“There may be in the cup, A spider steep’d, and one may drink, depart, and yet partake no venom, for his knowledge is not infected….I have drunk, and seen the spider”. (Shakespeare: A Winter’s Tale. Leontes falsely believes his wife is unfaithful; in reality, his distorted jealousy is the spider’s venom in their love).
The previous post looked at controlling behaviour which makes space in a relationship for abuse to become the norm. Part 5 focuses on unrealistic expectations, emotional instability and the tendency toward secrecy and isolation. These warning signs are clearly present in the relationship of Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp, as described by family and friends – and more recently in Reeva’s own words read out in court.
Emotional instability, temper, sudden mood swings (Rule 5, Beliefs a & c). People who abuse their partners usually have mood swings or frequent “melt-downs”. Sometimes this is a long-standing pattern of their lives, but it might have a recognisable point of origin – a drinking problem, drug abuse or a damaged brain. Brain scarring from previous injury is not uncommon, but may not be diagnosed unless subtle, sensitive testing is done after an injury. Brain damage can have a drastic effect on the person’s ability to cope with emotional challenges in a mature, responsible way.
When Oscar crashed his boat at high speed in February 2009, breaking facial bones and knocking himself out for three days, there was alcohol on board: just one of several instances where authorities turned a blind eye on the reckless actions of South Africa’s hero. If he was reckless before, he doesn’t seem to have learned his lesson – and his brain injury could be a clue as to why that is. A crush injury to the front aspect of the brain can shift behaviour in the direction of irritability, poor anger and impulse control, mood swings, impulsive risk taking, paranoia, agitation, sleep disturbance and poor judgement. It can turn an already wild and reckless young man into an unguided missile bent on self- and other-destruction.
When Oscar was discharged from hospital, his doctors told the Press that he was“functioning normally”. Normally, that is, for Oscar who as a world-class athlete is hardly ordinary to start with. But was he back to Oscar-normal? His muscles worked just fine, but does Oscar have the full ability of a normal adult to monitor and regulate his own feelings, desires and actions; to see himself reflected in the eyes of others and make changes accordingly? To act rationally in his own best interests under pressure? There is room for doubt, but it’s possible that an opportunity was missed in early 2009 to keep firearms out of his hands for good.
Poor thinking is a common characteristic of an abusive partner, even someone who is intelligent and capable of doing better. Many times, the relationship is founded on unrealistic expectations (Rules 2 & 5, Belief c) and when thinking about his or her partner (or more likely ruminating on some imaginary injury or insult), the abusive partner jumps to conclusions and over-reacts. He or she creates a drama and then uses it as an excuse for verbal or physical violence which is justified in the abuser’s mind as necessary “self defence”, fair retaliation, or fair punishment.
Shakespeare’s Leontes has his wife thrown in jail despite her protests of innocence; Oscar creates a scene, forcing Reeva to leave a party she was enjoying and had been looking forward to, because she told a “funny story” from a time in her life that he prefers not to think about, when she was with Warren Lahoud.
One way to look at it: the abuser imagines his or her partner as perfect, and perfectly able to meet all his needs. Her role is to stroke his ego, continually. If she disappoints him, the reaction is sharp and aggressive because shortfalls are seen as deliberate, provocative acts of crossing, snubbing, demeaning or frustrating. An abusive partner will not usually apply this reasoning to his or her own behaviour, as Reeva pointed out to Oscar in the message where she confronted him about his referring to past relationships whilst not allowing her to do the same. The double standard is maintained by this faulty thinking in which Oscar (for example) chooses to believe that Reeva deliberately set out to shame him with her ‘funny story’ and thus deserves to suffer for it.
It wasn’t the first time that Oscar had acted out an emotion-fuelled hostility with a girlfriend. In September 2009, he became embroiled in a legal battle with a young woman called Cassidy Taylor-Memmory, who had been caught and injured in a battle between Oscar and his then girlfriend over just this kind of issue.
The background was a party at Oscar’s house, where booze flowed and Oscar played a kissing game with another woman. Melissa Rom, a model who was dating Oscar at the time, retaliated by making a scene herself, and Oscar took it badly (Rules 2 & 5). A more mature man might have apologised, taken responsibility, played the good host, and tried to calm everyone down. Oscar is not that man. According to Cassidy’s account, he escalated by calling Melissa and her friends “vulgar” names and literally chasing them out of the house minus their car keys. When Cassidy went back for her keys, Oscar punched through his own front door, pieces of which cut her leg. She laid assault charges and later sued him. It was this incident that drew Oscar to the attention of the local police (more on this later).
Even given a chance to reflect, Oscar continued to show immature belligerence toward Taylor-Memmory, who didn’t back down despite abuse and threats from Oscar’s many fans. She never did get an apology but she did get a settlement, after the murder case started taking up his attorneys’ time. Had Reeva heard both sides of this sordid story? By the time she began to date Oscar, it was being said that he was ‘not the man people think he is’. Reeva also had baggage, in her way. Did Oscar expect her to be perfect, without attempting to clean up his own act in the least? And if he did think she was letting him down somehow, how might he react? We can’t know for sure but we do know how he has reacted in the past and it’s not pretty.
Since Reeva’s death, Oscar’s family have spoken about how distraught he is, his great love for Reeva, the couple’s “plans together”. But Cecil Myers said that “she loved him, but this was no massive love affair”. If, in his own mind, Oscar built up the relationship to be more than it was ready to be, ignoring signs that the two of them were not always good together, the dawning of unwelcome light could have led to all kinds of trouble.
