In intimate relationships, agreements are sacred. They are not just logistical understandings; they are expressions of mutual respect, shared values, and equal power. When two people come to an agreement, especially about something emotionally charged or boundary-laden, it is a moment of harmony, of co-creation, or relationality. But what happens when one partner unilaterally overrides that agreement? What happens when the betrayed partner’s upset response is framed as controlling, too much, or the real problem? What unfolds is not merely a communication breakdown- it is a violation of consent, a betrayal of mutuality, and a perpetuation of domination in disguise.
This was the focus of this week’s LOVE SCHOOL.
If you join LOVE SCHOOL now, you can watch the recording.
We unpacked the way nearly all of us have been both the victim of choice thiefs, and also the perpetrator of choice thievery. My mother stole my choice for the majority of my childhood. I can’t remember ever being granted the option of consent about countless things I was coerced into doing against my will, like going to church or not applying to colleges outside my mother’s geographical boundaries (south of the Mason Dixon line, east of the MIssissippi.) Then, in subtler ways and unintentionally, I stole choice from my daughter’s father, by doing things like making social plans for us without checking with him first or inviting house guests to stay with us without asking him if it’s okay. And now my current partner steals my choice anytime he overrides our agreements without checking with me first to renegotiate agreements he doesn’t intend to keep. And I’d be choice thiefing him if I published this without asking him first if it’s okay.
- Making unilateral decisions after a mutual agreement
“We both agreed not to spend more than $200 without discussing it with the other person first. So what if I spent $500 yesterday and forgot to tell you? What’s the big deal? Why are you overreacting?” One person violates shared agreements without informing the other person or renegotiating. It sends the message: My needs or preferences override our agreement.
- Changing the rules after the fact and pretending it was always this way
“I never actually agreed to that—I just went along with it to keep the peace.” This gaslights the other person by rewriting history, undermining the trust that agreements are reliable and will be kept.
- Pulling DARVO, going silent, disappearing, or withdrawing when accountability is requested
If you ghost someone mid-fight, ignore texts, or stonewall after breaking a promise, you’re increasing the betrayal, using avoidance or freeze responses to dodge consequences. This silences the hurt person, making their emotional response inconvenient.
- Shaming or mocking someone for needing clarity, boundaries, or consistency
“You’re so rigid. Why can’t you just go with the flow?” This frames reasonable needs for trust, respected agreements, or requests as character flaws.
- Flipping the script when called out
“You’re always trying to control me. I feel suffocated.” This turns the tables so that the harmed person is now the “bad guy,” deflecting attention away from the original harm to avoid discomfort or shame.
- Withholding key information that impacts the other person’s choices
Failing to mention contact with your ex, lying about your past, getting the two of you into debt without discussing it first, lying about your taxes in a way that could get someone you file jointly with in trouble, violating monogamy agreements, or anything that removes someone’s ability to make informed decisions. Even if someone thinks withholding key information is not lying; it’s manipulative omission that steals the other person’s right to full consent and awareness.
- Dominating the narrative of what’s “reasonable” or “normal”
“Most people wouldn’t have a problem with this.” This uses societal norms or male-centered logic to invalidate someone else’s feelings or limits. It implies that someone’s boundaries are unreasonable, extreme, or emotionally immature.
- Repeatedly violating boundaries and apologizing without changing the choice thief behavior
“I said I’m sorry, what more do you want?” (Then does it again.) This manipulates apologies as a way to avoid actual repair, undermining the trust that the other person’s “no” will ever be respected.
- Nit-picking details, justifying the boundary breach, or appealing to logic to override emotional boundaries
“Technically, I didn’t break our agreement.” This uses literalism or technicalities to sidestep the emotional impact of a betraying behavior. This disrespects the spirit of the agreement, even if someone might try to let themself off the hook on a technicality.
- Using spirituality, therapy language, or inner work to justify selfish behavior
“God, Self, or my inner truth told me I needed to do this.” This appropriates therapeutic or spiritual language to rationalize boundary-crossing, prioritizing personal growth over relational growth and accountability.
- Treating someone’s “yes” as permanent rather than conditional or revocable
“You said you were okay with it before.” This ignores that consent can change over time and assumes that consent is a one-time event rather than an ongoing process. Just because someone consented to something in the past doesn’t mean a choice thief has the right to violate a mutually made agreement.
- Playing dumb or helpless to avoid responsibility
“I forgot.” Or “I didn’t know that would hurt you.” (After multiple similar situations.) This weaponizes incompetence to escape accountability, forcing the betrayed party into the role of educator, therapist, or parent.
- Using overwhelm or stress as an excuse to bypass agreements
“I was under a lot of pressure. I couldn’t think straight. I’m overscheduled and don’t have enough time to keep our agreement.” This normalizes impulse-driven choices at the expense of relational safety, training the other person to expect broken trust during stressful times.
- Dismissing the impact of the choice thief behavior
“You’re blowing this out of proportion.” This minimizes the other person’s reality and centers their own comfort, which is a subtle but potent form of gaslighting.
- Using performative apology or expressions of vulnerability, while still justifying the betraying choice
“I’m sorry you felt hurt, but I had to do what was right for us, because father knows best.” This blurs the line between ownership and self-justification, which can make the betrayed party feel crazy for expecting reasonable accountability after an agreement has been broken.
These behaviors don’t just erode agreements- they erode relational trust, safety, and power balances, and intimacy. They undermine a fundamental relational principle: “If I say yes, I mean it. If I say no, my no will be considered as part of a sacred negotiation. If we decide together, we honor it together.” If one partner is expected to abide by agreements and the other feels entitled to break them, that’s “one up” power over behavior on the part of the choice thief.
True relational consent isn’t a one-time “yes” or “no.” It’s a living, ongoing relational commitmen that says:
I will not override your expressed boundaries.
I will not pretend we didn’t agree.
I will not rob you of your agency by making a unilateral decision that affects both of us.
Resmaa Menakem points out that in systems of oppression- racial, gendered, class-based, or otherwise- choice theft is a tactic of domination. In intimate partnerships, it is often subtle but no less harmful. To override someone’s will, gaslight them about it, and then blame them for being upset is to recreate the dynamics of colonization and control at the kitchen table.
Healing requires nervous system work. It asks us to re-sensitize ourselves to the impact we have on others. It means learning to co-regulate instead of dominate, to stay present in discomfort without collapsing or deflecting, and to remain in relational integrity even when we’re called out.
We talked about how to heal from choice thief behaviors somatically, experientially, in this week’s LOVE SCHOOL. If you haven’t joined us yet, you’re invited to do so! When you do, you’ll get access to all the other recordings, in case you want a deep dive into relational recovery work.
Learn more & register for LOVE SCHOOL here.
Choice theft is not always malicious. Often, it’s a symptom of unhealed trauma, of protectors running the show, of systems of domination leaking into our most sacred spaces.. But intent doesn’t erase impact. Good people can still cause harm when they aren’t aware of their parts or their privilege.
Because love without consent is not love. It’s control dressed up as closeness.
And mutuality without integrity? It’s a performance, not a partnership.