Basile et al. (2013) reported the correlation between IPV perpetration and interaction abilities and styles, which often effected relationship satisfaction. Likewise, Scott and Straus (2007) identified that real, mental, and intimate IPV perpetration increased among males whom avoided talking about their contributions to relationship problems and/or blaming relationship dilemmas on the lovers.
Conventional sex roles have now been cited as danger facets for IPV perpetration by feminist theorists for their role in socializing guys and endorsing particular norms, attitudes, and habits including the acceptance of physical violence in relationships (Basile et al., 2013). More over, enacting masculinity (shows of violence and real energy, domination in real, intimate, and social contexts) is related to IPV perpetration because physical violence against females is a recognized norm (Connell, 2005; Messerschmidt, 1993; Peralta & Tuttle, 2013; Poteat, Kimmel, & Wilchins, 2011). Inside the Latino tradition, Machismo and Marianismo have now been utilized to spell it out the negative and positive components of sex functions. Good areas of Machismo consist of energy, courage, and duty, while violence, male dominance, and infidelity will be the negative aspects (Torres, Solberg, & Carlstrom, 2002). Marianismo, encouraged because of the Virgin Mary, may be the polar contrary sex part for females and views them as pure, modest, devoted, self-sacrificing, faithful, submissive, unassertive, and specialized in the family (Dietrich & Schuett, 2013; Galanti, 2003). IPV among Latinos has often cited Machismo and Marianismo as risk facets because of the strict gender functions and difference between energy in just a relationship (Campbell, Masaki, & Torres, 1997; Jewkes, 2002). Continue reading