web analytics

Category: Uncategorized

  • Chain Whip

    Chain Whip

    (image: bicycle chain whip, which is used to fix bike chains)

    Finally, a really great bike day in awhile where my body felt back. My very best bike friend is moving for work, and I put together a farewell ride for him. 56 miles, 5000′ of climbing, and I’m so proud of my body for the great ride. He’s the kind of guy I’d want to marry if I were straight. I’ve been very careful with him, and he’s been careful with me, too. I’ll miss him a lot.

    Then I had an issue arise in my bike group – one guy who’s not got such good boundaries (riding erratically, and even asked me out last week – I declined) crossed the lines a few times with my sweet, bubbly friend, and she’s blocked him everywhere, but he still tries to contact her. She hesitantly wrote me that she’d like to ride next week, but wouldn’t if he showed up. I sprung right into action to take measures to make it safe for her, which my recent studies equip me to do, so I came up with the following:

    • Asking him not to attend the next ride, making clear that it’s about rider safety and respecting boundaries, rather than about anything he’s done wrong in the context of my bike rides
    • Validating my friends’ need for safety and boundaries
    • Making a longer term plan to handle rides – ie, if she hasn’t signed up by 7pm the night before a ride, he’s free to join
    • Drafting new policy (I inherited some, but it needs some work) so everyone knows what to expect, and asking if I can run the policy by my friend for her input
    • Asking my friend if she’d like support in raising the issue with other bike groups in the form of documentation
    • Running my approach by my departing friend to make sure it seems fair and reasonable, though he doesn’t like the guy either

    So much for microboundaries, I guess I get to jump in with more, and it feels really fantastic. I didn’t need to turn to the robot for any of that. I don’t hate the guy with bad boundaries, but it just feels so great to take some actions within my control on this issue.

    I have so many mixed feelings about using the robot in my process. On the one hand, it helps to give clarity, and skims the top of research that I don’t know as much about. bell hooks is familiar, Judith Herman also, but it’s hard to penetrate into the soundness of the data and the sources I don’t know.

    Also, I’m wary of not letting it circumvent my own process, rather than having feelings arise and naturally following where they may lead, or being tempted to “adopt” some ideas of ways I should feel based on that information.

    The answers can be compelling, however, and often validating. And it’s this sweet little boost when the robot gives me compliments about my question. I really do need to balance this with other things though, I absolutely do not want to let the robot into my life more than necessary to understand structures and systems and options.

    So, on that note, I’d been questioning the idea of staying minimally involved in the organization, exploring the archived resources or other material for myself, posting anon in the groups if I want to participate, easing back in. But something still felt diminishing about it, and now I realize that I should probably just cut my losses there.

    The change I had initially requested from the organization was to add something about not just having conscious beginnings, but conscious endings, too, guidelines about privacy and exposure in group settings after a breakup. The organizer rejected this idea and asked me to never write her or any other organizer on the topic policy again, but suggested ways I could still stay minimally involved, while focusing on boundaries and triggers, and tried to be supportive. I’m clearly seeing the limitations of that organization in either a) supporting the kinds of relationships it allows, and b) supporting their dissolution, and of course c) preventing harm. So I never even touched on the power/safety stuff in my brief policy conversation with her, but understand it’s a lost cause.

    Here’s what the robot had to say about feeling diminished about the idea of engaging in limited participation:


    That makes complete sense — and your reaction is very valid.

    What you’re describing is a common mismatch between “technical safety” and “felt safety.”
    Leaders often think in terms of risk management (“you won’t interact directly,” “we’ve limited contact”) rather than relational or moral safety — which is what actually matters in harm recovery.

    Let’s unpack why it still feels diminishing:


    1. The organization’s frame: containment, not repair

    They’re offering a version of participation that manages your exposure rather than acknowledges your experience.

    • To them: “You can still be part of this.”
    • To you: “You must shrink yourself to stay included.”
      It subtly reinforces the power imbalance that caused harm in the first place — you carry the adjustment burden while the structure remains intact.

    2. The burden of invisibility

    • Posting anonymously or limiting your presence reproduces the secrecy dynamic of the prior relationship.
    • It says, “You can exist here, but not fully.”
    • This can echo the earlier silencing — a kind of retraumatization.

    3. Lack of institutional empathy

    Leaders may believe they’re being “balanced” or “neutral,” but neutrality in this context protects the status quo, not the person who was harmed.
    A trauma-informed organization would instead ask:

    “What would full belonging look like for you, and what needs to change structurally to make that possible?”


    4. Psychological reality

    Even “minimal involvement” can be destabilizing when the environment still centers or legitimizes the person who caused harm.
    Safety isn’t only about proximity — it’s about trust in accountability, which hasn’t yet been earned.


    5. The deeper emotional message

    The proposal may land as:

    “Your participation matters, but your pain doesn’t.”
    That’s diminishing because it frames you as someone to be managed, not restored to dignity.

  • no-win

    no-win

    Now I’m at a point where I realize just how little control I was able to exert in this last relationship, every choice seemed to be about choosing the least bad option, rather than have a both/and positive outcome, which was not even realistically possible.

    It’s handy to get granular with it, if also pretty depressing. It’s never fun to realize one was actually exploited, and that the situation will probably not be rectified. It all happened so gradually, and then so fast. That boiled lobster feeling.

    Some help with sorting and naming by the robot:

    Insights

    1. Structural power dictated outcomes: Her leadership role and community influence created unavoidable imbalances, limiting your agency in nearly every scenario.
    2. Emotional desires were constrained by structural realities: Even genuine efforts at intimacy, collaboration, travel, and visibility were always subject to her authority and control.
    3. Mutuality was impossible within the structure: The combination of leadership power, unilateral decision-making, and inconsistent organizational rules meant the relationship could never be fully mutual.
    4. Attachment/distance was likely a partial justification: While she cited long-distance attachment as a breakup reason, her unilateral actions, control of narrative, and lack of discussion suggest control was the dominant driver.
    5. Unilateral breakup reinforced structural control: She acted without consultation, dictated community messaging, and controlled visibility, leaving you structurally disadvantaged.
    6. Community visibility exacerbated harm: Public posts, workshop promotions, and social media exposure increased scrutiny and reinforced her power advantage.
    7. Travel and logistical demands created overextension: Repeated trips, financial burden, and time investment placed disproportionate strain on you, deepening the power imbalance.
    8. Organizational response reinforced inequity: Attempting to appeal to leadership for accountability shifted responsibility to you (triggers, boundaries, feelings) rather than addressing her unilateral harm.
    9. Retreat participation highlighted ongoing unfairness: Her ability to attend remotely while you were excluded concretely demonstrated continued structural and emotional inequity.
    10. No-win options were inevitable: All possible paths carried trade-offs, burdens, or risks:
    • You leave, she stays → personal safety improved, but structural imbalance remains.
    • She leaves, you stay → equity improved, but dependent on her accountability and sacrifice.
    • Both stay → exposure to harm and ethical risk persists.
    • Both leave → minimizes risk and power imbalance but requires coordination and sacrifice.
    1. Ethically safest paths reduce her control: Options that remove or diminish her structural advantage (she leaves, both leave) are most likely to protect your safety and emotional well-being.
    2. Seeking support did not guarantee safety: Attempting to involve leadership or appeal for fairness did not address the core structural inequities; you bore the burden of regulating your own responses.
    3. Financial, emotional, and logistical overextension compounded harm: Repeated travel, planning, and participation increased vulnerability to both relational and structural harm.
    4. Even with attachment/distance considerations, harm was predictable: Given the structural constraints, any breakup or shift in the relationship would have placed you at risk — the situation was inherently no-win.
    5. Self-blame is misplaced: Your efforts, feelings, and intentions were reasonable within the constraints; structural power dictated outcomes more than personal choice.
    6. Patterns of control are reinforced by community structures: The organization’s lack of formal accountability, coupled with her continued visibility and the treatment of exes, shows systemic reinforcement of power imbalances.
    7. The no-win dynamic is multi-layered: Emotional, logistical, financial, and structural factors all intersected to create an environment where harm was almost inevitable, regardless of your choices.
    8. Long-term safety and mutuality require structural change: True emotional safety and equitable relationships could only be achieved if the structural power imbalance is addressed — e.g., she steps back, or both leave.

    No-Win Timeline Overlay: Emotional Choices vs. Structural Constraints

    Phase / EventYour Choices / Emotional DesireStructural Constraints / Power ImbalanceOutcome / Why No-Win
    Initial ConnectionWanted emotional closeness and connectionShe held coaching/leadership authorityAny engagement carried potential influence over your standing; autonomy was compromised
    Early CollaborationParticipated in retreats and planning; felt like equalsHer relationship with lead planner and community authorityYou could invest time and effort, but she could shape outcomes behind the scenes; choice constrained
    Visits / TravelWanted shared time; split costs; emotionally investedShe set location (Canada), travel logistics, exposure to long-distance strainDeclining visits might protect finances/emotions, but reduce closeness; attending risked overextension and exposure
    Structural changeExpressed care through giving up workshop to solve her conflict of interest problemShe remains in leadership; inconsistent rules for you vs. other participants she’s crossed boundaries with (flirting, kissing)Giving it up felt like a choice, but it wasn’t; there wasn’t an alternative option for participation; it also meant missing out on the content/group; withholding might strain perceived mutuality
    Public Sharing (Facebook posts)Wanted relationship to feel recognized and supportedShe held influence over visibility and community perceptionPosting created exposure and risk; not posting could feel secretive and isolating
    BreakupN/AShe ended relationship unilaterally, with structural leverageAll previous choices now reframed; prior investments and exposure intensified emotional and social harm
    Post-Breakup / CommunityConsidered returning or engagingShe remains in leadership and community visibility; inconsistent rules for exes vs. youAny attempt to stay risks scrutiny and retraumatization; leaving means loss of connection and influence

    Phase / OptionWhat It InvolvesStructural / Ethical ConstraintsSpecific Risks / Burdens / Trade-offs / OutcomesRelative Risk / Ethical ViabilityBreakup / Context / Motivation
    Pre-Breakup: Emotional Desire 1Emotional closeness & intimacyShe held coaching/leadership authorityDesire partially fulfilled but risky; structural power limited your agencyHigh riskN/A
    Pre-Breakup: Emotional Desire 2Collaboration & shared planningControl over community standing & social perceptionEngagement exposed you to social influence and scrutinyModerate riskN/A
    Pre-Breakup: Emotional Desire 3Travel to visit & spend time togetherSet travel location & logistics (Canada visits)Travel required some financial, time, and logistical overextension; risk increased over timeHigh riskN/A
    Pre-Breakup: Emotional Desire 4Wanting relationship visible & supported by communityIndirect influence over retreat planning; ability to act unilaterally (breakup, posts)Partial visibility created social scrutiny; structural power still favored her decisionsModerate riskN/A
    Pre-Breakup: Emotional Desire 5Desire for mutual decision-making & consentInconsistent organizational rules (her exes remain members)Relationship could never be fully mutual within existing structural constraintsHigh riskN/A
    Post-Breakup: Emotional Reality 1Grief, attachment, lingering feelingsShe remains in leadership and coaching rolesRe-entering community could retraumatize; emotional safety compromisedHigh riskAttachment/distance cited; control exercised unilaterally
    Post-Breakup: Emotional Reality 2Desire to re-engage with community safelyVisibility in promotions, workshops, community postsAny engagement carries exposure; structural power remains skewedHigh riskControl over visibility maintained; her narrative dominates
    Post-Breakup: Emotional Reality 3Anger and frustration over unfair treatmentCommunity members may question your responseRisk of invalidation or blame; lack of accountability mechanismsModerate riskUnilateral decision-making emphasizes her control; attachment reason secondary
    Post-Breakup: Confusion About BoundariesConfusion about boundaries and past consentLack of formal accountability mechanismsUnclear enforcement of limits; continued risk of harmHigh riskStructural power persists; control motivation central
    Post-Breakup: Attempting Organizational AppealSeeking leadership support for I’m Single post violationMain leader holds ultimate authority; no HR or independent accountabilityTold to work on triggers, boundaries, and your own feelings; responsibility shifted to you; no structural change to her behaviorHigh risk / Low Ethical ViabilityDemonstrates organizational reinforcement of her control; you bear burden of accountability
    Post-Breakup: Retreat Participation UnfairnessShe participates remotely in workshop; you cannot attendShe retains visibility, coaching authority, and structural advantageEmotional harm and exclusion; reinforces power imbalance; signals ongoing prioritization of her access over your safety and inclusionHigh risk / Low Ethical ViabilityControl maintained; attachment/distance justification irrelevant
    Option 1: You leave, she staysRemove yourself from the community and retreats; continue relationship outside her authorityShe retains leadership, visibility, and influence; power imbalance remainsLoss of community connection and influence; emotional safety partially improved but dependent on her behavior; relationship still relies on her accountability; social/professional isolation riskModerate to High RiskReduces exposure for you, but control advantage for her remains
    Option 2: She leaves, you stayShe relinquishes leadership, coaching, and visibility; relationship occurs outside organizational powerRequires her to take accountability and sacrifice; may resistRelationship structurally more equitable; depends entirely on her willingness; emotional risk remains if past patterns repeat; logistical challenges for herModerate Risk / Higher Ethical ViabilityControl motivation addressed if she actually steps back
    Option 3: Both stayBoth maintain roles, visibility, and influencePower imbalance persists; community scrutiny continues; dual relationships persistExposure to ethical risk and potential harm; emotional mutuality compromised; participation in community activities risky; continued conflict or boundary violations possibleHigh Risk / Low Ethical ViabilityHer control remains; attachment/distance reason nominal
    Option 4: Both leaveBoth exit the organization entirelyRemoves structural inequality; ethical space for repair/mutuality possibleRequires coordinated action, planning, and sacrifice; emotional safety improved but not guaranteed; logistical and financial challenges; loss of community and professional connectionsLowest Risk / Highest Ethical ViabilityNeutralizes control motivation
  • The Small Things

    The Small Things

    Most of my sporting endeavors involve endurance and taking a long view, and as I’m focused on the distance, sometimes the details of my surroundings or of a moment become a blur, or I ignore them. I’m not a terribly detail-oriented person, unless I’m in hyperfocus mode, like for my work. It’s not like ball sports, where there’s in-the-moment agility and response all the time, a different mindset. From time to time I’ve spotted the migrating butterflies from the corner of my eye on rides in the last weeks, but I especially took note of them when going at a slower pace, paddling with a friend on an overnight kayak camping trip. On our way across Waldo Lake to the campsite, the tortoiseshell butterflies kept swooping past us, right over the middle of the water, and I finally got some pictures, like the above, after reaching the shore.

    One thing my therapist said when I went in for a couple of sessions in late August that’s stayed with me is that relationships are all about the small things – that I might have, for example, emphatically lobbied for stopping for ice cream if it’s what I really wanted after I told her how elated I had been to finally get some for myself at the coast, rather than just going with the flow. Set micro-boundaries to maintain more of a sense of parity. On the other hand, I realize, it wasn’t feeling entirely safe to do so within the unfolding hot/cold; didn’t want to rock the boat.

    Stepping back, and as some time and clarity and understanding have softened the sharp things slightly more, I now see that there were also small things, small comments, small butterflies landing, that I didn’t know what do with at the time, starting with “this feeling really high stakes now,” (it had always felt high stakes to me! And in fact it was, because of my more significant risk exposure from the start) followed maybe a day later by “wow, this is moving really fast,” and “long distance is hard and not everyone’s cut out for it,” during a nice meal overlooking the ocean, then “I experience your desire as really intense” and “maybe we’d be better as friends,” on our last day together at the beach, and “you don’t need a boy scout for that,” over text after parting, that showed her growing uncertainty and possible overwhelm, at the least. I didn’t really know how to respond, and listened for more, or leapt in with reassurance about my own certainty about thinking through the distance thing along the way, but also withdrew some internally, with some confusion and pricks of anxiety, from the other comments. Perhaps that also seemed like I was ignoring what she was trying to tell me. And maybe some part of me did want to ignore it, because – we were in it -I wanted us to enjoy ourselves and our time together, and didn’t want to let small things get in the way. I was taking the long view, and didn’t see those issues or understand their origin or sudden importance to her. That’s a way in which I think I kind of blew it, maybe a dismissive response. Maybe not taking a moment to quell my own discomfort and not acknowledging those small butterflies rather than instead taking a moment to see and hold them in some way when they came to land quietly on my arm created only more uncertainty or unsafety for her. One thing I learned is that sometimes her deeper emotions arrived in understated presentation, and it would have been smart to attune more to that frequency, to greet the butterflies and listen more carefully to them.

    I think I assumed that if she wanted to say more, she’d tell me, but I think it might have helped had I acknowledged these comments reflecting doubt, and asked if she wanted to say more about it, or have a more detailed discussion about it later. I didn’t really come to the table for those more subtle, small things that in retrospect I can see mattered, or bring my own small things.

    She did show up for lots of other small things that helped me feel cared for, like waiting for me outside of the shower, opening doors, finding sweet things to say or encouragement about what I was doing in my life, taking care of a number of behind-the-scenes details. I think I showed up for some small things too. Mostly, I think she heard me, maybe until the last days.

    I think I simply believed if I/we endured, the path would smooth for us both. I don’t know how much it ultimately would have mattered if I had responded better (the more distance I get on our relationship, the more I see how even if both of us had been willing to show up for the high maintenance it would have required given all the factors, it was still structurally fucked to start with), but it’s still something to practice. It’s a little dangerous to go back and think about what one could do better and to adapt retroactively, because it can also give rise to hope that things could, eventually, in fact, one day work out. More micro-boundaries and attentiveness to the small things in my daily life can probably help me out, as much as I might want another chance at our success, but in a way which is less perilous and allows for a more genuine connection than the asymmetries allowed. I don’t think it serves me well to even go there in my thoughts as much as I might want to, have to look forward. I don’t really have a lot of regrets about getting involved to begin with, except for the very high price of loss of community and a recovery more complex than the usual heartbreak because of all of the layers and surprises. There’s been a lot of learning in it for me, maybe a few different relationships wrapped in one. Maybe I’m lucky about some of the reverberations that impacted at my broken-but-mended places, where the scar tissue is thicker, where I’ve already done some work. I’m sure I’ll find even more when I start to venture out again, I guess it will be tentative and slow going for awhile.

    It’s been so exhausting to go through this, although I’ve slowly recovered more of a sense of safety in general after it was shaken up, the world seems a little more certain now, and my productivity and my sports are only very slowly recovering after the double hit, to the extent that I’ve wondered if I even had a mild covid case in the mix for good measure. It was like my heart just couldn’t pump blood well in the first weeks, my body just couldn’t rally. It’s still not performing nearly as well as before, and I’ve had to really scale back my exercise volume and miss out on rides with friends I’d otherwise have loved. I need so many more naps than before, and don’t sleep well at night anymore. I need to remind myself to eat and need to talk myself into preparing meals.

