Introduction

The study addresses the issue of violence in intimate relationships from the perspective of the perpetrator. The concept of violence in romantic relationships — an issue at the intersection of individual and social pathology — draws on Worchel’s (1961, 1978) theory of aggression as a drive for power. The broadly understood drive to increase one’s own strength and control, which underlies emotional relationships with women, provides a psychological explanation for the development of violence in intimate relationships. A significant role is played by emotional and social dependency bonds, sensitivity to rejection, and the perception of critical events as threats to the self. Perpetrators’ violent behaviors aim to restore their sense of power and strength, while simultaneously depriving the victim of their sense of self-worth in both intimate and family relationships. Additionally, mechanisms of transferring frustrations from professional and other status-depriving relationships into the family sphere play an important role. These retaliatory behaviors, though only partially effective, contribute to the perpetrator’s restoration of power and sense of control over their life.

Until recently, the concept of "marital rape" did not appear at all in the literature on domestic violence. This type of rape was considered either nonexistent or occurring only sporadically. Marital rape, according to its definition, is "any unwanted intercourse or penetration (vaginal, anal, or oral) achieved through force, the threat of force, without the victim’s consent" (Bergen, 1996; Russell, 1990). This definition highlights two key aspects: the perpetrator’s use of coercion to engage in sexual intercourse and the lack of consent from the victim. Recent studies on marital rape have also included couples who are separated, cohabiting, or divorced, as the dynamics of sexual violence in long-term relationships without marriage are similar to those found in marital relationships (Bergen, 1996; Russell, 1990). The aim of this article is also to provide a psychological and sociological analysis of the phenomenon of marital rape. The findings have made it possible to characterize the occurrence of sexual violence within marriage.

The article discusses the issue of violence, which is not a marginal problem but a phenomenon commonly encountered in social life. One could say that it permeates the world, often giving the impression that there is much more of it than love, friendship, or security. The family home, which is fundamentally meant to be a safe and warm haven—a refuge from the evils of the outside world—often fails to serve as a sanctuary of love and care. Instead, it frequently becomes a place of suffering, danger, humiliation, fear, and despair. The article also analyzes the results of a study involving 145 women aged 19 to 58 who have experienced physical aggression within marriage, accompanied by psychological violence. Some of these victims adopt coping strategies that can be considered effective (functional). These strategies are not only temporary but also aimed at breaking free from the cycle of violence. However, the majority of women, seeing no way out of their situation, begin to adapt to the role of the victim and stop defending themselves. The adoption of such an attitude is often influenced not only by the victim's limited personal and social resources but also by their economic dependence on their partner, which leads to a sense of having no life prospects.

A functional family, consistently and successfully fulfilling its responsibilities, provides its members with a sense of self-worth, security, connection, and love. Such a family, through attitudes of acceptance and cooperation, creates opportunities for shaping and enriching individual personalities. However, "family warmth sometimes reaches the temperature of hellfire"—this statement by R.J. Gelles (1979) aptly reflects the extent of the danger and suffering that can be experienced within a family. The occurrence of violence in the family signals the breakdown of family life at its most fundamental level and the collapse of the family’s responsibility for ensuring the safety of its members. This may involve any form of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse intentionally inflicted by one family member upon another. Over the past 30 years, there has been a growing interest in this issue. Domestic violence has become the subject of scientific research and an area of focus for practitioners who provide assistance to individuals in crisis situations. Women and children are most often the victims of domestic violence. Researchers currently distinguish seven forms of mistreatment, collectively referred to as family abuse. These include: physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, non-organic failure to thrive (delayed physical development without organic causes), intrauterine abuse (prenatal neglect), and ritual abuse. The boundaries of family abuse are defined by the frequency of these acts and the perpetrator’s intent.

Self-destructive behaviors represent a form of human functioning that has maintained a constant presence both in the roots of ancient cultures and in the traces of new cultures around the world. They were part of various religious and tribal rituals in primitive cultures, serving to free the spirit from bodily needs and desires, to control emotions—especially aggressive feelings—and often to strengthen community bonds and interpersonal relationships. As indicated in the literature on the subject, self-destructive behaviors were also a part of religious rituals. It is also worth mentioning that this phenomenon has accompanied the pursuit of the ideal of beauty, particularly feminine beauty, for centuries. The tendency toward such behaviors is especially evident and prominent in Western European culture, where self-aggressive trends in fashion, extreme sports, and "radical" diets are among the key indicators of psychological disorders (e.g., eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia). These trends contribute to the destabilization of social and family life, as well as the individual’s daily functioning. Self-destructive tendencies usually encompass various behaviors that, to a greater or lesser extent, lead to harmful consequences for the individual.

