_edited.jpg)
Trauma-informed relationship counselling
Exploring the dynamics of toxic relationships
In toxic relationships, the emotional landscape often includes coercive control, trauma bonds, and other harmful patterns that keep people feeling trapped and powerless. These dynamics can erode self-esteem, create dependency, and make it difficult for individuals to break free. Understanding how these mechanisms work can shed light on why it’s so hard to leave a toxic relationship and begin the journey toward healing.
Coercive control
If you find it difficult to understand what coercive control actually is - you’re not alone. Despite all the talk about it, we don’t often come across clear definitions.
So here’s what it is:
A pattern of controlling behaviour which scares, hurts or isolates someone.
​
Coercive control can include any combination of the following behaviours in a relationship:
1. Isolation: Restricting the partner’s interactions with family, friends, or social networks to limit their access to support while increasing dependency and control.
2. Gaslighting: Manipulating the partner into questioning their own perceptions or reality, causing them to doubt their memory or sanity.
Note: This is often caused by a partner who has a pattern of being authoritative AND delusional/distorted.
3. Surveillance: Monitoring the partner’s activities, including communications and movements, without their consent.
4. Emotional manipulation: Influencing the partner’s feelings and behaviours through deceitful or exploitative tactics for personal gain.
5. Financial control: Restricting the partner’s access to or management of financial resources to limit their independence and freedom.
6. Threats and intimidation: Using intimidation, aggressive behaviour, domination or threats of harm to compel the partner to comply or to control their behaviour.
7. Conditional approval: Offering affection or approval only when the partner meets specific conditions or demands set by the abuser.
Note: This is different from setting and maintaining clear boundaries to prevent harm.
8. Withholding affection: Deliberately denying emotional support or physical affection as a means of manipulation or punishment.
9. Unhealthy jealousy: Exhibiting excessive or irrational jealousy to control or monitor the partner’s interactions and relationships.
10. Micromanagement: Excessively overseeing or controlling every detail of the partner’s actions and decisions, making them feel inferior and incapable.
11. Criticism: Regularly finding fault with or belittling the partner to undermine their self-esteem and sense of worth.
Note: This is different from discussing broken agreements related to household/parenting tasks.
12. Guilt-tripping: Making the partner feel guilty to manipulate their actions or decisions to serve own interests.
13. Love bombing: Overwhelming the partner with excessive affection, attention, or gifts to manipulate and control them.
14. Social isolation: Preventing the partner from participating in social activities or maintaining relationships with others.
15. Control over appearance: Dictating or influencing how the partner should dress, look, or present themselves.
16. Stalking: Repeatedly following or monitoring the partner’s activities and whereabouts without their consent.
17. Manipulating children: Using children as tools to influence or control the partner’s actions or decisions.
18. Creating dependency: Fostering the partner’s reliance for emotional, financial, or practical support to maintain control.
19. Enforcing rigid roles: Dictating specific roles or behaviours that the partner must adhere to, limiting their autonomy and freedom.
20. Controlling movements: Restricting or monitoring the partner’s physical movements and activities.
21. Undermining confidence: Eroding the partner’s self-esteem and self-worth through constant criticism or belittling.
22. Monitoring communication: Overseeing or intercepting the partner’s phone calls, texts, emails, or social media interactions.
23. Disregard for boundaries: Ignoring or violating the partner’s personal limits and privacy to assert control.
24. Blaming: Holding the partner responsible for issues or problems to deflect responsibility and maintain control.
25. Excessive scrutiny: Over-analysing and questioning the partner’s actions, decisions, and behaviours.
26. Restricting access to resources: Limiting the partner’s access to essential resources such as money, transportation, or information.
27. Humiliation: Shaming or embarrassing the partner publicly or privately to exert control and diminish their self-worth.
Coercive control case studies
Here’s a set of mini case studies comparing relationship scenarios with, and without, coercive control:
​
Insecurity with opposite-gender friends
Lily’s partner, Sam, is uncomfortable with how close Lily is to her male colleague.
​
​
Option 1: Instead of having an open discussion, Sam accuses Lily of being unfaithful and demands that she stop seeing this colleague entirely.
She constantly checks her messages and pressures her to prove her loyalty by cutting off all contact with male friends, isolating her from her work relationships.
Coercive control: Sam is using accusations and demands to control who Lily can interact with, limiting her social connections based on her insecurities rather than mutual respect.
Option 2: Sam expresses her feelings to Lily, explaining that it makes her feel insecure and worries about how it might look to others. However, she clarifies that she trusts her and leaves the decision up to her.
Lily acknowledges Sam's feelings and decides to invite Sam to join them sometimes, or she starts meeting the colleague in group settings instead of one to one.