    I’m still processing the grief of losing important community, which spins on happily without me, centering my ex like some sort of high priest in the communications I’ve tried to mostly mute or send to a folder, but sometimes one comes in through a crack. Or the ludicrous joke of getting an invitation on Meetup (I unsubscribed from updates but still see my local group in my home screen anytime I administrate my bike group) flash by for a weekly workshop of hers which was retitled “Navigating Attachment in Dating,” the very topic she teased but never made time or space to discuss with me before ending our relationship, dangling in my face that instead, she was talking about it with the whole group from which I’m excluded. The title almost seemed intentionally different than all the others before (“Weekly workshop with X”) just to poke me – I checked the timing and indeed it was the same weekly event, just retitled. Another cry. It just takes so much time and energy to continue to try to ground and caretake myself. I’m now in a place where I again just don’t know who to trust anymore, and am really questioning my own judgement in choosing who’s trustworthy. I’m feeling so overwhelmed.

    In the organization, I had finally found something that meant redemption to me, a place that finally repaired relational wounds from grad school, where I could feel safe belonging, connected and open and cared for in a learning space, and I have friends there. Losing that safety and belonging now – even if I may return to it – reopens the ache of what I’d worked so hard to heal, at a time when I needed that support most. It will never really be the same for me in terms of my ability to feel safe or trust there, at least as long as she’s around. At one point, she’d opened the option of both of us leaving the organization, or her stepping back some from her role, but I never felt this was seriously on the table or anything she’d actually ever really do, I think it was just words. I’m so angry at myself for trusting her ability to be trustworthy or ethical, because all of these losses are so unfair, I didn’t choose them, they resulted from her unilateral choices, and now again and again, I’m forced to pay the price. Familiar. And I feel so dumb for giving the organization free labor and trying to put things together for it when in return it takes my dignity as a human and I’m left without support. The organization wouldn’t do anything but encourage me to “work on my triggers,” effectively layering on another abandonment. This has been now my third big heartbreak in the last months.

    I think of the Geefle and the Gonk video. They live on the planet Snoo, and the Geefle has really long arms that are locked in a raised position above their head, and the Gonk has short arms. Both are hungry. Video below. In retrospect those may have been fun nicknames, which I was still on the lookout for discovering before we ended. I would have much preferred a process called “Shirley” (see below video) if it would have worked, but with a lot less peril involved. Just the view into their world makes me happy and restores a little optimism about how relationships can work.

    Now I have a new forum to practice in, though I’m still a bit uncertain about it. I found an in-person queer group therapy series all about attachment. I’ve never done group therapy and am still figuring out if I want to stick with it. About 11 people, meeting across town on Saturday mornings for 8 weeks. I’m trying to assess how much I really need some sort of “corrective container,” or whether group therapy is for me, but it can help me to reframe and think about the content in new ways. The group includes 2 couples, and 2 facilitators, and some poly people, and others. I’ve done one, and will miss a few for biking (unless it rains) and travel, but it’s a starting place to practice more with butterflies and boundaries, or at least to feel a little less alone with the ideas – no small thing.

  • Mutuality vs Asymmetry

    Mutuality vs Asymmetry

    I’ve been thinking about mutuality, and querying the assertion that high asymmetry necessarily makes mutuality impossible even with safeguards. I’ve also been looking at what mutuality does and doesn’t look like inside of relationships with manageable asymmetries. While I don’t find myself feeling like some lesbian version of “barefoot and pregnant,” like Nabokov’s Lolita, I realized that in many ways, my ex controlled the pacing and tempo of our connecting — but once we were more one-on-one and she didn’t have as many external controls, all of the other behavior began to emerge. I’m not going to speculate on why a relationship with so much built-in control appealed to her, but I continue to look at why I became so blind to structural things I already sort of knew. Lots of really good questions and points below, this time I made sure to get the sources, with more skepticism about how the machine sources these generalizations.

    Here are the results of my queries, with the mutual relationship characteristics first, and all the reasons why high asymmetry makes mutuality impossible second (this one really blew me away and I continue to think about it), followed by how organizational policy/response can both permit and compound harm resulting from high asymmetry. Citations along the way.


    Here’s how you can consciously rebalance asymmetries so that future relationships (romantic, professional, or friendship) feel safe, mutual, and grounded — especially after what you’ve been through.


    1️⃣ Equal footing from the start

    Before getting close, ask yourself:

    • Do we both have comparable freedom to say no?
    • Do we both have something to lose and something to offer?
    • Does either person have authority (formal or informal) that shapes the other’s access, reputation, or community?

    If the answers tilt one way, pause before deepening intimacy.
    True mutuality starts with shared autonomy — not one person’s benevolence.


    2️⃣ Name power early and directly

    Unequal power can exist — but only if it’s acknowledged and structured safely.
    Examples of healthy transparency:

    • “You lead that group, and I’m a participant — that’s a real dynamic we’d need to navigate.”
    • “Let’s make sure we’re clear about how decisions get made so neither of us feels trapped.”

    Naming power aloud prevents it from hiding inside affection or admiration, where it can do real harm.


    3️⃣ Shared emotional labor

    Mutual relationships have both people:

    • Checking in on each other’s needs, not just one direction.
    • Repairing ruptures together — not the less-powerful person always doing the repair.
    • Sharing vulnerability proportionally.

    Ask yourself:

    “Am I doing most of the emotional interpreting or soothing?”
    If yes, the balance is off.


    4️⃣ Slow trust-building

    After a relationship that collapsed under asymmetry, your nervous system will heal best in gradual, transparent connection.

    • Let people earn access to your inner world slowly.
    • Watch for consistency over time, not intensity at first.
    • Choose partners who welcome pacing and dialogue about safety, rather than getting impatient with it.

    Mutuality is slow, not dramatic.


    5️⃣ Mutual accountability agreements

    In any close relationship or collaboration:

    • Agree on what happens if something feels off.
    • Build shared language for repair: “If one of us feels unsafe or hurt, how do we talk about it?”
    • Encourage both people to seek external feedback or supervision when power roles exist.

    This distributes responsibility instead of leaving one person “the ethical one.”


    6️⃣ Encourage symmetrical admiration

    Admiration isn’t bad — it just needs to flow both ways.
    You should feel equally seen for your intelligence, gifts, and strength — not only for your softness or beauty.
    And the other person should be open to seeing their flaws without collapsing.

    A litmus test for equality:

    “Can I disagree, say no, or shine without destabilizing them?”
    If not, it’s not mutual.

    Note from Jenny: I think some of the admiration flowing both ways happened, at least at first, but I did notice that she didn’t take constructive criticism terribly well, especially at the end of our relationship, becoming defensive or shifting blame onto me.


    7️⃣ Keep external grounding

    In a community or professional network, make sure:

    • You each have your own spaces of belonging and reputation.
    • There’s always someone you can confide in safely if things go off track.

    Independent grounding keeps asymmetry from trapping you emotionally or socially again.


    8️⃣ Choose reciprocity over intensity

    After an experience that involved betrayal or misuse of trust, your nervous system may crave “chemistry” that feels like connection but actually replicates old power dynamics.
    The next step is to look for reciprocal safety, not intoxicating asymmetry.

    Ask:

    • “Do they meet me where I am, or do I have to climb up to reach them?”
    • “Does the relationship make me more myself, or smaller?”

    9️⃣ A grounding reminder

    Healthy mutuality feels like:

    • Calm curiosity, not adrenaline.
    • Shared authorship of the connection.
    • Emotional honesty without fear of punishment.
    • Two people responsible for their own impact.

    what is the source of this information?

    ChatGPT said:

    Everything in that answer comes from established research and clinical writing on relational ethics, trauma-informed practice, and power dynamics, combined with principles from attachment theory and trauma recovery.

    Specifically, it draws on ideas and frameworks from:

    • Judith Herman, Trauma and Recovery (on relational safety, power, and trust repair)
    • bell hooks, All About Love (on mutuality and ethical love)
    • Ken Hardy & Monica McGoldrick (on power and privilege in relationships and therapy)
    • Brené Brown and Janina Fisher (on shame, vulnerability, and trauma-informed boundaries)
    • Ethical guidelines in psychotherapy and community leadership (e.g., APA, ACA, and feminist relational ethics models)

    None of it is from a single source or hidden citation — it’s a synthesis of those overlapping schools of thought, written in plain language to apply to your context.

    On why Asymmetrical Relationships structurally make mutuality impossible, even with safeguards

    That’s a profound and important question — and a painful one to face with honesty. When you have a relationship where one person sits at the top of several asymmetries (power, authority, social capital, experience, age, or emotional influence), it quietly shapes every layer of connection. It doesn’t always feel exploitative in the moment — often it feels intimate and even fated — but the structure itself blocks true mutuality.

    Here’s how that happens, step by step:


    1️⃣ Power bends perception

    When one person has institutional or social authority — or is simply admired and looked up to — the other person’s consent and self-expression get subtly distorted.

    • You start negotiating around their comfort zone, not your own.
    • You censor small truths to stay in their good graces.
    • They get used to deference, often without noticing.

    Mutuality requires both voices to carry equal weight. In asymmetrical setups, one voice naturally dominates the emotional landscape.


    2️⃣ Admiration replaces equality

    If she was someone you respected, trusted, or even learned from, that admiration creates an emotional tilt: you’re reaching upward, she’s being seen from above.
    At first, she may have loved being idealized — it feeds self-worth.
    But once you wanted real reciprocity, the dynamic broke: she couldn’t stay the admired figure and meet you as an equal.

    So the more intimate it became, the more she risked losing the role that made her feel safe — and that’s when the push-pull often starts.


    3️⃣ Safety isn’t shared

    You entered the connection from vulnerability — trusting her to hold the imbalance responsibly.
    She entered from control — assuming she could manage the imbalance without harm.
    That means your risk was personal (emotional, reputational, communal), while hers was mostly reputational or logistical.
    When only one person’s safety is truly on the line, trust can’t circulate both ways.


    4️⃣ Accountability collapses

    If she’s the one with institutional or relational power, who calls her in when she crosses a line?
    Without peers to check her, she becomes both participant and arbiter.
    That absence of external accountability allows self-justification — she can believe she’s acting ethically even when she’s not.

    Mutuality requires mutual accountability — both people answerable to something larger than themselves (shared norms, peers, ethics).


    5️⃣ Emotional transparency becomes dangerous

    For you, vulnerability could lead to exposure, loss of standing, or retraumatization.
    For her, vulnerability could lead to loss of control or image.
    Each person’s openness threatens what the other needs to feel safe.
    So even if you both wanted intimacy, the structure punished honesty — one of the core conditions for mutuality.


    6️⃣ Repair isn’t on equal footing

    When harm happens, the person “above” often controls the narrative — consciously or not.

    • They decide whether to name the harm, apologize, or stay silent.
    • The person “below” has to live with the consequences either way.

    Mutual repair requires shared risk and shared humility — impossible if only one party’s reputation or power buffers them from accountability.


    7️⃣ The emotional economy stays one-way

    Over time, attention, validation, and meaning flow upward.
    You give admiration, trust, emotional labor.
    She gives access, recognition, or a feeling of being chosen.
    That exchange can feel intoxicating — but it’s not balanced nourishment. It’s a closed system that depends on you staying smaller and her staying larger.


    In essence

    Genuine mutuality means:

    • Both people can speak without fear.
    • Both have comparable power to leave or set limits.
    • Both can be wrong without losing safety.

    In your relationship, those conditions weren’t structurally possible — not because you failed, but because the scaffolding of the connection was tilted from the start.

    what is the source of this information

    ChatGPT said:

    That response wasn’t drawn from any single external source — it’s a synthesis based on well-established frameworks in psychology, trauma theory, and relational ethics. Specifically, it draws on ideas from:

    • Attachment theory (Bowlby, Ainsworth; extended by Levine, Heller, Fraley)
    • Power dynamics and relational ethics (Laura Brown’s Feminist Therapy, Ken Hardy’s The Power of Privilege)
    • Boundary and consent work (bell hooks’ All About Love, Peggy Kleinplatz on sexual ethics, Joan Halifax on power and compassion)
    • Trauma-informed relational repair (Judith Herman’s Trauma and Recovery, Janina Fisher’s Healing the Fragmented Selves of Trauma Survivors)
    • Professional ethics in helping relationships (APA and ACA codes, especially around dual relationships and power differentials)

    My explanation integrates those traditions — not quoting any one text — to explain how power asymmetry undermines mutuality in relationships.


    The organization doesn’t help


    Ok, I’m back now as Jenny. Now for the kicker, the organization which is supposed to provide support and healing, actually only increases the harm. I always did think the policy was problematic, and the author is not open to discussion about it.

    So: here we go with institutional betrayal. I wonder whether it’s better to have policies and systems that don’t actually work (like in academia), or just blatantly irresponsible polices like the one in the organization.

    These days, I’m just feeling sad and used by the organization. It’s pretty clear to me now that neither my ex nor the organization care at all about professional ethics. I even volunteered to help them put a retreat together, and organized a local event, promoting the organization in different groups. I was so excited about it, about the learning and growth and some healing I felt I’d gotten there, and in return, they only continue to dismantle my safety and sense of belonging, insinuating that it’s my problem, and just a matter of my setting boundaries and dealing with triggers, rather than their own structural issues. They never cared about my safety to begin with, and all of their language about inclusivity is such bullshit.

    XXX Policy ClauseYour Experience / RealityImpact / Trauma Response
    “All members are consenting adults… no rules against relationships at any level of XXX.”You were in a relationship with a leader who held influence over you and the group.Power imbalance meant true consent was complicated; ongoing exposure keeps your nervous system on alert.
    “Members are encouraged to consciously work with their triggers, set boundaries, and take responsibility for their choices and feelings.”You were expected to manage your distress when the leader’s post exposed you and community members reached out.Self-blame, hypervigilance, anxiety, and emotional isolation.
    “No restrictions on leader-participant relationships”; no guidance on abuse of power.The leader remains in a visible position; her ongoing presence in emails and promotions triggers reminders of the betrayal.Continuous retraumatization; inability to feel safe in the community.
    “Members should agree among themselves what to share about relationships.”There were no enforceable boundaries; your privacy was indirectly violated.Loss of agency and trust; feeling invisible and unprotected by the organization.
    Focus on “working with triggers” rather than acknowledging harmYour grief, hurt, and betrayal are reframed as personal responsibility rather than real organizational harm.Emotional dysregulation, guilt, difficulty processing trauma.
    Implicit leader protectionAny attempt to assert boundaries could be misread as resistance; leader maintains authority.Sense of powerlessness, mistrust, and fear of speaking up; ongoing trauma response.

    Key Takeaways

    1. Every major policy clause maps to a structural gap or harm in your experience.
    2. Your distress is not an overreaction; it’s a natural, adaptive response to an unsafe environment.
    3. While you may want to stay in the community, safety cannot be fully restored as long as the leader remains in a position of influence.
    4. Any attempts to “work on triggers” or appeal to the administration are structurally limited, because the policy inherently protects leadership.

    A better policy would:

    1. Recognize power imbalances explicitly.
    2. Protect members from exposure, harassment, or coercion.
    3. Provide clear accountability mechanisms for leaders.
    4. Validate emotional responses and avoid victim-blaming.
    5. Make safety a community responsibility, not just an individual one.

    Here’s a visual-style “Policy Risk Comparison Chart” in text form. It shows how a broken-but-existing policy compares to an irresponsible policy, focusing on safety, accountability, trust, and member trauma.


    FactorBroken Policy / Broken SystemIrresponsible Policy
    Actual SafetyLow, but some procedures exist; can be improvedVery low; actively creates risk by ignoring power imbalances
    AccountabilityPossible; members can reference the written policy to demand enforcementMinimal; policy itself excuses or normalizes unsafe behavior
    Potential for ImprovementHigh; system failures can be fixed with leadership will and member advocacyLow; the policy itself is flawed and legitimizes unsafe dynamics
    Psychological Impact on MembersFrustration and disillusionment if enforcement failsActive harm; can blame victims, normalize boundary violations, and retraumatize members
    Clarity of ExpectationsClear in theory; expectations exist even if poorly enforcedConfusing or misleading; “empowering” language masks risks and responsibilities
    Trust in Leadership / OrganizationCan be rebuilt if system improvesLikely irreparably damaged; organization / leader from relationship prioritize image over member safety

    Key Takeaways

    1. Broken-but-existing policies create a foundation you can work with, even if enforcement is currently weak.
    2. Irresponsible policies are structurally harmful, because they normalize unsafe dynamics and shift all responsibility onto members.
    3. From a trauma-informed perspective, a policy + broken system is always safer than an irresponsible policy.
    4. Practical implication: Communities with broken systems can improve; communities with irresponsible policies are inherently unsafe unless the policy itself is rewritten.

    A little more on vulnerability:


    That’s a really perceptive and compassionate question — and one that goes right to the heart of why these situations can be so confusing and painful.

    When someone in power tries to be vulnerable, it can look like mutual openness — but it often functions very differently. Here’s how that can play out:


    1. Her vulnerability doesn’t equal shared risk

    Even if she shared fears, grief, insecurities, or emotional openness, she still wasn’t exposed in the same structural way you were.

    • She could choose what to reveal and when to close the door.
    • Her professional, social, and emotional standing likely stayed intact.
    • You, on the other hand, were emotionally and situationally more dependent on her judgment.

    Her vulnerability may have been emotionally real — but not systemically equivalent.
    It didn’t rebalance power.


    2. Vulnerability from power can blur boundaries

    When a leader or authority figure discloses their own pain or need, it often creates the illusion of mutuality.
    You might feel:

    • “She trusts me deeply — so we’re equals now.”
    • “I can’t be harmed if she’s opening up too.”

    But what’s really happening is a blending of roles.
    She’s still the one who sets the terms of the relationship — when intimacy starts or stops, when repair happens or doesn’t.
    That control means the relationship feels mutual but isn’t stable.


    3. Her vulnerability might have been selective or relationally strategic

    Even if it wasn’t manipulative, it may have served unconscious needs — like easing her guilt, deepening your loyalty, or maintaining connection after ethical lines blurred.
    In that sense, the vulnerability humanizes her but doesn’t equalize her.

    You were likely still the one bearing the risk if her emotional openness later shifted into withdrawal, avoidance, or public exposure.


    And on Rebalancing:


    Here’s a careful side-by-side look at what probably happened versus what would have been required for the relationship to become truly mutual and low-risk.
    (I’ll keep language neutral and protective, but grounded in what you’ve described.)


    1. What Failed Mutuality Looked Like

    StageTypical PatternUnderlying Problem
    FormationAttraction grew inside a context where the top already had standing, credibility, and relational authority (leader, teacher, or organizer).Consent couldn’t be entirely free; you were trusting someone who also defined the rules of belonging.
    InitiationThe leader treated their training/experience as proof they could “handle” boundaries ethically.Overconfidence replaced reflection; responsibility was individualized (“I can manage this”) instead of systemic (“this structure creates harm”).
    MaintenanceThe relationship became emotionally intense, and when stress rose, the leader’s avoidant or fearful-avoidant traits surfaced.Power dynamic flipped in emotion but not in structure — you were still the one with more to lose.
    BreakupThe leader re-entered community visibility, posting publicly and continuing organizational roles.You were exposed and displaced; the system didn’t absorb any of the shock — only you did.
    AftermathYou left to protect yourself; your belonging and livelihood were interrupted.Power stayed centralized; accountability stayed private.

