What Is Domestic Violence?

Take our Anger Management Test

Find a therapist to heal from domestic violence

Nearly 50,000 women were killed in 2024 by intimate partners or family members.

Many perpetrators of femicide adhere to the "fusion" model of love.

True love supports autonomy, growth, and the flourishing of both individuals.

“I've got you so deep in my heart that you're really a part of me.” —Frank Sinatra

“I felt as if she was my air, as if she was the only thing that sustained me.” —Murderer

Love is widely regarded as moral, altruistic, and well‑intentioned—an emotion that seeks the partner’s flourishing. How, then, can the murder of a beloved wife be associated with love?

Femicide: What the Data Shows

The phenomenon of men killing their wives or partners “out of love” is not rare. In 2024, nearly 50,000 women (including girls) were killed by an intimate partner or family member. This means that about 60 percent of all intentional killings of women occurred in their own homes—the very place where they should feel safest. Regionally, Africa recorded the highest number of femicide victims (22,600), followed by Asia (17,400), the Americas (7,700), Europe (2,100), and Oceania (300). In the United States, nearly three women are killed every day by an intimate partner. Brazil—considered one of the most dangerous countries for women—recorded 6,904 attempted and completed femicides in 2025, a 34 percent increase from 2024. Of these, 2,149 were murders, averaging almost six women killed per day.

What Increases the Risk of Femicide?

Explaining femicide through a single factor—such as male possessiveness or jealousy—is overly simplistic. Instead, such murders arise from a constellation of interlocking factors that together increase risk (Ben‑Ze’ev & Goussinsky, 2008; and here).

Major risk conditions include:

Perceiving the woman as one’s entire world, such that separation threatens one’s identity

Lacking other sources of meaning or emotional support

Rigid, traditional conceptions of masculinity

Inflexible, uncompromising personality traits

An ideology of love that appears to justify extreme actions, including violence

When these factors converge, the risk of lethal violence increases sharply. Greater awareness of these conditions may help reduce femicide.

The "Fusion" Model of Love

“Only you can make this world seem right… and fill my heart with love for only you.” —The Platters

“When she decided she didn’t want any part of me anymore, I was left with nothing. I used her as a source of existence, because I had nothing else.”—Murderer

A central component of romantic ideology is the "fusion" model of love, in which two lovers are seen as merging into a single entity—two faces of the same coin. As Zygmunt Bauman (2003) puts it: “Wherever I go, you go; whatever I do, you do. If you cannot be my Siamese twin, be my clone!”

In this model, intimacy resembles a “Siamese twin” relationship: Every action requires mutual validation. Without constant approval, one feels threatened. Paradoxically, the partner’s growth and independence can feel destabilizing (Schnarch, 1997).

Many perpetrators adhere to this fusion model. Often, they are the weaker partner: dependent, insecure, and lacking self-worth. The woman, by contrast, is frequently independent and strong. She becomes his primary source of identity and meaning. As one murderer said: “I believed I couldn’t function if I wasn’t connected to her.” Such dependence easily transforms into control. If she becomes his sole source of existence, he feels compelled to manage that “resource.”

What Is Domestic Violence?

Take our Anger Management Test

Find a therapist to heal from domestic violence

Fusion leads not only to loss of freedom but also to loss of identity—and ultimately hinders the flourishing of both partners (Ben‑Ze’ev, 2019).

The Perpetrator’s Perspective

“If you leave me now, you’ll take away the very heart of me.” —Chicago

“Because of love, I killed her.” —Murderer

Many people long for the idealized love portrayed in novels, films, and popular music—an all-consuming bond where the partner becomes one’s entire world. This ideology rests on beliefs such as: Love is all you need; love is unconditional; and love is uncompromising.

Accordingly, rejection becomes devastating—humiliating even—when experienced as a personal failure. For some men, this pain is transformed into extreme violence, even murder, which they claim is committed “for love.”

Of course, genuine love—aimed at mutual flourishing—can never justify violence. Romantic ideals should guide us, not blind us to reality.

Functional Harmony Versus Mechanical Fusion

“i carry your heart with me (i carry it in my heart).” —E. E. Cummings

“Love is everything. Love enters the heart; it doesn’t leave. What happened doesn’t interfere with love.”—Murderer

The desire for romantic unity is often misinterpreted as a need to sacrifice personal independence and merge identities. But true intimacy does not require fusion. It requires functional harmony. Functional harmony means two autonomous individuals developing together, distinct yet mutually supportive, aligned in values, and enriched by one another. Free will is not a threat, but a foundation. Harmony is chosen, not enforced.

The core attitude is not control, but coordination. Loving someone means respecting their needs independently of what one gains. Healthy relationships are based on mutual support, not dependency, control, or keeping score. Functional harmony does not remove effort; it transforms effort into meaningful investment in each partner’s separate and shared growth.

A healthier model of love is expressed in Dolly Parton’s “I Will Always Love You”: “If I should stay, I would only be in your way… I wish you joy and happiness. But above all this, I wish you love." Parton values love deeply, yet accepts separation if it benefits the beloved. At its core, love seeks the other’s flourishing.

Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Polity Press.

Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2019). The arc of love: How our romantic lives change over time. University of Chicago Press.

Ben-Ze'ev, A. & Goussinsky, R. (2008). In the name of love: Romantic Ideology and its victims. Oxford University Press.

Schnarch, D. (1997). Passionate marriage: Love, sex, and intimacy in emotionally committed relationships. Norton.

There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.

By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

© Psychology Today