Does it always take two to tango?

[IsThatSoo]

I always hear some variation of this line being said but I just don't understand how this can be? If one person is unkind or abusive or communicates poorly, is controlling etc, how does the other person end up being made to feel partly responsible for the situation?

I always thought this was in relation to having sex?

@epythymy

I always thought this was in relation to having sex?

I only hear this in relation to sex or affair.

Two to tango means both people need to be up for cheating

Because the other person doesn't leave the situation. Nobody can be abused if the abuser is alone. There has to be somebody willing to play the victim.

The victim's behaviour within the situation isn't wrong, it's the fact that they choose 'with an abuser' as the place to be, when there are so many millions of better options available.

'It takes 2 to tango' is a crap thing to say to an abuse victim though. Most of the time, they don't even realise they have a choice, and there are better ways to get them to realise it than criticising them or making them feel at fault.

I get it, OP, it's like 'no smoke without fire' when there are clearly heaps of examples to show this to be false.
'Takes two to tango' is usually uttered by folks who haven't really thought that deeply about situations.

It clearly doesn't take two to tango if you are talking about an abusive relationship. At most the only fault on one side is staying too long, but we all know how hard it can be to leave.

@TheFoundations

Because the other person doesn't leave the situation. Nobody can be abused if the abuser is alone. There has to be somebody willing to play the victim.

The victim's behaviour within the situation isn't wrong, it's the fact that they choose 'with an abuser' as the place to be, when there are so many millions of better options available.

'It takes 2 to tango' is a crap thing to say to an abuse victim though. Most of the time, they don't even realise they have a choice, and there are better ways to get them to realise it than criticising them or making them feel at fault.

Hugely respect your posts @TheFoundations but in this instance you're wrong. People can still be abused even when the abuser is alone, e.g. smear campaign about which the person being abused knows nothing.

@epythymy @IAAP Interesting as I've never heard it that way. Wiki says it may be used to mean "a quarrel requires two disputing parties. So I think it probably has several meanings

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word abuse as an example, but even in a conversation where one side is just communicating so so poorly and being defensive and ignoring what the other is saying and invalidating their feelings etc, what role does the other play? Because surely if the other party was having this conversation with someone else who could communicate well, it wouldn't escalate to a dispute?

Sorry if I'm being very unclear here

I’ve only ever heard it said about cheating

@IsThatSoo Well, if we’re going with that definition, either party can choose not to engage in the quarrel. There can be no dispute if one of you walks away.

I've only heard that phrase in relation to an affair - basically both parties are equally guilty and one shouldn't claim they were seduced

I wouldn't use it in relation to an abusive or volatile relationship

Yeah, I’ve only ever heard this phrase used in reference to cheating or affairs, as a counter to the idea that one partner was at fault and “stole” an unsuspecting person away from their happy relationship. It means both partners participated equally in deception.

I think that it’s better to turn that on its head as you have - it takes two to tango in the sense that it takes two people who are able and willing to communicate well for good communication to happen. You can absolutely be a good communicator but find it impossible with someone who is unwilling to engage in, or is incapable of, decent communication.

Only ever heard it being used in a cheating scenario.

"It takes two to tango" is normally used when talking about people getting together for sex . It isn't used for other scenarios like abuse . The fact that a tango is a very sexy dance, gives the meaning quite clearly.

My ex used this exact phrase in a public post. It gave me the rage, he was abusive, only that. I tried to be supportive with his mental health issues, tried to keep my family together until I left him as I could take no more (well, the police removed him). I kept a dignified silence when I saw the post. So it doesn't always 'take two to tango' and I take great offence to it being used as a blanket statement.

It does take two when it comes to having an affair.

It doesn't take two when one person is abusive but the other person is 'complicit' by not leaving.

Once the throes of serious abuse are underway, its very different but the whole reason the freedom programme exists is to teach people how to spot the signs that abuse is likely so they can get out before serious abuse starts.

Might be unpopular, but many women 'martyr' themselves trying to 'help' a man understand what he is doing, with his MH problems, with his poor communication or emotional availability etc. When we should really be walking away and leaving them to it.

I've been in an abusive relationship and been the victim if a 'smear' campaign twice. Once by a friend and once by a woman I barely knew who felt threatened by me. That's very different because you walk away akd have no control over what the other person is doing or even, in some cases, that they are doing it until you're told.

But we all take responsibility for the relationships we choose to start and pursue.

There has to be somebody willing to play the victim

Some nice victim-blaming there. Not everyone has the freedom of choice to escape their abuser.

@butterflyze

There has to be somebody willing to play the victim

Some nice victim-blaming there. Not everyone has the freedom of choice to escape their abuser.

It's not victim blaming. Who is responsible for getting the victim out of an abusive situation? The victim.

Assigning responsibility to the victim for taking care of their own welfare isn't the same as saying that the abuse is their fault. Abuse is never the victim's fault. Everybody is responsible for their own wellbeing.

I’m another person who has only heard it in relation to sex/affairs.

Assigning responsibility to the victim for taking care of their own welfare isn't the same as saying that the abuse is their fault. Abuse is never the victim's fault. Everybody is responsible for theirownwellbeing.

Yes.

And it's notnseeing it like that which keeps women in toxic relationships for long enough for abuse to take hold.

There is always a chance to walk away or seek help before that point. Always a point where the warning signs start.

In fact there are many early relations posted on this forum where the woman is trying to understand shitty behaviour or asking how she can make the relationship work when it's quite clear that what she should be doing is walking away.

In fact there are many early relations posted on this forum where the woman is trying to understand shitty behaviour or asking how she can make the relationship work when it's quite clear that what she should be doing is walking away

Yup. In walking away from abuse, I recognised the difference between fault and responsibility, and I try to pass it on to as many people on here who need it as I can; not recognising the difference is really common, and really dangerous. Suggesting that pointing it out is 'victim blaming' just highlights the lack of knowledge.

I've only heard it in relation to sex and affairs, usually when people are reminding someone that if their DH has cheated then he is responsible for his actions. For some reason there's quite a popular idea that the poor married man would be saintly if it wasn't for the evil other woman who tempted him.

I think it's just a term that adds a little glitter to the term "there are two sides to every story" isn't it? So not necessarily about cheating, could be about siblings fighting, class mates falling out, etc etc?