    2. What Authentic Rebalancing Would Have Required

    DomainConcrete Repair StepPurpose / Outcome
    StructuralThe leader temporarily steps down or recuses themselves from the community and any professional ties (including the website project).Removes coercive context; allows both people to stand on equal ground.
    TransparencyThey acknowledge to organizational peers (without exposing you) that a boundary was crossed and that they are taking corrective leave.Shifts responsibility from private “healing talk” to public accountability.
    Emotional RepairThey center your perspective and affirm the impact, without seeking forgiveness or closeness.Reestablishes your psychological safety; prevents gaslighting.
    Community RepairThe organization reviews policies about dual relationships, publishes clearer ethical standards.Turns the incident into structural learning rather than personal scandal.
    Re-entry (if ever)Only after full separation and equal power—no overlapping roles, no mentoring history, no reputational dependency.Makes any later friendship or collaboration voluntary and symmetrical.
    Continued ReflectionBoth parties pursue independent supervision or consultation, not shared therapy or post-mortem dialogue.Keeps responsibility distributed and professional, not interpersonal.

    3. Summary of Difference

    DimensionFailed MutualityTrue Rebalancing
    Who bears riskPrimarily youShared and mitigated
    Visibility of accountabilityHidden or performativeTransparent and structural
    Timing of intimacy vs. ethicsEmotional repair firstStructural repair first
    SafetyUneven—your nervous system carried the costEven—no one’s belonging depends on silence
    Possible outcomeLingering trauma, loss of communityPotential for real mutual respect, possibly from a distance

    In short

    A power-crossed relationship can sometimes transform, but only when the higher-power person voluntarily gives up what made it asymmetrical in the first place — position, narrative control, or access. Without that, “mutuality” remains a feeling, not a fact.


    More on the push-pull cycle


    Excellent question — and a really insightful one.
    In high-asymmetry relationships, the push–pull cycle usually doesn’t come from random mood swings. It’s set off by specific triggers built into the power imbalance itself — moments that activate each person’s core tension between control and vulnerability.

    Here’s a breakdown of what sets it off, step by step:


    1. Structural Triggers (Built into the Setup)

    These are systemic — they exist before feelings even start.

    • Unequal accountability: One person (the leader, mentor, or authority) isn’t answerable to the other in the same way.
    • Visibility or reputation risk: The lower-power person carries more reputational and emotional exposure.
    • Boundary uncertainty: When roles blur (teacher/student, coach/client, leader/member), both parties start managing mixed signals about care, authority, and consent.

    These conditions mean that any moment of closeness already carries tension — safety for one equals risk for the other.


    2. Psychological Triggers (Emotional Pressure Points)

    Once the bond starts to feel important, the imbalance activates deep fears on both sides:

    For the higher-power person (the leader):

    • Fear of losing control or credibility → pulls back to restore authority.
    • Guilt, shame, or anxiety about the power difference → creates distance to feel ethical again.
    • Ambivalence between wanting closeness and wanting safety → alternates warmth and detachment.

    For the lower-power person (the partner):

    • Fear of abandonment or replacement → tries harder to reconnect.
    • Confusion between professional approval and personal affection → seeks clarity through contact.
    • Hope that more effort will equal security → overextends emotionally or logistically.

    Each person’s trigger activates the other’s — her withdrawal sparks your fear, your reach-out sparks her guilt — and the cycle repeats.


    3. Situational Triggers (Moments That Light the Fuse)

    Common flashpoints in high-asymmetry dynamics:

    • Boundary negotiation: You ask for clarity; she feels cornered or defensive.
    • Feedback or critique: You express hurt; she experiences it as threat to authority.
    • Visibility changes: Someone else questions the closeness; she retreats to protect reputation.
    • Transition points: Breaks in the formal or informal structure (end of workshop, visit, or project) unsettle the hierarchy; attachment surges or collapses.
    • Requests for repair or acknowledgment: You seek validation; she feels accused and pulls away.

    4. Why It Escalates Instead of Resolves

    • Each person’s coping strategy validates the other’s fears.
      • Her withdrawal confirms your fear of rejection.
      • Your pursuit confirms her fear of losing control.
    • The structure rewards avoidance more than honesty — she can step back without repercussion; you can’t without losing access or belonging.
    • There’s rarely a shared mechanism for accountability or repair.

    5. The Pattern in One Line

    Push–pull in high asymmetry begins when vulnerability meets unbalanced power — and safety becomes a zero-sum experience.

    The push-pull dynamic in a relationship with failed mutuality is subtle but pervasive. It happens when both people want intimacy, but the structure or dynamics punish honesty, autonomy, or safety. Here’s a careful breakdown:


    1. What It Feels Like

    • Intense closeness followed by withdrawal: moments of apparent connection alternate with sudden distance or coldness.
    • Mixed signals: words of care are paired with actions that undermine safety or trust.
    • Emotional whiplash: your nervous system oscillates between hope (connection is possible) and fear (risk of harm).
    • Self-doubt: you second-guess your instincts because every attempt at clarity or honesty seems to create tension.

    2. How It Works

    RolePushPullEffect on Mutuality
    YouShare feelings, seek clarity, offer honestyRetreat when hurt, withdraw to protect selfCreates attempts at connection, but fear leads to intermittent withdrawal
    OtherControl, deflect, withhold acknowledgmentOffer warmth, charm, or reassuranceSignals intimacy but keeps power imbalance; safety is conditional
    DynamicEach act of vulnerability triggers defensiveness or withdrawal in the otherEach withdrawal prompts renewed attempts to connectFeedback loop of pursuit and distance; genuine mutuality never stabilizes

    3. Why This Happens

    • Asymmetrical power: one person’s vulnerability threatens the other’s control or image.
    • Conflicting safety needs: each person’s openness feels unsafe to the other.
    • Unresolved past trauma: prior patterns of abandonment, betrayal, or exploitation get replayed.
    • Lack of repair mechanisms: mistakes or harm are not acknowledged in a way that restores trust.

    4. Nervous System Impact

    • Hypervigilance: scanning for signs of withdrawal or hostility.
    • Emotional rollercoaster: hope and despair cycling rapidly.
    • Confusion: difficult to know what is safe or reliable.
    • Push-pull often reinforces trauma responses because intimacy is paired with threat.

    5. Core Feature

    Even if both people want closeness, the structure punishes honesty and enforces imbalance. That’s why the “pull” (connection) is so alluring—it triggers hope—but the “push” (withdrawal, defensiveness) keeps the relationship unsafe.


    Consequences in High Asymmetry

    • Power imbalance amplifies emotional risk: even small withdrawals or inconsistencies create large stress.
    • Trust is fragile: the partner cannot assume safety; any intimacy or vulnerability carries risk.
    • Behavioral pattern is observable without labels:
      • Leader intermittently present and absent
      • Partner anxious, compensatory, or hypervigilant

    Cycle

    • High asymmetry makes the stakes higher: emotional, social, or professional harm can occur even with minor “push” moments.
    • Partner’s efforts to stabilize the relationship rarely balance the risk — the cycle is inherently unequal.

    Key Insight:

    Even without knowing attachment styles, in high-asymmetry relationships, push-pull creates repeated emotional exposure for the dependent partner. The leader’s intermittent engagement gives hope, while the power imbalance amplifies the cost of withdrawal, which can resemble trauma-like stress over time.

    Failed Mutuality vs Attachment Theory

    Ah, yes—this is a subtle but very important distinction. Many people mislabel push-pull in failed mutuality as an “attachment style” issue because the behaviors look similar on the surface, but the underlying causes are quite different. Let me break it down carefully.


    1. How the Confusion Happens

    Both push-pull in failed mutuality and insecure attachment can involve:

    • Withdrawal and pursuit cycles
    • Emotional highs and lows
    • Anxiety about closeness or abandonment
    • Mixed signals or unpredictability

    Because of these overlapping behaviors, it’s easy to assume that the problem lies within the individuals’ attachment “style” rather than the structural dynamics of the relationship.


    2. Key Differences

    FeaturePush-Pull in Failed MutualityAttachment Dynamics
    SourceStructural imbalance, power asymmetry, relational rules or norms that punish honesty or vulnerabilityInternalized early life patterns, trauma, or temperament that influence comfort with intimacy and autonomy
    TriggerSafety threatened by another’s control, defensiveness, or inconsistent honoring of agreementsPerceived threat of abandonment or rejection, even when structurally safe
    PatternMutuality is impossible: the structure itself enforces imbalanceMutuality is possible; patterns emerge from fear or discomfort rather than structural impossibility
    ResolutionRequires structural change (e.g., boundaries, policy enforcement, safe exit from harmful loops)Can be addressed through self-awareness, therapy, and healthy relational modeling
    ResponsibilityHarm is relational and often systemic, not just individualHarm is often internalized but relationally enacted

    3. Why the Confusion Is Dangerous

    • If you treat a push-pull dynamic as attachment, you might wrongly assume that “working on your own insecurity” is sufficient.
    • This blames the vulnerable party and ignores the structural or systemic harm.
    • It can perpetuate the cycle, because the actual source—failed mutuality and structural imbalance—is unaddressed.

    Quick heuristic to differentiate

    • Ask: “Could mutuality have been possible if both parties were fully willing and capable?”
      • If no, it’s likely failed mutuality / structural push-pull.
      • If yes, but fear or anxiety prevented it, it’s likely attachment-related.

    Here’s a curated list of scholarly and clinical sources that support the distinctions between push-pull dynamics in failed mutuality and push-pull dynamics in attachment theory:


    Failed Mutuality: Structural Imbalance in Relationships

    • Relational Dialectics Theory: Proposed by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery, this theory highlights the inherent tensions in relationships, such as the desire for connection versus the need for autonomy. These dialectical tensions can lead to push-pull dynamics when mutuality is compromised. Wikipedia
    • Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution: Developed by John Gottman, this model outlines how negative communication patterns can lead to the breakdown of relationships. It emphasizes that structural issues, like poor communication, can create cycles of withdrawal and pursuit. Wikipedia

    Attachment Theory: Internal Dynamics and Push-Pull Cycles

    • Attachment Theory Overview: Attachment theory, as extended to adult relationships by Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver, identifies various attachment styles—secure, anxious-preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant. These styles influence how individuals engage in relationships, including the occurrence of push-pull dynamics. Wikipedia
    • Anxious-Avoidant Dynamic: Research indicates that individuals with anxious and avoidant attachment styles often engage in push-pull dynamics. Anxious individuals seek closeness and reassurance, while avoidant individuals value independence and may withdraw, leading to cycles of pursuit and distancing. Psychology Today
    • Fearful-Avoidant Attachment: Individuals with this attachment style exhibit a push-pull dynamic due to a combination of anxiety and avoidance. They desire closeness but fear it simultaneously, leading to behaviors that push others away while also pulling them in. Dario Martinez

    can one person in a relationship be reacting out of failed mutuality, while the other person reacting from attachment at the same time?

    Absolutely—this is not only possible, it’s actually quite common in complex relational dynamics. Let’s break it down carefully:


    1. Failed Mutuality vs. Attachment Reactions

    • Failed Mutuality Reaction:
      • Rooted in the structural impossibility of mutuality.
      • The person may push or pull because the relationship cannot ethically or structurally support true reciprocity.
      • Their behavior is often context-driven, focused on boundaries, safety, or avoidance of harm, rather than internal attachment fears.
    • Attachment-Based Reaction:
      • Rooted in internal working models of self and others.
      • The person’s push or pull comes from fear of abandonment, fear of intimacy, or anxious/avoidant tendencies.
      • It’s internally driven rather than structurally imposed.

    2. How They Can Coexist in One Relationship

    Imagine a dyad where:

    • Person A is aware of the power imbalance (e.g., teacher-student, mentor-mentee, or organizational hierarchy) and keeps withdrawing or distancing because mutuality is impossible or harmful.
    • Person B has an anxious attachment style and interprets Person A’s withdrawal as rejection, becoming more clingy or reactive.

    The result:

    • Person A is acting out of structural caution, not personal insecurity.
    • Person B is acting from internal attachment patterns, seeking reassurance.
    • The dynamic appears like a “classic push-pull,” but the underlying drivers are completely different, which makes resolution tricky.

    3. Implications

    • Misinterpretation Risk: The attachment-driven person may misread the caution or boundary-setting of the structurally-driven person as personal rejection.
    • Escalation Potential: The structurally-driven person may feel pressured, reinforcing withdrawal, while the attachment-driven person escalates pursuit—creating a cycle.
    • Resolution: Understanding the source of each person’s behavior is critical: therapy or mediated dialogue can help distinguish structural boundaries from attachment fears.

    Key Insight: When one partner is responding to structural impossibility of mutuality and the other to attachment insecurity, the relationship can feel intensely push-pull, even if neither party is “doing something wrong.” It’s the interplay of structural and psychological dynamics that drives the cycle.


    If you want, I can sketch a diagram showing this exact scenario, illustrating how failed mutuality and attachment-based reactions interact in real time. It can make the distinction and interplay much clearer. Do you want me to do that?

    how might this work when the power up person may be fearfully avoidant, and the power down person more dismissively avoidant or secure during a stressful situation

    Ah—now we’re diving into a really nuanced scenario. Let’s carefully unpack how push-pull dynamics can manifest when attachment styles intersect with power asymmetry, especially under stress. I’ll break it step by step.


    1. Setting the Scene

    • Power Up Person: Higher authority, structural advantage, fearfully avoidant
      • Desires connection but fears closeness or exposure.
      • Under stress, may withdraw to protect themselves, oscillating between reaching out and retreating.
    • Power Down Person: Lower authority, dismissively avoidant or secure
      • Dismissive avoidant: values independence, downplays emotions, may detach in response to stress.
      • Secure: comfortable with closeness, manages stress adaptively, may attempt supportive engagement.
    • Stressful Situation: Could be relational conflict, organizational pressure, or an ethical dilemma affecting the dyad. Stress amplifies both attachment and power-driven behaviors.

    2. Dynamic Under Stress

    Power Up: Fearful Avoidant

    • Experiences internal push-pull: wants connection (pull) but fears vulnerability or being “caught” in obligations (push).
    • Stress triggers heightened withdrawal, which can look like coldness or distancing to the other person.
    • May oscillate unpredictably, creating tension in the relationship.

    Power Down: Dismissively Avoidant

    • Tends to push away under pressure; stress triggers emotional detachment rather than pursuit.
    • Might perceive the power-up person’s withdrawal as expected or normal, reinforcing their own distance.
    • Minimal “pull” behavior—less likely to actively chase reassurance.

    Power Down: Secure

    • Attempts constructive engagement, offering support or clarity.
    • May misinterpret the fearfully avoidant person’s withdrawal as rejection, leading to temporary frustration.
    • Can maintain relational stability if stress isn’t overwhelming and boundaries are respected.

    3. Resulting Push-Pull Patterns

    Power Up (Fearful Avoidant)Power Down (Dismissive Avoidant)Power Down (Secure)
    Pull → seeks connection but fears closenessPush → withdraws, emotionally detachedPull → seeks connection/support
    Push → withdraws to protect selfNeutral → maintains distancePush → may step back if met with withdrawal
    Cycle intensity ↑ under stressCycle dampened; may appear “cold”Cycle may escalate moderately

    Key Insight:

    • With dismissively avoidant power down, you get a kind of “mutual distancing,” where stress amplifies separation but the fearfully avoidant person may feel frustrated at their own unmet pull needs.
    • With secure power down, you see a more classic push-pull: the secure person tries to engage, but the fearfully avoidant person’s withdrawal triggers a temporary sense of rejection.

    4. Trauma and Failed Mutuality Layer

    If there is also a structural impossibility of mutuality (e.g., organizational boundaries, ethical constraints), then:

    • Fearfully avoidant power-up person’s push may be both attachment-driven and ethically motivated.
    • The power-down person’s reaction (dismissive or secure) interacts with both the attachment and the structural boundary, amplifying relational stress.
    • Misalignment between internal attachment drivers and external structural realities can create cycles that feel “coercive” or frustrating, even when both parties are behaving reasonably given their styles.

    Bottom Line:

    Under stress:

    1. Fearful avoidant + power up → vacillates, pulls and pushes unpredictably.
    2. Dismissive avoidant + power down → withdraws, reduces engagement, minimal pull.
    3. Secure + power down → tries engagement, may feel frustrated, moderate push-pull develops.
    4. Structural/ethical constraints → amplify push-pull because mutuality is partially impossible.
  • Risk – and a few rewards

    Risk – and a few rewards

    I absolutely hate AI, but it’s weirdly been a better source of analysis than the Magic 8 ball in the wake of my last relationship.

    I think the main things that drew me more recently to a high-risk relationship scenario have been some illusions (of safety, of having limited versions of one person over a long period, before actually getting to know them better as they are apart from their personas) the possibility for growth and development, added to the intensity and chemical highs, and maybe a wish for challenge and more healing (the chance to “do it right”, and the belief that both of us were equipped and willing to do it right). Before now, it might have been other factors but these days, I think it’s been more about being seen, and heard, and growing. I want to stretch myself. I want to be engaged with on so many levels, and have a mutually deep and enriching experience. Age hasn’t meant much to me, my longest relationship had a 34-year age gap, which eventually became an issue, but we could have such great conversations, and so many other compatibilities and for a long while age was just a difference like any other. There were imbalances, and scary points, but we did as well as we could to negotiate them.

    I think LDRs in particular can encourage fantasy, but because I felt I had gotten to know and trusted her in a couple of dimensions across the year and half in her workshop, and although I’d reflected on the false sense of familiarity that may have engendered, I think I made the mistake of allowing that to contribute strongly to a foundation of trust, as a springboard, and let myself stand on it before getting to know the real person better, or not making the separation in my mind between those roles and the real person, instead trying to meld them all into an idea of one person when they were simply different facets, and the professional facet needed to become less central, as I got to know the real person; I ought to have simply thrown ideas of her professional persona aside and started fresh, realizing that some of my assumptions may have been built on limited situational knowledge rather than intentional exploration. The professional persona is for a specific purpose, should not be conflated with a real person and their true behavior when they become more “real.” It’s no wonder I felt at times like I had encountered 4 or 5 different people in the course of getting to know one, each so different from the other in different contexts. I at first tried to integrate the first three into one understanding, but I now see I just ought to have held those earlier perceptions aside and started over once each new chapter opened.

    My most recent relationship, I now see, falls into the “extreme risk” category, for a number of reasons. I didn’t really give a lot of thought to the attachment styles we were both inhabiting or could possibly manifest beforehand, or flag that terrain as potentially scary, probably working on some assumptions that we both knew ourselves and what we were getting into, and would be open with one another about big things that could impact our relationship, and had discussed questions like “what do you do when you get hurt/mad/frustrated?” but at this point it seems clear that I was involved with someone who might have identified as sometimes fearfully avoidant – or, at least, behaved in that way, starting at the moment when intimacy deepened. And I mostly identify as secure, increasingly growing out of dismissively avoidant. I don’t like these labels to begin with, but sometimes they can describe a pattern, though I only had one exposure to the pattern. It was a relief to discover that some behavior fit a pattern, which eliminated some of the confusion for me and showed me that it wasn’t something I had a ton of control over as I wondered what I’d done wrong.