Not coercive control: Sam is not dictating Lily’s actions or demanding changes. She’s expressing a personal insecurity while allowing Lily to decide how to handle the situation, respecting her autonomy.
Boundaries around personal space
Jake frequently touches his partner, Emily, to express his affection towards her despite noticing her discomfort.
​
​
Option 1: When Emily asks for some personal space, Jake belittles her request, accusing her of not loving him enough.
He continues to invade her personal space, disregarding her feelings and making her feel guilty for needing boundaries, often using emotional manipulation to make her feel responsible for his unhappiness.
Coercive control: Jake is dismissing Emily’s need for personal space and using guilt to force her into accepting his behaviour, disregarding her autonomy and personal comfort.
​
Option 2: Emily expresses that she needs some personal space, especially when she’s stressed, and would appreciate it if Jake could be mindful of her need to feel comfortable.
Jake agrees to be more aware and checks in with Emily before initiating physical contact when she seems stressed.
Not coercive control: Emily is setting a boundary around her need for personal space. Jake respects her boundary without pressuring her or making her feel guilty, leading to a healthier interaction.
Agreements around work-life balance
David is a workaholic, and his partner, Sophie, feels neglected because he’s always working late or checking his emails during their time together.
​
​
Option 1: When Sophie asks David to set limitations around work, David becomes defensive and accuses her of being selfish and not understanding the importance of his job. He continues to prioritise work without considering Sophie’s feelings, telling her that if she really loved him, she’d support his work unconditionally, leaving Sophie feeling guilty and unsupported.
Coercive control: David dismisses Sophie’s request and uses emotional manipulation to pressure her into accepting his neglect of the relationship, rather than compromising or respecting her needs.
​
Option 2: Sophie expresses her feelings and asks David if he could set some boundaries around work, such as turning off his phone during dinner or setting aside weekends for them. David agrees and makes an effort to be more present when they’re together.
Not coercive control: Sophie is asking for a reasonable adjustment to prioritise their relationship. David agrees without feeling forced or controlled, and they find a balance that respects both their needs.
​
Overwhelm around family involvement
Mark’s partner, Ralph, has a very close relationship with his family, and they frequently drop by unannounced. Mark finds this disruptive and overwhelming at times.
​
Option 1: Instead of expressing his feelings openly, Mark begins to create tension by making rude comments about Ralph's family and sabotaging their visits (e.g. refusing to help clean or being intentionally unpleasant when they arrive).
He tells Ralph that if he really cared about him, he would limit his family’s involvement in their lives, making him feel torn between Mark and his own family.
Coercive control: Mark uses passive-aggressive behaviour and emotional manipulation to pressure Ralph into distancing himself from his family, creating a divide and increasing his control over him.
​
Option 2: Mark expresses to Ralph that he’d prefer to have some notice before his family visits so he knows what to expect.
Ralph understands Mark’s needs and talks to his family about scheduling visits ahead of time, ensuring that Mark feels comfortable in his own home.
Not coercive control: Mark is expressing his needs and preferences. Ralph respects this and makes adjustments, ensuring that both their needs are met without imposing control.
​
Social media discomfort
Laura notices that her partner, Ben, is uncomfortable with how she interacts on social media, particularly with certain people who frequently comment on her posts.
​
Option 1: Instead of discussing it, Ben demands that Laura delete her accounts or block certain people.
He constantly monitors her online activity and accuses her of being unfaithful whenever she interacts with someone he doesn’t approve of.
He becomes angry and punishes her emotionally (e.g., silent treatment) if she doesn’t comply with his demands.
Coercive control: Ben uses control and emotional punishment to dictate Laura’s social media interactions, restricting her freedom and autonomy online.
​
Option 2: Ben shares his feelings with Laura, explaining that it makes him feel uneasy, but he doesn’t demand that she changes her behaviour.
Laura listens and decides to adjust her social media interactions to make Ben feel more comfortable, such as limiting certain interactions while still maintaining her online presence.
Not coercive control: Ben is sharing his feelings without imposing restrictions on Laura’s social media use. Laura considers his perspective and makes her own choice on how to proceed, respecting both her autonomy and his feelings.
Boundaries around personal time
Emma enjoys her "me time" every Saturday, which she spends reading or going for a walk. But her partner, Tom, feels left out.
​
Option 1: Instead of discussing a compromise, Tom guilt-trips Emma by saying that she’s being selfish and doesn’t care about their relationship. He begins to schedule activities during her "me time" without consulting her, forcing her to choose between him and her self-care routine. Over time, Emma feels pressured to give up her personal time to avoid conflict.
