*All persons mentioned or alluded to herein are presumed innocent unless otherwise proven guilty.
DV/IPV
While serving in the capacity as military police (MP) when in the Marine Corps, the overwhelming majority of emergency calls to which I responded were related to domestic violence (DV). Defining this term, the United Nations (UN) describes it as:
[A] pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure, or wound someone.
The one criticism I have with this definition is that it centers the role of an “intimate partner” as the sole target of abuse while simultaneously declaring that “any relationship” qualifies for DV (e.g., parent-on-child abuse). Thus, the World Health Organization clarifies:
Intimate partner violence [IPV] refers to behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours. This definition covers violence by both current and former spouses and partners.
As an MP, I once responded to an emergency call in which I suspected that a father held an iron to his daughter’s forearm as a means of punishing her, as this represents DV. During that same timeframe, I responded to a call in which a female Marine was suspected of having physically assaulted her male dependent husband, as this represents IPV.
As such, ostensibly all DV involves violence within a close relationship, though not all DV relates to romantic relationships. Clarifying the matter of IPV relationships, one source states:
An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship that involves emotional or physical closeness between people and may include sexual intimacy and feelings of romance or love. Intimate relationships are interdependent, and the members of the relationship mutually influence each other. The quality and nature of the relationship depends on the interactions between individuals, and is derived from the unique context and history that builds between people over time. Social and legal institutions such as marriage acknowledge and uphold intimate relationships between people. However, intimate relationships are not necessarily monogamous or sexual, and there is wide social and cultural variability in the norms and practices of intimacy between people.
The distinction I’ve drawn between DV and IPV is subtle, as I understand that most people I’ve known simply refer to any violence within a close relationship as DV. I don’t quibble with this characterization, though I’ve offered clarification for the benefit of the reader.
Noteworthy, in a blogpost entitled Feminism, I stated:
During my service, MPs used the Duluth Model when responding to IPV calls. Per one source, “The feminist theory underlying the Duluth Model is that men use violence within relationships to exercise power and control.”
When responding to IPV calls as an MP, the man was always presumed to be guilty of instigating abuse, because of the Duluth Model according to which we operated. Therefore, the aforementioned female Marine’s dependent husband was considered the aggressor even though it was clear he was actually the victim.
Surprisingly, the UN currently uses an updated version of the Duluth Model which demonstrates that males and females alike may exhibit power and control through acts of DV/IPV. However, perhaps due to oversight, it still illustrates that “male privilege” is a component though conveniently excludes female privilege (i.e., not being arrested when one is an aggressor):
One remains unclear as to how “male privilege” played a role when I contacted law enforcement officers while being abused by an intimate partner and I was threatened with removal from the home, because I was a man and police used the Duluth Model at that time. It’s almost as though it’s been normalized within society to view women as intrinsic victims.
In any case, it wasn’t until I was in graduate school for social work that I learned truth about what I call the DV/IPV industrial complex. There appeared to be a skewing of the data with a hammer in search of a nail, as perverse incentives likely played a role in the aggressor-victim distinction.
For instance, it may surprise the reader to know that one source extensively reports:
· Overall, 22% of individuals assaulted by a partner at least once in their lifetime (23% for females and 19.3% for males)
· Higher victimization for male than female high school students
· Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)
· 80% of individuals have perpetrated emotional abuse
· Among large population samples, 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 42% unidirectional; 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male to female (MFPV), 28.3% was female to male (FMPV)
· Male and female IPV perpetrated from similar motives – primarily to get back at a partner for emotionally hurting them, because of stress or jealousy, to express anger and other feelings that they could not put into words or communicate, and to get their partner’s attention
· Of the ten papers containing gender-specific statistical analyses, five indicated that women were significantly more likely to report self-defense as a motive for perpetration than men. Four papers did not find statistically significant gender differences, and one paper reported that men were more likely to report this motive than women. Authors point out that it might be particularly difficult for highly masculine males to admit to perpetrating violence in self-defense, as this admission implies vulnerability
· None of the studies reported that anger/retaliation was significantly more of a motive for men than women’s violence; instead, two papers indicated that anger was more likely to be a motive for women’s violence as compared to men
· Few studies have examined the consequences of physical victimization in men, and the studies that have been conducted have focused primarily on sex differences in injury rates
