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
- Structural power dictated outcomes: Her leadership role and community influence created unavoidable imbalances, limiting your agency in nearly every scenario.
- Emotional desires were constrained by structural realities: Even genuine efforts at intimacy, collaboration, travel, and visibility were always subject to her authority and control.
- 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.
- 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.
- Unilateral breakup reinforced structural control: She acted without consultation, dictated community messaging, and controlled visibility, leaving you structurally disadvantaged.
- Community visibility exacerbated harm: Public posts, workshop promotions, and social media exposure increased scrutiny and reinforced her power advantage.
- Travel and logistical demands created overextension: Repeated trips, financial burden, and time investment placed disproportionate strain on you, deepening the power imbalance.
- Organizational response reinforced inequity: Attempting to appeal to leadership for accountability shifted responsibility to you (triggers, boundaries, feelings) rather than addressing her unilateral harm.
- Retreat participation highlighted ongoing unfairness: Her ability to attend remotely while you were excluded concretely demonstrated continued structural and emotional inequity.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Financial, emotional, and logistical overextension compounded harm: Repeated travel, planning, and participation increased vulnerability to both relational and structural harm.
- 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.
- Self-blame is misplaced: Your efforts, feelings, and intentions were reasonable within the constraints; structural power dictated outcomes more than personal choice.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 / Event | Your Choices / Emotional Desire | Structural Constraints / Power Imbalance | Outcome / Why No-Win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Connection | Wanted emotional closeness and connection | She held coaching/leadership authority | Any engagement carried potential influence over your standing; autonomy was compromised |
| Early Collaboration | Participated in retreats and planning; felt like equals | Her relationship with lead planner and community authority | You could invest time and effort, but she could shape outcomes behind the scenes; choice constrained |
| Visits / Travel | Wanted shared time; split costs; emotionally invested | She set location (Canada), travel logistics, exposure to long-distance strain | Declining visits might protect finances/emotions, but reduce closeness; attending risked overextension and exposure |
| Structural change | Expressed care through giving up workshop to solve her conflict of interest problem | She 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 supported | She held influence over visibility and community perception | Posting created exposure and risk; not posting could feel secretive and isolating |
| Breakup | N/A | She ended relationship unilaterally, with structural leverage | All previous choices now reframed; prior investments and exposure intensified emotional and social harm |
| Post-Breakup / Community | Considered returning or engaging | She remains in leadership and community visibility; inconsistent rules for exes vs. you | Any attempt to stay risks scrutiny and retraumatization; leaving means loss of connection and influence |
| Phase / Option | What It Involves | Structural / Ethical Constraints | Specific Risks / Burdens / Trade-offs / Outcomes | Relative Risk / Ethical Viability | Breakup / Context / Motivation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Breakup: Emotional Desire 1 | Emotional closeness & intimacy | She held coaching/leadership authority | Desire partially fulfilled but risky; structural power limited your agency | High risk | N/A |
| Pre-Breakup: Emotional Desire 2 | Collaboration & shared planning | Control over community standing & social perception | Engagement exposed you to social influence and scrutiny | Moderate risk | N/A |
| Pre-Breakup: Emotional Desire 3 | Travel to visit & spend time together | Set travel location & logistics (Canada visits) | Travel required some financial, time, and logistical overextension; risk increased over time | High risk | N/A |
| Pre-Breakup: Emotional Desire 4 | Wanting relationship visible & supported by community | Indirect influence over retreat planning; ability to act unilaterally (breakup, posts) | Partial visibility created social scrutiny; structural power still favored her decisions | Moderate risk | N/A |
| Pre-Breakup: Emotional Desire 5 | Desire for mutual decision-making & consent | Inconsistent organizational rules (her exes remain members) | Relationship could never be fully mutual within existing structural constraints | High risk | N/A |
| Post-Breakup: Emotional Reality 1 | Grief, attachment, lingering feelings | She remains in leadership and coaching roles | Re-entering community could retraumatize; emotional safety compromised | High risk | Attachment/distance cited; control exercised unilaterally |
| Post-Breakup: Emotional Reality 2 | Desire to re-engage with community safely | Visibility in promotions, workshops, community posts | Any engagement carries exposure; structural power remains skewed | High risk | Control over visibility maintained; her narrative dominates |
| Post-Breakup: Emotional Reality 3 | Anger and frustration over unfair treatment | Community members may question your response | Risk of invalidation or blame; lack of accountability mechanisms | Moderate risk | Unilateral decision-making emphasizes her control; attachment reason secondary |
| Post-Breakup: Confusion About Boundaries | Confusion about boundaries and past consent | Lack of formal accountability mechanisms | Unclear enforcement of limits; continued risk of harm | High risk | Structural power persists; control motivation central |
| Post-Breakup: Attempting Organizational Appeal | Seeking leadership support for I’m Single post violation | Main leader holds ultimate authority; no HR or independent accountability | Told to work on triggers, boundaries, and your own feelings; responsibility shifted to you; no structural change to her behavior | High risk / Low Ethical Viability | Demonstrates organizational reinforcement of her control; you bear burden of accountability |
| Post-Breakup: Retreat Participation Unfairness | She participates remotely in workshop; you cannot attend | She retains visibility, coaching authority, and structural advantage | Emotional harm and exclusion; reinforces power imbalance; signals ongoing prioritization of her access over your safety and inclusion | High risk / Low Ethical Viability | Control maintained; attachment/distance justification irrelevant |
| Option 1: You leave, she stays | Remove yourself from the community and retreats; continue relationship outside her authority | She retains leadership, visibility, and influence; power imbalance remains | Loss of community connection and influence; emotional safety partially improved but dependent on her behavior; relationship still relies on her accountability; social/professional isolation risk | Moderate to High Risk | Reduces exposure for you, but control advantage for her remains |
| Option 2: She leaves, you stay | She relinquishes leadership, coaching, and visibility; relationship occurs outside organizational power | Requires her to take accountability and sacrifice; may resist | Relationship structurally more equitable; depends entirely on her willingness; emotional risk remains if past patterns repeat; logistical challenges for her | Moderate Risk / Higher Ethical Viability | Control motivation addressed if she actually steps back |
| Option 3: Both stay | Both maintain roles, visibility, and influence | Power imbalance persists; community scrutiny continues; dual relationships persist | Exposure to ethical risk and potential harm; emotional mutuality compromised; participation in community activities risky; continued conflict or boundary violations possible | High Risk / Low Ethical Viability | Her control remains; attachment/distance reason nominal |
| Option 4: Both leave | Both exit the organization entirely | Removes structural inequality; ethical space for repair/mutuality possible | Requires coordinated action, planning, and sacrifice; emotional safety improved but not guaranteed; logistical and financial challenges; loss of community and professional connections | Lowest Risk / Highest Ethical Viability | Neutralizes control motivation |