Domestic Violence is an emotive and evocative topic. It encompasses so many facets or totems of various political philosophies that questioning some of the tenets surrounding the subject can be like a red rag to certain bulls some of indeterminate gender. It is an all embracing description for certain actions but, to coin phrase, there is no actual law against it. It can and has been used by feminists, racists, fundamentalist religious fanatics, biologists, economists, lawyers, politicians and many others in support of or against prevailing tendencies or attitudes within and towards families and their relationships. In England the courts now consider eg that violence alleged between distant brothers in law should be heard in a dedicated DV court. And so the simple definition of male violence upon female when in an intimate relationship has changed over the last couple of decades.
Thus an evolutionary biologist in America must be preparing himself for all manner of reaction after he was reported as saying that it [DV] carries a selective advantage, tied with reproductive success. In other words, men who are violent are trying to make sure that their partner has his child and not another man's.
This subject is all too often treated as consisting of some sort of unquestionable facts and those who do not follow this line akin to flat earthers. I hope the researcher David Buss survives long enough to allow his views to be considered and if appropriate refuted by his peers and not by fanatical opposition devoid of all reason.