If you hit your spouse, you've broken your marriage vows, period. Such a person, until they get help, has no more right to expect fidelity than a cheating spouse.
Aphaeresis - Ahhhh....then what your philosophy seems to be is:
"
IF 'A', THEN 'B'."
We are back to "personal Standards," what they are and why should someone choose a given set of Standards for themselves.
You seem to arguing for a very "humanistic" sort of "standard" when someone's actions are "determined" by what someone else does.
The issue is not what the "offender"
expects, it is an issue of personal Standards that the "offended" person has for themselves as well as their own "Boundaries"('if you do this, I will do thusly').
Spousal abuse is, imho, "marital unfaithfulness," but the "question" is "by whose standards is 'unfaithfulness' to be judged?"
This is the issue of morality and WHO determines what "morality" is and what "immorality" is?
You are "dancing on the head" of your own viewpoint, and then applying that viewpoint to someone else and/or to someone else's situation. By what "universal standard" should someone make such a judgment that the Standards "they" embrace for themselves should apply to anyone else?
For example: consider two apparently differing views;
1. "Spare the rod and spoil the child."
2. "If you spank me, Mommy or Daddy, I can call the Police and have you arrested for 'child abuse.'"
Or consider this "standard," "Do not return evil for evil."
How about "Karma?"
How about "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Abuse of any sort is wrong, according to the standards that I have accepted, given by the only true Judge of all behavior.
The question seems to be "what responsive action is 'right' for a person receiving abuse and what actions are plainly 'wrong'?"
Avoiding "consequences" for our actions seems to be part of the desired "foggyness" of the "confession" issue.