Recognizing Power Imbalances in Casual Arrangements

Power imbalances exist in almost every relationship. That is not automatically a problem. The problem starts when one person uses that imbalance—consciously or not—to control the terms, limit the other person's options, or make the arrangement feel like a trap rather than a choice.

If you are entering a casual arrangement of any kind, understanding where the power sits is one of the most important things you can do before you put anything in writing.

What Counts as a Power Imbalance?

A power imbalance is any situation where one party has significantly more leverage than the other. That leverage can come from many places:

• Money. The person paying or providing financial support inherently holds power over the person receiving it.
• Age and experience. Someone who has been navigating these arrangements for years has an information advantage over someone doing it for the first time.
• Housing. If one person controls where the other lives, that is enormous leverage.
• Social standing. One person may have more to lose from public exposure, which can flip the power dynamic in unexpected ways.
• Emotional investment. When one person cares significantly more about maintaining the arrangement, they are more likely to accept unfavorable terms.

None of these factors are inherently bad. Two people can absolutely have a fair, respectful arrangement even when one earns ten times what the other does. The key is whether both people acknowledge the imbalance and actively work to prevent it from distorting the agreement.

The Subtle Signs Most People Miss

Obvious power abuse is easy to spot—threats, ultimatums, withholding agreed-upon support. But most power imbalances show up in quieter ways:

One person wrote the entire agreement. If one party drafted every term and the other simply signed, that is a red flag. Both people should have meaningful input into the terms. See our guide on how to structure a casual agreement for a more balanced approach.

One person controls all the communication channels. If your arrangement partner insists on only one messaging app, only meets at locations they choose, or controls when and how you can reach them, they are controlling the dynamic.

The terms only protect one person. Read through your agreement carefully. Does the confidentiality clause protect both of you equally? Does the exit clause give both parties the same rights? If one person's interests are thoroughly protected while the other's are mentioned as an afterthought, the agreement was not written in good faith.

"We don't need to write that down." When one person resists putting specific terms in writing—especially terms that protect the other party—that reluctance is telling. People who intend to honor commitments do not mind having those commitments documented.

Frequent renegotiation that always benefits the same person. Agreements should evolve, but if every change moves the terms further in one person's favor, that is a pattern, not a negotiation.

What People Get Wrong

"If I bring up power dynamics, it will ruin the vibe." This is the most common excuse for not addressing imbalances, and it is exactly backwards. Unaddressed power imbalances are what ruin arrangements. Talking about them openly is what makes arrangements sustainable.

"The person with money always has the power." Not necessarily. The person with less financial power may hold significant leverage in other ways—emotional connection, discretion about the arrangement, or simply being harder to replace. Power is more complicated than who writes the checks.

"Power imbalances mean the arrangement is unhealthy." Not true. Power imbalances mean the arrangement requires more intentional safeguards. A well-written agreement can account for imbalances and create protections that keep things fair.

A Practical Self-Assessment

Before entering or renewing any casual arrangement, ask yourself these questions honestly:

1. If I wanted to leave this arrangement tomorrow, could I do so without financial hardship or fear of retaliation?
2. Did I have genuine input into the terms, or did I mostly agree to what the other person proposed?
3. Do I feel comfortable raising concerns or requesting changes?
4. Are the confidentiality terms balanced—do they protect me as much as they protect the other person?
5. Is there anything the other person could hold over me if the arrangement ended badly?

If you answered "no" to any of these, you are likely dealing with a meaningful power imbalance that needs to be addressed.

What to Do About It

Name it. The first step is simply acknowledging the imbalance out loud with your arrangement partner. "I want to make sure this works for both of us, and I recognize that you have more [financial leverage / experience / etc.] in this situation. Can we talk about how to keep things balanced?"

Build protections into the agreement. This means exit clauses that do not penalize the less powerful party, confidentiality terms that protect both sides, and clear documentation of what each person is responsible for.

Get outside input. If you are the person with less power in the arrangement, talk to a trusted friend, mentor, or even a professional before signing anything. Having someone outside the dynamic review the terms can reveal things you might miss when you are emotionally invested.

Revisit regularly. Power dynamics shift over time. What starts as a balanced arrangement can become lopsided as circumstances change. Build in regular check-ins—monthly or quarterly—to make sure both parties still feel the terms are fair.

The Bottom Line

Recognizing a power imbalance is not an accusation. It is a practical observation that helps you build a better arrangement. The healthiest casual agreements are the ones where both parties can honestly say: "I am here because I want to be, not because I have to be."

For more on this topic, explore our Power Dynamics and Fairness hub, and read about signs of one-sided agreements to learn what happens when imbalances go unaddressed.