· Because research on the psychological consequences of abuse on male victims is very limited and has yielded mixed findings (some studies find comparable effects of psychological abuse across gender, while others do not) it is premature to draw any firm conclusions about this issue
· LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans] populations: Higher overall rates compared to heterosexual populations
· Rates of physical PV [partner violence] were higher for female perpetration /male victimization compared to male perpetration/female victimization
· There were 54 comparisons made for psychological abuse including controlling behaviors and dominance, with higher rates found for female perpetration /male victimization
· Of the 19 direct comparisons made for sexual PV, rates were found to be higher for female perpetration /male victimization in 7comparisons
· Based upon the analyses and conclusions produced by these studies, we find that the most frequent outcome reported is that sanctions that follow an arrest for IPV have no effect on the prevalence of subsequent offending
· Women [were] more likely than men to be cited rather than be taken into custody
· Men are more likely than women to be convicted and to be given harsher sentences
· Males were consistently treated more severely at every stage of the prosecution process, particularly regarding the decision to prosecute, even when controlling for other variables (e.g., the presence of physical injuries) and when examined under different conditions
· Dual arrests were more likely in same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples, perhaps due to incorrect assumption by police that same-sex couples more likely to engage in mutual violence
· Mock juries more likely to assign blame responsibility to male perpetrators in contrast to female perpetrators, even when presented with identical scenarios
This data is unsurprising to me, as I’ve monitored the DV/IPV industrial complex which appears to closely guard a narrative purporting those big, bad, meanie-pants men account for virtually all DV/IPV of fragile, pious, innocent-skirt women. False dichotomies abound!
A “bad boy” and REBT
I’m a Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) practitioner. My reason for declaring this is because I don’t look at fallible human beings as good, bad, right, wrong, holy, evil, or otherwise. Expanding upon this matter, one source states:
In REBT therapy, we look at the behaviors, not people being rated. Also, punishment is effective in changing behaviors, not in condemning people. REBT believes certain acts are inappropriate or antisocial and those who do these behaviors are acting stupidly or being neurotic and better helped to change.
For more information regarding this issue, I invite the reader to review my blogpost entitled Are Humans Good? Aside from personal views, if a person or entity chooses to self-identify as “bad,” who am I to declare that they shouldn’t, mustn’t, or oughtn’t to do so?
Case in point, Sean “Diddy” Combs’ record label is Bad Boy Records. As an old school hip hop head, I’ve paid attention to swirling rumors throughout the years about how Diddy allegedly treated his artists – as most of the accounts haven’t reflected well of Diddy.
However, I’ve no firsthand knowledge to corroborate such claims. Likewise, there are people who’ve told audacious stories of my alleged past behavior and I disregard that which evidence doesn’t support. Ergo, I give Diddy the benefit of the doubt regarding speculative claims.
Nevertheless, recent allegations of Diddy’s alleged criminal behavior have once again surfaced. Aside from astonishing tales of supposed underage sex trafficking, blackmail, rape, and various other allegations, Diddy has been alleged to have physically assaulted his reported former intimate partner Casandra “Cassie” Ventura.
A video which appears to show Diddy assaulting Cassie has generated nationwide discussion about DV/IPV. To be clear, I have no intention of victim blaming, which one source states “occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them.”
If the accusations regarding the Diddy and Cassie video – or other rumored details of their reported intimate partner relationship – are true, I fully disavow support of Diddy beyond the historic purchase of Bad Boy Records albums. I don’t support DV/IPV behavior.
Additionally, I make no particular remarks about Cassie apparently remaining with a man who allegedly abused her. After all, I remained with a woman who subjected me to psychological and physical abuse, and if my lived experience is any indicator of poor judgment, I understand why people stay in DV/IPV relationships.
Cassie and Diddy aside, I think about DV/IPV from the perspective of REBT. Using hypothetical client X who refers to himself as a “bad boy,” suppose that he contacts me for services related to care for mental, emotional, and behavioral health (collectively “mental health”).
Client X tells me that the reason he psychologically and physically abuses his intimate partner is due to alleged “anger issues,” as though this naturally occurring and arguably healthy negative emotion causes his behavior when abusing his partner. I’d introduce him to the tenets of REBT.
REBT theory uses the ABC model to illustrate how when Activating events (“Actions”) occur and people maintain irrational Beliefs about the events, these unhelpful assumptions – and not the actual occurrences – are what create unpleasant cognitive, emotive, bodily sensation, and behavioral Consequences.
In particular, there are four predominate irrational beliefs which people use: demandingness, awfulizing, low frustration tolerance, and global evaluations. Addressing these, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unhelpful assumptions in order to explore Effective new beliefs.
