Features
“He’s not physically violent”: The myth that puts women at risk
By Dr Jessica Seamer
Estimated read time: 5 minutes
Why coercive control, emotional abuse, stalking and other non-physical forms of domestic and family violence must be recognised as serious risk indicators.
It’s Friday afternoon at school pick-up. A group of mums are chatting about weekend plans. One mentions she’s catching up with a friend who’s having a hard time. There’s family violence, an intervention order and child protection are involved.
When she learns about my background researching family violence for Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, she quickly reassures me that “it’s not like he’s physically violent”.
The comment lands heavily. It’s said to make me feel better. It’s said because she genuinely believes that detail makes a difference.
But here is the thing, it doesn’t.
We are still deeply attached to the idea that violence only counts when it leaves bruises. If there are no broken bones, there is somehow less danger, urgency and harm.
It’s a dangerous myth.
Domestic and family violence is a pattern of coercive control.
Australian research consistently shows that intimate partner violence is most often characterised by patterns of coercive control, not isolated incidents of physical assault.
Emotional and psychological abuse, including intimidation, humiliation, threats and gaslighting, are central components of this pattern.
National intimate partner homicide data and domestic violence death reviews show that non-physical forms of abuse, particularly coercive control, are commonly present prior to the killing of women by male partners.
Let that sink in.
The same research makes clear that domestic and family violence is rarely a single tactic. It is a pattern of behaviours — emotional, social, financial, sexual, physical and stalking — used to dominate and control.
Any relationship where these patterns are present carries risk.
The form of abuse matters far less than the underlying belief driving it, which is entitlement to power and control.
Family violence is defined by coercion.
This myth isn’t just held by the general public. It’s reflected in how many people who use violence understand their own behaviour.
Research on men who use violence has found that many minimise or do not recognise non-physical forms of abuse as violence, particularly when they have not used physical force.
“It’s not like I hit anyone” is a common way this minimisation shows up.
In their minds, physical violence is the line. And because they haven’t crossed it, they believe they are not “that bad”. Not really violent. Not really responsible.
This belief is dangerous on multiple fronts.
It prevents people who use violence from seeking help or accepting accountability because they minimise their behaviour. It encourages friends and family to downplay warning signs. And it can lull victim-survivors themselves into believing they are not in “real” danger.
But danger does not discriminate between forms of abuse.
ANROWS research highlights that coercive control — including isolation, monitoring, intimidation and financial control — is a key indicator of escalating risk, including risk of serious harm and homicide.
The inquest into the murder of Lilie James laid bare how coercive control, stalking and technology-facilitated abuse can escalate to lethal violence.
Evidence heard showed that coercively controlling behaviours and location tracking occurred after she attempted to end a brief relationship. Her peers did not recognise these behaviours as serious warning signs.
Why? Because, as a society, we still treat physical violence as the “real” violence, and everything else as lesser.
We continue to rank abuse and ask whether it was “bad enough”.
Meanwhile, research and death review data make it clear. Patterns of coercive control are often established well before physical violence occurs and are themselves indicators of serious risk.
As someone who has researched family violence for many years, I need to say this plainly.
From a risk perspective, the fact that power and control tactics are being used is more important than whether the violence is physical.
For those choosing to use family violence, that distinction does not make you better.
For those experiencing family violence, or supporting someone who is, that distinction does not make them safer.
Emotional abuse erodes someone’s sense of self. Financial abuse traps someone in dependency. Social isolation cuts them off from support. Surveillance and stalking make leaving terrifying.
These are not “lesser” forms of harm.
They are tactics of power and control, and they are recognised risk factors for serious harm, including homicide.
When a mother at school pick-up reassures me that “it’s not like he’s physically violent,” she is reflecting a broader social script. One that says:
“This isn’t as serious.” “This isn’t as dangerous.” “This isn’t the worst-case scenario.”
But research and coronial evidence tell us otherwise.
We can no longer afford to be less concerned about some forms of abuse than others.
We can no longer afford to treat coercive control as an unfortunate relationship dynamic rather than a serious form of violence.
The sooner we accept that all forms of domestic and family violence are dangerous and potentially deadly, the sooner we can intervene earlier — offering accountability and support to those choosing to use violence, and safety and support to those experiencing it.
Because violence doesn’t have to be physical to be real.
And it doesn’t have to leave bruises to leave someone at risk.
Dr Jessica Seamer is a Senior Research Officer at Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, where she researches domestic, family and sexual violence, with a focus on perpetrator interventions and strengthening system responses to people who use violence.
Support is available
If you or someone else, including a child, is in immediate danger, call 000.
Visit our support directory to find national, state and territory helplines and services, including 24-hour support and interpreting assistance.
Media contact:
Emmagness Ruzvidzo,
Media and Communications Manager, ANROWS
E: Emmagness.Ruzvidzo@anrows.org.au
M: 0468 322 800
About ANROWS
Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) was established by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments under Australia’s first National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (2010–2022). As an ongoing partner to the National Plan, ANROWS continues to build, strengthen and translate the evidence base that informs the current National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children (2022–2032).
With more than 150 research projects led, commissioned or contributed to, ANROWS delivers targeted evidence to inform practice, policy, and systems reform. We engage closely with victim-survivors, communities, service providers, governments and researchers to ensure our work reflects lived experience and supports collective action.
ANROWS is a not-for-profit company jointly funded by the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments. We are a registered harm prevention charity and deductible gift recipient, governed by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC).