Do you think a large number of millennial and gen z men will end up without a life partner and chance to reproduce?

Domestic violence laws actually include verbal abuse in some states. But I'm personally speaking specifically of physical violence in my post, like blocking access, restraint, pushing, shoving, slapping, punching, throwing objects at people, destroying property, using weapons obviously, etc (when it is not genuine self defence).

Sexual abuse would obviously be acts of assault or rape. But in terms of family violence, it can be more of an "invisible" issue. For example, in my state, sexual abuse in a relationship or marriage was defined as "indecent behaviour to the other person without consent" which minimizes the assault to more like an inappropriate behaviour rather than rape. I'd say most people would agree spouses can sexually assault or rape each other, but it wouldn't be looked upon like being raped by someone you're not in a relationship with, in general. I don't agree with that, but that is how it'd be viewed by plenty of people.

In my view, sexual abuse in a relationship would also include, without consent, trying to coerce someone to do certain acts or giving punishment if they refuse. Removing condoms without asking and without consent. Deliberate damage to condoms without the other person being aware. Lying about being on birth control. Lying about not having STIs. Cheating on a partner and then giving your partner an STI. People could sleep around even with a condom, likely get HPV or herpes as condoms don't protect against them, then give it to partner. Not only that, but disgusting people do it without even a condom as well. No one would be tested for genital herpes unless they had a lesion and got it swabbed, and men won't be tested for HPV at all. Then there are other STIs that take weeks to be tested for, so even if someone got tested afterwards, it's still quite likely they can pass on an STI. I don't know exactly how laws work with these things though.

Generally, a lot of things are used to support protection orders and not necessarily convicted offences.

Financial abuse:

"5.31 Only some jurisdictions include ‘economic abuse’ in their definition of family violence—namely Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory.

5.32 There are some differences in the precise formulations of economic abuse. It may include, for example:

unreasonable controlling behaviour without consent that denies a person financial autonomy; withholding financial support reasonably necessary for the maintenance of a partner; coercing a partner to relinquish control over assets; unreasonably preventing a person from taking part in decisions over household expenditure or the disposition of joint property; coercing the person to claim social security payments; and preventing the person from seeking or keeping employment.[39]"

In my case, financial abuse was my ex refusing to work for many years and spending my money without permission. I could not support him long term on my wage and didn't agree for him to be dependent on me, he provided no type of domestic labour whatsoever and he found my credit cards and would record the numbers so he could buy things online without asking me.

Emotional and psychological abuse:

"5.37 Both the Victorian and South Australian family violence legislation defines emotional or psychological abuse as well as giving examples of such abuse. The Victorian family violence legislation defines emotional or psychological abuse as behaviour that ‘torments, intimidates, harasses or is offensive’.[48]Examples of such behaviour include racial taunts, threatening to disclose a person’s sexual orientation or to commit suicide, preventing a person from keeping family and cultural connections, and threatening to withhold a person’s medication.[49] The South Australian family violence legislation defines emotional or psychological harm as including mental illness, nervous shock, and distress, anxiety or fear that is more than trivial.[50]Examples of such conduct include threatening to institutionalise the person and threatening to withdraw care on which the person is dependent.[51]

5.38 In contrast, Western Australian family violence legislation includes ‘emotionally abusive conduct’, but neither defines nor gives examples of such conduct.[52]

5.39 Emotional abuse or intimidation under the Tasmanian legislation is defined as the pursuit of ‘a course of conduct that he or she knows, or ought to know, is likely to have the effect of unreasonably controlling or intimidating, or causing mental harm, apprehension or fear, in his or her spouse’.[53]

5.40 Other legislation refers to conduct that is intimidating,[54]harassing[55] or offensive.[56]Intimidation is defined variously to include conduct that: causes reasonable apprehension or fear;[57] a reasonable apprehension of injury[58] or violence to the person or the person’s property;[59]has the effect of unreasonably controlling the person or causing mental harm;[60] causes physical harm;[61] prevents the person from doing any act that the person is lawfully entitled to do or compels the person to do an act that the person is legally entitled to abstain from;[62] and conduct that amounts to harassment or molestation.[63] Intimidation is usually included either as a subcategory of emotional abuse or as a ground of family violence in its own right. Similarly, in some cases harassment and offensive behaviour are treated as subcategories of emotional abuse or of intimidation, while in other cases they form an aspect of family violence in their own right."

I'd say most people would generally view verbal/psychological/emotional abuse as name calling, shouting at, swearing at - particularly if it systematic or regular behaviour. I mean if my voice gets a bit louder during an argument because I'm frustrated and the person's talking over me then I don't view that as "abuse" even though it's negative. But if I was to just start yelling at my partner or calling him names, saying fuck you etc etc, that would be abusive to me. Obviously threatening people would be commonly viewed as abusive, in terms of threatening harm, to damage property, to take someones property away, to take necessary things away that the person is entitled to, to take away pets or children where there has been no abuse to warrant attempting to take them away...

For me, personally, I think being highly manipulative is psychological abuse. For example, gaslighting, trying to convince a person they're crazy when they speak the truth or try to find resolution. Completely denying things that happened (like hitting somebody, or spending money without permission).

There are also separate categories for stalking, breaching protection orders, property damage and abuse of animals that all fall under family violence laws in various ways depending on state. Harm to pets falls under property damage in some states, but in others it can fall under more general family violence and emotional abuse.