From a psychological standpoint, people disturb themselves using a Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that in the context of the naturalistic or physical world there is no Action-Consequence (A-C) connection.
If a semi-truck strikes you (Action), you may die (Consequence). Still, if you live through the experience and unproductively Believe, “That shouldn’t have happened to me,” then you’ll likely disturb yourself into sorrow, anger, or another unpleasant emotion (Consequence).
In the case of client X, his intimate partner has been caught cheating (Action) and client X unfavorably Believes, “This bitch has ruined our relationship and it’s awful that things will never be the same!” Noteworthy, there are two components to client X’s self-disturbance.
He uses a distorted inference (i.e., his partner has ruined the relationship) followed by an irrational assumption (i.e., “it’s awful”). Use of these self-upsetting narratives are what create client X’s rage, hostility, aggression, and violence – which is more significant than anger alone.
I help people to stop upsetting themselves through use of B-C connections, though I can’t fully resolve their A-C connections. In other words, I can’t rewind time and stop client X’s partner from cheating. I’m not a time traveler.
What I can do is help him understand and hopefully believe in the ABC model and how self-disturbance occurs. If there were a mathematical formula for the ABC model, it would be something like: Action + Belief = Consequence ÷ Disputation = Effective new belief.
Furthermore, REBT uses the technique of unconditional acceptance to relieve suffering. This is accomplished through use of unconditional self-acceptance, unconditional other-acceptance, and unconditional life-acceptance.
Therefore, I could encourage client X to continuously (and I mean daily) practice REBT as a means of reducing unhealthy negative emotions and unproductive behaviors. This is because client X isn’t actually a “bad boy,” though his behavior is inappropriate and harmful.
Of course, a major component of what I do as an REBT psychotherapist relates to helping clients understand the utility of personal responsibility and accountability (collectively “personal ownership”). This is one of the most challenging functions of my work.
If I’m ineffective at persuading client X about how his behavior impacts others, or if client X refuses to accept personal ownership, then his will likely be one of those cases whereby an individual illogically and unreasonably concludes that mental health care isn’t effective.
Additionally, a foundational element incorporated into REBT relates to Stoicism—a philosophical practice valuing four virtues (wisdom, courage, temperance or moderation, and justice) as a means of achieving eudemonia—a life well-lived. All of these techniques require frequent practice (and seriously, I mean daily).
Love is blind
I think it’s appropriate to preface what I’m about to discuss by familiarizing the reader with a generous portion of what I’ve historically expressed about being “in love.” In a blogpost entitled Luv(sic), I stated:
Though not a recognized mental health condition, one source describes lovesickness occurring when “you may become consumed by thoughts or feelings of yearning for the romantic love of someone.”
A separate source expands upon this by describing lovesickness as an “ailment [that] involves all those unwanted feelings you might experience when your passion doesn’t play out as planned.” This explanation, whether intended or not, highlights the connection between one’s interpretation and resulting emotions.
I suppose one could argue from a materialist perspective, declaring that the chemical composition of attraction—or what many refer to as being “in love”—is comprised by fluctuation of dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and phenylethylamine.
Essentially, we get ourselves high when romantically attracted to others. However, this process isn’t solely a biological matter. The consequence of our beliefs may have a lot to do with it.
I’m not hiding the ball regarding the interplay of biological (chemical) and psychological (beliefs impacting emotions) effects of what people refer to as the experience of being in love—euphoric, nervous, and romantic attraction. I affirmatively argue that this process is irrational.
Additionally, being in love isn’t the same phenomenon as the experience of love—strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties. Although the former isn’t rational, there’s a logical and reasonable case to be made for the latter. As an example, consider the following syllogism:
Form –
If p, then q; p; therefore, q.
Example –
If I unconditionally accept that my child is a fallible human being in whom I place more value than other humans, then I love my child. I unconditionally accept that my child is a fallible human being in whom I place more value than other humans. Therefore, I love my child.
This logic follows from a valid premise. Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude that unconditional acceptance of one’s imperfect child equates to love – even when one’s child behaves in an inappropriate manner and is later referred to in a blogpost as “client X.”
In any case, I recognize that just as DV and IPV are often conflated in common parlance, I understand that many people consolidate the phenomenon of being “in love” with the experience (or what some refer to as an emotion) of “love.” For example, consider the following song.
In 1999, lyricist Eve released her debut album Let There Be Eve...Ruff Ryders’ First Lady. It’s a classic album from the golden era of hip hop, and I’m grateful to have been around and experienced life with all its ups and downs with the anthology to assist with memory encoding.
