Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Psychological Subjugation: The Elusive Form of Abuse
In 1959, French & Raven, writing on The Bases of Social Power, began by stating: “The processes of power are pervasive, complex, and often disguised in our society.” In 2016, just shy of six decades later, Crossman, Hardesty, & Raffaelli published an article titled: “'He Could Scare Me Without Laying a Hand On Me': Mothers' Experiences of Nonviolent Coercive Control During Marriage and After Separation.” Both French & Raven, in alluding to processes of power that are disguised, and Crossman, et al., in addressing nonviolent coercive control, have emphasized a form of interpersonal abuse that has received inadequate attention. Mental health and legal professionals must devote more resources to studying the interpersonal dynamics of subjugation that is accomplished without resort to physical force, and the implications of these dynamics for the appropriate adjudication of custody/access disputes.
Defining Psychological Subjugation
There is nothing abstruse about one domestic partner's infliction of physical harm on the other. The methods are elementary, and the results are self-evident. Each act of physical aggression is a discrete event the outcome of which is observable. The actions that, when considered collectively, constitute psychological subjugation are continuous, and they are incorporated into the daily routines that characterize the interpersonal relationship. I hypothesize that the actions of subjugators, systematically preparing victims to tolerate being subjugated, are similar to those actions of child molesters that are referred to collectively as grooming.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?