This chapter provides insight into the history, reach, and impact of Johnson’s typology of intimate partner violence, in research and practice; critiques misrepresentations and misapplications of the typology; identifies opportunities for expanding its use in a variety of violent relationship contexts; and emphasizes the need for additional empirical testing of its theoretical assumptions and practical applications. Johnson’s typology of intimate partner violence, first published in 1995, offers a theoretical lens for distinguishing between types of intimate partner violence. In response to—and in an attempt to bring resolution to—the longstanding debate about the role of gender in intimate partner violence, Johnson argued that there are two primary types of violence: intimate terrorism and situational couple violence, which are perpetrated and experienced by women and men in different ways. However, three decades later, the gender debate persists despite the broad reach of Johnson’s typology in research and practice. This can largely be explained by the relatively limited empirical testing of the typology and the gross misuses of Johnson’s typology, including conceptual misrepresentations and methodological misapplications. When considering the subset of research that is rooted in a sound theoretical understanding of the typology and valid empirical methods, evidence suggests that there are indeed different types of violence, with distinct etiologies, patterns, and outcomes, and that intimate partner violence is a gendered phenomenon.