"But he has such potential." "When he's not drinking he's the sweetest, kindest, gentlest man I know." These are phrases I hear often on SR and two I used for many years until I was able to chip away my layers of denial and see my situation for what it really was.

In his book, "The Gift of Fear," Gavin DeBecker addressed this issue in a way I thought might be useful to others on this forum, so I'll share it here:

One of the most common errors in selecting a boyfriend or spouse is basing the prediction on potential. This is actually predicting what certain elements might add up to in some different context: He isn't working now, but he could be really successful. He's going to be a great artist--of course he can't paint under present circumstances. He's a little edgy and aggressive these days, but that's just until he gets settled.

Listen to the words: isn't working; can't paint; is aggressive. What a person is doing now is the context for successful predictions, and marrying a man on the basis of potential, or for that matter hiring an employee solely on the basis of potential, is a sure way to interfere with intiution. That's because the focus on potential carries our imagination to how things might be or could be and away from how they are now.

Spousal abuse is comitted by people who are with remarkable frequency described by their victims as having been "the sweetest, the gentlest, the kindest, the most attentive," etc. Indeed, many were all of these things during the selection process and often still are--between violent incidents.

But even though these men are frequently kind and gentle in the beginning, there are always warning signs. Victims, however, may not always choose to detect them. I made these points on a recent television interview, and a young woman called in and said, "You're wrong, there's no way you can tell when a man will turn out to be violent. It just happens out of no where." She went on to describe how her ex-husband, an avid collector of weapons, became possessive immediately after her marriage, made her account for all of her time, didn't allow her to have a car, and frequently displayed jealously.

Could these things be warning signs?

In continuing her description of this awful man, she said, "His first wife died as a result of beatings he gave her."

Could that have been a warning sign? But people don't see the signs, maybe because our process of falling in love is in large measure the process of choosing not to see faults, and that requires some denial. This denial is doubtless necessary in a culture that glorifies the kind of romance that leads young couples to rush to get married in spite of all the reasons they shouldn't, and fifty-year-old men to follow what is euphemistically called their hearts into relationships with their young secretaries and out of relationships with their middle-aged wives. This is, frankly, the kind of romance that leads to more failed relationships than successful ones.

The issue of selection and choice brings to mind the important work of psychologist Nathaniel Branden, author of "Honoring the Self." He tells of the woman who says: "I have the worst luck with men. Over and over again, I find myself in these relationships with men who are abusive. I just have the worst luck." Luck has very little to do with it, because the glaringly common characteristic of each of this woman's relationships is her. My observations about selection are offered to enlighten victims, not to blame them, for I don't believe that violence is a fair penality for bad choices. But I do believe they are choices.

He tried to get into detox, they had an opening today, but they wouldn't take him because he didn't have anything in his system.