Making Sure Both Parties Can Actually Say No

The most important feature of any casual arrangement is that both people are there voluntarily. Not "voluntarily in theory"—voluntarily in practice, on any given day, including the day they decide they want out.

If one person cannot realistically say no—to a specific request, to a change in terms, or to the arrangement itself—then what you have is not an agreement. It is coercion with paperwork.

Building real opt-out power into a casual arrangement takes more than writing "either party may terminate at any time" at the bottom of a document. It requires designing the entire arrangement so that leaving is a genuine, practical option for both people.

Theoretical consent means both parties agreed to the terms at some point. Practical consent means both parties can meaningfully renegotiate or leave at any time without facing disproportionate consequences.

Here is an example of the gap:

Alex and Jordan have a casual arrangement. Alex provides Jordan with monthly financial support and covers the rent on Jordan's apartment. The agreement says either party can end it with 30 days' notice. Technically, Jordan can say no to anything at any time.

In practice, if Jordan says no to something Alex wants, Jordan risks losing the arrangement—and with it, their housing. Jordan's "right to say no" exists on paper but not in reality.

This is not a niche scenario. It is the default dynamic in any arrangement where one person depends on the other for something essential.

How to Build Real Opt-Out Power

1. Separate Essential Needs from the Arrangement

If one person provides the other's housing, transportation, or primary income, the arrangement and the essential need should be decoupled as much as possible.

Practical approaches:

Transition periods. If the arrangement ends, financial support for housing continues for 60-90 days to allow the other person to make alternative arrangements.
Independent housing. Where possible, the recipient maintains their own lease, even if the provider covers the cost. This way, ending the arrangement does not mean immediate homelessness.
Emergency fund. Both parties agree that the recipient should maintain personal savings equal to at least two months of expenses.

These safeguards cost the provider relatively little but fundamentally change whether the other person can genuinely say no.

2. Create a No-Penalty Exit Clause

An exit clause should not punish the person who leaves. Common penalties to watch for and remove:

Immediate termination of all financial support (no transition period)
Forfeiture of gifts or property
Threats of exposing the arrangement (this is coercion, full stop)
Financial penalties for "early" termination
Requirements to repay previous financial support

A fair exit clause says: "If either of us wants to end this, here is how we unwind things respectfully." It does not say: "If you leave, you will regret it."

3. Normalize Regular Check-Ins

When both parties regularly discuss whether the arrangement is still working for them, it becomes much easier to raise concerns or end things. Without check-ins, the only way to address problems is to initiate a difficult conversation out of nowhere—which most people avoid until things are already bad.

Set a schedule. Monthly works for most arrangements. Use specific questions:

Is this still working for you?
Is there anything you would like to change?
Do you still feel comfortable with all the current terms?
Is there anything you have been hesitant to bring up?

These questions need to be asked sincerely, not as a formality. The person asking must be prepared to hear honest answers without retaliation.

4. Protect Against Retaliation

The fear of retaliation is often what prevents someone from exercising their right to say no. Common forms of retaliation in casual arrangements include:

Sharing private information or photos
Contacting the other person's employer, family, or social circle
Withholding agreed-upon financial support
Damaging reputation through social networks
Using information shared in confidence as leverage

Your agreement should explicitly address these risks. A strong confidentiality section protects both parties and makes retaliation a clear violation of the agreement rather than an ambiguous gray area.

5. Give Both Parties Access to the Agreement

This seems obvious, but it is surprisingly common for only one party to have a copy of the agreement. Both people should have their own copy of the current terms, stored somewhere the other person cannot access or delete.

If one person controls the only copy of the agreement, they control the narrative about what was agreed. That is a power imbalance you can eliminate entirely with a simple step.

"They agreed to the terms, so they consented." Consent is not a one-time event. It is an ongoing state. Someone who agreed to terms six months ago may no longer consent to those terms today. Your agreement should account for this by allowing amendments and providing exit options.

"If they didn't like it, they would leave." This ignores the practical barriers to leaving—financial dependency, fear of retaliation, emotional attachment, or simply not knowing that better arrangements exist. The absence of a complaint is not the presence of consent.

"We don't need to write this down because we trust each other." Trust is not a substitute for structure. Writing things down is not a sign of distrust. It is a sign that both parties take the arrangement seriously enough to be explicit about expectations and protections. Read our take on plain language vs. legal language for making written terms accessible.

A Quick Test

Here is a practical way to evaluate whether both parties can genuinely say no in your arrangement:

For the person with more power: Imagine your arrangement partner tells you tonight that they want to end the arrangement. What happens to them tomorrow? If the answer involves them losing their housing, income, safety, or reputation, your arrangement does not provide real opt-out power.

For the person with less power: Imagine you want to decline a specific request from your arrangement partner—not end the arrangement, just say no to one thing. Can you do that without fear of financial consequences, emotional punishment, or the arrangement ending? If not, your ability to consent within the arrangement is compromised.

The Bottom Line

Real consent is not just about what someone agreed to on day one. It is about whether they can disagree, push back, renegotiate, or leave on any day after that. If your arrangement does not give both people that power in practice—not just on paper—it needs to be restructured.

Explore more on this topic at our Power Dynamics and Fairness hub, and learn about recognizing the warning signs of imbalanced arrangements.

The Difference Between Theoretical and Practical Consent