...is that the anger ably described by dd, below, doesn't even have to have as its trigger anything the LW does. Everything that frustrates someone such as dd describes gets passed along at home, because getting angry and attacking people in public settings gets you fired and/or arrested.

No, it's not fiction. Nor is it a miniscule fraction of the population. I've been there, and the accounts I've seen here are all too familiar.

Sure, there's no absolute certainty that she'll go after him with a knife or gun. And there's no absolute certainty that she'll hit any kids they might have. But the chances are a lot higher than if she DIDN'T have violent episodes.

Everybody gets mad. Some of us can get very mad indeed. Whether that's normal or desirable I'll leave to the academics among us, but when anger becomes action, it leaves the realm of the academic and becomes dangerous.

All that aside, the chances of them being able to stay together and fix things as is has to be close to zero. The only chance for them, together or separately, is to remove the possibility of another violent encounter until they either work things out or give up. And that means avoidind physical proximity.

...when they get into relationships where their needs get met only at too high a cost to their emotional or physical well-being, costs which often are not apparent until it's too late to get out easily. No one I know goes around advertising the fact that they are going to abuse anyone who falls in love with them. These things generally take time to emerge.

Does the LW need to examine why he got into the relationship, and why he still wants to stay in it? Sure. But that can wait until after the issue of physical security is dealt with. First, you get the alligators off your ass, and only then do you worry about draining the swamp.

--is a luxury of the living.

The one time a girlfriend trained a gun on me, it was a bolt out of the blue. No warning signs, no buildup, just the business end of a (thankfully unloaded) 12 gauge. Had I made her mad? Yes. Was her action an appropriate response? No. Should I have left her then? Oh yes.

Assuming there's a predictable timetable to when violence will escalate isn't really safe, is it? The LW doesn't know, you don't know, I don't know, Cary doesn't know, if or when the woman will escalate. Given that, I prefer to advise erring on the side of safety, even if it does boil down to playing the percentages.

I don't care if she advertises for Bush. The only worthwhile standard for judging an artist as an artist is their art. If it came out that Shakespeare diddled 13 year old boys would you boycott King Lear?

Some of the greatest artists in history have been asshats. It may diminish them as human beings, but it doesn't keep me from enjoying what they've produced. Sometimes it even makes the experience deeper--as in "how could such a jerk come up with something like THAT?"

This used to be understood, even in Western cultures. However, as staying in hotels came to replace staying with friends and relations, many forgot these rules, which include:

1) Being under your roof means being under your protection. Your guest is far from home and vulnerable because of that, whatever else the situation. They are de facto family, and more so.

2) It is rude to refuse any reasonable offer of hospitality a host makes, as these offers are based on the host affirming his position as someone who can afford to be generous.

That said, it would have been entirely ethical for the boyfriend to attempt to recognize--NOT REPAY--the generosity shown him, preferably through non-pecuniary means. But the LW's father short-circuited this possibility, ham-handedly changing the situation from one of intangible obligation into one of pure financial debt, "buying" the boyfriend's obligation as if it were a fungible instrument. The crassness of this attitude is at once repulsive and indicative. What other aspects of relationships does this man think he can buy and sell?

This is of course all dependent on taking the LW at her word. And in that department I would encourage less "detective work" and armchair psychoanalysis on the part of all concerned, starting with Cary. Let the writer ask what they want without second-guessing their intent; you will NEVER know enough to solve any deep-rooted issues they may or may not have, so why not just answer the question that's asked instead of attempting to read between the lines all the time?