Stockholm Syndrome was first theorized in the 1970s by a researcher who was tasked with evaluating the behavior of hostage victims, post-bank robbery, in Stockholm, Sweden.

It is generally described as a condition where captives of a criminal, such as in a kidnapping, form positive feelings towards their assailants. Unlike the outside world, who can take a non-threatening glimpse inside, those who are actual witnesses, while in close proximity, are affected much differently, as commonly, their very existence relied on acquiescing to captor(s).

This article will be speaking from the female POV, as many cases involve women.

Let's begin with a general thought that many females have: they think they know exactly what to do if ever faced with a domestic crisis.

But, do they really know what to do? Next, even if they figure that part out, ahead of time, will they be able to act on it, when it is crucial?

I guess that they want to believe this. Even I want to believe this, as a means of assertion on feminine virtue. But, if pressed for the truth, many would need reply that they aren't sure how to effectively respond, in such unusual cases. Add another point that these misfortunes are so uncommon, why worry yourself? This is the way I used to think.

There are people, from my past, who I really didn't and currently, don't like, as human beings. There is one individual, in particular, that I have a very hard time digesting. People may have wondered and now, must understand, that they aren't alone, as I've often been perplexed, by the very same ideas. With one being, "How did such a despicable man gain access into my intimate world?"

Now that I know the kind of man he truly is, I never would have gotten involved. I would have stayed away from him, refused his calls and emails. Many a day, a fantasy involves me dismissing his initial attempts to meet me, never believing his feigned words. Then, I would have contemplated his angle.

One of the reasons I didn't do any of that was because I didn't think I needed to. I had no reason to consider it necessary.

We were attached speedily, but the bond we had, was based on my tremendous fear of him. In my rationale, I reasoned, before we met, that if I saw any warning signs or messages of danger, I would have had enough time, plus the capacity, to exit.

Women must grasp that there are predatory suitors, who will know that is what you think. They will rely on your guard to be down, when they deliberately act rapidly, to gain an advantage, that will ensure complicity.

This is an afterthought to victims, but to assailants, it is a vital part of their well-planned, secretive and methodological attacks.

If you reach this stage, it no longer matters what you intended or what you thought about beforehand. It will be meaningless that you didn't even like this person to begin with. Now, you are in a situation with someone who you don't really know and you've come to find out that they have demands that they expect to be met.

Worse, they have predetermined and enlisted ways to make you obey.

At one time, I had convinced myself that I had ardent feelings for this man, even as I trembled in his shadow. I presume this was meant to serve as direct relief from his terrorizing reign. If, in my mind, I could twist this relation into an acceptable situation, then I could get behind it, even if what I felt and conceived, about it, were lies.

I had thoughts of a future with him and spent time with his family. I had been traumatized early on and checked out so distantly, that I couldn't sense my own pulse.

You could have been waving a sign at me to wake up and I may not have noticed. Or, I might have noticed and been too scared to look at it, admit I'd seen it or acknowledge that I was even aware you had been there.

I didn't want to give this person any reason to doubt, while he had given me no reason to trust.

The initial trauma was so terrible, that I went to a place that I didn't know I could go to. After that, several stages of Stockholm Syndrome appeared and their results were astoundingly effective. This brings no such good news to captives or sufferers as it does to captors.

Nonetheless, here is a breakdown of how Stockholm Syndrome works.

The first thing that needs to happen for Stockholm Syndrome to blossom is a traumatic shock.

The second is isolation.

The third is that the assailant or criminal needs to indoctrinate their victim.

Then, the final step is a promise of reward.

The indoctrination stage is a key, where the assailant repeats statements that confirm their version of events, to their victims.

Whereas, the promise of reward is almost continuous, across a spectrum of crimes: surviving or protecting a loved one.

Criminals must know this and be ready and willing to use it against those they torment.

Even if a victim knows the truth is somewhere other than where the statements made by her captor reside, she accepts falsehoods, as a reaction to trauma, and with the sole intent of persevering.

In other words, if she resists his words, even if they make sense and are said calmly, she risks injury or death from a purely instinctive view. If she accepts his words, then she is, in her own mind, bargaining that the trauma won't reoccur.

