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.
Resmaa Menakem, a couples therapist, anti-racism educator, and author of Monsters In Love, calls people who unilaterally break agreements and rob someone of their agency a “choice thief.” He defines it as the act of making a decision on someone else’s behalf after previously agreeing not to. It's a subtle, often unconscious form of domination that erodes trust and replicates social hierarchies that many couples believe they are transcending. When one partner agrees to a course of action and later does something else, especially something that impacts the other person, when the betrayed partner is then gaslit or blamed for being upset, the choice thief is not just making a mistake; they’re stealing the other person’s agency. This is dominating behavior.
Let’s unpack how this pattern may play out.
1. A Mutual Agreement Is Made
The couple has a clear, sober, mutual conversation. Both partners express preferences and feelings, negotiate, and come to a shared decision. This may be about parenting, domestic chores, emotional boundaries, finances, sex, substance use, or time spent with exes or friends they might be attracted to. The agreement is assumed to be made in good faith—that no one is lying, fawning, or passively complying in a way that conceals resentment or resistance. If someone agrees to something they have no intention of honoring, that’s dishonest—a breach of relational integrity.
When an agreement is reached in earnest, both people usually feel relieved, hopeful, and respected. Their needs were heard, negotiated, and considered. Trust is strengthened through the shared act of co-creating a path forward.
2. The Agreement Is Violated
Days or weeks later, one partner behaves in a way that directly contradicts the agreement. Maybe they initiate contact with someone the couple had agreed was off-limits, fail to communicate a schedule change, don’t follow through on a household responsibility, or make a joint decision unilaterally without checking in. The other partner often finds out, not because it was disclosed proactively, but through an accidental discovery or an intuitive sense that something feels “off.” In many cases, it requires asking pointed questions or digging deeper to uncover the truth, which can feel like a betrayal in itself.
3. The Reaction: Hurt, Anger, or Alarm
Feeling shocked, hurt, or blindsided, the partner who discovers the breach calls it out. They name that an agreement was broken. Their tone may be sharp, angry, protective, or dysregulated- an expression of their activated internal system, where protectors are now online trying to reestablish safety.
4. The Defensive Response
Rather than acknowledging the impact of the choice theft or taking accountability, the partner who broke the agreement becomes emotionally flooded, shuts down, gets swept up in a shame spiral, or lashes out. Their inner critic may be activated, and in an effort to protect against shame or vulnerability, they move into defensiveness, minimization, justification, or blame-shifting. They might say, “You’re trying to control me,” or “I’m not allowed to make mistakes in this relationship.”
5. Flipping the Script
Suddenly, instead of being the one who broke trust, the betraying partner positions themselves as the one being harmed, framing the other as controlling, critical, or overreactive. The original hurt is no longer the focus. The person who spoke up in protest to the broken agreement is now cast as the problem. Their legitimate response is rebranded as “too much,” “too sensitive,” or “emotionally unstable.” And now the betrayed partner is on the defensive, trying to justify why their upset over the broken agreement was valid in the first place.
This cycle is not rare. It lives in many relationships, especially those shaped by unexamined power dynamics, privilege, and internalized systems of dominance. In heterosexual relationships, this often plays out in gendered ways rooted in patriarchal conditioning, but the core dynamic transcends gender. Women can choice thief men or other women too. Anyone can override consent, and anyone can use defensiveness to escape accountability.
The partner on the receiving end of this pattern is often left in a double bind. If they suppress their reaction, they betray themselves. If they speak up, they’re labeled as the problem. Over time, this can lead to hypervigilance, resentment, burnout, erosion of trust, and emotional and/or sexual distancing. The relationship no longer feels like a co-created container of safety and equality. Agreements lose meaning. Emotional labor becomes one-sided. The nervous system never fully settles.
And the partner who avoids accountability? They remain cut off from true intimacy—not just with their partner, but with themselves. Their capacity for connection is blocked by protectors afraid of exposure, correction, feedback, or grief. Their Self-energy becomes obscured by internal defenses they may not even realize are there.
Common Choice Thief Behaviors
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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. And if one of us breaks the agreement, we will hold ourselves accountable and initiate repair attempts.” 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’ll be talking about how to heal from choice thief dynamics 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.
In this week’s LOVE SCHOOL, we’ll be talking about this dance between autonomy and connection, independence and interdependence, individual choice and relational compromise. 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.
May you always retain your choice, dear readers!
Thank you sharing, I found relatability within the content. Fitting for my current explorations right now. 💗