What Got Bruised
The injuries that accumulated — not betrayals, but repeated hurts that built over time. And the self-protection patterns that made things worse without either person meaning to.
This page uses "wounds" and "sabotage" in the relational sense: what got injured repeatedly, and what each person did that unintentionally deepened the harm. These aren't moral verdicts. They're patterns that show up in the data — and in relationship research — so that others who recognize them can name what's happening.
What bruised A
Desire injury
Feeling wanted "in theory" but not pursued in the way that affirms identity. Lack of initiative and gender-affirming dynamics became a referendum on desirability — not just sexual frustration, but identity-level pain.
"Honestly it comes down to not feeling like the girl in a relationship... I really need things that make me feel feminine."
— January 2021
Responsiveness injury
Delays and missing bids became "I don't matter," especially after conflict or when A was presenting femme and vulnerable. Silence wasn't neutral — it carried meaning.
Follow-through injury
When change agreements stalled, A experienced it as betrayal of effort: "I'm carrying this alone." The relationship systems report calls it "ledgered" acts of service — not manipulation, but grief when care doesn't feel reciprocated.
Abandonment-alarm injury
When S took space without explicit return plans, A's nervous system registered it as relational danger. 131 abandonment-fear instances. The FA pattern: closeness → exposure → fear → withdrawal.
How it changed A: Words became sharper (verdict language). Requests became tests. Tenderness was still there, but guarded.
What bruised S
Shame injury — "I am failing as a partner"
When feedback became global ("bare minimum," "chore"), S collapsed into adequacy fear and withdrawal. 184 explanation-seeking instances — "I don't understand," "help me understand," "what happened" — because ambiguity and being blamed without clarity were deeply painful.
Performance injury
Sex became high-stakes. If he feared "getting graded," he initiated less and avoided novelty. The very domain that mattered most to A became the domain where S felt most likely to fail.
Flood injury
Dense multi-issue conversations overwhelmed his bandwidth. He retreated to survive. A experienced the retreat as abandonment. S experienced the flood as impossible to process in real time.
How it changed S: Less initiation (to avoid failing). More process/logistics (to control harm). More "me time" boundaries (to stabilize internally) — which A read as abandonment.
Self-protection that deepened the harm
Neither person set out to hurt the other. But certain patterns — protective in the moment — had the effect of escalating pain over time. The analysis calls these self-sabotage patterns. They're recognizable and, with awareness, changeable.
A's patterns
- Not asking for what she needed — Because she feared being "too much," she didn't ask. Then felt unseen when needs weren't met.
- Accepting less than she wanted — To avoid conflict, she accepted sexual dynamics that didn't affirm her femininity, imbalanced emotional labor, being "fit around" rather than prioritized.
- Hinting instead of stating — "I thought that night coming down in lingerie would be some kind of sign." Signals weren't requests. When they weren't decoded, she felt rejected — but she never actually asked.
- Building resentment silently — Rather than expressing needs early, she accumulated grievances until they overflowed. The flood arrived as criticism rather than a request.
- Over-investing in partner's needs — She carried more than her share, then resented the imbalance — but had created it by not allowing the other person to step up.
S's patterns
- Pursuing when space was needed — His instinct to engage and understand overwhelmed a partner who needed distance to regulate. The pursuit escalated her overwhelm.
- Words over actions — He gave words of affirmation generously — but sometimes acts of service (taking things off A's plate) would have been more impactful.
- Requiring direction for partner's desires — "If you want it, initiate it." For A, being asked to direct her own gender-affirming treatment negated the affirmation itself.
- Taking withdrawal personally — A's shutdowns were about her capacity, not about him. He experienced them as rejection.
- Long hurt messages during dysregulation — When both were flooded, long messages expressing pain added pressure rather than creating space for repair.
What the data suggests could have helped
For A: "I'm at a 6/10 overwhelm and need [X]" instead of shielding until 9/10. "This is important to me" instead of apologizing for needs. "I love you AND I can't do this alone. Here's what I need you to co-own."
For S: "I'm flooded; I need 60 minutes; I'm not leaving; I'll come back at 8:30" instead of withdrawal without return. Treating initiation as a learnable skill with scripts and rituals. One "I want you" and one appreciation statement per day — consistent, not dramatic.
For both: Naming the pattern while it was happening. A conflict constitution: no global verdicts during activation, one issue per talk, time-boxed, end with next step + date.
For the full picture of what each person was experiencing — and what each person brought to the relationship — see Both Sides. For the actual words they used, see In Their Words. For comfort if you recognize these patterns, see If You Recognize This.