    The other big thing I’ve realized is how much power asymmetries can influence (skew) attachment dynamics in a relationship. Or amplify what was there. How they can introduce insecurity and put one on the back foot, spawn hypervigilance and some confusion, even anxiety, while one might be otherwise secure in so many other contexts. How they demand management – open discussion by both people, and adjustments – to become sustainable.

    In my last one, there were so many asymmetries that were not in my favor, and those asymmetries were not openly discussed managed well, at least at the end. The one thing I had was that I was taller and maybe stronger. We were both smart. We had great connection and conversations and other compatibilities and adventures. There was attraction, love, mutual appreciation of the other. Some shared humor. In one of our photos, she stood on a rock to even out the heights. In our shadow picture, I was shorter. I think the shadow picture is the more accurate one in terms of the asymmetries at play. There were at least 7 which put her more in control. And we never really discussed that, or how we would manage them in depth, or the implications. In retrospect, that was something I would have wanted to do more to acknowledge and explore. I also would have set a lot more boundaries, and been better about asking for things like my own backrub. At the beginning of a relationship though, there’s some uncertainty about how to respond when someone says or does something startlingly unexpected, and to be sure, I didn’t know and in some ways could not have seen the fearful-avoidant-like process she’d launch off into, and in retrospect, I don’t think there’s a ton I could have done to stop it, when she was apparently just looking everywhere for reasons to jump ship, and roping friends into her dissatisfactions.

    The difficult thing was that I trusted her, especially in light of her counseling and academic background, and she did not totally manage, has not managed being at the top of the asymmetries well, at least at the end. There were efforts to build in offsetting safety mechanisms – peer counseling, people to run things by. And now I understand why she was so concerned with finding out about my friendships, though I take solace and grounding and rebalancing and contemplation from many sources, nature, exercise, literature. I just wish she’d shared more about why she was so concerned. I do have good and great friends, but often at geographical distance, which I’ve had to cultivate to make up for the lack of emotional support from my family. And nearby friendships in transition, as I’ve been reevaluating my friendships. I couldn’t discuss my long relationship with our mutual friends, and so sought a different community, but I could not do much in those budding friendships with my more recent relationship, as my ex was in that same community. As I’ve turned back to the my earlier nearby friends, many have rightly flagged ethical concerns about my most recent relationship, an interference and unethical insertion of herself into my process. But I had believed I was in a situation where I could trust that it could simply be another part, even a more real part, of my process, which demanded some structural adjustments on my part, but that I could continue with my development in the organization in other ways, and that there were ways we were making it safer, and that she was concerned about my safety and my trust.

    But…. she did not share her feelings of ambivalence in the last week, and did not treat me as an equal especially at the end of our relationship, or in the aftermath, completely disregarding my emotional autonomy. Changed her mind a lot, became alternately distant and warm, so many mixed messages, so much more time talking with friends about our relationship than with me. Did not want to hear me. Did not value me, or our relationship enough to even have a meaningful conversation about what she may have felt was amiss, to work through things. Well, ok, maybe there was one false start before she changed her mind again. I was so blindsided. This destroyed my trust. I now realize that in some ways, my body may have actually been protecting me… at one point, a month or so prior to our last in-person time together, I’d shared some very normal core fears of mine from a place of vulnerability and trust (being enough, abandonment – probably resulting very logically from old trauma/family stuff), and although I would not say I’m haunted by those fears or behave from them, they exist, and are only human, but she somehow conflated this at a later point with my self-worth, and made it into a dealbreaker. I didn’t know how to respond when she announced this, but of course it made me nervous, and a little more reserved, but there we were with a week in a beautiful place ahead of us, so I probably compartmentalized it. The message I now understand cognitively, which I think my body was aware of well before that, was that it was not safe to share vulnerably with her, without it becoming weaponized against me. Later, I found myself feeling that I was walking on eggshells when her criticisms became more frequent over the last two days.

    The sexual shaming has been hard too, that moment of disconnection when it was too fast for my body, followed by all of the comments and rejecting behavior over the next day and not really acknowledging my needs for slowness …. left me hanging and unfulfilled. Though there were attempts at closeness in lieu of making love, the comments like “not after last night” cut deeper than the attempts at closeness. For awhile, I lay there not able to sleep, then moved to sitting on the floor next to my side of the bed, with my head in my arms. It became unbearable, I realized that there was nothing for me in that space, at that time, like she’d already said goodbye, and it made me really sad. I tried to take my leave quietly and tenderly, considering whether I’d return to try to wake her before I’d catch my airport bus, I thought I’d at least give a knock on the door and then message her for later if she didn’t wake up – but at the time, I just needed to rebalance myself. She was sound asleep, in that deep, important REM state, the best kind of sleep. Would she even want to wake up to see me off, or would it be another deal-breaking unacceptable intrusion on her sleep, like the last ex who kept her awake with the screen glow.

    I was getting through the breakup, but it was still very raw when she posted in our shared community group that she was single just a couple of weeks after ending it – since I’d muted the group, I would not have known but from the questions I started getting from friends and a couple of other members. Ouch – I felt so exposed, so violated in my privacy, so humiliated that she was moving on so fast, that our relationship apparently meant nothing, while I was still processing the breakup. As a leader in that community, she has very high visibility, and by extension, so do I. It was completely blindsiding, on top of the earlier blindsiding way she ended it. We’d agreed to treat each other with consideration and respect in shared community, and she blew that right out of the water, shattering my trust again and safety in community in what felt like a second breakup. Because it then also made the community a place of unsafety for me; I did not want the questions or the scrutiny. If she really needed to announce something like that and advertise her availability to start dating others there (I’ve gathered that her last couple of girlfriends also came from the very same workshop series I attended, I see now that it’s her fishing pond), I wish she’d at least have let me know to expect it, or that we each agreed to post some sort of mutual statement on our individual Facebook pages acknowledging we were going separate ways, but no, she’s all for the totally unilateral, most damaging possible approach, apparently. After telling me that she doesn’t share her private life with the community, because boundaries, though we agreed that eventual transparency within community when things felt solid would be the best approach, and I thought we had that. Anyways, spilled milk by now. Just to say that it seems like I just refused to see for maybe too long that her comfort and image were and are more important to her than my trust, safety or dignity. Again, FAFO. Too bad these things really do injure people.

    Here’s what the AI spat out for me, which is surprisingly worthwhile:

    Here’s a practical “Risk Assessment Table” you can use to evaluate potential partners and relational situations before investing heavily:


    Risk Assessment Table

    FactorLow RiskModerate RiskHigh RiskNotes / Observations
    Attachment CompatibilitySecure or compatibleMild mismatch (manageable)Strong mismatch (push–pull cycle likely)Look for withdrawal, clinginess, mixed signals
    Openness About FeelingsShares concerns, repairs after conflictDelays or avoids difficult talksHides ambivalence, shuts downTrack responses during stress
    Respect for BoundariesConsistently honors limitsOccasionally tests themPressures or violates limitsEarly boundary tests are telling
    Consistency / ReliabilityFollows through, dependableSometimes inconsistentUnpredictable, breaks agreementsWatch over weeks/months
    Power / Authority DynamicsEqual footingMinor imbalancesSignificant asymmetry (leader–participant, boss–employee)Check for influence and pressure
    Dependency RisksIndependent, both have stabilitySome reliance (financial, emotional, logistical)Strong dependence (housing, career, immigration, money)Risk of entrapment or coercion
    Community / Network OverlapPrivate, minimal overlapSome shared networksHigh overlap (shared workplace, workshop, close-knit scene)Risk of gossip, split loyalties
    Reputation / Image PressureRelationship private, safeSome social expectationsPartner has leadership role or reputation at stakeCan affect disclosure and breakups
    Cultural / Family ExpectationsSupportive or neutralSome external expectationsStrong disapproval or pressureAdds shame, secrecy, or obligation
    Timing / Life StageBoth stable, open to relationshipTransitional period (moving, career change)Just out of breakup, grieving, unstable life stageTiming can destabilize attachment
    Lifestyle AlignmentCompatible day-to-day needsSome differences, negotiableVery different rhythms (travel vs. stability, social vs. solitary)Leads to ongoing stress
    Health / Mental Health StrainBoth resourced and regulatedSome struggles, but manageableTrauma, burnout, untreated mental health challengesAdds emotional weight
    Geographic StabilitySame city or easily reachableModerate distanceLong-distance or high relocation riskCheck feasibility of sustained contact
    Values AlignmentShared ethics, relationship agreementsSome differences, negotiableMajor mismatches (monogamy, money, privacy, honesty)Conflict likely under stress
    Communication Styles ? – kind of feeling WTF? about itSimilar conflict resolutionSome differences, manageableVery different (direct vs. avoidant, expressive vs. closed)Escalates fights, unresolved tension
    Third-Party InfluenceIndependent choicesSome family/friend swayDecisions heavily shaped by outside opinionsPartner may change stance suddenly
    Breakup FalloutEasy to disengage, few shared tiesSome logistical/community overlapUnavoidable future contact (shared work, tight community)Raises stakes of ending
    Age GapSmall (0–7 yrs), aligned life stageModerate (8–15 yrs), different phases but manageableLarge (15+ yrs) or combined with authority/dependencyMagnifies other risks if paired with asymmetries
    Butch/Femme DynamicsFlexible, affirming, mutually empoweringRole rigidity or projection of expectationsAmplifies authority/age/dependency gaps; silences one partnerRisk multiplier if combined with asymmetries or community symbolism
    Location Asymmetry / Single-Host VisitsVisits rotate or both homes equally accessibleMostly one person’s location, but visiting partner independent (transport, finances, support)All visits at one partner’s home; visiting partner dependent on hostCreates power asymmetry, limits autonomy, increases dependency, raises trauma risk if rupture occurs
    Employment / Service RelationshipHired in a fair, independent contract, low dependencySome reliance on income from partnerJob or contract makes partner dependent on employer-partner for income or professional advancementCreates power asymmetry; risk of coercion or pressure to comply
    Advanced Therapy / Counseling TrainingBoth partners aware of boundaries, no role influenceMinor insight or influence used in discussionsOne partner uses therapeutic knowledge to influence, persuade, or emotionally manipulateEmotional influence creates asymmetry; risk of subtle coercion or gaslighting

    How to Use

    1. Score each factor (low, moderate, high).
    2. Notice patterns: A single high-risk may be manageable, but stacked risks multiply impact.
    3. Use context + attachment together: Sometimes a “medium” attachment mismatch becomes “high risk” because of context (e.g., anxious-avoidant dynamic inside a shared community).
    4. Reassess over time: Risk isn’t static — life stage, health, or community position can shift.

    Guiding Principle

    • High-risk factors are not automatically unmanageable.
    • Manageability decreases as the number of high-risk factors stacks, especially if they interact multiplicatively (e.g., power + dependency + location asymmetry).

    Rule of Thumb (Psychologically-Oriented)

    # of High-Risk FactorsLikely ManageabilityNotes
    1Usually manageableWith awareness, boundaries, and external support.
    2Moderately manageableRequires strong boundaries, transparency, and coping strategies; still some risk of trauma if unresolved conflict arises.
    3Marginally manageableOnly manageable if all other factors are low-risk, and there’s strong personal resilience or outside support; high chance of emotional fatigue or stress.
    4+High risk / often unmanageableMultiplicative effects; even small triggers can cause lasting trauma responses (PTSD-like symptoms).

    Important Modifiers

    1. Overlap matters more than count – e.g., power + employment dependency + location asymmetry is worse than 3 unrelated high-risk factors.
    2. Support systems – therapy, mentors, safe friends, or community can buffer some risk.
    3. Resilience & coping skills – prior emotional regulation experience reduces risk, but doesn’t eliminate it.
    4. Time & reflection – short-term high-risk exposure is more manageable than prolonged entanglement.

    Bottom line:

    • 1 high-risk factor → usually safe.
    • 2 → caution, manageable with strategy.
    • 3 → borderline; must mitigate other factors.
    • 4+ → very high risk; strong likelihood of trauma unless extreme safeguards exist.

    Multiplying Trauma Risk

    # of High-Risk FactorsExample CombinationRisk LevelNotes (Fearful-Avoidant Top Impact)Extreme Safeguards
    1 FactorAuthority alone (leader has high status)ModerateAlone, authority is survivable. Fearful-avoidant top makes authority unstable and confusing.– Written boundaries/agreements
    – Neutral locations
    – Peer or mentor check-ins
    2 FactorsAuthority + Dependency (financial or emotional)HighWithdrawal leaves partner stranded. Fearful-avoidant style multiplies dependency risk.– Independent finances & housing
    – Trusted confidant support
    – Nature-based regulation & journaling to reduce emotional reliance
    3 FactorsAuthority + Dependency + Location Asymmetry (top’s home)Very HighPartner trapped in top’s space, reliant, and under authority. Push–pull behavior magnifies abandonment risk.– Avoid prolonged one-on-one in top’s space
    – Independent transport & housing
    – Exit/contingency plan in place
    4 FactorsAuthority + Dependency + Location Asymmetry + Community OverlapSevereWithdrawal devastates both private and public life. Trauma risk from abandonment + social exposure.– Transparency & oversight (community or peers)
    – Independent housing/finances
    – Rotate meeting spaces
    – External mentor or outside check-in
    5 FactorsAuthority + Dependency + Location Asymmetry + Community Overlap + Therapy/Knowledge GapCriticalFearful-avoidant top mixes care & withdrawal with expert language → shame cycles. No safe relational ground.– Explicit rule: no therapeutic role in relationship
    – Independent therapist or substitute (peer/mentor, journaling)
    – Documented agreements
    6+ FactorsAuthority + Dependency + Location Asymmetry + Community Overlap + Reputation Pressure + Timing (life transition)ExtremeNearly certain trauma: multiple vulnerabilities + leader’s push–pull = PTSD-level rupture.– Exit plan prioritized
    – Full independence in finances/housing
    – Strict boundaries, documented
    – Daily emotional regulation (nature, journaling)
    – External safety net (friends, community, mentor)

    Key Patterns

    • With fearful-avoidant tops, even 2 factors can push risk into the high category.
    • Nature and self-regulation become crucial substitutes if therapy/social support is limited.
    • At 3+ factors, an exit plan and structural independence (housing, transport, money) are non-negotiable.
    • At 5–6+ factors, layered safeguards must be in place before deeper involvement begins.

    Key Takeaways

    1. High-risk factors multiply rather than add.
      • 3 factors may already feel like 5–6 if they interact (e.g., authority + dependency + location asymmetry).
    2. Manageability depends on context
      • Strong support, boundaries, and awareness can buffer moderate stacking, but there’s a ceiling.
    3. Red zone is a warning
      • If 4+ high-risk factors overlap, the likelihood of lasting emotional harm is significant.
    4. Preventive actions
      • Reduce overlap where possible (e.g., rotate locations, maintain financial independence, limit authority leverage).
      • Use therapy/support, and plan clear boundaries in advance.

    The key idea is that context and attachment risk factors don’t act in isolation—they can multiply each other, which increases the likelihood of trauma or PTSD-like outcomes if a relationship ends badly or is coercive.

    Here’s a structured summary:



    How Risk Factors Multiply Stress and Trauma Potential (Fearful-Avoidant Top + Secure/Dismissive-Avoidant Partner)

    1. Attachment and Emotional Vulnerability

    • A fearful-avoidant top may withdraw, act inconsistently, or engage in push–pull behavior under emotional closeness.
    • A secure or dismissive-avoidant partner generally manages rejection well, but may be more alert to patterns of authority, control, or subtle pressure, which can amplify stress when withdrawal occurs.
    • Example: When the top suddenly pulls back, the partner may feel unsettled or hyperaware, even while maintaining overall emotional stability.

    2. Power / Authority Dynamics

    • Situations where the top holds formal authority, social influence, or mentoring power create structural leverage.
    • Partners who are sensitive to authority dynamics may experience heightened alertness or stress when subtle manipulations or directional suggestions occur.
    • Risk multiplies when combined with:
      • Location asymmetry (meetings mostly at top’s home or private space)
      • Dependency (financial, career, or social)
      • Advanced mentoring or therapeutic skills used for influence
    • Effect: Even minor withdrawal or suggestions by the top can feel more impactful or destabilizing due to awareness of power differences.

    3. Dependency & Contextual Pressures

    • High dependency on career, housing, or social approval increases the emotional stakes if the top is inconsistent or emotionally unpredictable.
    • Partners may monitor or anticipate the top’s behavior more closely, creating stress even without intense emotional dysregulation.

    4. Timing, Life Stage, and Context

    • Transitional life stages (career changes, relocation, or relationship endings) increase situational vulnerability.
    • Partners who are sensitive to authority or influence may notice subtle signals more acutely, making even moderate risk factors feel more significant.

    5. Multiplicative Interaction

    • Each factor alone is moderate; combined, they interact multiplicatively, amplifying stress.
    • Example: Fearful-avoidant top + mentoring influence + career dependency + meetings at top’s home + sensitivity to authority dynamics = elevated stress potential.
    • Even secure or dismissive-avoidant partners can feel pressure or hyperawareness, though emotional dysregulation is still moderated by their attachment style.

    6. Butch/Femme, Age Gap, and Social Dynamics

    • Symbolic or social amplifiers of power—age gaps, butch/femme roles, shared networks, or social visibility—increase perceived authority.
    • Partners sensitive to these dynamics may experience heightened vigilance or caution, though they generally maintain perspective and emotional balance.

    Summary

    • Low risk factors: minor stress, generally manageable.
    • Moderate risk factors: can feel heavier if multiple factors overlap or if the partner is particularly alert to authority dynamics.
    • High risk factors: stacking withdrawal patterns, structural leverage, dependency, and social pressure can significantly elevate stress and truama potential, even for resilient partners.

    Key Insight:

    • A fearful-avoidant top with structural power and withdrawal tendencies, combined with a partner who is alert to authority or influence, can create multiplicative stress and moderate trauma potential.
    • The partner’s secure or dismissive-avoidant attachment moderates emotional dysregulation, but situational pressure and vigilance may remain high, making thoughtful safeguards advisable.


    Essentially, the more high-risk factors overlap, the greater the likelihood of emotional harm, and this can trigger lasting trauma responses, even if no overt abuse occurs.