To the outside world, this behavior may appear shocking. As back to the original point, many women claim that they'll know "just what to do" in the event that something messed up happens to them.

Yet, why do so many women enter into and stay in abusive environments, unable to retreat?

I've heard some men legitimize and justify that they are aware of a domestically violent situation, but that they see the woman returning to an abuser and therefore, shrug it off.

At a YWCA, shortly after my departure from hell, I sat in a whirlpool with an employee. He commented on the fact that he liked how I carried mace with me and said that he was big on safety. Pick up attempts aside, one weekday, I understood that we knew the same man. It was clear that we were both aware of something I'd seen only in private.

We both knew a woman who was dating this guy who beat her. I was startled as I sat across from him, steam rising from the water. Since he claimed to care so much about safety, why did he do nothing to help her?

I'd been alone, in her home once, with just my date and the man she was seeing and knew she needed reclaiming.

Her home was nice and artistic. She had a vivid painting above her fireplace with neon colors. She was smart, educated and had a steady job. It was apparent that something was awry with her relationship, as she and he, retreated and surfaced, off and on. There were loud voices, muffled comments and outbursts of emotion.

At a glance, she acted irrational and sometimes, she seemed a bit unstable. I noticed all of those things, in her, but was standing feet away from an abusive man myself, who I couldn't recognize as such.

I was more aware of her dilemma and pain because I stood outside of it.

She was probably more aware of my condition than I ever realized and me of hers. Why was that?

We were much alike then, there came a day where we went on a trip. I sat quietly as she and the boys talked and laughed. By this point, I barely spoke to others, quietly staring into space, lamenting over the invisible chain that roped me to this specimen. Through their whispers, I must have woken up, for a brief moment. She then said,"Shhh, I think she heard you." At that, I began to see her as less of an equal and more of a convert.

The man, at the Y, said he knew her and her boyfriend. I had just gotten out of my bad turn with the guy's friend and guess, I should have known these types worked in packs and aimed to recruit. They probably rely on encouraging each other. Needless to say, I didn't mention this; I'd come to put these out of my mind.

I mouthed something sympathetic and in the line of defending her, since I knew where she'd stood. That was when he said to me,"We all know, but she keeps going back to him."

That was his argument; his standpoint. He made this about her responsibility, convincing me that this makes it easier for men, or bystanders, to sit back and say nothing. Cruelly, it is that behavior which only compounds a victim's fear, "No one will believe you or support you."

This female sided with the guys, in lieu of agony being directed at her, by men who rounded up strong women to crucify, making it easy, not to like her. It was simple to say or think that she made this situation what it was. But, put that aside, and embrace that these things have nothing to do with likability or your personal feelings towards someone.

There needs to be more interference and hesitation when welcoming these conditions into our world.

Fortunately, there were a few interventions, which helped me to vacate the company of this man. But before that, I had somehow managed to defend him to others, repeatedly. I changed some of my views to appease him and, at one time, I did exactly what he told me to do, in certain situations, involving my job.

He'd give me advice or a suggestion and even if it was ridiculous, I'd do it. It was no surprise that I lost that job and in hindsight, all I could feel was betrayal towards my boss and those who stood by. They'd known me for several years, to behave in a certain way, opposite this, were aware of this man in my life, but placed the blame, into my hands, by leaving me no avenue to support myself. It was nearly the death of me, as it was almost certain that I would then, become completely dependent on a monster.

A few months prior, I woke up to a man I'd only known for a few days standing near. At the same moment, my date came storming into the room, behind him. His hair disheveled, his skin red, he had hot vapors coming off him. The man I hardly knew turned to face him, above him, on a staircase. That was when the man I knew threatened to "end him."

When I heard that, I jumped and pleaded with the man not to provoke him. I'd seen enough unneeded violence; I didn't want to see this right where I was sleeping. I imagined blood and flailing bodies, "Please God, don't let me get blood on me!"

A few months later, a man I didn't know, met me, my date and his best friend/woman co-hater. I ordered something and then, went to the bathroom. When I returned, my food was there, but it wasn't how I'd ordered it. I picked up my fork and did little, since I couldn't eat. By this time, I started to suspect that particular things which involved me getting a disservice, involved him, but felt helpless to go along.