On the other hand, rumours that he has already found another girlfriend, a young student paramedic, suggest that he might not be quite so heartbroken after all. Or perhaps that Oscar is not the kind of person who can cope without a female partner to ‘carry’ his own femininity (as a part of himself that he can’t tolerate being aware of; a process called ‘projective identification’ which some therapists believe creates a foundation for high conflict and abusive intimate partnerships).
It is fairly typical of certain narcissistic personality types that their emotions may be intense, but are ultimately shallow. In the end, it’s all about them. Love affairs can get messy – very messy – but the damaged ego covers up, blames the other person, and moves on – older but not wiser. Since no fundamental change has occurred, the same pattern will be re-established in a new relationship.
When intimate relationships are integrated within family and social circles, both partners get more support and better perspective. It’s true that sometimes people set out to undermine a relationship for their own reasons, but more often they try to be supportive because they care. June Steenkamp, for instance, supported Reeva’s relationship with Oscar despite her own nagging concerns, because she understood what it meant to Reeva. Other friends also bought into the idea of “every relationship has its ups and downs”. If they had really known how bad the “downs” could be, they might have been empowered to intervene – though this would mean taking a risk as Reeva might not have been willing to listen. She had in fact “seen the spider” but was doing her best to pretend she had not. Perhaps, like many women, Reeva genuinely believed that her love could draw the poison?
Abusive relationships are surrounded and supported by excessive secrecy (Rules 3 & 4, Belief b). An abusive man may act as though ‘his’ woman rose out of the sea, like Venus, or was formed from his rib, like Eve. Of course, most couples value privacy and celebrities especially so – but it’s a serious concern when a new love affair is marked by loosening of former ties and commitments to family and friends. This is a move in the direction of taking ownership as well as increasing the abuser’s ability to control what his or her partner feels or thinks.
Reeva’s loved ones said she was unusually reserved on the subject of Oscar. When Cecil Myers asked her about Oscar’s abnormally moody behaviour, “she didn’t answer”. And as noted, Oscar never visited Reeva’s parents, though Port Elizabeth is a short flight away. After the initial courtship, when he was frequently at the Myers’ home, Oscar persuaded Reeva to spend their time together at his place. From then on, he avoided her “Jo’burg family” which the Myers found unsettling (and plain rude). It’s also clear that he was making demands on her to cut emotional ties from her past, though he may have tried harder to act cool about this after Reeva bravely confronted him with the ‘double standard relationship’.
In early January 2014, Reeva and Oscar dined with her cousin Kim Martin in Cape Town. Kim, who knew Reeva well, later told Vanity Fair that although the couple interacted well and lovingly, Reeva wasn’t quite OK. When Oscar briefly left them alone, her cousin admitted there were issues; Reeva promised to chat later, but the opportunity never arose.
What were these “issues” that made Reeva unhappy even in company of the man she loved and the beautiful surroundings of Cape Town? Oscar may have deliberately undermined his partners’ security in their relationships with him, in order to feel more in control himself. This is a further example of ‘projective identification’ in this case, neutralising intolerable feelings of being dependent on or vulnerable to the other, by making her feel and express those feelings instead.
The “kissy face” episode with Melissa Rom is one example of this (which apparently failed), and it’s obvious that Reeva was also subjected to this treatment, from her own words and records of the time. Photographs of Reeva taken with Oscar shortly before her death, as well as comments made by Reeva and others who knew her, display this insecurity quite plainly. You can see it in her eyes, the slight tension that is in her, the way she burrows into Oscar as though appealing to his masculine, protective side by acting helpless (which Reeva most certainly was not). Contrast these ‘celebrity’ photographs with photos of Reeva working as a model – the difference is startling.
June Steenkamp told British TV that after Reeva had cancelled plans to spend Christmas with her parents in order to be with Oscar, he went to Cape Town without her, where he was photographed with his long-time on again/off again girlfriend Jenna Edkins. No wonder that when Reeva eventually joined him in January 2013, her cousin noticed that something was wrong with Reeva. This is a form of mental game-playing; it is cruel but not random. The purpose is staying in control, or at least keeping up the illusion. It can be a win/win for a perpetrator of emotional abuse – real or imaginary transgressions are punished and the transgressor is taught a lesson: in future, this relationship will be ’my way or the highway’.
Although not alone – Reeva was too dear to too many people for that – by February 2013 she was more isolated than she had been before she got together with Oscar. This may also have affected the quality of Reeva’s decision making – if, as natural extroverts tend to do, she was used to talking things over with others, and now was not able to do that without risking offence to Oscar. Abusive religions work in a similar way – first they engage curiosity and hope, then they hold out the lure of love and being special, then they systematically break all competing loves, lastly they crush the new member’s sense of individuality.
Why do women allow this? In part, it is because romantic traditions present couplehood as “we two against the world”. And it’s not unusual for adult couples newly in love to act like a pair of love-struck teenagers. But it also has to do with practices of male privilege that subordinate women’s lives to male partners.
If men regard their personal preferences as non-negotiables, the “rules” of gender relations make it unlikely that women will counter with their own preferences, unless willing to fight and get hurt. The non-dominant partner rationalises that “it’s not worth it”, or “maybe in time he’ll change”.Over time, people around them – even close family – accept the situation, invoking privacy of the (patriarchal) nuclear family to define it as “a domestic affair between a man and his wife” that is best left alone.
The final part of this series looks at how perceived inequalities between partners, rigid ideas about gender roles, and most of all practices of non-accountability form the dry tinder of a relationship that can explode into destructive violence.
Latest posts by Sally Davies (see all)
- Memories that heal - 25 September 2014
- Don’t say these words to someone who has cancer - 18 July 2014
- About that Lump - 16 June 2014
- Free Breast Course for Nurses - 27 April 2014
- Study: Oscar, Reeva and Intimate Partner Violence, Part 6 - 27 April 2014