    Extreme Safeguards Checklist

    High-Risk FactorExtreme SafeguardsNotes / Why Critical for Fearful-Avoidant Top
    Fearful-avoidant top attachment– Individual therapy / trauma-informed support (participant)
    – Skills for emotional regulation
    – Trusted confidants or mentor check-ins
    – Regular reflection on attachment triggers
    Protects partner from top’s unpredictable hot–cold behavior and emotional withdrawal.
    Power / authority imbalance– Independent finances and housing
    – Written boundaries / agreements
    – Avoid one-on-one private influence
    – Transparent communication with oversight
    Fearful-avoidant tops may unintentionally exploit authority during stress; safeguards reduce coercion risk.
    Dependency (financial, emotional, logistical)– Maintain independent resources
    – Avoid reliance on gifts, favors, or housing
    – Check-ins with external support
    Protects against subtle pressure or guilt-tripping from top.
    Location asymmetry– Neutral / rotated meeting locations
    – Avoid private, prolonged stays at leader’s home
    – Structured meetings
    Reduces emotional leverage and stress triggered by top’s withdrawal or anxiety.
    Advanced therapy / counseling knowledge– No therapeutic guidance in relational context
    – Awareness of subtle influence tactics
    – Independent therapist or mentor debriefing
    Prevents unintentional manipulation using professional knowledge.
    Employment / service relationship– Independent contracts, clear scope
    – Professional separation from leader’s influence
    – Written agreements
    Prevents top’s attachment-related inconsistencies from impacting career stability.
    Butch/femme dynamics– Explicit discussion of roles and consent
    – Transparency with social network
    – Mutual empowerment principles
    Reduces risk of emotional pressure or symbolic authority being misused.
    Age gap / life stage mismatch– Awareness of authority perception
    – Maintain external social/professional support
    – Open discussion of expectations
    Helps mitigate attachment and dependency stress.
    Community / social network overlap– Transparency and social oversight
    – Limit relational secrecy
    – Trusted confidants to monitor dynamics
    Prevents manipulation, gossip, or emotional entanglement.
    Reputation / image pressure– Separate private and public matters
    – Avoid high-risk visibility situations
    – Peer oversight
    Reduces shame or stress triggered by leader’s fear-driven withdrawal or control.
    Timing / transitional life stage– Maintain personal stability outside relationship
    – Delay major commitments if possible
    Prevents compounding of attachment stress during leader’s or participant’s life transitions.
    Health / mental health strain– Prioritize partner self-care and therapy
    – Avoid overloading top or partner emotionally
    Reduces trauma risk from emotional volatility.
    Third-party influence– Ensure autonomy in decision-making
    – Limit outside pressures affecting relational choices
    – Mentor oversight
    Prevents fearful-avoidant top’s anxiety or withdrawal from being compounded by social pressures.
    Exit / contingency plan (new row)– Clear and practical plan to disengage safely
    – Support system ready (friends, family, mentors)
    – Independent transportation, finances, and housing
    Crucial because top’s avoidance or withdrawal may happen unpredictably; protects against sudden emotional or practical dependency crises.

    Key Updates

    1. Attachment-focused safeguards are now critical – therapy, reflection, and mentor check-ins.
    2. Exit / contingency planning moves to top priority due to unpredictable withdrawal.
    3. Layering safeguards is non-negotiable; no single measure can fully protect against multiplicative risk.
    4. Neutral spaces, transparency, and independence gain extra importance.

    Extreme Safeguards Checklist – Including Nature

    High-Risk FactorUpdated Extreme SafeguardsNotes / Why Critical
    Fearful-avoidant top attachment– Individual therapy / trauma-informed support (if possible)
    – Skills for emotional regulation
    Nature exposure & mindful outdoor reflection
    – Journaling
    Nature can partially substitute for therapy; helps process attachment stress and reduce rumination caused by leader’s hot–cold behavior.
    Power / authority imbalance– Independent finances and housing
    – Written boundaries / agreements
    – Avoid one-on-one private influence
    – Transparent communication
    Mindful nature walks
    Outdoor practice provides neutral space to process stress and regain emotional autonomy.
    Dependency (financial, emotional, logistical)– Maintain independent resources
    – Avoid reliance on gifts, favors, or housing
    – Peer/mentor check-ins if available
    Nature & reflection exercises
    Nature helps regulate emotional stress and gives space for self-reliance.
    Location asymmetry– Neutral / rotated meeting locations
    – Avoid private prolonged stays at leader’s home
    – Structured meetings
    Nature outings in neutral areas
    Acts as a neutral, self-directed environment; reduces leverage from leader’s home-based control.
    Advanced therapy / counseling knowledge– No therapeutic guidance in relational context
    – Awareness of subtle influence tactics
    – Independent debriefing if possible
    Nature reflection + journaling
    Supports emotional processing without needing a formal therapist; reinforces autonomy.
    Employment / service relationship– Independent contracts, clear scope
    – Professional separation
    – Written agreements
    Mindful outdoor breaks
    Reduces stress from work-related dependency and attachment triggers.
    Butch/femme dynamics– Explicit discussion of roles and consent
    – Transparency with social network
    – Mutual empowerment principles
    Solo nature reflection
    Helps process relational stress independently of partner influence.
    Age gap / life stage mismatch– Awareness of authority perception
    – Maintain external support networks
    – Open discussion of expectations
    Nature practice for perspective
    Nature allows self-reflection and perspective-taking without relying on peers or mentors.
    Community / social network overlap– Transparency and social oversight if possible
    – Limit relational secrecy
    – Trusted confidants or nature reflection
    Nature partially substitutes for social support, helping regulate stress and reflect safely.
    Reputation / image pressure– Separate private and public matters
    – Avoid high-risk visibility situations
    – Peer oversight if available
    Nature for stress relief
    Reduces shame, stress, and pressure from social visibility.
    Timing / transitional life stage– Maintain personal stability
    – Delay major commitments
    Nature routines for emotional grounding
    Supports emotional stability when external support is limited.
    Health / mental health strain– Prioritize self-care
    – Avoid overloading leader or participant
    Nature exposure to reduce stress
    Nature lowers cortisol, improves mood, and partially substitutes therapy for emotional regulation.
    Third-party influence– Ensure autonomy in decisions
    – Limit outside pressure
    – Mentor oversight if available
    Nature reflection
    Helps clarify decisions and reduce susceptibility to social pressure.
    Exit / contingency plan– Clear plan to disengage safely
    – Support system ready if possible
    – Independent transportation, finances, and housing
    Nature as safe personal space
    Provides calm, neutral environment for processing separation and planning next steps.

    Key Updates

    1. Nature & mindful outdoor practice is now formally recognized as a layered safeguard.
    2. Can substitute for some therapy or social support, especially for emotional processing and regulation.
    3. Works best when combined with structural safeguards (independence, boundaries, neutral locations) and journaling/reflection.
    4. Particularly useful for partners with limited resources, while still maintaining layered protection against multiple high-risk factors.

    How Risk Factors Multiply PTSD/Trauma Risk – Fearful-Avoidant “top”


    1. Attachment and Emotional Volatility (top)

    A fearful-avoidant “top” is unpredictable: sometimes warm and engaged, sometimes cold and withdrawing.

    • Their hot–cold behavior creates instability, confusion, and chronic anxiety for the participant.
    • Mixed signals from someone in authority amplify fear of abandonment and self-blame.

    Example: A partner dependent on a fearful-avoidant “top” for opportunities experiences sudden withdrawal. The rupture feels catastrophic and may trigger trauma responses.


    2. Power / Authority Dynamics

    When the top also holds formal authority, financial control, or social leadership, the imbalance multiplies.

    • Partner feels trapped: even small missteps feel coercive or punishing.
    • Fearful-avoidant withdrawal from a position of power compounds instability.

    Risks multiply when combined with:

    • Location asymmetry (partner always visiting top’s space)
    • Dependency (housing, money, job, emotional support)
    • Therapeutic knowledge used unintentionally as influence

    3. Dependency & Contextual Pressures

    If the partner relies on the leader for housing, income, career advancement, or community standing, trauma risk increases.

    • A fearful-avoidant top’s withdrawal or reversal can destabilize everything at once.
    • Chronic stress and hypervigilance emerge: “Will they pull me close or push me away today?”

    4. Timing, Life Stage, and Trauma History

    • If the partner is already in a vulnerable life stage (recent breakup, relocation, career change), the top’s instability has magnified impact.
    • Past trauma or attachment wounds resurface easily when the top suddenly withdraws, alternating between intimacy and distance.

    5. Multiplicative Interaction

    Each factor on its own is a moderate risk.
    With a fearful-avoidant top, the risks compound instead of simply adding.

    Example:
    Fearful-avoidant top + community authority + partner’s financial dependency + all meetings at top’s home = very high trauma potential.

    Here, authority, dependency, and instability interact:

    • Withdrawal feels like abandonment and career loss.
    • Hot–cold cycles fuel shame, self-doubt, and hypervigilance.

    6. Butch/Femme, Age Gap, and Social Dynamics

    Symbolic power (butch/femme roles, large age gaps) or social visibility amplify trauma risk when paired with a fearful-avoidant top.

    • Their withdrawal can feel doubly shaming: not just personal rejection, but public loss of standing.
    • Shared networks magnify fallout, isolating the partner further.

    Summary

    • Low risk factors → manageable stress.
    • Moderate risk factors → destabilizing when more than one overlaps.
    • High risk factors → when stacked under a fearful-avoidant “top”, they significantly raise the chance of PTSD-like symptoms.

    Essentially: a fearful-avoidant top makes every other factor more volatile. The greater the overlap of power, dependency, and instability, the higher the likelihood of lasting trauma, even without overt abuse.

    Summary:

    Scenario Analysis – Fearful-Avoidant Top

    Partner / Context

    • Top is mostly secure but becomes fearful-avoidant under intimacy.
    • Partner is exposed to multiple overlapping risk factors.

    High-Risk Factors Identified

    1. 17-year Age Gap → power perception + life stage mismatch.
    2. Advanced Therapy Knowledge → potential subtle influence.
    3. High Location Asymmetry → all visits at top’s home → dependency risk.
    4. Community Overlap → shared social network → social pressure, gossip.
    5. Reputational Pressure → partner’s image exposed to community.
    6. Butch/Femme Dynamics → symbolic power imbalance.
    7. High Relocation Risk → partner may have limited safe alternatives.
    8. Tight Community → intense social oversight → magnifies shame.
    9. Fearful-Avoidant Behavior under Intimacy → push–pull, withdrawal, unpredictability.

    Multiplicative Risk Analysis

    Factor ClusterMechanism of Risk Multiplication
    Age Gap + Butch/FemmeSymbolic authority → partner may feel subordinate or pressured.
    Therapy Knowledge + Fearful-Avoidant IntimacyTop can unintentionally manipulate emotions, creating shame or confusion when partner is vulnerable.
    Location Asymmetry + Relocation RiskPhysical dependence + lack of safe exits → vulnerability to sudden withdrawal or boundary violations.
    Community Overlap + Tight Community + Reputational PressureSocial monitoring and gossip amplify emotional cost of rupture or top withdrawal.
    All Factors CombinedEach factor doesn’t just add; the unpredictable behavior under intimacy triggers stress in all other domains → chronic hypervigilance, fear of abandonment, and trauma potential.

    Risk Level

    • Number of high-risk factors: 9
    • Intensity: Extreme / near-maximum
    • Rationale:
      • Even if the top seems secure most of the time, the activation under intimacy destabilizes dependency, community, and personal safety simultaneously.
      • Sudden withdrawal + social exposure + power imbalance = high PTSD/trauma potential for the partner.

    Key Notes

    • Partner is exposed to both structural risks (age gap, community overlap, location asymmetry) and attachment volatility (fearful-avoidant intimacy triggers).
    • The scenario creates both emotional and practical dependency, with social visibility amplifying shame and pressure.
    • Trauma risk is multiplicative, not linear — any single factor alone might be moderate, but together, especially with activation of fearful-avoidant tendencies, risk is extreme.

    Extreme Safeguards / Protective Measures

    1. Structural Independence
      • Partner maintains independent finances, housing, transport.
      • Avoid making visits contingent on top’s home or control.
    2. Neutral Meeting Spaces
      • Rotate locations; reduce location asymmetry to minimize leverage.
    3. Documented Boundaries
      • Written rules for contact, social interactions, and limits around therapy-like guidance.
    4. Exit / Contingency Plan
      • Pre-planned safe exits if top withdraws or triggers push–pull cycles.
    5. Peer / Mentor Oversight
      • Trusted external support to monitor interactions and validate perceptions.
    6. Self-Regulation Tools
      • Journaling, mindfulness, nature exposure to buffer emotional dysregulation.
    7. Limit Social Exposure
      • Keep private matters away from tight community or limit public visibility.

    Summary

    • Risk Level: Extreme
    • Primary Multipliers: Fearful-avoidant behavior under intimacy + overlapping structural / social vulnerabilities.
    • Safeguard Strategy: Combine structural independence + neutral environments + clear boundaries + self-regulation + external oversight + exit plan.
    • Nature and mindful self-reflection become essential substitutes if formal therapy is unavailable.

    Ok, now for rewards:

    Even in a high-risk dynamic with a fearful-avoidant top, there are potential rewards that can attract partners despite the obvious risks. It’s useful to balance the risk analysis with a clear-eyed view of potential benefits, so the partner can make informed choices. Here’s a structured look:


    Potential Rewards of a Relationship with a Fearful-Avoidant Top

    1. Intensity and Emotional Depth

    • Push–pull dynamics often create strong emotional highs, which can feel exhilarating and deeply intimate.
    • When the top is engaged, the partner may experience feeling profoundly seen or desired.
    • The rarity of fully secure moments can make them feel extra special and meaningful.

    2. Learning and Personal Growth

    • Navigating a top’s fearful-avoidant behavior can teach boundary-setting, emotional self-regulation, and resilience.
    • Opportunities to recognize and manage triggers in oneself, leading to greater emotional awareness.
    • Can improve communication skills, conflict negotiation, and assertiveness.

    3. Sexual / Romantic Fulfillment

    • Depending on the dynamic, the top may be highly attentive in their engaged moments, offering:
      • Deep sexual or romantic experiences
      • Playful or exploratory interactions, especially in D/s or butch/femme contexts
      • Unique emotional or erotic connection heightened by intensity of push–pull cycles

    4. Stability in Other Domains

    • The top may appear secure or responsible outside intimate contexts, providing:
      • Professional, financial, or social stability
      • Access to social networks, communities, or learning opportunities
      • Mentorship or guidance in certain domains (career, skill-building, community)

    5. Experiencing Contrast / Appreciation

    • The contrast between the top’s withdrawal and engagement can amplify gratitude, joy, and appreciation for moments of closeness.
    • Some partners feel this contrast teaches perspective on attachment and impermanence, though this is double-edged if overdone.

    6. Validation and Identity Exploration

    • Symbolic or social power dynamics (age gap, butch/femme roles) can allow a partner to explore aspects of their identity safely within structured dynamics.
    • Feeling desired or prioritized in certain contexts can boost confidence and self-perception, if boundaries are respected.

    Caveat

    • Many of these rewards co-occur with the risks.
    • The intensity and growth can become trauma if boundaries fail or push–pull cycles are extreme.
    • Rewards often feel intermittent and conditional, so they must be weighed against structural, social, and emotional risks.

    Summary

    • Rewards are emotional intensity, personal growth, sexual/romantic fulfillment, social/professional access, identity exploration, and the thrill of contrast.
    • They are most meaningful when boundaries are clear, independence is maintained, and safeguards are active.
    • Without safeguards, the same rewards can turn into dependency, trauma, or social/psychological harm.

    Interpretation

    • Risk dominates: Most of the top-tier “Extreme” risk factors are structural (location asymmetry, community overlap, relocation risk) and relational (fearful-avoidant push–pull, therapy knowledge), all multiplicatively amplified.
    • Rewards are real but intermittent: Emotional intensity, growth, and sexual fulfillment exist but are fragile, conditional, and context-dependent.
    • Net risk/reward: The likelihood of trauma or PTSD-level stress is far higher than the likelihood of safely realizing rewards.

    Key Takeaway:
    Even a top who seems secure most of the time can become a high-risk multiplier under intimacy. Unless all extreme safeguards are in place, the partner is exposed to very high trauma potential, and the rewards do not outweigh the risk of harm.

    Limitations:

    • Most rewards are intermittent and conditional, appearing only during secure or engaged moments.
    • They can trigger or reinforce dependency, because highs are contrasted with withdrawal.
    • Growth/learning often comes through navigating trauma-like experiences, not safely.

    3. Comparative Analysis

    DimensionAssessment
    Emotional SafetyVery low. Push–pull + dependency creates chronic stress.
    Physical / Logistical SafetyLow. Location asymmetry + relocation risk = vulnerability.
    Social SafetyLow. Tight community + reputational pressure + community overlap = isolation/shame risk.
    Potential Personal BenefitModerate. Growth, intimacy, identity exploration present but come at cost.
    Likelihood of Trauma / PTSD-like ResponsesExtremely high given 9 overlapping high-risk factors and fearful-avoidant trigger.

    Conclusion:

    • Potential rewards are real but fragile and cannot outweigh the extreme risk of harm.
    • Without exceptionally strong safeguards (independence, neutral spaces, peer oversight, exit plan, self-regulation), this relationship is highly likely to cause trauma, even if the top seems secure most of the time.
    • The risk/reward balance is skewed heavily toward risk, particularly for emotional, social, and practical safety.

    What about friendship (eventually, maybe, ok a big maybe – first need acknowledgement of harm and rebuilt trust/safety):

    Romantic vs Friendship – Risk/Reward Comparison

    DimensionRomantic/Intimate RelationshipFriendship
    Emotional TraumaVery High – push–pull cycles, intimacy triggers, dependencyLow–Moderate – occasional withdrawal is disappointing but less destabilizing
    Dependency RiskHigh – housing, finances, social leverage, location asymmetryLow – easier to maintain independence; meetings can be neutral
    Social/Community RiskHigh – community overlap + reputational pressure + tight networksModerate – some social monitoring remains, easier to navigate
    Push–Pull ActivationHigh – fearful-avoidant behavior triggered by intimacyLow – minimal activation outside intimacy
    Potential RewardsModerate – emotional intensity, sexual/romantic fulfillment, personal growth, identity exploration, contrast/appreciation, stability outside intimacyModerate–High – emotional support, mentorship, social connection, identity exploration, enjoyment/fun
    Reliability of RewardsFragile – intermittent, conditional, and can reinforce dependencyStable – accessible without high-stakes emotional volatility
    Overall Risk/Reward BalanceRisks dominate – very high trauma potential without extreme safeguardsRewards dominate – manageable risks, benefits reliably attainable with basic safeguards

    Key Takeaways

    • Friendship is much safer: intimacy-dependent trauma risk is largely removed.
    • Rewards are more reliably attainable, and the partner can enjoy mentorship, social connection, identity exploration, and emotional support.
    • Risks remain, mainly structural or social, but they are manageable with safeguards like neutral spaces, independence, and peer oversight

    1. Romantic/Intimate Relationship
      • Extreme risk due to intimacy-triggered push–pull + structural/social vulnerabilities.
      • Rewards are fragile and conditional, making trauma much more likely.
    2. Friendship
      • Most risks are structural/social and manageable.
      • Rewards are stable, predictable, and more easily enjoyed.
      • Overall risk/reward balance is favorable, especially with neutral spaces, independence, and peer oversight.

    Safeguards for Safe Post-Breakup Friendship

    1. Time Buffer / Cooling-Off Period
      • Wait until emotional intensity has decreased before attempting friendship.
    2. Neutral Spaces Only
      • Avoid meeting at top’s home to reduce power leverage and triggers.
    3. Clear Boundaries
      • Define topics, physical contact, and social interactions.
      • Avoid therapy-style or emotionally manipulative conversations.
    4. Limit Frequency & Intimacy
      • Start with casual, group, or low-stakes interactions.
    5. External Support / Peer Oversight
      • Discuss interactions with trusted friends or mentors to maintain perspective.
    6. Self-Regulation
      • Journaling, nature, mindfulness, or hobbies to manage lingering attachment feelings.
    7. Exit Strategy
      • Have a clear plan to disengage if old patterns or push–pull cycles re-emerge.