While I'd gone to the bathroom, did he tell the waiter to make my salad the way I'd asked him not to?

Defeated and dejected, when neither my date, nor his friend would look at me, the other guy, seated across from me, did. His eyes were directly affixed, looking straight into mine.

At first, I noticed and then, pretended I didn't. When my eyes returned from perusing my surroundings, his were still on me, with urgency. When I glanced into his pupils, he squinted really hard and firmly, in and out. His glances showed me that he was serious and I took the message to mean "get out!"

It was ironic because, I credited him with giving me insight and helping me to see what was rapidly obvious to him. But, on the other hand, he was a man and yet, he still could not speak directly to me about this or even, to the men accountable. Was he that scared?

His behavior acknowledged that I was right to be afraid; so did the behavior of the man who backed down, months earlier. It proved, to me, that I had every fiber and inclination to be terrified, since I had met not one person, who was willing to face them.

My employer would have rather punish me, for their misunderstanding of the situation, behind a facade, when helping, would have been for the betterment of one who had worked and sacrificed tirelessly for them, regardless of outside relations. Three years of my life, I did the work of two people and was responsible for so much good labor, productivity and company advancement, yet I cannot use them as a reference, nor can I claim them.

I found out, a little too late, that they had given their crude and unprofessional interpretations, to every employer I sought work with after them, which only compounded the damages, isolation, and despair. In my circumstance, their behavior, morals and ethics were equivalent to that of a dirty and corrupt backdoor organization.

Today, for blatant reasons, I refuse to go to their stores or acknowledge that I worked there. It is an automatic turnoff, when or if, anyone mentions liking them, their products or how they are "so good to their employees."People I knew there, I no longer care to know, even if we had been friends, at one time.

Some things are just so wrong to glide past and to refuse to care about. Why is it so easy for business owners and companies to look the other way, in regards to dumping on, demoting or releasing abused employees?

Victims need to know and trust that their bosses will not fire them and instead, support them through such a trying ordeal that mostly effects women. They need to know that their salaries won't suffer, recommendations will remain intact and that they should not need fear losing one more integral thing, after a brush with someone who has already taken too much away that can never be replaced. They need to see that others, especially the men in their life, can challenge an abusive man openly and that they are worthy of that defense.

These are the kinds of examples that are needed to show someone what can be done and that they will be backed up, if they accept it. It is no surprise, after seeing this, why many women adopt learned helplessness and stay. Worse yet, criminals know that society's track record for helping out victims is flimsy and use that against those they injure.

In many cases, women become silent and despondent because, they see through their everyday encounters, a very solitary existence, when no man, woman or employer offers to intervene and when no one can achieve the very thing that they are expected to do alone. The risks outweigh the motivation to detach.

Historically, women were more likely to be taken from their herd, by a neighboring group. They therefore, learned adaptive techniques which revolved around their need to survive, rather than blaming their captors. It seems so ingrained, that women in abusive situations, immediately go to a state where they search for a way to make things work, rather than run. Or, in my case, they wait for the right time, not knowing when it will come or how long it might take.

With issues like domestic violence, assault and human trafficking, I suspect that most, if not all, suffer from some form of Stockholm Syndrome. This means that we need to make Stockholm Syndrome a justifiable and legitimate defense for people who try to remove themselves or escape from abuse and especially, if they run into issues.

Legally, this can run the gamut from implications on the statute of limitations being revised, due to time needed for recovery to explaining why a law-abiding victim felt the need to break it, in order to decamp. It can even cover employers needing to compensate victims of crimes that they dismissed, demoted or devalued.

I can think of many, potential examples, where a defense, would help put vitality back into the hands of those who are afflicted, rather than attempt to mute their struggles.

We need to do everything, in our capacity, to channel support back to this portion of society, who instinctively, are living in an era, where few bystanders are willing to budge on an issue that is so deep-rooted, that the responses to it are inborn to existing.

Until then, I'm sure a well-deserved quote for anyone who experiences this horror is to say,"Don't ask me how I survived, instead, be proud that I did and please, don't penalize me for that uncharted and lonesome process. I've yet to see anyone lead, by example, from what I just lived through."