As both sides wrangle over myriad legal technicalities in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the media, always looking for expedient stories critical of our WASP-dominated society, have pursued statistics and outrageous claims on domestic abuse.

They would have you believe there is an epidemic of domestic violence in this country. Don't believe it. In the latest issue of "National Review," Cathy Young, a freelance writer and author, debunks some of the outrageous claims made recently about the incidence of spousal and domestic abuse.

Young, in a passing statement, touches on what ought to be the focus of efforts to reduce domestic abuse: "A high percentage of the subjects were poor, unemployed, and cohabiting without marriage -- factors strongly associated with the risk of domestic violence."

When will we start to decry the epidemic of cohabitation? When will we again uphold marriage and the incumbent commitment to honor, cherish and forsake all others that it brings to a relationship?

In the national debate two years ago over family values, too many people argued airily that the issue has something to do with a husband, wife, two kids and a dog, a swing set in the back yard and a barbecue grill on the deck. What the debate ought to focus on are the incentives we provide for young people to marry, first of all, and to stay married once the initial commitment is made.

Unmarried mothers are disproportionately poor. The most effective way to avoid poverty, particularly when children are in the picture, is through marriage. Apparently, it is also one of the most effective ways to avoid domestic abuse.

I would be interested in seeing the domestic abuse figures for women who remain chaste until their wedding night. I'd bet the farm they aren't very high. You see, a curious thing occurs when sex is introduced into a relationship. Suddenly, the relationship moves from the rational into the realm of emotions. A celibate young lady can be infatuated with a man, but as his faults emerge over time, she is able to decide whether to eliminate him as a prospective marriage partner.

But when she is persuaded to go to bed with the guy, she relinquishes her most intimate possession and becomes vulnerable to emotional manipulation.

Don't get me wrong: Sex is not the problem. It is just that married couples tend to approach sex, knowing it is for better or worse, as a way to gratify one another. Sex outside of marriage, though, particularly for men, tends to be the ultimate selfish act, devoid of responsibility and nurture.

Even if cohabiting partners eventually marry, they start from a background not of self control, sacrifice and love, but of self gratification, selfishness and lust. When the going gets tough, as it does in any marriage, self rules supreme, and the couple divorce. These are the seeds of domestic discord.

When a young man resorts to psychological manipulation to convince a woman to share his bed, and he graduates to emotional manipulation to keep her there, what happens when he doesn't want her around? Might not he resort to physical manipulation?

But instead of encouraging chastity and faithfulness, we blame a male-dominated society for domestic abuse. Unfortunately, that oversimplified and false assertion leaves women with no direction how to avoid such abuse. Apparently, their best bet is to avoid men altogether. The only other option is to poke around in the dark, sampling different men in search of one who seems sensitive and caring -- the kind of guy who won't beat the tar out of his girlfriend.

But women needn't fear strong men. They ought to look for a man who is aggressive enough to protect from harm the woman he cares about. They should seek a man who is strong enough to control his sexual urges until after marriage. A man able to do that, after all, is better equipped to remain faithful after the wedding day. They should look for a man proud and ambitious enough to unhesitatingly sacrifice his own comfort to provide for his family.

It is not a truly strong man, after all, who typically is a wife-beater; it is a weak man, unable to earn his wife's affection, loyalty and support, who resorts to violence to get it.

Oh, but that's so chauvinistic, you might say. What woman needs a man to protect her and provide for her? After all, men and women essentially are equals.

Are they? Men resort to verbal and physical violence to settle disputes with one another. Could it be that the women's movement has been so successful in breaking down chauvinism that some men believe it's OK to settle their disputes with women in the same way?

And who are the victims? Too often they are women who really want a man who cringes when someone uses foul language around her; who would never dream of letting her change a flat tire; who would give his very life for the woman he loves.

~Jay Eastlick is night editor of the Southeast Missourian.