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 Clause | Your Experience / Reality | Impact / 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 harm | Your grief, hurt, and betrayal are reframed as personal responsibility rather than real organizational harm. | Emotional dysregulation, guilt, difficulty processing trauma. |
| Implicit leader protection | Any 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
- Every major policy clause maps to a structural gap or harm in your experience.
- Your distress is not an overreaction; it’s a natural, adaptive response to an unsafe environment.
- 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.
- Any attempts to “work on triggers” or appeal to the administration are structurally limited, because the policy inherently protects leadership.
A better policy would:
- Recognize power imbalances explicitly.
- Protect members from exposure, harassment, or coercion.
- Provide clear accountability mechanisms for leaders.
- Validate emotional responses and avoid victim-blaming.
- 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.
| Factor | Broken Policy / Broken System | Irresponsible Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Actual Safety | Low, but some procedures exist; can be improved | Very low; actively creates risk by ignoring power imbalances |
| Accountability | Possible; members can reference the written policy to demand enforcement | Minimal; policy itself excuses or normalizes unsafe behavior |
| Potential for Improvement | High; system failures can be fixed with leadership will and member advocacy | Low; the policy itself is flawed and legitimizes unsafe dynamics |
| Psychological Impact on Members | Frustration and disillusionment if enforcement fails | Active harm; can blame victims, normalize boundary violations, and retraumatize members |
| Clarity of Expectations | Clear in theory; expectations exist even if poorly enforced | Confusing or misleading; “empowering” language masks risks and responsibilities |
| Trust in Leadership / Organization | Can be rebuilt if system improves | Likely irreparably damaged; organization / leader from relationship prioritize image over member safety |
Key Takeaways
- Broken-but-existing policies create a foundation you can work with, even if enforcement is currently weak.
- Irresponsible policies are structurally harmful, because they normalize unsafe dynamics and shift all responsibility onto members.
- From a trauma-informed perspective, a policy + broken system is always safer than an irresponsible policy.
- 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
| Stage | Typical Pattern | Underlying Problem |
|---|---|---|
| Formation | Attraction 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. |
| Initiation | The 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”). |
| Maintenance | The 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. |
| Breakup | The 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. |
| Aftermath | You left to protect yourself; your belonging and livelihood were interrupted. | Power stayed centralized; accountability stayed private. |
2. What Authentic Rebalancing Would Have Required
| Domain | Concrete Repair Step | Purpose / Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Structural | The 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. |
| Transparency | They 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 Repair | They center your perspective and affirm the impact, without seeking forgiveness or closeness. | Reestablishes your psychological safety; prevents gaslighting. |
| Community Repair | The 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 Reflection | Both parties pursue independent supervision or consultation, not shared therapy or post-mortem dialogue. | Keeps responsibility distributed and professional, not interpersonal. |
3. Summary of Difference
| Dimension | Failed Mutuality | True Rebalancing |
|---|---|---|
| Who bears risk | Primarily you | Shared and mitigated |
| Visibility of accountability | Hidden or performative | Transparent and structural |
| Timing of intimacy vs. ethics | Emotional repair first | Structural repair first |
| Safety | Uneven—your nervous system carried the cost | Even—no one’s belonging depends on silence |
| Possible outcome | Lingering trauma, loss of community | Potential 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
| Role | Push | Pull | Effect on Mutuality |
|---|---|---|---|
| You | Share feelings, seek clarity, offer honesty | Retreat when hurt, withdraw to protect self | Creates attempts at connection, but fear leads to intermittent withdrawal |
| Other | Control, deflect, withhold acknowledgment | Offer warmth, charm, or reassurance | Signals intimacy but keeps power imbalance; safety is conditional |
| Dynamic | Each act of vulnerability triggers defensiveness or withdrawal in the other | Each withdrawal prompts renewed attempts to connect | Feedback 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
| Feature | Push-Pull in Failed Mutuality | Attachment Dynamics |
|---|---|---|
| Source | Structural imbalance, power asymmetry, relational rules or norms that punish honesty or vulnerability | Internalized early life patterns, trauma, or temperament that influence comfort with intimacy and autonomy |
| Trigger | Safety threatened by another’s control, defensiveness, or inconsistent honoring of agreements | Perceived threat of abandonment or rejection, even when structurally safe |
| Pattern | Mutuality is impossible: the structure itself enforces imbalance | Mutuality is possible; patterns emerge from fear or discomfort rather than structural impossibility |
| Resolution | Requires structural change (e.g., boundaries, policy enforcement, safe exit from harmful loops) | Can be addressed through self-awareness, therapy, and healthy relational modeling |
| Responsibility | Harm is relational and often systemic, not just individual | Harm 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 closeness | Push → withdraws, emotionally detached | Pull → seeks connection/support |
| Push → withdraws to protect self | Neutral → maintains distance | Push → may step back if met with withdrawal |
| Cycle intensity ↑ under stress | Cycle 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:
- Fearful avoidant + power up → vacillates, pulls and pushes unpredictably.
- Dismissive avoidant + power down → withdraws, reduces engagement, minimal pull.
- Secure + power down → tries engagement, may feel frustrated, moderate push-pull develops.
- Structural/ethical constraints → amplify push-pull because mutuality is partially impossible.