The album contains a song called “Love Is Blind,” featuring the vocals of Faith Evans, which one source describes thusly:
When Eve and her best friend Andrea were in high school, Andrea was in love with a man, with whom she became pregnant. The man had become increasingly abusive toward Andrea, culminating in him severely injuring her in a case of domestic violence. It led Eve to write the song, in which she recounts the abuse and raps to the man who was responsible: “I don’t even know you and I’d kill you myself / You played with her like a doll and put her back on the shelf / Wouldn’t let her go to school and better herself / She had a baby by your ass and you ain’t giving no help”. The last verse of the song tells a fictional story in which Eve’s friend has been killed by her partner and Eve exacts revenge by shooting and killing the abuser.
The song served as a powerful reminder that the DV/IPV cases on which I’d worked at the time as an MP had significant consequences. Back then, I ignorantly believed in an A-C connection. Now that I understand the B-C connection, I see things differently.
While I maintain that domestic abuse (Action) can cause serious bodily harm or even death (Consequence), I submit that one’s unhelpful philosophy (Belief) is what causes unpleasant psychological effects (Consequence). I have little doubt that many will disagree with this view.
In fact, I suspect that a significant number of people may unhelpfully claim that encouragement for a victim of DV/IPV to take personal ownership for one’s own response to beliefs associated with abuse somehow constitutes victim blaming. However, this is a profound misunderstanding of what I’m advocating.
While I’m not insinuating that a person is responsible and accountable for DV/IPV, I have no qualms with asserting that one’s response to abuse is heavily dependent upon one’s attitude, philosophy, or beliefs about the activating event(s). This is a Stoic approach to the issue.
Whereas a victimhood narrative disempowers one who is subject to the power and control of DV/IPV, a Stoic approach disempowers the abuser while empowering the victim to free oneself from the psychological shackles of harm. Although it doesn’t count as empirical evidence, forgive me an anecdote.
While serving as an MP, I met a woman who was going through the separation portion of a state-required step toward divorce. She told me of how abusive her husband allegedly was and how helpless she apparently was at doing anything to stop the reported maltreatment.
Using the A-C connection while valuing a “Love Is Blind” approach to life, I wanted to white knight for the perceived damsel in distress with whom I’d fallen in love. Keep in mind that being “in love” is an irrational process, so judge me as one would judge a delusional individual.
It’s worth noting that the chorus of “Love Is Blind” twice states:
Love is blind and it will take over your mind
What you think is love, is truly not
You need to elevate and find
I was blinded by beliefs I told myself about the woman’s alleged abuse. Therefore, my unhelpful philosophy on life was irrational. What I thought was love was little more than a chemical reaction. When mixed with unfavorable beliefs, I threw caution to the wind.
After years of being with the woman, I lost a significant job, family members, and friends, and damaged my reputation beyond repair. Years following the collapse of our intimate partner relationship, correlated with which I experienced IPV, I held her responsible for the outcome.
However, dear reader, I was wrong, wrong, wrong! (One more time for the people in the back, I was wrong!) There was no A-C connection that justified how I felt (emotions and bodily sensations) or behaved. None! (Admittedly, it’d be convenient if I could blame such a connection.)
The psychological shackles of harm were placed on me by yours truly. In all honesty, being cheated on, getting struck in the face, continuously being manipulated, or having to spend thousands of dollars on legal defense, a B-C connection best explains my unpleasant outcome.
At some point, it was important for me to understand that I wasn’t a victim – though a volunteer – for the ride I was taking. Voluntarily, I tolerated and accepted maltreatment. Still, I had a choice in the matter. I could’ve walked away.
Now, reflect upon something I said earlier when stating that “if my lived experience is any indicator of poor judgment, I understand why people stay in DV/IPV relationships.” I do understand why victims tend to stay in abusive relationships.
Nevertheless, understanding how someone fell into a hole isn’t the same thing as comprehending why someone would remain in that condition. This is where victim’s advocates from the DV/IPV industrial complex rush in to white knight, disempower victims of abuse, and keep them in psychological holes.
After all, my declaration for people to take control of their lives, admit personal agency, assume personal ownership, and get out of the damned hole isn’t good for business. Victim’s advocates need victims for whom to advocate. Thus, holes are a necessary part of business. This is basic logic:
Form –
If p, then q; p; therefore, q.
Example –
If victim’s advocates exist to help victims, then victim’s advocates need victims. Victim’s advocates exist to help victims. Therefore, victim’s advocates need victims.
