Holding the Weight: When Connection Isn’t Mutual
Why emotional imbalance in relationships leaves one person doing all the work - and why it shouldn’t be the norm
In certain relationships, it doesn’t start with disrespect. It starts with asymmetry. One person shares, explains, follows up. The other retreats, delays, responds just enough to keep things alive. Over time, it’s the emotional equivalent of limping: one partner extending, the other absorbing, but never quite walking together.
These dynamics aren’t always dramatic, but they are deeply exhausting. They create a quiet imbalance of emotional labor. One that many people, especially those high in empathy, begin to normalise. But emotional one-sidedness is not the cost of intimacy. It’s often the sign that intimacy was never mutually established to begin with.
The Psychology of Emotional Imbalance
Research on idealisation in relationships (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996) suggests that when faced with emotional unavailability, individuals often fill in the gaps by projecting potential onto their partners. We rationalise absence as depth, silence as mystery, and withholding as a sign of healthy boundaries. This pattern tends to emerge more frequently in individuals with underlying attachment insecurity.
According to Bowlby’s foundational attachment theory, individuals with anxious or disorganized attachment styles become highly sensitive to relational cues and often engage in compensatory behaviors to preserve connection (Bowlby, 1988). When paired with emotionally avoidant or minimally responsive partners, they may assume a disproportionate share of the relational maintenance: interpreting, adjusting, and bridging emotional gaps in the absence of mutual engagement.
This dynamic often develops gradually, shaped by early relational patterns and sustained by psychological investments in hope, potential, or emotional idealization. Rather than signaling resilience, this pattern can mask a persistent imbalance that slowly erodes mutuality and co-regulation within the relationship.
When Power Hides in Passivity
Emotional imbalance is often dismissed as a matter of different communication styles. However, many relational patterns reveal a more subtle form of control. One where power is exercised not through dominance, but through withdrawal, ambiguity, or passive expectation.
In The Cutest Aggression, unspoken rules govern the relationship. One person consistently receives emotional reassurance and caretaking without directly expressing those needs, while the other accommodates, often without reciprocal acknowledgment. Over time, this imbalance blurs the boundaries of clarity and consent.
Tantric Disconnect illustrates another form of imbalance: emotional and spiritual gestures are presented as signs of depth and connection, yet the relational structure remains closed. What appears intimate is ultimately non-mutual, shaped more by image than by shared emotional presence.
In Gone to the Dogs, rapid expressions of affection and dependency create an enmeshed dynamic. Intimacy is assigned before it is earned, and emotional responsibility is placed on one side without mutual agreement or pacing. The relationship unfolds on uneven ground, where loyalty precedes emotional reciprocity.
Why We Normalise It
High-functioning empathy can make imbalance feel noble. Especially for those with early attachment wounds, "doing the work" becomes a survival pattern. We stay in these relationships because we believe love means effort, patience, endurance. But research on healthy relational dynamics suggests otherwise.
According to Gottman Institute findings, mutual attunement (the ability to respond to each other’s bids for attention, closeness, and support) is one of the strongest predictors of relationship success (Gottman & Silver, 1999). When only one partner is attuning, the connection becomes unsustainable.
Real Intimacy Doesn’t Require Translation
True connection doesn’t require perfect communication styles, but it does require shared presence. In Masks and Mirrors, emotional language and insight are used to maintain control rather than build mutual vulnerability. What appears as emotional depth functions more like a deflection where self-awareness substitutes for genuine engagement.
This kind of emotional performance creates an unequal dynamic. One person defines the emotional tone while the other is left making sense of the gaps, adapting to the emotional cues without clarity or reciprocity.
Healthy intimacy depends on co-regulation, where emotional openness is matched by responsiveness and a shared sense of safety. It’s not about who speaks more fluently, but about whether both people are attuned, emotionally available, and participating in the connection equally.
Restoring Balance in Connection
Recognizing emotional imbalance is not about blame. Clarity matters most. When one person consistently explains, initiates, or regulates the emotional tone of the relationship, it often signals a structural issue, not a personal failing.
Sustainable connection requires active engagement from both individuals. Without mutual responsiveness, even the most well-intentioned efforts collapse under their own weight. Co-regulation, not solo effort, is the foundation of intimacy.
If you find yourself doing all the emotional work, it’s not a sign that you care too muc but it may be a sign that the relationship isn’t structured to hold you both.
References
Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Clinical Applications of Attachment Theory. Routledge.
Gottman, J., & Silver, N. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Crown.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1155–1180.
