COERCIVE CONTROL

Rosalind Carman, Psychotherapist

“I Would Go Back to Her/Him”

I was struck recently by one of my young adult clients, who said he could not look at his phone messages because he feared he would go back to his controlling girlfriend. The fear was not of her—but of himself. The ‘compelling’ pull towards her.

My client had come to see me following a breakdown after a controlling relationship. His girlfriend had been verbally abusive in front of his friends, had isolated him from his family, and at times, been physically aggressive during arguments. Working through what had happened, he realised the relationship was unhealthy. And yet, he admitted something that, to him, felt both shameful and confusing: he would still go back to her.

So why do people remain emotionally bound to those who harm them? Why is it so compelling?

The answer may lie in vulnerability—but not vulnerability as weakness. Rather, vulnerability which also has its roots in attachment.

Human beings are wired for connection as much as they are for self-preservation. In fact, when the two come into conflict, attachment often wins. The nervous system does not easily distinguish between being hurt by someone and losing someone. Both register as threat. In a controlling relationship, this creates a paradox: the person who causes pain also becomes the person who relieves it.

Over time, this can create what psychology describes as a trauma bond—a powerful emotional tie reinforced by cycles of harm and intermittent repair. Moments of affection, apology, or calm become disproportionately meaningful, because they arrive after distress. The brain begins to associate relief with the very person who caused the suffering. This is not irrational—it is conditioning. And this is at the heart of a coercive relationship.

But conditioning alone does not explain why or how entrapment begins…

This is where underlying vulnerability becomes significant. A perpetrator often consciously or not, detects traits such as heightened empathy, fear of abandonment, low self-worth, or a strong need for approval. These are not flaws; they are deeply human sensitivities. However, in the wrong relational dynamic, they can be exploited.

The victim may unconsciously recognise something familiar in the perpetrator. Perhaps an unpredictability that echoes earlier relationships, or emotional distance that feels strangely compelling. This sense of familiarity can be mistaken for compatibility. It creates a psychological “fit,” even when the relationship is harmful.

Gradually, the victim adapts. They minimise the abuse, rationalise it, or internalise blame. Not simply to protect their social image or ego (as my client did) but to preserve the attachment itself. To accept the full reality of the harm would require confronting a more destabilising fear: that the person they are attached to is also unsafe.

And so, the bond persists. Not only because the individual does not understand the toxicity, but because part of them experiences leaving as a form of loss that feels psychologically intolerable when the ‘ideal’ relationship began.

Please feel free to contact Rosalind with any questions.

Rosalind Carman is a Psychotherapist at 37 Queen Anne Street W1G9JB

Email: roscarman@hotmail.co.uk