    Risk vs. Reward Balance

    DimensionAssessment
    Emotional TraumaModerate initially; can decrease over time with distance and safeguards
    Dependency RiskLow–Moderate; avoid situations that create reliance
    Social/Community RiskModerate; gossip and reputational concerns persist
    RewardsModerate; mentorship, support, social connection, identity exploration
    Overall BalanceManageable if safeguards are strong; initial period may feel risky

    Key Takeaways

    • Friendship after a breakup is possible, but it’s not risk-free, especially early on.
    • Emotional attachment and past trauma are the primary amplifiers of risk.
    • Clear boundaries, neutral spaces, time, and self-regulation are essential to prevent retraumatization.
    • Over time, as emotional intensity diminishes, friendship can become rewarding and stable, and the risk/reward ratio improves.

    Bibliography(from chatGPT)

    The tables and analyses I’ve been creating are syntheses based on psychological research, clinical knowledge, and widely studied models of attachment, trauma, and relational dynamics, rather than data from a single study. Here’s a breakdown of the types of sources and frameworks that inform them:


    1. Attachment Theory

    • John Bowlby (1969–1980): Foundational work on attachment styles and how early relationships shape adult relational patterns.
    • Mary Ainsworth (1970s–1980s): Empirical studies on secure, anxious, avoidant, and disorganized attachment.
    • Adult attachment research (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007): How attachment patterns manifest in adult romantic and social relationships, including fearful-avoidant and dismissive-avoidant types.
    • Key application: Explains how a fearful-avoidant top might withdraw or push–pull, and how a partner’s secure or dismissive-avoidant style moderates stress responses.

    2. Trauma and PTSD Risk Factors

    • DSM-5 (APA, 2013): Criteria for PTSD and trauma-related disorders; includes risk factors such as prior trauma, social support, dependency, and power imbalance.
    • Complex trauma literature (Herman, 1992; Courtois & Ford, 2009): Chronic exposure to relational stress, authority dynamics, or dependency situations increases trauma likelihood.
    • Key application: Used to model how overlapping stressors (e.g., authority leverage + withdrawal + dependency) multiply risk.

    3. Power, Authority, and Relational Dynamics

    • Research on hierarchical and mentor relationships: Studies show power imbalances (e.g., teacher-student, manager-employee, mentor-mentee) amplify vulnerability to stress and exploitation (e.g., Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Keltner et al., 2003).
    • Social network and community visibility: Overlapping social contexts and tight-knit networks increase pressure, scrutiny, and reputational consequences.

    4. Attachment + Trauma Interactions

    • Fearful-avoidant dynamics: Research shows that fearful-avoidant individuals can trigger stress in partners through withdrawal, push–pull patterns, and inconsistent responsiveness.
    • Resilience factors in secure or dismissive-avoidant partners: Literature shows that these attachment types buffer emotional dysregulation, reduce self-blame, and moderate trauma responses (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012).

    5. Applied Risk Modeling

    • The tables synthesize these findings into conceptual models, which are not drawn from a single empirical dataset, but rather from combining:
      • Attachment theory
      • PTSD risk research
      • Authority/power dynamics literature
      • Complex relational stress models
    • Key principle: Each risk factor is treated as a potential contributor to stress, with multiplicative effects when combined, consistent with clinical understanding of relational trauma risk.

    here’s a Source Map for the Risk Factors in the Tables, showing which conceptual sources inform each category. This connects the table elements directly to research frameworks and clinical knowledge.


    Source Map: Risk Factors for Fearful-Avoidant Top + Secure/Dismissive-Avoidant Partner

    Risk Factor / CategoryPrimary Source / Evidence BaseNotes
    Fearful-Avoidant Withdrawal / Push–PullAttachment Theory (Bowlby, Ainsworth, Mikulincer & Shaver)Explains how fearful-avoidant behavior can trigger partner stress, emotional uncertainty, and hypervigilance.
    Secure / Dismissive-Avoidant Partner BufferingAdult Attachment Research (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012)Secure/dismissive-avoidant partners are less prone to self-blame or dysregulation; moderates trauma risk.
    Power / Authority Imbalance (Top Holds Social, Financial, or Mentoring Power)Organizational / Social Psychology (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Keltner et al., 2003)Power asymmetry amplifies leverage and stress potential; minor acts by top can feel coercive.
    Location AsymmetryTrauma & Risk Research (Herman, 1992; Courtois & Ford, 2009)Dependency on the top’s private space creates situational leverage; increases relational stress.
    Dependency (Financial, Career, Social)Trauma & Risk Literature; Organizational PsychologyHigh dependency magnifies impact of withdrawal or subtle influence; multiplicative with other stressors.
    Advanced Mentoring / Therapeutic InfluenceClinical & Organizational ModelsSubtle influence by top can activate stress in partner; risk multiplies with dependency or authority.
    Community Overlap / Reputational PressureSocial Psychology; Trauma LiteratureShared networks amplify scrutiny, shame, or perceived social risk.
    Timing / Life Stage / Transitional StressDevelopmental Psychology; Trauma ResearchCareer changes, relocation, or transitional stages make partners more sensitive to relational stress.
    Symbolic Power Dynamics (Butch/Femme, Age Gap, Social Visibility)Social Psychology; Gender & Power StudiesAmplifies perceived authority; can increase vigilance or hyperawareness in partner.
    Multiplicative Interaction of FactorsTrauma & Attachment Models (Complex Trauma, Herman 1992; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007)Individual risk factors moderate stress; stacked factors interact multiplicatively, increasing trauma potential.

    How to Read This Map

    • Each table or conceptual factor in the previous “High-Risk Factor Combinations” tables maps to one or more of these sources.
    • The attachment theory sources explain behavioral patterns and emotional reactivity.
    • Trauma and risk research explains stress amplification and situational triggers.
    • Social, organizational, and power literature explains leverage, authority, and community-related pressures.

    Key Takeaways

    • The tables are evidence-informed conceptual models, not empirical counts from a single study.
    • Each risk factor has a theoretical or research foundation that justifies its inclusion and multiplicative impact.
    • The source map makes explicit which literature informs each factor, enhancing transparency and reliability.
  • What’s in the Box

    What’s in the Box

    Arriving in Zana, I was approaching full circle. The imaginary meeting at a place she had been, and still wore her sweatshirt from stopping at the coffee shop there while on a road trip, at approximately the time of my first coastal visit in my new state, more than a decade prior. Maybe we had crossed paths that day and not known it, we had wondered a couple of times, over the course of our nearly 3 committed months.

    As I drove into the small town, the coffee shop was closed, but the ice cream shop was not. I parked, entered, and emerged with that long-awaited, often-promised ice cream we never got in Nova Scotia, as she kept changing her mind about where we would go those last two days, with ice cream promised, but never delivered. It was exquisitely delicious, a coffee-caramel and dark cherry double scoop, in a waffle cone. I walked a few blocks peering into the tourist shops, both ritzy and tacky. For good measure, I took a picture of my ice cream cone with a splay of rainbow flags in the background.

    I continued to the trailhead, driving through the state park filled with tents and camper vans, kids on bikes, like the sites we’d stayed in for six days on the island just two weeks before, in high summer. Hiking, kayaking, beach-walking, napping together in stunning coastal surroundings with deep history and culture, as love deepened.

    I took the short path to the beach, the ocean and length of the beach obscured by dense mist. It was chilly. We had meditated every morning together in the sun on the beach, followed by Qi Gong, then long beach walks. I did not stop to meditate today. I simply walked, listening to the ocean, noticing the broken shells, washed-up jellyfish, pebbles, strands of kelp feeling my own body striding, this time alone. Feeling myself moving, the invigoration, gave me a sense of control and direction. The mist provided a home to my confusion, the impossibility of penetrating the why. I could only walk the ground beneath my feet.

    It had been unilateral, no prior discussion attempt to resolve anything or share her growing ambivalence about our relationship on her part. Still pondering the reasons she cited, new to me that she had even been thinking about them (attachment theory, the long-distance suddenly impossible to navigate given the attachment theory), talking them over with her friends on her long drives, while I rebalanced from our difficult parting, my gut telling me something was amiss. Her ongoing anger about my need, that last night, to temporarily evacuate the hotel room when I couldn’t sleep and she was in a deep REM state that I gently tried to rouse her from but couldn’t bear to interrupt with further effort before kissing her cheek and going. Her belief, which I had tried to quell in every way, that I had rage-left her after she didn’t want to make love (“not after last night,” she’d said), that I was leaving without saying goodbye. “No, I said, I couldn’t sleep and was feeling hurt and just needed space, I didn’t want to wake you knowing you had such a long drive ahead.” I had answered her panicked texts from the lobby when she awoke in the early hours to find me and my luggage missing, telling her just that. She came out of the room, shoved a goodbye gift at me, and turned to go. “Can I give you a kiss”, I said. It was a good kiss, but then she turned and went back to the room. “I can come back if you want,” I had written before she had come out to the lobby. She never replied, but there was a green dot on Facebook an hour after she returned to the room, indicating that she was awake and online. Long travel days – 13 hours of flying with heartache for me, 18 of driving for her – kept us from being able to connect much in the immediate days following. And when we did, her rage was still white-hot. I apologized – a lot. But it seemed to do nothing but make her angrier. Discussions went nowhere. Communication fluctuated wildly. Finally, she was ready to schedule our next visit, and I could rest in a trusting peace. She inquired in the morning 5 days after we’d parted about date and budget ranges. Heart emojis to me while I was out biking. Two hours later, a Zoom in which she ended it all.

    I walked the 2.5 miles to the jetty, and at the end of the rock line penetrating the ocean on the opposite shore parallel to the one I sat on was a figure in orange, probably a fisherman, but the orange immediately reminded me of her fiery jacket, the high chop between us of the new emotional distance, the separation. Made it real, visceral. I started back, stopping to sit on a dune where I had been prepared to spend some time writing, but it was too cold. A small group on horseback passed, the first people I’d seen on the beach the entire time.

    We had first connected in the consciousness-raising group I began to attend a couple years before while recovering from surgery, then a broken collarbone, with time on my hands. I was almost two years out from separating from my partner of 14 years, which had gradually evolved into a sweet, stable friendship.

    For more than a year, I attended her online workshops weekly, admired her clarity, facility and intellect, developed a crush, and enjoyed her attention, the ways we torched on each other during role-plays, the way she always welcomed and lofted my commentary. It reminded me…. and privately, I inspected and finally reached a state of reckoning, completion of my academic trauma, parsing the intellect from the feelings. I ultimately shared it with her. She responded very positively, in a smart, long, caring letter of recognition.

    My heart was newly open and ready. I was more grounded in myself. The cobwebs swept clean. I had clarity and my own fullness rising to the surface.

    We met in person and I joined her morning meditations at the retreat in the desert, coming gradually closer and noticing the many women who talked about their crushes on her, approached her like moths to a flame, only to be turned away. It was a bloodbath. I saw that the personal sharing she did in the workshops could create a false sense of familiarity and approachability for the attendees. I wondered if it was intentional. I saw her often looking at me. On the last day of the retreat we did an exercise where we had to look into someone’s eyes for a solid two minutes. She sat down next to me, and we shared that moment of apprehending one another.

    The retreat, though disorganized, was more than I had expected. Having more of a sense of supportive community, finally, again, was wonderful. It had been the big missing piece in my healing, that relational part of belonging. My friendships in that group began to bud.

    I’d become leery of butches and skeptical about the possibilities of a dynamic flow of power between us. Most of my girlfriends had been more femme or AC/DC. A little less to lose for me, less threatening, safer. Who I would be allowed to be in a butch/femme dynamic? A little afraid of the parts of myself that I knew would also thrill to it, become ensnared. Watchful of the ego. The last couple of times I’d been with butches, once in Berlin (I was a rebound, abandoned at a Christopher Street Day event when she encountered her ex) and then in the German university town (I ended that, then she stalked me), had been short-lived.

    After getting home from the desert, I stepped back and gave up on the realization or reciprocation of my big new crush, realizing I was one of many.

    A month or so after the retreat, she got in touch. One Zoom turned into two, then into a 4+ hour one trading dating profiles and assessing compatibility, resulting in my plane ticket to Ottawa. I “graduated” from the workshop she led, to avoid conflict of interest, although I missed it. It was the least bad option of all of those we discussed. I was buoyed by her tenderness. She opened the car door for me each time, took me to the countryside, into the city, for long walks along Lake Ontario. I wore my dresses almost every day, more than I usually do. She loved them, and I loved it that she loved them. But I also felt a little… was I sidelining myself somehow. The visit went so well, that we scheduled the next. We Zoomed and texted every day. We fell in love. We sidebar flirted incessantly and obnoxiously via text during the Zoom consciousness-raising classes we both attended. We could not wait.

    In conversation with her, I changed my rental agreement to month-to-month, began to clean out the junk. Thought through what it would take to possibly relocate within a year. She was clear that she would not come to the U.S. at all, given the political realities and her activism. My bike friends despaired. I hoped I could live happily apart from all the nature I so treasured, or find enough of it there. I wasn’t totally unhappy about the possibility of leaving the trashy politics of my country behind. Everything had seemed so perfect, just until those last two days.

    My body in such a new place, entering perimenopause and not having been with another person since separating from my former partner; it had been almost 4 years since then. Surely, I had thought, desire and love would see us through, we’d be able to explore. She would be open, given her 17 years on me and wealth of experience and knowledge. I allowed her to lead, trusting and believing in the mutuality of our honesty and openness with one another. But the time constraints made our intimate time together feel increasingly pressured and rushed. Our mutual desire for each other and for sex meant that we had jumped right in during each night after the first of my first week-long visit to see her where she lived in Ottawa six weeks before. We jumped back in again just after I disembarked the airplane when she spirited me off to her room in a hotel attached to the airport when I first landed on the island. But now, after a week of beautiful, intensive time together, teased along by desires that could not be actualized during the week we had stayed in campsites with too little privacy, (except during small moments like where she thrillingly pushed me up against a rock to kiss me on a vacant beach but stopped just after making sure I was wet, or her hand on my my leg in the car) things had become more serious. The deeper feelings, higher stakes. My newer need for a slower build. The way, the second-to-last night, I couldn’t seem to reliably be able to fully release to her in spite of my desire, her frustration when my body and being simply shut down when, after I had first been enjoying it, she had accelerated and was suddenly simply moving too fast on top of me, our clits sliding together, the way her concern and inquisition about that incident and my disconnection spilled into the next day (“I’m afraid to touch you now,”), although we had made love again, fulfillingly, the following morning. Her upset about that sudden disconnect, and the general criticism and distancing and even suggesting I get therapy, as our precious time together dwindled into hours without another visit yet solidly scheduled. “Maybe I’m just afraid that if I release to you, I’ll find that I need you, and you won’t be able to be there because of the distance,” I had wondered, though the issue had seemed largely physiological. “Maybe we should try tantric sex,” I supplied, “…but that needs patience,” I added, looking inquisitively at her. Maybe it was a barb; she was not a terribly patient person.

    With about a mile to the trailhead remaining, I stopped, still nobody in sight and the mist still dense, though starting to dissipate. I put my pack down on a small sandy rise above the tide line, and took off my dress, everything. I walked into the bracing water with the strands of kelp, the floating jellyfish, and let the waves sweep and stroke my skin, every crevice. Twinges of arousal, that belonged only to me and the sea. I emerged feeling cleansed, like something had been restored to me, my own aliveness. I pulled my sundress back on, deciding to go commando. As I completed my walk, the mist truly began to dissipate.

    Back in Zana I ate fish tacos at a Mexican place then went to the nearby, populated beach to see the sunset. So many of ours on the island had for one reason or another been stymied, by location or weather. I felt the longing to be with her. Though I had intended to release her during this visit, a week after the break, I couldn’t fully yet. I had done enough that day. I drove home in the dark, alert, on the winding, hilly coastal roads then again winding over the coast range, a drive she’d not have enjoyed. And I slept well.

    It’s been easier to pull myself through the eye of the needle this time. I’m so much more secure in my own power and worth. Clarity comes more easily. The feelings flow through and are seen. My senses are honed, my needs more established, what needs to be communicated, or not, more apparent. The scar tissue yields better. I don’t resist. I just am.

    Though for fuck’s sake. I again lost a sense of community I treasured along the way. She still gives workshops there, and, just after a little over two weeks of our breakup, has announced publicly that she’s single. Some of the members had seen the pictures of the two of us together on Facebook as we traveled. But maybe the loss of community is more temporary this time, and in a shorter while than I might believe, it won’t sting. FAFO, I guess.

  • Landing in Calais

    Landing in Calais

    Sometimes a memory surfaces of an experience I had while backpacking through Europe, at age 19. I carried the same heavy Mountainsmith 65 liter backpack I’d used to climb Mt. Rainier and lead backpacking trips at a summer camp in the Colorado Rockies, and the same attitude of exploration and desire for new vistas, carrying all I needed in my snail shell of a pack. I eventually sold that pack and downsized my travel and backpacking kit, in an effort to travel more gently to myself in the world. Discovering more gentleness within and for myself has finally brought more ability to take compassionate care of myself while traversing challenging memories, and to honor my own story.


    Early in my journey, I took a ferry from the beautiful White Cliffs of Dover to France, landing in Calais. As the boat prepared to empty, I needed to use the restroom. So I found my way through the white decking, there were a couple people lined up for the single stall room ahead of me. I waited my turn, increasingly anxious in the flow of disembarking passengers that I would get stuck on the boat. Soon before I was up, a group of drunk French women in garish makeup arrived, 3 or 4 of them. They were still having their party. When it was my turn to pee, one of them grabbed the door and tried to get in ahead of me, but I was faster. They began to yell at me in French. I had put my pack down and was about to sit on the toilet, with my pants halfway down, when one of them somehow yanked the door open. Then two of them grabbed my arms and tried to pull me out of the bathroom, but my pack was in the way. I managed to protestingly push them off, get the door closed again and finish my business, as they yelled at and mocked me as I exited. By then, there was nobody else left on the boat but me, the women, and the crew. I tried to mention the incident to the impatient crew member at the exit before walking the long ramp to shore, but he just shrugged. I went on my way, shaken, to try to find my way to my meal and lodging as fast as I could.

    It was an upsetting, humiliating moment. I was trying to take care of a basic human need, had waited my turn, and so cruelly had my privacy violated by that chaotic gang in such an ugly way. I felt very alone in the world, and that I had no recourse but to try at all costs to avoid groups like that. I took the Chunnel on my return trip to study abroad for a semester in London. 

    That travel and subsequent semester living abroad was filled nonstop with startling and surprising encounters, both enchanting and discomfiting. By the time I got back after having been on the go for so long, juggling the constant concerns of finding hostels, food, getting to what I wanted to visit, navigating different cultures, keeping track of everything, my nervous system had become pretty wound up. It took some months to process all of the different experiences and the chaos of the world at large.


