how connection developsLeslie Morgan Steiner remembers the early months of her relationship as a time when she felt intensely loved and valued. Later, the same man threatened and assaulted her. In her accounts of that marriage, those experiences belong to the same history. Understanding what kept her attached requires attention to the relationship she believed in, alongside the violence she endured.
Steiner tells that history in her 2009 memoir, Crazy Love. Two shorter accounts on her website bring different parts into focus. A written account of an NPR interview reproduced there follows her changing understanding of the marriage. Her essay, He held a gun to my head. I loved him., sets out her reasons for staying and the specific help that supported her in leaving. Together, these accounts show how recognition, attachment, and practical possibility can move on different timelines.
The relationship she understood herself to be in
In the NPR account, Steiner describes meeting Conor while she was a young Harvard graduate living and working in New York. His interest in her was intense. They eventually moved to New England and planned to marry. An assault shortly before the wedding did not immediately overturn her understanding of the relationship. She sought help, yet did not believe the incident justified calling off the marriage.
Her explanation concerns how she interpreted what was happening. She says she knew little about domestic violence and understood herself to be in love with a deeply troubled man. That interpretation allowed concern for him and hope for the relationship to remain central while his behavior became increasingly dangerous. The interview describes further violence during the honeymoon and isolation from family and friends.
She also describes admiration and denigration as experiences that occurred together. Affection had not simply vanished before the abuse began. Her account holds those experiences alongside one another without treating the affection as protection from what he did.
In her essay, Steiner adds the meanings that made the bond difficult to relinquish. She recalls how safe and affirmed he had made her feel at the beginning. She felt pity for the abuse he had experienced as a child and believed she could help him. Enjoyment had not disappeared completely from their time together. Between violent episodes, he could still make her laugh, and she continued to love him.
These are her descriptions of attachment, rather than explanations that excuse his actions. They show why a relationship cannot be understood only by listing what an observer knows about its worst incidents. The person experiencing it may also be responding to an earlier history, moments of affection, and a hoped-for future. Steiner's account gives those parts of her experience a place without making them evidence that the relationship was safe.
Control reaching into everyday life
The essay describes restrictions that extended beyond physical attacks. Conor reacted to contact with a male friend, directed how she presented herself, and told her she could not spend Christmas with her family. He also threatened their dog. The account places these actions alongside assaults and threats involving a gun.
That range of conduct matters to the picture she draws. Contact with friends, family celebrations, clothing, and care for an animal were parts of ordinary life over which he asserted control. Her marriage involved decisions becoming subject to his reactions as well as episodes of physical danger.
Steiner wrote the essay in response to public discussion of another woman's relationship. Its strongest contribution is the experience she can speak to directly. Before her own marriage, she had confidently believed she would never stay with someone who hit her. Looking back, she recognized how little that prediction had prepared her to understand attachment within an abusive relationship. The difference between her earlier judgment and lived experience is one reason she argues for a more informed, less condemning response to survivors.
Recognizing danger while attachment remains part of the history
The NPR interview describes a change in Steiner's understanding after time apart and a final assault. She came to see the danger with a clarity that her earlier explanations had obscured. The person she had understood through love and concern now appeared capable of killing her.
The account does not make that recognition a simple instruction for someone else. It records what happened in her life. Her essay supplies another part of the story by identifying the circumstances and assistance that helped make leaving possible. Understanding danger and having support for a next step were related, distinct parts of the process.
The help she remembers
Two friends knew something was wrong and remained available without judging her or trying to force a departure before she was ready. Steiner identifies their response as part of what helped. Their friendship offered contact in which she did not have to defend herself against another person's condemnation.
Other help addressed different needs. Police officers communicated the seriousness of the danger. A domestic violence advocate accompanied the legal process by explaining why she needed protection when she feared that a judge might believe her husband instead. Her mother provided money without attaching a rebuke to it. A lawyer helped negotiate the divorce settlement.
These contributions were not interchangeable. Friendship made room for continued contact. Advocacy addressed her fear that her account would not be believed by a decision-maker. Money addressed some immediate practical problems. Legal assistance supported the separation process. Steiner also notes that she did not have children with Conor, recognizing a circumstance that made her situation different from that of many other people.
The particular legal and financial decisions she describes belong to her case. Their wider significance is the variety of support involved. Her departure was aided by people who could contribute something concrete, as well as by a change in what she understood about the relationship.
Responsibility and dignity
Steiner ends her essay by placing responsibility for violence with the person who commits it. Her account of why she stayed does not move that responsibility onto her attachment, sympathy, or earlier hopes. It helps explain what supporters need to understand about the person experiencing the abuse.
Her friends could remain connected to her without endorsing the relationship. Her mother could help without making the help conditional on admitting an earlier mistake. Those details give substance to the dignity Steiner asks for. People were able to recognize danger, contribute resources, and continue to treat her as someone whose experience and decisions deserved attention.
Sources
Steiner, L. M. (2009). Crazy Love. St. Martin's Press. This article draws on the two shorter accounts below rather than a review of the complete memoir.
Author tells her story of ‘Crazy Love’ and abuse. (2009). Written NPR interview account reproduced on Leslie Morgan Steiner's website. The embedded audio recording was not reviewed.
Steiner, L. M. (n.d.). He held a gun to my head. I loved him.. Author's website.