From Abstinence to Assault: Consensual Nasty Communication (CNC)
How to practice safe conflict
In the Authentic Relating community I emotionally grew up in, there were Good kinds of communication and Bad ones. Good communication was consensually negotiated, kind, curious, and slow. Bad communication was whatever our parents had done: usually fast, intense, and scary. Good communication was Safe; bad communication was Violent.
Over time I’ve gotten the opportunity to explore all sorts of communication, and realized that this right/wrong division is incomplete. Slow, Nonviolent communication can be used violently. Fast, messy communication can create safety. It all depends on style match and intent.
I’ve also gotten to explore many sorts of sexuality, and seen the ways that many things I judged as similarly improper show up in kink. It seems to me that conflict styles can map quite well to sex. So, of course, that is what I’ve done.
On to the sex - I mean, conflict styles:
I like the idea of comparing conflict to sex because just as many of us have sexual trauma, many of us also have trauma with conflict. We just don’t go to a therapist as often for the second one. (Maybe I should call our Art of Difficult Conversations course “conflict therapy” from now on?)
I believe most people have a center of preference on this conflict style spectrum, but each relationship has its own fingerprint. With your boss you may err towards vanilla, while with your partner you feel comfortable in kink.
In a conflict, both/all parties may be around the same space in the spectrum, or they may be at different spots. You’re vanilla with your boss, but he’s a switch with you (hehe); you’re kink with your partner but he sometimes edges into the realm of assault. Conflict styles may be asserted by one party or negotiated by both. More on this later.
When both parties are far towards one end of this spectrum, or at far opposite ends, by deliberate or tacit agreement, I call it “CNC: Consensual Nasty Communication”.
It’s easier to think of scales like this in terms of some fixed quality, like temperature, so I’ll be describing the left-hand side (towards Abstinence) as “cooler” and the right-hand side (towards Assault) as “hotter”. This roughly corresponds to the energy that each brings to an argument.
I should start by…
Defining Terms
Throughout this article, I will use romantic partnerships as my main example, just for ease of description and the fact that this is where most 1:1 communication occurs. However, the same dynamics are present in all relationships, whether it be employee/boss or parent/child.
Abstinence
means not having conflict, when conflict is present in the space. For instance:
Jen and Jeremy are dating each other. Jen begins to suspect that Jeremy is sleeping with someone else. However, she doesn’t want to bring up the issue, in case she might be wrong or - worse yet - in case Jeremy gets defensive or angry at her. She never talks to him about it.
Some couples have very little conflict, and can keep their relationship going even when practicing abstinence. Others end up barely talking at all over the years - what’s unsaid between them is so loud that no other words can enter the space.
If one partner is in abstinence communication and the other is at a hotter spot on the spectrum, the abstinent partner will show up as stonewalling or unwilling to talk about problems.
Vanilla
is one I had a hard time naming, so if you have a better word leave it in comments. Vanilla is deliberate communication. Authentic Relating, Nonviolent Communication, and most “processing” as “conscious” folks use the term, all fall into this space. If Vanilla can’t avoid the conflict, they want to slow things down and be careful about it. For instance:
Fatima is annoyed that her partner Michelle leaves dishes in the sink, often for days at a time. She finally decides to talk with Michelle about this. When they sit down, Fatima begins by getting curious about Michelle and reflecting back what she hears. She uses Imago tools to imagine Michelle’s perspective, and fully gets her world before asking to be heard. She is careful to stop and slow them down if things get too heated.
Vanilla could also look like only talking about things if they get REALLY bad, and then doing so in the most minimal way possible.
If one partner is in Vanilla communication and the other is towards the hotter end of the spectrum, the Vanilla may seem slow, overly deliberate, or avoidant. The hotter communicator may get increasingly upset and seem even more violent as they look to be met. They may feel emotionally abandoned and start to spin out, while the cooler partner may feel overwhelmed and start to withdraw even more.
Switch
Switching is not better or worse than Vanilla or Kink (although I believe most things are better than Abstinence or Assault). In an ideal world, all these forms of communication are consensual, so what I mean by “Switch” here is a focus on relative psychological safety. A Switch can hear the other’s view and also express their own. Talking time is relatively equal. Anger is permitted but not allowed to dominate. For instance:
Ken and Xiaoyue have different opinions on where their kids should go to school. Ken brings it up after work one day, after checking if Xiaoyue is available to talk. He states his view clearly. Xiaoyue states hers. They bargain back and forth for a couple of minutes, both feeling heated about their perspective but still trying to hear the other out.
Switch communication is ideal for a lot of emotionally regulated couples. It requires self-control and, ideally, self-awareness. A party must be able to hold their own space AND that of the other.
If one partner is in Switch communication and the other is hotter, the Switch may seem impassive and controlled. If the other is cooler, the Switch may seem pushy and unpredictable.