My approach to REBT doesn’t serve a “love is blind and it will take over your mind,” ‘so you may as well take this ass whooping’ perspective, nor does it coddle victims of DV/IPV by keeping them in psychological holes. Arguably REBT in general doesn’t assume such a position.
For context, consider what one REBT source suggests in regard to something as serious as the matter of rape:
[If] we look at the typical irrational beliefs that people have about being raped, we will see that these beliefs are not an integral part of the rape experience, but reflect what people bring to the experience when they reflect on it. They are best viewed as post-rape irrational beliefs. Examples of such irrational beliefs are:
· “I absolutely should have stopped this from happening.”
· “This has completely ruined my life.”
· “Being raped means that I am a worthless person.”
Whilst it is understandable that people who have been raped should think this way, this does not detract from the fact that they are responsible for bringing these irrational beliefs to the experience. It is for this reason that REBT theory holds that very negative A’s do not “cause” emotional disturbance. This is actually an optimistic position. If very negative events did cause emotional disturbance, then you would have a much harder time overcoming your disturbed feelings than you do now when we make the assumption that these feelings stem largely from your irrational beliefs.
Thus, the B-C connection serves as a causative matter in self-disturbance. This includes matters related to hypothetical client X’s partner cheating on him, issues concerning my DV/IPV anecdote, and rape.
Considering empowerment stemming from the ability to remove one’s self-imposed shackles, I think of the last chorus line of “Love Is Blind” that states, “You need to elevate and find.” Use of the term “need to” is a form of should statement.
However, unlike a self-disturbing absolutistic should narrative, “need to” in this case represents a preferential should statement. This is an adaptive narrative akin to saying, “I need to drink enough water to stay alive.”
Thus, if one wants to elevate and find a way through the irrationality of in-love blindness and get out of a damned psychological hole, one may need to consider use of REBT. Although not an easy process, I argue that remaining in a DV/IPV relationship isn’t all too easy either.
Conclusion
When on active duty military service as an MP, I understood very little about DV/IPV. As policing procedures were informed by the Duluth Model, men were automatically considered the perpetrators of abuse even though this assumption wasn’t borne out from evidence regarding the emergency calls to which I responded.
Many years after fulfilling my role in law enforcement, I discovered what I now refer to as the DV/IPV industrial complex—a victim’s advocate enterprise that largely centers females as victims and males as perpetrators of DV/IPV. It was then that I began learning about the statistical occurrence of female-initiated abuse.
Herein, I’ve made no claim that most or all of either sex or gender is solely responsible for the perpetration of violence. Rather, in the interest of equality – which is ostensibly antithetical to the DV/IPV industrial complex and psychological holes – I’ve highlighted human fallibility.
After all, I’m an REBT practitioner that doesn’t needlessly regard people as good, bad, or otherwise. Therefore, I’ve maintained that imperfect people are capable of exhibiting inappropriate and even harmful behavior.
Thus, I’ve not concluded that there’s a “bad boy” who presumably commits violence, even if one’s record label may suggest otherwise. Herein, I’ve addressed the purported Diddy-Cassie ordeal and outright denounced support of Diddy if accusations of him are proven true in a court of law.
Likewise, I’ve addressed how I would approach treatment of hypothetical client X who reaches out to me for mental health care associated with rage, hostility, aggression, and violence. In particular, I’ve illustrated how I’d treat this matter using REBT.
Additionally, I’ve referenced a personal declarative statement regarding the “in love” process as that which concerns irrationality. Of course, this is a different matter than actually loving someone, which I’ve suggested can be a rational experience.
As well, I’ve examined lyricist Eve’s song “Love Is Blind” and provided my unique perspective on disempowering victimhood maintained by the DV/IPV industrial complex versus the empowering approach to rational living offered through REBT. Not everyone will appreciate my proposal.
Nevertheless, one of the main objectives of REBT is to help people get better, not merely feel better. Therefore, I’ve advocated pushing through discomfort as a means of freeing oneself from the unpleasant consequences of beliefs rather than seeking comfort through catharsis while shackles remain in place and one remains in a hole of psychological despair.
