Is Charles Saatchi unusually awful? No, it turns out.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
When the news broke at the weekend that Saatchi was divorcing Nigella Lawson because she did had not defended him over the allegation that he had been violent towards her, I was absolutely sure he must be in a particularly extreme category of nasty.
We had proof, didn't we?
Here is a man who throttles his wife in public, tries to pretend it is a ''tiff'', changes his story to say they are an unusually tactile couple and then announces he is splitting up with Lawson because she would not come out and tell the world that he was really a nice guy without a violent bone in his body.
''I am sorry that we had a row,'' Saatchi said in a statement.
''I am sorry she was upset. I am even more sorry this is the end of our marriage.
''She remains the most wonderful woman in the world. I feel very fortunate to have had such a lovely wife for many years.''
Yes, it turns out Saatchi could be quite an example of an ''intimate terrorist'' - at least, that's what psychologists call it.
American researcher academic and expert on domestic violence Michael Johnson initially categorised four main types of intimate partner violence: intimate terrorism; violent resistance; common couple violence and mutual violent control.
He no longer uses the term ''terrorism'' to describe this kind of behaviour because, I suppose, it overlaps with the way we use that word in a political context.
But ''intimate terrorists'' are the kinds of people who are the archetypal victim blamers.
Dr Karen Weiss, a clinical psychologist in Melbourne with 20 years' experience working in the area of domestic violence and who has worked with Relationships Australia, says this kind of blaming behaviour by an ''intimate terrorist'' is pretty common.
Violators display a complete abdication of responsibility using expressions such as ''If she didn't do that then I wouldn't do this'', and have a range of characteristics that are associated with the way in which they behave in relationships, Weiss says.
Only Lawson's immediate circle of friends and family can possible advise or support her but if this happens to women you know, Weiss has some advice.
''A lot of women don't leave [the abusive situation and partner] for so many reasons and it is beyond anyone else's understanding,'' she says.
And when victims do not leave the violent relationships, those close to them cannot fathom why not, or sympathise with their plight.
''Women get more and more isolated and are unable to seek much help,'' Weiss says.
She says the most important thing to do is try and ensure the woman's safety.
Her interpretation Lawson's reticence to join in the washing of the couple's dirty linen in public was that it was a way of making herself feel safe; of creating a distance by not participating in the horrendous public meltdown of her marriage.
Lawson let him go. She let him huff and puff, and blow his house down.
University of Technology Sydney academic Dr Jane Wangmann has been a lawyer in a community legal centre, a policy officer in the NSW Attorney-General's department, and a researcher in the area of domestic violence for 15 years. She says the kind of domestic violence seen in the Lawson-Saatchi incident is the most gendered - that is, the sort most likely to be experienced by women at the hands of men.
She also says that the point of leaving can be the most dangerous time for women escaping domestic violence.
''The expectation that she [Lawson] should come out and defend him shows the extent to which he wanted to control the relationship,'' Wangmann says.
She also points out that while Lawson's critics have said that any wealthy woman can leave a violent man, the woman's financial situation can also create dependence.
So, imagine what it might be like to be driven crazy by someone who says he loves you but who throttles you in public.
It doesn't take much to imagine how it might be for her in private, without the public gaze to moderate her husband's behaviour.
All we can really do is support victims of domestic violence, even if it means biting our tongues instead of saying something about their partners.
I have never been much of a fan of celebrity chefs but I swear I am going to buy the entire Nigella Lawson collection right away.
I cannot hold her hand at the lawyer's office, or at the counsellor's, but at least I can make a contribution towards her financial independence.
Twitter @jennaprice or email jenna_p@bigpond.net.au