Emotions, feelings, and moods are an integral part of every person’s daily life. They enrich experiences, help in making choices, but in some situations, they are perceived as undesirable because they can hinder functioning. This is why there is a continuous search for effective methods of influencing one's emotional life. The recipient of this question is, of course, the psychologist—"a specialist in the human inner world." Unfortunately, despite the increasing focus on this issue over the past few years, especially in the context of the recently popular concept of emotional intelligence, there is still little data on the possibilities of intentionally regulating emotional life. It is worth noting that in the analysis of emotion regulation, the specificity of individual modalities is generally not taken into account. These modalities manifest in all components: physiological arousal, subjective experience, cognitive processes, expression, and behaviors related to a particular priority. This approach is partially justified because, as discussed in this article, some strategies for coping with affective experiences are universal and are applied regardless of the specific emotion being experienced. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify behaviors characteristic of particular affective states—largely

Psychology as a science has been developing for over 100 years. During this time, a characteristic pattern of its development can be observed, closely linked to changes occurring in other scientific fields as well. Initially, scientific psychology focused mainly on describing and studying relatively simple human reactions to external stimuli. Such reactions included sensations (colors, sounds, smells, tastes), which were treated as "psychological atoms." The task of psychologists was to determine the relationships between these sensations and the principles governing their combination. This approach was based on the assumption that complex psychological structures are formed from simple elements (sensations), similar to how chemical atoms form more complex structures. The next stage in psychology's development was the emergence of depth psychology, which dealt with unconscious phenomena. While the human psyche was composed of distinct, stable elements, such as the id, ego, and superego, it was understood in a dynamic way. Human behavior was seen as being driven from within, manifesting the tensions between different components of the psyche. However, the way an individual's psyche was shaped resulted from personal childhood experiences. Through relationships with parents or other significant figures, a child built the foundations of their personality. As we can see, although psychology remained focused on the individual, in explaining behavior, it referred to internal dynamics primarily influenced by past family experiences. The external world gained greater significance in behavioral psychology than in psychoanalysis. Behaviorists developed a fundamental paradigm for explaining human behavior, based on two key elements: stimulus and response.

The article focuses on the issue of differences in how people perceive and experience time, both from a psychological perspective and in terms of its passing in different cultures. The passage of time presents an additional challenge for humans—the need to properly manage its flow. According to most researchers, time organizes human life and activity on multiple levels. In a model approach, starting from atemporality, the following sequential levels are distinguished: prototemporality, eotemporality, biotemporality, and nootemporality. In explaining these terms, it is important to emphasize that the spatiotemporal relationships observed in human life become increasingly structured and directed, culminating at the final level in a relativized continuum. Prototemporality describes time as a discontinuous collection of intervals, where processes occur according to their own internal temporality. It is impossible to relate these processes to one another in a mutual framework.

There are many different reasons for taking risks. They are usually driven by the desire to save time, reduce effort, or increase potential benefits. People also take risks as a result of motivation triggered by the need for stimulation and novelty or in situations where they strive to achieve transgressive goals. There is also evidence suggesting that the motivation for risky behavior stems from the facilitating influence of a group. For example, gamblers tend to place riskier bets in the presence of others than when alone. In group decision-making, greater risks are taken compared to individual decisions. Risk-taking is also a form of self-presentation, motivated by the desire to maintain or enhance one’s social image. For many men, the motivation to take risks becomes more pronounced in the presence of women. Men often "engage in dangerous ventures because it allows them to demand special treatment." This tendency is also observed in many animal species. Male chimpanzees hunt more efficiently when a sexually active female is nearby. Dangerous feats are often performed by males to increase their chances of participating in reproduction. "In the vast majority of species, females decide on partner selection and are responsible for sexual selection." In choosing partners, they often show a strong attraction to males who engage in risky displays to impress those around them.

Review