Perhaps you’re in a DV/IPV relationship and experiencing misery associated with your philosophy on life. The experience of being in love may be blind, though I may be able to help you see more clearly. If you’d like to know more, I look forward to from you.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As the world’s foremost old school hip hop REBT psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs. (n.d.). What is the Duluth Model? Retrieved from https://www.theduluthmodel.org/what-is-the-duluth-model/
Dryden, W. and Neenan, M. (2006). Rational emotive behaviour therapy: 100 key points and techniques. Routledge. Retrieved from https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/4b0e2552-2a18-4998-b44f-3a993148f7ac/downloads/REBT%202.pdf?ver=1627365797554
DV Research. (n.d.). Facts and statistics on domestic violence at-a-glance. Domestic Violence Research. Retrieved from https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/
Entertainment Tonight. (2024, May 20). Diddy breaks silence on security footage of Cassie assault [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/g2bqlx7WA58?si=4VLoKuNS6il7uHdI
Freepik. (n.d.). Young and depressed adult at home [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/young-depressed-adult-home_29973146.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=48&uuid=02ca694f-4bcb-4ce1-b480-9a4c2c954935
Health Plus. (2018, January 18). The science behind why we fall in love. Mount Elizabeth Hospitals. Retrieved from https://beta.mountelizabeth.com.sg/healthplus/article/the-science-behind-why-we-fall-in-love
Hollings, D. (2022, September 5). A hammer in search of a nail. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-hammer-in-search-of-a-nail
Hollings, D. (2023, December 11). Are humans good? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/are-humans-good
Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern
Hollings, D. (2024, January 7). Delusion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/delusion
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, March 28). Distorted inferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distorted-inferences
Hollings, D. (2024, April 26). Eudaimonia. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/eudaimonia
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being
Hollings, D. (2023, February 9). Feminism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feminism
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Lived experience. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/lived-expereince
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance
Hollings, D. (2022, October 30). Luv(sic). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/luv-sic
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Open, honest, and vulnerable communication. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/open-honest-and-vulnerable-communication
Hollings, D. (2024, February 24). Personal agency. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-agency
Hollings, D. (2022, November 7). Personal ownership. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-ownership
Hollings, D. (2024, February 10). Perverse incentives. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perverse-incentives
Hollings, D. (2023, March 20). Practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/practice
Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, May 15). Rational living. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-living
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2024, April 9). Shoulding at the supermarket. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/shoulding-at-the-supermarket
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Stoicism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/stoicism
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2022, November 9). The ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-abc-model
Hollings, D. (2023, September 6). The absence of suffering. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-absence-of-suffering
Hollings, D. (2022, November 2). The formula. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-formula
Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tna
Hollings, D. (2022, November 15). To don a hat. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-don-a-hat
Hollings, D. (2022, November 14). Touching a false dichotomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/touching-a-false-dichotomy
Hollings, D. (2022, July 11). Unconditional acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, March 11). Unconditional life-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-life-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, February 25). Unconditional other-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-other-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, March 1). Unconditional self-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-self-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2024, January 16). Understanding, belief, and practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/understanding-belief-and-practice
Hollings, D. (2024, March 18). Unhealthy vs. healthy negative emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unhealthy-vs-healthy-negative-emotions
Hollings, D. (2022, November 25). Victimhood. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/victimhood
Hollings, D. (2024, April 23). White-knighting. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/white-knighting
Mandriota, M. (2021, October 18). This is what it means to be lovesick. PsychCentral. Retrieved from https://psychcentral.com/health/what-is-love-sick
Observer Today. (2021, July 25). Dispelling the negative beliefs for individuals. Retrieved from https://www.observertoday.com/opinion/commentary/2021/07/dispelling-the-negative-beliefs-for-individuals/
Raypole, C. (2021, February 1). How to recognize a bout of lovesickness — and what you can do to ‘cure’ it. Healthline. Retrieved from https://www.healthline.com/health/relationships/lovesickness
Real Eve, The. (2018, July 30). Love Is Blind [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5FAP6KN3p3w?si=YA3-rwp0WZLtBZNJ
United Nations. (n.d.). What is domestic abuse? Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/what-is-domestic-abuse
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Bad Boy Records. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Boy_Records
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Cassie Ventura. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Ventura
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Duluth Model. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Eve. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_(rapper)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Faith Evans. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Evans
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Intimate relationship. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_relationship
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Let There Be Eve...Ruff Ryders’ First Lady. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_There_Be_Eve...Ruff_Ryders%27_First_Lady
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Love Is Blind (Eve song). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Is_Blind_(Eve_song)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Sean Combs. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Combs
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Victim blaming. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
World Health Organization. (n.d.). Intimate partner violence. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/violence-info/intimate-partner-violence/
Wu, K. (2017, February 14). Love, actually: The science behind lust, attraction, and companionship. Harvard University. Retrieved from https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/
Comments