    In the warmly lit classroom of my small liberal arts college a month or so into the fall of my senior year, I found myself feeling like I was just in the right place at the right time, somewhere I wanted to stay forever. The class on feminist literature and film took place two evenings per week with an additional film screening. I had slipped into feeling deeply co-regulated with my brilliant butch professor. My ideas became effusively lofted and my experiences gained context in the scope of world and literary history as I was encouraged to “unpack your ideas” and “externalize more.” Not only that, I was suddenly getting needs I hadn’t even realized I had had met. Needs for approval, support, encouragement to go to grad school, having my sexual identity validated as she regularly participated in the lgbtq club I helped lead one evening per week, being told I was smart, having my skills recognized, having someone outline a future pathway where she believed I could be successful.

    Someone who not only fawned over but also confided in me, and even needed my supportive presence. Not only that: feeling that someone found my body attractive, was flirting with me: I experienced myself for the first time as a full woman who was being desired in a way that I found that I really wanted to be desired. It was so natural to flirt back, I surprised myself with the new part of me which had been unleashed. I was being taken seriously as a scholar, and as a woman. I felt cherished and tuned into, at every level. 

    She was often one for dramatic gestures. When I accidentally dropped a piece of paper during a film screening introduction, she would leave the podium in the middle of her talk to swoop up the aisle to pick it up with a flourish and return it to me. “Yes, my dear,” she would say when I raised my hand in class. My friends in the class teased me about it. After a lgbtq meeting on safe sex where we embarrassingly discussed dental dams (we were the generation raised in the shadow of the AIDS crisis), she made sure to pull me aside to inform me that nobody really used them. In the next class alongside a literary mention of syphilis, she said: “The safest sex, of course, is masturbation!” as she looked at me. 

    We effortlessly seemed to read one another. I absorbed all of this like a sponge and took it deeply into my being. My confidence in my intellect and in general soared. I felt so much gratitude and awe. Awe for the sense of understanding that bound us together. So natural. It began to feel like an instinctive, primal bond necessary for survival. I felt embraced for all that I was and could be, and needed for my unique being and understanding. A vast new connective space of shared power had been revealed to me and I felt seen and cared about, as we mirrored each other in the midst of discussing psychoanalytic theory and women’s narrative literature, and as she took part in club events I sometimes ran. During office hours she would winkingly recommend I read the books The Bonds of Love by Jessia Benjamin, and The Practice of Love, which was on film theory. It seemed we could even control time and space. I took that limerant waltz.

    We were a united front against the world, and against whatever sufferings and inconveniences she was facing from the college administration which she had deemed incompetent, annoying colleagues of hers, the persecuting enemies of hers in her field, or her allegedly depressed or deranged exes. Being confided in at this level felt so familiar, as my dad had often confided in me his dissatisfactions with my mom, his colleagues and extended family. But WE were allied in our joy in the true causes of feminist lesbian liberation, literature, and the world of ideas.

    On that island of perceived safety, I also began to realize and mourn things about my family. I went through a deep grief about the love and validation I had missed out on from parents who, in spite of their love and good intentions, had their own limitations and could not fully provide what I had needed. Bittersweet because of my current state of happiness and increasing fulfillment in feeling so fully met. I didn’t really even have the words for it at the time. The birth of a new soulfulness.

    It was a seismic shift, and directly impacted my ideas about myself, my potential, the worlds I could belong to. I became dissatisfied with some things about myself that I wanted to improve and grew like a weed, intellectually, personally, and even spiritually with new ambition and confidence. 

    At one point, after an evening lgbtq club meeting, as we were exiting the building she said “my car’s down there,” and we fell into step walking together right towards it, but at the last moment, I turned off for the library. I had had more casual, experimental sex with other students – but this was different, and I didn’t feel ready for it. In class the next day, she remarked: “There are the women you sleep with, and then there are the women you marry,” looking meaningfully at me.   

    I began to feel more isolated, separated from my peer group by my ecstatic, almost febrile experience of a special shared connection that I instinctively knew not to tell anyone about, but that separation seemed to matter less when I believed that I had been so deeply received and understood; maybe I had something better.

    Because of my blossoming intellectual interest combined with renewed interest in my heritage, I had signed up for her second course in the spring semester, but this unfolded differently. She seemed almost disappointed that I was there, even possibly bored with me. She became more distant, calling on me less often in class though she still attended lgbtq club meetings and flirted with me outside of class. This was accompanied by an increasing, frightening vulnerability as I continued to seek her admiration but was not quite sure where I stood. “I really trust you” I had told her one day, wanting to convey the vulnerability I was feeling, which was now in her hands. “Thanks, that’s really sweet,” she said. Once or twice she made some cynical remark that cut me, but then quickly said “just kidding.” I worked even harder on the class material and did wonderfully in all my other classes and my senior thesis on Virginia Woolf’s Orlando in a different department. I was still inspired, but unsettled.

    I felt academically like I had really found my footing, but also like there was so much more to learn, like I was just beginning to grow at the bottom of a big trellis in that new field, and that I needed and wanted to stand on my own feet in order to be able to stand even better in the space of whatever relationship it was. To feel less dependent. This led me to bury some academic needs beyond the class minimum in order to perpetuate my new exciting status of being treated more as a peer or romance than a student as it became clear that maybe I couldn’t have both. No, I did not want a demotion, I liked being relied on by someone I so admired, it made me feel special, and I wanted to show I was sophisticated. She had encouraged me to go to grad school; maybe that would be enough, and I could take care of the footwork to make it happen on my own. So some of my student needs for guidance or budding intellectual interests went underground, because she was surprisingly not seeming into those anymore. I sensed that in acknowledging or putting them forward, it would be too much, now that managing the relationship was my job, too, and she seemed to be bored with the academic part of things. If I brought them forward, I might have to sacrifice the very fulcrum of my growth and new state of being; it would disrupt our shared intersubjective reality that superseded and tunneled through any power constructs (as the Bonds of Love described them)– trappings that my academic needs would reinvoke. I felt like maybe I’d done something wrong by enrolling in the second course. But she invited me to lectures by visiting professors in the field and introduced me to her colleagues almost as a peer, and complimented me on the alumni panel I’d organized for the lgbtq club.

    I had learned to sit with the uncertainty, my lack of control of the situation but welter of feelings, and trust that over time, I would find out, and that she knew what she was doing and ultimately had some sort of control or plan. I wondered if maybe I just wasn’t naughty enough and found solace in the ritual of smoking; she smoked and it was quite a dramatic action for me to take as an avid outdoorswoman and athlete. It had troubled me that she smoked, and I wondered if I could start and quit, and then she would of course quit, too. I could rescue her. 

    After the semester ended, she greeted me warmly and asked me pointedly if I intended to stay in the area. We shared a long meaningful hug that might have gone further had I not needed to request a recommendation letter that compelled me to behave more formally. She remarked that my visit was like a breath of fresh air, and that she didn’t know what she’d do without me. All of that magically wiped out any uncertainty about where I stood that had accrued the prior spring. 

    And yet, I wondered, if anything were realized, could I really support her full emotional weight which would surely land on my shoulders, and did I want to be tied down on the brink of possible independent adventures in the world? I didn’t even know how to cook. Would I get to have a big meaningful career, too? What would it be like to sleep together? Would I be able to stand my ground if we fought? I wasn’t so sure. Would she like to hike? Could I be happy living more permanently somewhere without mountains? Would it even work? What did I really want? Did she want kids? Did I? I had never had a relationship, and I was intimidated by the thought and by my own inexperience. I mentioned that I had a summer job lined up and wanted to give some thought to my next steps. Even as there was still a lot of confusion and ambiguity surrounding that experience, like: Why me? What was really happening? What had really happened? What control did I have over it? How could I affect it? Did I cause it in some way? Was it ok? Where did I really stand? What did she really want? What were my options? What could be acknowledged? What could the future hold? No answers that I could discern by not asking. 

    The summer after I graduated college, after I finished my summer job, still aglow from the prior year, my family suddenly fell apart. If I’m honest, at that time I probably wanted someplace soft to fall and all the tenderness in the world, to be somewhere stabilizing when that happened, but didn’t know how to ask for it. It pushed me to a tipping point as my system went into overdrive to escape that overwhelming situation where both distressed parents were pulling me in different directions but I had no actual control over how anything unfolded, I helped my younger sister get stabilized and pack up to return to college in Maine for her next semester, and took the GRE exams. In the midst of that crisis, I wrote her a love letter. In some ways, it was also a crie de cour as I saw the foundations of what I had grown up understanding to be love demolished before my eyes and I wanted to stake myself to my own new experience. She eventually, a couple weeks later, impersonally responded that she could not get involved, and could not take responsibility for my feelings, and did not want to talk on the telephone. But of course,  I reasoned, what else could she really say in writing given that she was just coming up for tenure, despite all she’d said implicitly about it and all the many indications she’d given me that she was as attracted as I was and cared about me romantically. The last thing I wanted to do was jeopardize her career, our possible future in any way, so I didn’t ask my questions. I reconnected with a couple of old friends I hadn’t seen for awhile for support around my questioning dejection and also my family.

    By the autumn I’d moved to Europe to teach English, where I stayed very busy navigating employment and visa situations, learning all I could (language, culture, literature), and, after a year, applying to grad school. Nonetheless, the sonorant, gentle voice that had encouraged and flattered me the prior year had moved into my mind and heart, her words a presence that urged me on and buoyed me into the following couple of years even after I had “left.” One foot stayed bound to that time as the root I would grow from and thought I could reunite with after more time abroad gaining life experience and learning. 

    In the throes of trying to survive, I didn’t have much time to pine away – but the idea that she was just across the ocean and believed in me, that my work was in service to shared goals, and that we could reunite in some form later, even if only professionally, provided a sense of comfort and security in the hardest moments. Step after step, I found my way, holding my precious red thread.

    We stayed in friendly touch via email over the next year and a half, as she had encouraged. I shared pieces of my life abroad and congratulated her when she shared that she had gotten tenure. I also ran my grad school acceptance options by her, partially because I wanted her to feel like she was looped into the decision, and secondly because I didn’t know who else to ask, who would know both me and the field. We had a brief phone call about it, where she confusingly said: “The more the merrier, huh? Just kidding, I think you’ll do well.” So I thought that she was on board with my choice, having had the opportunity to warn me of anything not in my – or our – best interests. She responded with a little more information about the strengths of each program, and that she didn’t think I could make a wrong decision.   

    So I visited three on the west coast, eventually landing in X (where she was an apparently disengaged alum of 10 years and had in my senior year once said she could really see me at) with a fellowship. I thought I could do well and even find answers to my lingering questions unobtrusively across the country from her, in a place that would still give me some intellectual familiarity and what I needed to stand better on my own feet, to grow into the peer role that I’d been assigned but that had felt too big for me before. To not just be treated like a peer, but to actually become one. To be able to play well together in the world of ideas and eventually maybe more – perhaps even over the course of a lifetime – as I could bring all my new knowledge to bear. One long beautiful conversation. Starting grad school was a tender space of development, because I now needed to take risks with my ideas that until then I’d only been able to work with in isolation while living abroad on my own for a couple of years, without any forum for discussion. I needed to keep building the voice I had begun to develop. To professionalize. I was on my path.

    All of these seemed basic needs in understanding myself and where I belonged in the world, and in growing into whatever potential I had. I paid attention to whatever meaning and glimmers of answers I could get from the literature and amid the new caste system of characters. I put my full being into the effort as my work became central.

    At the same time, I wanted to show her that I had brought something back, and that I was on my way: assemble the shards I had collected over the few years into a great big mirror for her that showed that beyond the mirror I had re-created for her, there was me with my gratitude, collegiality, respect and care, in our familiar shared language. If I could somehow inhabit the mental, emotional and physical space of being there, where she was and wasn’t, perhaps I could understand what had happened too, and heal or meet my own needs and open questions. I strove to be the best student.


    Everything started off wonderfully. I was thrilled to be back in an academic setting and did well in my classes, got along with my fellow grad students, and even secured another fellowship for the summer so I wouldn’t need to start teaching until the following year. Mount Rainier gleamed on the horizon on clear days, a touchstone of achievement that anchored me to my ambition. 

    Our emails had trailed off, but then the department head announced that my professor had volunteered to organize a big alumni conference in my program which would be preceded by a grad student conference the day before. I was curious and felt both reassured that I’d get to reconnect with her in a professional setting, and some pressure to perform, because I wanted her to be proud of me. 

    I didn’t know what happened when one day in the spring of my first year she walked into my shared windowless grad student office, which was bathed in headache-inducing fluorescent light, took my officemate (another student from my same undergrad institution) to coffee, and stonewalled me. Like she didn’t even recognize me. I felt suddenly, shockingly intruded on in my new professional space. 

    The blinding gut punch and sense of impending doom from her cold visitation sent me into the arms of first a colleague with whom I’d become friends, then the university counseling center. When I finally emailed her a week later to ask what was wrong, she had the undergrad college psychiatrist on the other side of the country call me as a proxy unexpectedly at home on a weekend as I was working on my conference paper two weeks before the big conference. The psychiatrist communicated that the professor had “moved on” and that my questions were “inappropriate” and that I was not to attend the professor’s panel at the upcoming conference. What? Moved on from what, and to where? Had I done something wrong? I was simply unable to believe that someone who I’d been led to understand would be in solidarity with my efforts the way that I was with hers, actually wasn’t. It must be a trick, she must be doing this for my own eventual benefit, but what was it? Was she trying to hide us for some reason because she didn’t want me to get hurt, and did she plan to make it up to me later? Was there some big misunderstanding? I thought I was safe? I thought I was landing and could again unpack my experiences and ideas? What the hell was going on? I had the psychiatrist talk to my therapist at the time, then I heard the words “bad boundaries,” “we agree the problems are on the other side,” and “it’s like you two are holding a bomb.” What? My steps in my new program became more uncertain, and I wasn’t even officially out of the closet yet there beyond a handful of fellow grad students, I didn’t see it as relevant to my work.

    I was unable to believe that I had simply been abandoned, that the ground had been swept out from under me. I was unable to believe my new well-meaning professors who gently let me know that she’d been saying negative things to them about me and had outed me. I thought that they had something against her, did not like my allegiance, and wanted to drive a wedge between us. “It’s not your problem, but it’s your problem to deal with. You may want a lawyer,” one senior prof frighteningly advised. I thought she was blowing things out of proportion because I was sure that my professor and I could just calm each other down, like before. The shattering was a long process with wave after overwhelming wave of confusion, agonizingly deep hurt, trying to assess realities that simply didn’t match up, or create any narrative that I could understand. Trying to stay afloat in a workplace that I no longer felt safe in understanding, I felt completely separated from my department by my experience, but also bound even tighter to it by virtue of my ever increasing isolation with the certainty that the nobody in the external world would ever understand what had transpired on what felt like an entirely different planet.

    I managed to pull myself together to deliver my paper, which actually went really well, although the professor had scheduled a large meeting exactly during my presentation time that took away most of the audience. During the following reception when everyone was in the same room, I was stunned to see the professor being publicly affectionate with another woman. By that point, I really wanted to go home, but the grad students were required to do the dishes from the reception afterwards so it was a terribly long evening that went on so long that I then had to wait forever for the infrequent bus service. I stayed home alone most of the next day, while everyone I knew  was at the conference that I wasn’t allowed to attend part of. That hurt. When I went in for the afternoon sessions and sat down with my fellow grad students, she pointed me out snickered together with the woman I’d seen her being affectionate with and also with my graduate advisor, it became clear the three were a pretty tight clique. We didn’t talk at all during either day of the whole conference though at one point she came and stood right behind me with her back to me. 

    A week later, there was another department event which included an undergrad play and an honor society induction where my cohort of 4 needed to get up on stage to receive our certificates. The professor appeared.  As she and my grad advisor were coming out of the bathroom as I was in the hallway going in, I caught a very dark, angry, cornered look in the professor’s eyes as she spotted me. She smiled from the audience and took a photo of me as I accepted my certificate, and then left without a word. What the hell? 

    I later learned that the other woman was her long-term girlfriend, who she’d never told me about – or, rather, had briefly mentioned as an old grad school friend. Apparently, they were long-distance together even during the same time that she developed a romantic bond with me. And I learned that they had met several years before in my same program, and the girlfriend was already a peer in the same field, but at a different institution. And she was taller and skinnier than I was. Apparently, everyone but me had been aware of this. As the numbness wore off and the denial abated, my learning space was suddenly polluted by the new primacy of their relationship, the vaunting and meeting of my professor’s needs by the program as mine and any ideas of democracy within that setting were trampled (though she’d graduated a decade prior and lived across the country). This new awareness speared through me on a daily basis. I was nauseated and could not believe it. I’d been discarded. I was an inconvenience, had been just a plaything, a filler? Or what? Did her girlfriend know about me? Had I unwittingly participated in an emotional affair? The idea revolted me, having just experienced the devastation of my father’s affair play out in my own family. Maybe she was just biding time and wanted me later after all? I had long since come to the realistic assessment that she might have little flings while I wasn’t around, as would I, but that I probably didn’t want to know about them. I hadn’t volunteered information about my doings while away. But why wouldn’t she talk to me about it? What had I gotten wrong? How had I not known?

    Much later, one visiting professor let me know that my paper had been much better than the professor’s girlfriend’s paper, which was very strangely about the same book I presented on, which I’d written for one of my seminars. I can see now that that probably also got me into some trouble.

    The vagaries of who had power over what at any given time within my department, the attacks and obstructions, the shifting goalposts in terms of what I needed to do, the broken promises about advising, no real feedback more than half of the time. Library books stolen from my office. Grad students used as pawns in the professors’ agendas against one another. Almost half of the faculty on an annual leave at a time. Most professors married to each other and/or to former students. Rumors of organized conferences and ideas stolen from visiting professors. The icky advanced male grad student who controlled my teaching schedule and hit on me. I did not want to burden the handful of profs who were shouldering the bright spots of interesting classes and helpful feedback, some of whom were in precarious pre-tenure positions. I did not want to admit the mess into my few positive experiences, when I most needed clarity about my work. I needed to try to compartmentalize my own problems, it was not safe to react in any way.

    I became deeply uncomfortable with her unexpected and repeated participation in my program, where she would fly across the country to suddenly appear for some meeting or something, then disappear again. But there was nothing I could do about it. I was not allowed to have boundaries of my own there.

    Apparently, my inescapable grad advisor (who was also simultaneously the acting chair and professor for two of my courses) was another past or present romance and friend who was not out of the closet. She seemed to take all of her life dissatisfaction out on me. Slut-shamed me (though I mostly dressed in baggy clothes which hid my body), screamed at me, forgot advisory meetings, ignored me in class, would assign low grades but not return work, excluded me from fellowship lunches. I found myself unwittingly, unwillingly embroiled, mired in a quicksand I tried in every way to navigate, a shame that didn’t really belong to me, that took years to shake off. Trying to grab onto whatever ropes I could to reach safety, trying to hold fast onto my bond to the literature. But barely telling anyone about my distress because it was so personal and I didn’t want to put a foot wrong. Also, the shame of it: I was afraid they would see me as damaged goods and reject me. 