Kink
Kink communication is where most people think CNC starts, but I posit that it’s another form of relatively healthy interaction. Kink communication is fast and loose. A kinkster may shout at others, push boundaries, or complain, but they are still under emotional control. For instance:
Greg, Mary, and Doug are in a triad relationship. Greg wants to change one of their relational agreements in order to connect with a new person. He is passionate about it when he speaks, sometimes talking over Mary or Doug. Mary, practicing Vanilla communication, keeps trying to slow things down, but Doug is plenty honest about his own frustrations, including making accusations of Greg that have some foundation in truth.
Mary finally erupts in her own angry Kink outburst about the communication that’s occurring. Doug and Greg turn to her in surprise. “We’re just being honest with each other”, they say. “I know he can take it.”
Kink communication can seem violent to those on the outside, but it is not always so to the people inside it. The benefit of Kink is that if both people are into it, conflicts can get resolved very quickly, even if it seems neither is listening. Either may change their views after having enough time to shout or complain. However, partners on the cooler end of the spectrum may end up burned.
If one partner is in Kink communication and the other is on the cooler end, the lefthander may get nonconsensually beaten up. They may feel attacked, resented, tongue-tied, or overwhelmed by the kinkster’s willingness to play all out. If the other person is in Assault, the kinkster may feel like the power-play has been taken a step further than even they like to go.
Assault
Assault is asserting one’s will over others and trying to win an argument by force. In an aggressive mode, it can look like screaming, throwing things, hitting, or demanding. In an underhanded mode it can look like gaslighting, denying another’s reality, shaming, or making inviolable rules without negotiation. For instance:
Sarah’s wife isn’t great with conflict. Most of the time, Mira is reasonable, but when she’s angry…well, it’s best for Sarah to just stay out of the way. Mira will start with screaming and just ramp up from there. Crockery gets broken. Accusations are shouted and behavior is denied. It’s hard to get a word in edgewise. Then Mira will break down sobbing, and nothing Sarah can do will console her.
Assault is a great tactic for getting one’s way in a single argument, but it is the most corrosive factor I’ve seen to relationship over time, to the point that I at first used the word “Rape” to describe this end of the spectrum. It can cause a mix of Stockholm Syndrome (“I have come to love my captor”) and sunk-cost fallacy (“We’ve already dedicated so much time to working on this; we can’t leave now!”), whereby the partners in this relationship may even begin to defend their partner’s actions to avoid the cognitive dissonance of leaving.
On the other hand, changing the behavior or deciding to leave is made more difficult when the assault is an occasional part of an otherwise good relationship. “They’re not like this all the time”, we’ll say (I have a good article on the difference between the “Ordinary self” and the “Anger self” up on Medium, if you want more on the way we change through states).
Assault is an extreme stage or state to be in, and most cooler-spectrum partners learn to avoid or pacify the assaulter when they’re in mode.
Negotiating a Scene
I use this phrase a little tongue-in-cheek, because we rarely negotiate a fight before it occurs. We sometimes debrief afterwards and talk about best practices for next time (take The Art of Difficult Conversations for some how-to guides on that), but most of the time we don’t sit down before a fight and say,
Look, this might get messy. What are your boundaries? What’s your safeword? Is there any aftercare you might like when we’re done?
(Side note - my parents, who spent many years arguing on the kinky side of the spectrum, did actually eventually start using a safeword for their conflicts. They took it from Bob Newhart’s classic sketch. Anytime they got into one of the same fights they'd had for 30 years, one of them would say, “Let’s just stop it!” and they’d drop the issue.)
In sexy kink, this sort of negotiation is easier because most scenes contain a dom and a sub. The dom holds the frame, respects the boundaries, and administers the first aftercare. The sub has a safeword. Clear roles keep the process on track.
In most conflicts, instead, all parties are looking to dom at the same time. Even abstinent partners are trying to control the frame.
Here’s how we usually “negotiate” conflict scenes.
Aureli has had a rough day at work. They come home and their partner Aurora hasn’t done the laundry, as she promised she would that morning. Aureli makes a snippy passive-aggressive comment like, “I see that you had a productive day” - staring at the laundry basket.
Aurora tries to pacify: “I didn’t have time to do the laundry yet. I will later today.”
Aureli stays hot: “Why don’t you ever get things done while I’m away at work? How many times will we have to discuss this??”
Aurora says, “I get it. You’ve had a long day. Let me make you some dinner.” She disappears into the kitchen while Aureli fumes.
Where do you think Aureli and Aurora are on the spectrum?
It’s a short example to tell, but I’d imagine they are about here:
If this is a classic example of Aurora and Aureli’s arguments, and they’ve been together for more than a few weeks, this is probably the scene they have subliminally negotiated. Aureli will get hot and Aurora will go cool to pacify. Perhaps sometimes Aurora will get really frustrated and move towards the hotter end herself, and it will either turn into a shouting match, or Aureli will get cooler to balance them out. If they get into therapy or do a lot of Authentic Relating, their therapist or process might move the two towards Switch to explore a “healthier” version of their conflicts.
