Married an FSUW.. Sickness & weight gain..

[mies]

Then it isn't "love", is it? One doesn't "abuse" one that they love. They may abuse one they possess, one that is the subject of their infatuation or the one that is available. What the abuser "genuinely believes" is really of no consequence. Abuse is abuse and love is love. One doesn't abuse one they love

It isn't love by your definition, it isn't love by my definition. It surely is love by their definition. There is a legal definition of abuse, there is no legal definition of love. There is also no formal or legal rule which says if there is abuse there is no love.

Dictionary definition: "

Noun: An intense feeling of deep affection:  "their love for their country". [/t][/t] Verb: Feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone):  "do you love me?". [/t]" If never mentions that a person who loves cannot abuse the object of their love.

[vwrw]

I am not sure I agree with this. Even the healthy loving person can be a danger to their spouse: because of the wrong motives, because of bad decisions, because different people define "love" differently. There are many healthy (or marginally healthy) people who kill their spouses or do other nasty things because they "love" their spouses. There are many healthy and sick people who continuously abuse their spouses but if you ask them - they genuinely believe they love their spouses, while abusing them.

+1

[Faux Pas]

If never mentions that a person who loves cannot abuse the object of their love.

The law or the dictionary?

The law forbids abuse even if one does proclaim to love them. A dictionary is incapable of love. Maybe it is not but "our" definition but, I will reaffirm, one does not abuse that that they love. If one is abused, they were not loved by the abuser, they were merely used. No, you won't find these definition on the dictionary for validation. Some things don't need or require validation

[mies]

The law or the dictionary?
The law forbids abuse even if one does proclaim to love them. A dictionary is incapable of love. Maybe it is not but "our" definition but, I will reaffirm, one does not abuse that that they love. If one is abused, they were not loved by the abuser, they were merely used. No, you won't find these definition on the dictionary for validation. Some things don't need or require validation

Exactly my point.
The law forbids to abuse period. The law does not have any definition of "love" nor any special clauses for "love" vs. "no love" cases. Although it usually has something along the lines of "best interest" or "no bad intent."

Some terms do not have validation because they are too fuzzy.

An individual who kills their much loved spouse out of jealousy, - is this person ill? or was it not love? and at what point did she/he stop loving their spouse? Or did they not love their spouse from start?

[Muzh]

There are many healthy and sick people who continuously abuse their spouses but if you ask them - they genuinely believe they love their spouses, while abusing them.

I'll ask you, what IF all this abuse is in the affected party's head?

Have you ever dealt with someone suffering from depression?

[Faux Pas]

An individual who kills their much loved spouse out of jealousy, - is this person ill? or was it not love?

Who knows? 10 scenarios would likely yield 10 different situations of whether or not the murderer was ill or not. Most generally, someone killing or harming another when not physically threatened themselves will have some sort of mental illness or psychosis. It was not love, again, one doesn't intentionally, harm that that they love. This from mine, your and most of society's definition. Most scenarios in that instance are of control and not love. Love has a very grey area and very fuzzy definition and open to all sorts of interpretation. My position here are my beliefs, we do not harm that which we love. Quite the opposite, we protect and keep from it harm.

and at what point did she/he stop loving their spouse? Or did they not love their spouse from start?

Again 10 different scenarios would likely give you different results. Maybe at some point they did love their spouse from the start. For those at some point, they also stopped loving their spouse.

[mies]

I'll ask you, what IF [dot]all this abuse is in the affected party's head[/dot]?

Have you ever dealt with someone suffering from depression?

True. But I was not talking about purely psychological abuse. I primarily meant physical abuse. It is very easy to establish whether physical abuse is happening or not. Although, some people go as far as claim that all rape victims at first gave their consent to sex and then after sex happened they changed their mind and decided to get something out of this situation and call it a rape. So I guess, in eyes of some people even physical abuse is only in the head of the affected party. Broken rib? (s)he wanted it. Bruised face? (s)he asked for it. and so on.

[Muzh]

Between you and me, sometimes the physical abuse hurts a lot less than psychological abuse. You can heal quickly from your physical bruises.

[Faux Pas]

Between you and me, sometimes the physical abuse hurts a lot less than psychological abuse. You can heal quickly from your physical bruises.

There is another way of viewing that. With most all physical abuse also involves psychological abuse where as physical abuse can be absent from psychological abuse. So is physical abuse over psychological, really better?

[Muzh]

There is another way of viewing that. With most all physical abuse also involves psychological abuse where as physical abuse can be absent from psychological abuse. So is physical abuse over psychological, really better?

Boy, that's a negative on both.

[Faux Pas]

Boy, that's a negative on both.

Da. I only point that out because often, psychological bruises never heal