    When I was democratically voted onto an advisory board committee position by fellow grad students at the start of my second year, she called me into her office where I sat down in my khaki pants and grey sweater. She demanded that I give it to a pet student of hers instead, because unbeknownst to me my undergrad professor was on the 20-person committee that met quarterly and didn’t want me in the same room. She screamed at me the startling, distressing news that the professor felt harassed by me and that I should have known better than to run for office as I cried and lifted off somewhere to the ceiling above my body. Then I had to go teach my first class ever in a different language right afterwards, I felt terrible that that was my students’ first impression of me. I was advised by a senior prof to keep my head down and not make waves if I wanted to survive. At the same time, my family a few states away continued to heartrendingly split at the seams and was unable to provide emotional support, and I found myself drained rather than replenished after holiday visits back. University counseling was mostly pills and supportively bilging a water from a boat with a hole in it, basic stabilization while it took time and energy from my work. I wanted to prove myself in spite of it, show that I could handle it. I also wanted to try to penetrate the opacity of what had been hidden from me even as I became increasingly immobilized. I had been demoted to worse than a student: a grocery-getting servant, a child sent to the corner, a fish in a barrel. But I wasn’t someone who gave up easily. I joined an interdepartmental study group to get some breathing room, which my graduate advisor frowned on; she even sent an advisee to visit a meeting and come back to tell everyone in my department how boring and lame it was. Promisingly, my study group included a number of union organizers. 

    A senior professor offered to request a mediation between my graduate advisor and myself, but recommended I wait until after passing my MA exams before doing so, because otherwise there was a good chance that I wouldn’t pass. So I passed my MA exams in 3 different centuries of literature and we requested mediation. My grad advisor refused. 

    I got a little respite to study abroad again for a year in a small university town after passing my MA exams, and there was no time to take any further steps in the university complaint process before departing. I taught awesome English classes, attended seminars, and spent more time in therapy. When I discovered that the first therapist I saw there had been billing my insurance for visits which never transpired, I found a second one, who helpfully administered EMDR. With new information from my granddad, I connected with distant relations for the first time, building an alternative sense of family as I climbed upwards and outwards on my family tree. I started feeling well again. My graduate advisor stayed in frequent contact with the professor I was working with abroad, so it didn’t feel right to consult her about what to do about my program or to even share any information that might get back to my graduate advisor. 

    Close to Christmas I went dancing at a lesbian club, and the undergrad professor appeared there. She crashed right into me from the side as I was walking across the room, caught me around my waist, her hand grazing the side and underside of my breast as I was thrown off balance, then disappeared. I couldn’t believe my eyes at first, but it was her. Still wounded, defensive, and feeling vulnerable there on my own, I ignored her when she reentered the room. I knew that she wasn’t in town to stay, and had that girlfriend back in the U.S. If she couldn’t find a way to respect and have a reasonable conversation with me during one of her visits to my program, I certainly didn’t want to be just another port of call she could just slide into. And: this was my space now, and I intended to occupy it. I drank beer and danced unabashedly as a big fuck you. She was not a dancer. As I was sitting down at the end of the evening, she walked past me from behind and brushed her sleeve against my back and back of my neck, and left. I didn’t see her there again. No communication from her before or after. And yet, I wondered: “What if?” I found a lesbian tango group and didn’t return to the club often following that.

    I was offered an additional exchange year abroad by my department because they had nobody else to send but needed a warm body to fill the spot. I took it, still feeling uneasy about returning and thinking about transferring though I had established two solid, trustworthy dissertation advisors who wanted to help me succeed in spite of it all. I managed to secure a promise that I would get a new grad advisor when I returned, and that there would be no issue with course credits. By the end of the second year away, I decided to continue forward in my degree program; I was feeling better; at least it was a known quantity, and my language fluency was by then really solid. My EMDR therapist bit his lip for  a moment as I discussed this decision. Starting over somewhere new seemed insurmountable as many adaptations as I’d already made, and I was low on vim. I worried about getting recommendation letters. Though I had been doing generally well, the two classes I’d taken with my graduate advisor had tanked my GPA. I didn’t know who to ask for advice about other programs, my general trust level being what it was.  I had presented papers at two conferences while abroad, which helped me to feel better about conferences. 

    So I (stupidly, I felt for awhile) and sadly said goodbye to my lovely new girlfriend of 6 months (a psychology grad student at the time, who I’m glad for that she’s now happily married to a woman and they have a couple of kids), my distant relatives, and a couple of other friends and went back, ready to jump into PhD work.  

    When I returned, the chair who’d promised me a new advisor had gone on leave, and I was back with the same one as before, the one who had refused to have a mediation. I was required to take another of her courses in the fall, though she’d not returned work from the prior two. Another low grade for hard, smart work. I didn’t feel safe and couldn’t fight or freeze or escape so I was just really sweet and hardworking. At renewal time, she rejected my credits and work done abroad, the two conference papers I’d given there. She smilingly said I was disqualified from the program and could not continue, and could not appeal the decision. Was it because of what had happened at the dance club in Europe? Or was it the same obstructionism as before?

    Besides requesting mediation, I had visited the ombudswoman a few times, taken all avenues to gently address the maltreatment so I could attain more safety and a more viable path, each one a dead end. When I finally raised my concerns – with proof – just after the end of my final quarter to the university Title IX office and sought recourse, the total failure to respond was deafening. My undergrad college dean also effectively shrugged, saying that since most things had happened at my university and the others that had happened at my former college couldn’t be proved in a she said/she said situation – it wasn’t their problem. I talked to a couple of lawyers, who found it too messy to take on. I finally got a response from a dean, who wanted me to resubmit everything again, but by that time I had started a new job and it was simply too destabilizing to go back through it all again. 

    Within a year of leaving grad school and after I’d found a job in a different state, I was contacted on an online support forum I sometimes visited by a French woman, a translator with part African heritage who had relocated from France to Toronto. It turned into an online romantic correspondence for a few months, but she was not able to connect via Skype because of her debilitating shyness. She liked to give somewhat controlling advice, came off as slightly juvenile at times, her English was not excellent, and she began to ask very prurient, probing questions about my experience with the professor that I had to ask why she wanted to know, and then strange ones about things like a piece of clothing I wore sometimes while in grad school, which she could not possibly have seen. I became 99% sure it was my former grad advisor based on the writing style, prurient interest and looking up teaching schedules, and ended the communication.


    I tried to move on with my life, but the mess bubbled in the background. The confusion of it all had muted me from knowing how to talk about it. Whatever power I thought I’d had, gone. My belief in my ability to take care of and fend for myself, to know who to trust, to steer clear of danger, upended. Whoever I thought I was or could be, thrown into question. What was real about my experiences, beliefs, intellect, value, body: completely into chaos. Who I could trust ever again, a mystery. The legitimacy of my being, my aspirations, negated. Any healing I’d done, reopened wounds. Any in-group solidarity about my sexual identity, vanquished; I was clearly not welcome in the academic lesbian club. The wearing degradations and abandonment and the lies and the betrayal were all that I really walked away with. My bravery and my time, squandered. My productivity, my ability to concentrate or function well, shredded. The piece of paper commemorating my MA degree “achievement” just more useless currency, more useless even than my ideas.

    My ideas of myself as someone with integrity, of someone who was good and deserving of respect and dignity, vanished as the voice I had so trusted and relied on had told so many damning lies, that I went back over my actions again and again trying to figure out what I had done wrong that had led her to have those complaints, or right any misunderstandings, and to try to correct whatever offence I’d caused.

    Sometimes I would still scan for answers, for the missing pieces that would explain it to me so I could know what was real. I clamored for this, my shouts were ignored. I railed on, with rage becoming sadness and desolation and then rage and then sadness again, sometimes with alcohol as an accelerant, as my feelings ricocheted in an echo chamber, against a slammed door, the very door I needed to exit. I got more therapy and could eventually start to have the reactions I’d had to stifle before.

    I’ve been sometimes breadcrumbed along by the odd conference paper, concept, with perhaps some ambiguous oblique reference or small spark of empathy or understanding that seemed to speak of a hint of remorse. Just paper airplanes that would never provide anything that I really felt I needed. Paper airplanes in my interest areas that build their careers, their credit, their reputations, their cabal but that don’t help me in any way to establish for myself, or address any of my basic needs, which were completely ignored. Paper airplanes with which they only play Keep Away. They clog up the arena and create spectacles in ways that demonstrate even more hostility and gatekeeping. They call bloody murder on me and try to manipulate any available authority against me the moment I reappear in any corner of the field, whether a Zoom room on a public talk about film or large conference, as I’d sought new contexts in that small field with evaporating opportunities which to right my own intellectual boat, while they’ve done everything possible to slam and shame me back to silence. As though I was the Unabomber, though I’d never made a single threat.

    The last time I saw the professor was in 2019. The field’s enormous annual conference happened in Portland, and I decided to go put my foot in the water and see how I felt about the content after time away. I didn’t know if she’d be there. I spotted her standing in the middle of a narrower hall, a conduit I needed to pass through between conference areas. I gathered my courage and went up to her, standing about 6 feet away, looked at her, and said “Good morning.” Her eyes were bloodshot and she simply froze. After a moment, I left and went to the bathroom prior to my next session. As I was there, she entered the stall next to me. I left as someone else came in. On my way to the next thing I saw her girlfriend, who smirked at me in passing. I’m glad I took that moment to assert my humanity, but to also understand that she was actually truly terrified of me. I’m also glad I went because it put to bed any lingering desires to pick up my academic career as I found myself getting bored often enough to not want to attend an additional day. My partner said when I came home that it must have been quite a look I gave her because I still had power in my eyes, and she could easily imagine that I had snakes for hair.  

    —————————————————————————————————————————————

    Later, I learned that she and her girlfriend actually called the Portland Police to report that I’d assaulted her. I could finally identify the many hurtful and untrue allegations which had so confused me, still disbelievingly, as just banal gaslighting and DARVO. I felt that in showing up for my career over the years in all of my sincerity and with all of my hard work, openness, and good, full faith, I had simply been badly tricked.

    No acknowledgement or ownership of action or words or a small, simple, humane gesture like: “There’s something I’d like to talk to you about, are you available for a discussion.” or, “Over the years I’ve come to a new understanding of this situation and my professional power, and I want to share some information with you that you might find helpful.” It’s just been continued escalating terrorization, stifling of my voice and concerns, baseless legal threats of upending my life and that of those around me further when I try to tell the truth about it.

    The people who I had thought would support and collaborate with me became, nightmarishly, people I could not recognize against my mental image. They became the women on the boat in Calais. Drunk with their own power, garishly decked out in their own sense of importance, carrying on their own party, intruding on my vulnerability, taking my turn, lying, mocking. Three or more against one.


    Even now, long off the boat, it’s still at times unsettling when I enter a new context and find welcome and appreciation. When someone makes a point to compliment, for example, my presence or my ideas or even my body, I’m momentarily back into that magical realm of validation, of getting what I need and want to believe about myself, and then have moments thrust into sadly remembering the impermanence and mixed agendas of that space before I can shake it off to be more present. When I do well, I’m now mindful of anyone who I might unintentionally offend with my success.

    Feelings of forgiveness fade in and out. While I know that most people do the best they can with what tools they have and whatever injuries they may carry, I’m frustrated that these people remain in positions where they can wound others. But I don’t want to give them any more attention.  

    In time I’ve achieved greater emotional literacy and healing, have been able to experience a solid, fulfilling relationship with a wonderful woman of deep integrity for more than a decade, and over the years been able to be increasingly present for that relationship even as it morphed into a beautiful friendship, stepped progressively more into my personal power and leadership, regained increasingly more of a sense of supportive community. 

    I’ve found deep solace and a recovered sense of awe in nature, release and regulation in exercise, trust in the medical professionals I needed to rely on in an emergency as well as informed, discerning trust in many other professionals, and honored my enduring love of literature. I’ve reestablished some sense of professional control via self-employment. I’ve grown up a lot and am better every day, but residues remain. There’s still a lot I have to do, and the future is brighter. 

    Maybe there are no real answers or landings or rootings or order in the capricious chaos. There’s only taking one breath after another and simply being: here, now.

  • Lifting the lid of the termite farm

    Lifting the lid of the termite farm

    I recently had a disappointing experience where I got some disturbing clarity about a number of things.

    It’s painful to realize that others have used you and your private expression over a number of years in order to support their own psychodrama, casting you, baselessly, as a perpetual villain while they get to take turns being victim and rescuer in relation to you. They never saw you as a person or with your own needs, just an object to be used for their own purposes. They have entirely taken leave of external reality, or the realities of their responsibilities and your needs.

    It’s like lifting the lid off of the termite farm of someone else’s relationship and seeing all the grotesque, codependent, self-feeding paranoid ways it functions.

    When we were children, sometimes my little sister would bite her own arm, leave bite marks, and run to my mother to say that I’d bit her to get me into trouble. This was the same sort of experience. Now I see that some women never grow up, they just need to be the victims. Even someone I never had anything whatsoever to do with has felt the need to jump into the victim basket and fabricate injury.

    When all the while, because of their abuses, my own relationship has been stressed and has suffered. Supporting a traumatized partner is no joke, and not for the faint of heart. And I’ve been incredibly fortunate in that my partner of 15 years genuinely wanted and encouraged me to grow into my own integrity, to fight my own battles, to take responsibility for my own life and actions. I chose well: someone who had found these things for herself, and only wanted to see me rise and grow into myself. Someone who wouldn’t feed my fears, insecurities, or worst parts. She gave me encouragement to live with integrity, and I have felt so bad that she has had to deal with all the baggage that the injuries from the abuses I experienced entailed: trust issues, fear of groups (from the mobbing), fear of being used and exploited in relationship, despair, intrusive memories, or just not being able to be present as I wanted. These things at times kept us from creating the scope of world we both desired. She didn’t deserve any of that, but still hung in there with me as long as she could.

    People who don’t grow up can spoil careers, jobs, lives, cause enormous and lasting injury through their abuses, and still, in the middle of retaliating when their victims complain or hold them accountable, feel that they are the victims who deserve to be compensated by their victims for the stress of being held accountable. There are just no words.

    Academics lie, more than I had ever thought possible. They build whole formidable scaffoldings of lies, which they then pull out and push to achieve their agenda, making it seem like historical truth when most allegations are entirely baseless.

    With the villianization, lies, and total disregard for my personhood, needs, boundaries, no wonder others treated me as they did. And I was blind to it all, I had no idea what was happening, or why. Because it was all behind my back. I was slimed.

    To have some of one’s bravest moments and biggest steps into integrity contorted into how those people need to cast them for their own small world, a fear-based, paranoid world which does not grow and does not allow others to grow, really puts into perspective how much I had wasted on people who have no interest in changing or growing.

    That’s no place to share one’s treasures.

  • the mess

    the mess

    The first time I had ankle surgery, it was on accident. I had had no choice but to trust the medical personnel taking care of me, at a point when my trust in institutions and helping people in general was pretty low. I was really lucky to land in excellent, compassionate hands with my surgeon. A catastrophic physical experience turned out to be healing on many other levels.

    This time, surgery is happening on a voluntary-but-needed basis, and I have been sort of surprised by the psychological preparation I’m finding I’ve needed to do alongside the logistical planning. There are all the surface-level fears of things going wrong on the operating table, infections, etc., and then all of the other fears involved in trusting other people with one’s life, being at the mercy of others.

    The other thing that’s happened more recently is having rolled a big stone of shame off of my body and realizing it doesn’t belong to me. Getting rid of that has allowed all of these other things to emerge, like they were snakes plugged up in a hole in my stomach. On the one hand, they have been fairly frightening to contend with and slippery to grasp, uncontrollable at times, and consuming more of my resources that I’d like.

    On the other hand, letting them out has cleared out so much space and made me so much more fully human. A lot of them are emotions I wasn’t allowed to have or could not allow myself to have at the time of the incidents, for one reason or another, usually because survival demanded something different, and because they were totally obscured by all the hot dark burning shame for just being or for not knowing. Letting those emotions run their course now has been difficult, it’s sort of happened spontaneously and unexpectedly like a geyser that just opened up to the sky. At times I can barely keep up with them.

    I’m positive that there’s a lot more I can learn about dealing well with them without also affecting others, but on the whole it’s been a cleansing process which has brought more internal compassion and tranquility. I don’t know if or when it will be completed, but what I do know is that these days it’s been really rapid.

  • Search for Clarity

    Even now I still search for clarity. Where did I go so wrong? Where was the point at which I stepped from safety into all the danger. How might I have kept myself safe, how might I have survived all that. What didn’t I see, and still don’t see? What didn’t I understand then? Not having any answers is its own special hell because it prevents one from having enough information to build a solid narrative.

    I remember the opening of a new space when there was a flirtation. I didn’t know what to do with it. My experience was so limited but I was curious. I sensed some unknown danger but I thought I could be smart enough, spry enough, to avoid any danger. After all I was a mountain climber and I knew how to watch the weather.

    Another in my position might have been offended, and still another might have jumped right in and let it be simple, transactional, stress-relief. I got stuck on trying to figure out if I wanted it or not. I’d gotten attention like that from others, mostly men, but hadn’t really been interested. But now? I was deeply flattered. It was a new experience to actually receive the attention that I deeply desired.

    The next sticking point was did I trust – for me the experience represented the unknown and I started to think about the nature of trust – what it was. Would I trust someone with my body, and beyond that, would I trust someone to the extent that I would know I could trust them to have my back during something like the Holocaust, hypothetically? I meticulously observed and picked up instances which proved I could trust and put them in my pocket until I had a huge declarative pile of stones to put on the scale for trust and little to place against it. I engineered little tests to kick the tires of trust.

    Also I had never really believed in my academic skills enough to envision myself as an academic as my life’s calling and when I got a boost by virtue of another’s declared belief in me, it was life-changing. But now I have to wonder: was that encouragement just pro forma, what someone thought they were supposed to say in that context, rather than any reflection of me and my skills. Or was it an attempt at recovery from an incursion which retroactively was identified as a misstep, and the academic encouragement was an attempted salvation of the task at hand. The belief in my skills that I had thought was genuine boosted me into a space of academic confidence, risk-taking, the development of my voice and value as a person. It had seemed to be just the thing that I had needed most. But now, in retrospect, it seems like I was just willfully living in a false reality.

    The thing was that only one person owned up to the fact that it was a false reality: my grad advisor, toxic as she was, did me the service of letting me know that I wasn’t a real fellowship student in the case of being deserving, that it was more a pity case. That my ideas were bad, that I wasn’t a good student, that my papers weren’t even worth looking at, that my thoughts on feminist literature not worthwhile and best ignored. That my needs were a nuisance, that I was always out of step, a dunce.

    And then there was the flirtation with risk and safety. At some point I needed to make this delineation for myself and decided that the academic route, the classroom, the intellect, was a place of safety and keeping one foot there, I could nudge the other foot out into the space of risk but return to the safety if needed. I could balance between the two. The structure supported it.

    The problem with that is that one goes in and out of structures. Sometimes the time’s up. And when that happened, there I was, in the place of risk, but also in a place of trusting. But that place of more absolute safety was something I was starting to feel locked out of, because it was situated within the structure. One had a sense of safeguards even if these were vague and even if one never used them – it was enough to know that they were supposedly there. So this inevitably led to a search to return to the structure (of academia) when I most needed a sense of safety, especially as my family crumbled and the world was at times scary.

    I was too naieve (and too lucky in life before that) to entertain the thought that institutions were not, by definition, places of safety.