An interesting alternative could be for the two to deliberately negotiate a scene where they try on each others’ conflict styles. Doing this requires shared language (one reason I created this post) and relational debriefs.
To explain this, I’ll take a quick side trip into my own relationship.
The Making of the GeofNess Monster
One of the major issues and growth points that has characterized my relationship with my husband Geof is different conflict styles.
Geof is a kinkster, in many ways. He prefers concise communication, where people just say what they mean and arguments are over quickly. At the time, that kind of communication occurred to me as loud, mean, and dangerous. When Geof and his life partner Emily, who had a similar conflict temperature, used to fight, I would have to leave the room and put earplugs in my ears. I grew up with a hot conflict father; I didn’t feel comfortable with the shouting or (what seemed like) lack of consideration or listening for the other person’s needs.
I was coming from the Authentic Relating and Circling field, and from a lifetime of recovering from the ways my parents fought. When Geof and I fought, I wanted him to listen. I expected curiosity, concern, and lots of space for feelings - even if it took all night. I thought this was Switchy, but in reality it was pretty Vanilla.
In the short term, this difference in itself caused a lot of conflict. We had the source of the argument, which was an issue; but then we also had the way we were fighting, which frustrated us both. I thought that Geof was being careless and mean with his words. He thought I was controlling and manipulating the conversation, and was too sensitive to anything he’d say. We began to judge each other for our conflict styles.
Luckily, while we were judging, we were also watching and doing relational debriefs. After we fought, we would sometimes stop and talk about how the fight had gone. What were our expectations of each other? How were those met or thwarted? What bids had each of us missed? We talked about communication patterns in our past relationships, and we saw how each of us communicated with our lovers and friends.
Eventually, we developed The Relating Languages system to help explain the different connection languages we were seeing in each other’s selves and communities. The Relating Languages helped us understand my expectation for Questions and Observation, and Geof’s preferences for Storytelling and Directing. We began to develop a shared language. We became able to ask:
Would you ask me a question?
Can we slow down?
Why do you think that?
At the same time as we developed our Vanilla abilities, I developed my Kink ones too. On one road trip, Geof and I explored why I was so uncomfortable with just letting out my anger and emotion in arguments. We explored my past and decided on experiments to try, where I could let myself be more “mean” or “messy” and know that he would give me feedback on it. Gradually, I stopped holding back as much.
These days, every time we teach a new Art of Difficult Conversations or Authentic Facilitator class, we give the students a caveat:
“During this class, you are probably going to see Mom and Dad fight. It might look mean or messy, but it will be over quickly. We’d love for you to learn from how we fight.”
What happened in our relationship?
First, I saw the value of Kink. I had to get past a lot of judgments about that style of communication, but once I did, I realized that with a resilient partner, there was a lot of leeway to get upset or say the wrong thing without destroying the relationship. That felt very freeing to me.
Meanwhile, Geof learned what I was looking for in Vanilla. We developed ways for me to say when Kink was getting overwhelming, so he could slow down to a cooler temperature. (We also learned that Kink communication has Bad Results when Sara is on her period, so we started tracking that. We pre-emptively move left on the conflict spectrum around that time of month!)
Our connection gets a lot of admiration from others. I think this is because instead of both moving towards Switch, which is the traditional teaching, we chose to explore each other’s conflict styles. This has given us a lot more space to play within. We experiment constantly with how far we can push the edges of the sexy spectrum without hurting each other, knowing that we can always do a debrief to bring ourselves back.
In Conclusion
If you find the Conflict Styles framework interesting, I suggest placing each of your relationships along it and thinking about how your preferences affect each other.
Do you like where you’re at?
How could you explore your partner’s style more?
How would you ask them to explore yours?
Where might you want to move towards a different area on the spectrum?
What experiments would you have to construct to do so?
What conflict style will you use to try and enroll your partner(s) in those experiments?
Each relationship has its own fingerprint on the spectrum, so it can be really interesting to consider them individually. Just because you’re more Abstinent in one connection, doesn’t mean you aren’t far towards Assault in another. You can learn from yourself: what relationships polarize you towards hotter or cooler temperatures? What relationships allow you to relax into them?
Think also about how your conflict style changes when you’re in different states. In each relationship, what is your style when drunk/tipsy? At certain times of the month? When more stressed? More relaxed? When you’ve just eaten, or when you’re hungry?
When you’ve mapped out your conflict styles, show this map to a partner and discuss it! Maybe you’ll discover some new places of connection - some new, even sexier ways to love each other - than you previously thought you could.
Your Loving Thought-Dom,
Sara Ness
This is really timely for me in understanding how me and a person I love with do conflict. I'll show this article to them! Thank you for writing 🙏