The saying “It takes two to tango” is often used when talking about relationship struggles, carrying the suggestion that both partners are equally to blame and must share responsibility for finding a solution. But when applied to domestic abuse, this phrase is not just inaccurate, it is deeply harmful. It implies the survivor contributed to the abuse or that the answer lies in both parties “working on” the relationship together. In truth, this myth shifts accountability away from the abuser and places unfair pressure on the victim to repair what they did not cause.
Dr. Emma Katz, a leading researcher on coercive control, made this clear during a presentation at the Royal College of Psychiatrists: “The ‘it takes two to tango’ belief… must be challenged because only the perpetrator is responsible for coercive control.”
Abuse is not mutual conflict. It is one-sided. The abuser consciously creates conditions where the victim’s choices are restricted, their autonomy stripped away, and their every action policed or punished.
Abuse Is Rooted in Power, Not Disagreement
Domestic abuse is not about poor communication, everyday misunderstandings, or two people simply “butting heads.” It is a consistent pattern where one person uses power and control to dominate the other.
A common form of this is coercive control — a sustained strategy designed to undermine a survivor’s independence. It can involve isolation from friends and family, constant monitoring, threats, financial restrictions, intimidation, and psychological manipulation. Each of these tactics is intentional, aimed at stripping away autonomy and damaging a person’s sense of self.
This is what sets abuse apart from normal relationship struggles. Healthy relationships involve two people working through challenges with equal say and mutual respect. Abuse, by contrast, is completely one-sided. The aim is not understanding or resolution, but domination. The power balance collapses — one person dictates, while the other is left increasingly silenced, dependent, and afraid.
Why the Idea of “Mutual Abuse” Misrepresents Reality
The term “mutual abuse” is sometimes applied to relationships where both partners have shown aggression. Yet in situations of coercive control, there is never genuine equality. As Emma Katz (2022) explains in Coercive Control in Children’s and Mother’s Lives, what can look like conflict on the surface is not shared disagreement but “the highly unequal power dynamic… that precludes the possibility of mutuality.”
Survivors may at times shout, push back, or act out of fear, but this does not turn them into abusers. These moments — often labelled “reactive abuse” — are better understood as acts of reactive defence, a human response to long-term emotional, psychological, or physical harm. Abusers often provoke these reactions intentionally, then use them as evidence to paint themselves as the victim.
When context is ignored, especially the question of who holds the power, victims risk being misidentified as perpetrators. Using the language of “mutual abuse” hands abusers a convenient shield. They can dismiss their actions by claiming, “we were both toxic,” which blurs responsibility, avoids accountability, and further undermines the survivor’s confidence in their own reality.
How Abusers Twist the Story
Abusers often take advantage of the belief that both partners share responsibility for what happened. Statements such as “we both did bad things” sound balanced on the surface, but in reality they are tactics designed to sidestep accountability.
In legal or professional contexts, this strategy can seriously distort outcomes. By insisting “we were both abusive,” abusers create confusion for courts, mediators, and even for the survivor themselves. This framing props up the false idea that abuse stems from miscommunication or clashing personalities, rather than recognising it for what it is: one person deliberately harming and controlling another.
Seeing through this manipulation is crucial. Survivors need to understand that shifting blame — whether it comes from the abuser, from professionals, or from onlookers — is itself part of the abuse. Those working in legal, therapeutic, and safeguarding roles must be trained to identify when an abuser is reframing the narrative in order to preserve power and evade accountabil
The Risks of “It Takes Two” Thinking in Therapy
The belief that “it takes two to tango” becomes especially harmful when it shapes approaches to couples therapy. This model assumes both partners share responsibility and are equally able to work together to solve problems. In situations of coercive control, that assumption is not only incorrect but potentially dangerous.
When domestic abuse is misinterpreted as a relationship issue, therapy can end up reinforcing the abuser’s power. In the therapy room, the abuser may take control of the conversation, manipulate how the therapist perceives events, and present themselves as calm and rational while painting the survivor as unstable. The survivor, meanwhile, may feel pressured to compromise in ways that make them even less safe.
Domestic abuse is not the result of weak communication or minor misunderstandings. It comes from one person’s choice to dominate and control. Any therapeutic approach that overlooks this reality risks compounding the harm, silencing the survivor, and shielding the abuser from accountability.
Accountability Rests with the Abuser — Always
At the core of this issue is a fundamental truth: responsibility for abuse lies entirely with the abuser. Building a healthy, respectful relationship requires two willing partners. But as Karen McAndless-Davis, author of When Love Hurts, reminds us, “It only takes one person to destroy a relationship.”
Survivors are never at fault for being abused. They are not to blame for staying, for hoping things would change, or for reacting under immense pressure. Every victim is doing their best to survive circumstances they did not create.
Yet victim blaming remains widespread, often appearing in subtle, everyday ways. Survivors are frequently asked, “Why didn’t you leave?” — a question that reflects a deep misunderstanding of how abuse operates. Many remain because they are frightened, financially dependent, isolated from support networks, or psychologically manipulated. Others stay outwardly compliant in order to reduce immediate harm. None of these realities make them responsible for the abuse inflicted on them.
Some survivors carry vulnerabilities such as previous trauma, disability, or unmet emotional needs, which can make them more susceptible to coercion. But vulnerability is not responsibility. Responsibility lies solely with the person who chose to use violence, intimidation, or coercive control.
Challenging the myth that “it takes two to tango” shifts the weight of blame off survivors and places it firmly where it belongs — on the abuser. Only by naming this clearly can we begin to create conditions for genuine safety, justice, and lasting change.
Featured image: It takes two to tango does not apply to abuse. Image source: Grustock / Adobe Stock.
