, 2013). Abusers exploit this through control, isolation, and gaslighting, creating a false sense of safety in submission (Stark, 2007; Mahoney, 2013). In simple words: If love means service and obedience, then there is nothing wrong with him using and dominating me. And if using and dominating me is ok, why wouldn’t I love him?
Beyond psychological conditioning, patriarchy reinforces trauma bonding through structural barriers that make it difficult for victims to leave. Economic dependence is one of the most significant factors, as women who are financially reliant on their abusers face limited options for independent survival (Brush, 2003). Unequal pay, occupational segregation, and the undervaluation of care work contribute to the material conditions that keep women trapped with abusive men (Acker, 1990). Economic insecurity intensifies trauma bonding by making abusers not just sources of emotional reinforcement but also material survival, increasing the stakes of leaving (Stark, 2007).
Perpetrator Involvement in Creating Trauma Bonding
Trauma bonding does not happen passively; it is actively cultivated and maintained by perpetrators through deliberate psychological manipulation, control strategies, and structural reinforcement of dependency. Perpetrators of coercive control employ calculated patterns of abuse and intermittent reinforcement to condition victims into a state of emotional entrapment (Dutton & Painter, 1993; Stark, 2007). Unlike situational acts of violence, coercive control operates as a sustained system of domination, in which perpetrators systematically undermine autonomy, distort reality, and foster dependence to create an attachment dynamic that is resistant to rupture (Williamson, 2010). This process is not incidental but intentional, ensuring that victims remain psychologically tethered even in the absence of physical restraint.
Content retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ie/blog/psychology-in-the-courtroom/202509/why-do-i-still-love-him-after-the-abuse.