Coercive control: Tom disregards Emma’s need for personal time and uses guilt and manipulation to force her into spending all her time with him, eroding her autonomy.
​
​
Option 2: Tom expresses a desire to spend more time together on weekends. Emma explains that this time is crucial for her mental health, but she’s open to planning activities together on Sundays.
Tom respects her need for personal time and they establish a routine that works for both.
Not coercive control: Tom shares his desire to spend more time with Emma but respects her boundary around needing personal time. They find a solution that allows Emma to maintain her self-care routine while still connecting as a couple.
​
Setting boundaries with housework
Jane notices that her partner, Matt, often expects her to take on the majority of household chores without discussing it. Jane feels overwhelmed by household chores and asks her partner, Matt, to take on some tasks.
Option 1: Instead of agreeing, Matt dismisses her request, saying that it’s her responsibility to manage the home. He refuses to contribute and criticises her for not keeping the house in perfect order, often using this as a reason to belittle her or withhold affection, making Jane feel inadequate and unsupported.
Coercive control: Matt uses traditional gender roles and criticism to control the division of household labour, refusing to participate and making Jane feel solely responsible, which diminishes her sense of partnership in the relationship.
Option 2: Jane expresses that she feels overwhelmed and asks Matt to take on specific tasks to balance the workload.
Matt agrees and they create a chore schedule that divides the responsibilities more equitably.
Not coercive control: Jane is setting a boundary around household responsibilities, asking for fairness and balance.
Matt respects this and they collaborate on a solution that works for both, without any coercion or manipulation.
​
These scenarios illustrate how communicating needs, feelings and desires, and understanding each other's experience, can lead to healthier relationships, where both partners feel heard and valued without exerting control over each other.
The coercive control examples highlight how similar scenarios can take a harmful turn when one partner uses manipulation, guilt, or demands to control the other, leading to an unhealthy power dynamic in the relationship.
​
Trauma bonds
Trauma bonds making leaving a toxic relationship incredibly difficult. They're intense emotional attachments that form in toxic relationships, where periods of warmth and affection alternate with pain, manipulation, or abuse.
This cycle of highs and lows creates a psychological dependency that makes it extremely difficult for a person to leave, even when they’re aware the relationship is unhealthy. The bonds are strengthened by intermittent reinforcement, a pattern where positive behaviours are scattered unpredictably among negative ones, which increases attachment and a longing for validation from the partner.
How trauma bonds form
Trauma bonds develop as a result of fairly extreme emotional experiences shared with the toxic partner. During the “highs” of the relationship, the partner may seem caring, loving, or remorseful - moments that bring immense relief, hope, and connection. These “good times” activate the brain’s reward system, releasing powerful chemicals which reinforce attachment. When this phase is followed by emotional neglect, criticism, or even abuse, the individual becomes even more dependent, hoping that their partner will revert to the “loving” version of themselves.
​
Common Patterns in Trauma-Bonded Relationships
​
-
Idealisation and devaluation: In a trauma-bonded relationship, it’s common to go from feeling adored to feeling dismissed or devalued, creating a rollercoaster of emotions. This inconsistency often leaves the person questioning their self-worth and clinging to the idea that they can “earn” back the partner’s affection.
-
Self-blame and responsibility: Individuals in trauma bonds often believe they’re responsible for their partner’s behaviour. They may internalise blame, thinking that if they change something about themselves, the relationship will improve. This can reinforce a sense of loyalty and responsibility toward the toxic partner.
-
Isolation and dependency: The abuser often isolates their partner from friends, family, and support networks, creating a sense of dependency. With few external perspectives, the person in the relationship may feel there’s no one else they can turn to for support or advice.
-
Hope and disappointment: The pattern of receiving affection after periods of hurt fuels hope that things will change. This hope creates a cycle where the person keeps returning to the relationship, convinced that the next time, things will be different.
Why trauma bonds are hard to break
​
The powerful emotions within trauma bonds can make the thought of leaving feel almost unbearable. Trauma-bonded individuals often fear being alone or worry that they’ll never find someone who “understands” them like their toxic partner does. The unpredictability of the relationship may also trigger a strong sense of anxiety, which paradoxically deepens the attachment. The result is a loop of returning to the abuser, enduring harm, and holding onto hope that things will improve.
​
Breaking free from a trauma bond
​
Breaking a trauma bond takes time, self-compassion, and often support from a therapist or trusted community. Healing involves recognising the patterns of manipulation, rebuilding self-worth, and relearning healthy forms of attachment. Understanding trauma bonds can be empowering - it shows that these intense feelings are not signs of “true love” but rather a psychological response to a toxic relationship. With time and the right resources, people can regain their independence, self-trust, and peace.