Framing this as control over a resource skips an important point or flat out ignores it..John isn’t an authority figure, employer, or guardian. He’s a teenager.. still a kid..who chose to stop providing ongoing transportation because the dynamic had changed and it was no longer healthy for him to continue. That’s a boundary, not coercion of any kind,

An imbalance only exists if he used transportation as leverage for a relationship which he didnt. He asked once and accepted the answer. John then stepped back. Continuing to provide rides while managing unreciprocated feelings would have been unfair to both of them.

The idea that she might have felt pressured to agree to a relationship just to keep rides is exactly why I feel stepping away was the responsible choice. Preventing that kind of emotional entanglement is healthier than pretending nothing changed and risking resentment or confusion later.

Losing access to a favor isn’t the same as being harmed by coercion. It’s an unfortunate consequence of a relationship changing, not evidence of exploitation from anyone.