I queried Salon.com for articles about domestic violence because I'm researching and writing an article, not about why some women stay with their abusers (or, why some women don't leave their abusers) per se, but why don't some people [sic] end their relationships at the first sign of abuse?

I plan to post my article on my blog (www.iamrj.com) and a few other sites in the very near future. For now, I have some questions for Evan Stark and a follow-up to Carolyn the Red's very point.

First, it's good to see Stark join this discussion and volunteer to "answer any questions Salon readers may have." Stark, I'm looking forward to reading more about your perspectives, especially since you admitted, "Others have said some of this before."

In fact, the phrase "coercive control" goes back at least as far as Judith Lewis Herman's book "Trauma and Recovery" (1992). In the chapter simply titled "Captivity," she wrote, "Prolonged, repeated trauma, by contrast, occurs only in circumstances of captivity. When the victim is free to escape, she will not be abused a second time; repeated trauma occurs only when the victim is a prisoner, unable to flee, and under the control of the perpetrator."

Herman added, "Political captivity is generally recognized, whereas the domestic captivity of women and children is often unseen."

Finally, she noted, "Captivity, which brings the victim into prolonged contact with the perpetrator, creates a special type of relationship, one of coercive control. This is equally true whether the victim is taken captive entirely by force, as in the case of prisoners and hostages, or by a combination of force, intimidation, and enticement, as in the case of religious cult members, battered women, and abused children. The psychological impact of subordination to coercive control may have many common features, whether that subordination occurs within the public sphere of politics or within the private sphere of sexual and domestic relations... In situations of captivity, the perpetrator becomes the most powerful person in the life of the victim..."

Thus, my first question for you, Stark, is, how is your concept of "coercive control" substantially different from Herman's? In what way, if any, does your work rely or build on Herman's (and "others")?

Stark, I'm also intrigued by your suggestion that "coercive control" should be considered a "liberty" crime, since it is "designed to take away women's freedom, autonomy, and dignity."

That is true. But, in most societies, it's not just a man, one man, that cripples and crushes a woman's, one woman's, capacity to make choices and act on them. Instead, an abused woman is also made unfree by "manhood" often as it has been socially constructed within the context of a still-patriarchal society.

"In other words," as wrote Nancy J. Hirschmann in a Frontiers article titled "Domestic Violence and the Theoretical Discourse of Freedom" (1996), "the ultimate barrier to women's freedom is patriarchy, or the social, legal, and economic control that men are accorded over women; all other particular and specific barriers that individual women experience at any given time or place, in any given relationship, in any given experiential moment, can be understood only in this larger repressive context. Accordingly, battered women's freedom is restricted by men's violence and the sexist values that underpin and perpetuate it. Women's freedom requires that this violence and its ideological supports be ended. As long as society does not recognize and support that goal, however, it is up to individual women to manage and cope in the best way they can. When looked at from this perspective, what may appear to be complicity, internalization of abuse, or even masochism may in reality be a form of resistance, management, or just plain survival.... But that does not mean she does not feel fear, that she wants or enjoys the beatings, or that she is free."

Stark, I'm wondering, of course, whether you also indict patriarchy in your new book and, if so, make recommendations for finally bringing it to justice.

Finally, I wish to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Carolyn the Red that we must "put more effort into getting people to recognize the danger signs for abuse early in, and before getting into, a relationship." Because, as she also points out, "People don't generally transform into an abuser without some clues earlier on."

Indeed, Carolyn, this is the very reason I wrote "The Measure of a Man" and "Abuse Me, Lose Me," which are also posted on www.iamrj.com. Now, if only I could convince women, in particular, and people, in general, to truly have BELOW-zero tolerance for any form of disrespectful behavior FROM DAY ONE of their relationships.

Or, as I wrote in "Abuse Me, Lose Me," at the slightest sign that your (prospective) partner is moving toward demeaning or dictating to you, kindly but sternly warn your partner that you will not allow yourself to be mistreated. However, do not be like the kid who cried wolf, sounding so many false alarms that your partner eventually ignores you. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Do not settle for anything less than honesty, respect, good communication, and the kind of problem solving that can strengthen the relationship. Make sure that your actions as well as your words say, "If you abuse me, you will lose me."