please scroll down

Two main categories can be found which are characterised by fear and the direction of violence. Each main category has two sub-categories, i.e. the perpetrator/victim dynamic shows two subcategories, the “abusive partnership” and the “affect accented dynamic”, while bi-directional dynamics show the subcategories of “care intervowenness/care collusion” and “traumatized partnerships”.

These categories share similarities but also show significant differences, such as lack of fear in bi-directional dynamics.

Table1: Classification of dynamics

Violent dynamics in lesbian partnerships
	Perpetrator/Victim Dynamic		Participant Dynamic
	Dynamic of systematic, repeated assaults (“abusive” partnership)	Affect accented dynamic	Care interwovenness	Traumatized partnership
Direction of violence	Mono-directional exertion of violence	Mono-directional exertion of violence	Bi-directional exertion of violence	Bi-directional exertion of violence
	Cyclic process, one-sided motivation	Haphazard process, one-sided motivation	Repetitive motives, two-sided motivation	Repetitive motives, two-sided motivation
	Violence transgresses prior boundaries	Violence transgresses prior boundaries	Progression to violence	Escalation of violence
Fear	Victim’s fear determines dynamic of partnership	Victim’s fear determines dynamic of partnership	Possibility of situational fear; it does not determine dynamic of partnership	Possibility of situational fear; it does not determine dynamic of partnership
Power/Domination	Domination	Power	Power	Power
Control	Experience of loss of control (perpetrator and victim)	Experience of loss of control (perpetrator and victim)	Experience of loss of control (both parties)	Experience of loss of control (both parties)
	Feelings of powerlessness and helplessness (perpetrator and victim)	Feelings of powerlessness and helplessness (perpetrator and victim)	Feelings of powerlessness and helplessness (both parties)	Feelings of powerlessness and helplessness (both parties)
	Perpetrator exerts direct control	Perpetrator exerts indirect control	Direct and indirect control	Direct and indirect control
Hopes of partnership	Desire for care is carried over to victim	Desire for care is carried over to victim	Complementary regressive resp. progressive realization	Complementary revival of violent traumata in life history
Desire to be one with partner	Prevention of dissolution of  personal boundaries through one-sided violence	Prevention of dissolution of personal boundaries through one-sided violence	Dissolution of personal boundaries	Dissolution of personal boundaries
	Fear of losing partner (perpetrator and victim)	Fear of losing partner (perpetrator and sometimes victim)	Separation is perceived as existential threat	Re-enactment of perpetrator/victim
Addiction	Abuse of addictive drugs (including alcohol) with direct impact on partnership and violent dynamic	Abuse of addictive drugs (including alcohol) with impact on partnership and violent dynamic	Abuse of addictive drugs has no direct impact for violent dynamic and partnership	Abuse of addictive drugs (incl. alcohol) has no direct impact on partnership
Partner’s behaviour	Victim stays in partnership	Victim withdraws (smoothly) from partnership	Both partners sustain partnership actively	Both partners sustain partnership actively

Quantitative presentation of all interviews

Table 2: synopsis of conducted interviews

Violent dynamics in lesbian partnerships
Name/duration of partnership	Perpetrator/victim dynamic		Participant dynamic
	Dynamic of systematic, repeated assaults	Affect accented dynamic	Care/power intervowenness	Traumatized partnership
Mechthild (2 months)				X
Monika (3/4 yr)		X
Kirsten (2,5 yrs)	X
Sabine (10 yrs)	X
Reinhild (2 yrs)			X
Roswitha (1 yr)			(X)	X
Karin (1,5 yrs)			(X)	X
Romy (3 yrs)			X
Monika (7 yrs)	X
Juliane (3 yrs)			X	(X)
Maren (4 yrs)			X	(X)
Ilona (2 yrs)			X	(X)
Uschi (1 yrs)			X
Bettina (4 yrs)	X
Kordula (4 yrs)			X

As this summarizing table shows, more participant than perpetrator/victim dynamics can be found. Some of them show both aspects of care intervowenness and traumatized partnership. Nevertheless there is a dominant dynamic shaping the relationship. This one is marked without brackets. Even though the sample is small, more interviews have been conducted and were analysed along the described model. Further, results have been presented as various international conferences. Discussions show that the developed model seems to be sustainable.