Relating in Relationships

Yesterday I saw a husband who was experiencing considerable distress.  He attributed this feeling to his wife since she was so critical of him.  He stated, “I wish she would say one complimentary thing to me.  I can’t remember anything positive that she has said to me in the last year.  Sometimes I think I would be better off dead.  At least then, she could be happy.  If it weren’t for the three kids, I think I would do away with myself.”  He appeared alternately depressed and agitated while his voice sounded hollow.

What he failed to recognize was that his wife was not present.  She was at her job several miles away and therefore unable to make him feel depressed while he was present in my office.  That is, unless she were influencing him by remote control.

Since I don’t believe in the concept of remote control (or victim), I immediately assumed that he was doing his own feelings.  I base this on the notion that each individual, one to a package, comes without any ability to get out of their envelope of skin and is therefore unable to flip levers in someone else’s mind.  He was totally responsible for his own words, thoughts, actions, and feelings, as was she.  If I had a chance to talk to her, I would not have been surprised to hear her experiencing considerable distress—because of him.

The situation described above seems to be the standard format for the kind of relating that we call a marriage.  When people get together, they relate and sometimes they call what they are doing “a relationship” (which sometimes is a precursor of marriage).  Clearly, a relationship is an abstract concept lacking tangibility.  We cannot see it or put it in wheelbarrow.  It exists in people’s minds.

Consequently, there are as many different ways of viewing relationships as there are people.  What is interesting to me is that people operate as if the marriage or the relationship is causing them to feel certain ways.  In the beginning, the feelings are largely positive while at the end, the feelings are frequently negative.  This is the pattern I would like to explore when I discuss the life cycle of a relationship.

Over and over again, my wife (a social worker with whom I do joint marriage counseling) and I hear laments similar to what I described in the opening example.  What it boils down to is that he says, “The reason that I feel so bad is because she isn’t acting right.”   He then feels compelled to launch into his laundry list of examples.    Of course, she will say, “The reason that I feel so bad is because he isn’t acting right.”  Then she adds her laundry list of his shortcomings.

Many people come to marriage counseling to get support for their position and learn how to change their spouse so that he/she will act better.  They know that they are right and that their spouse is wrong.  What is surprising is that they are both right: they each experience the world in a different way as a result of their own perception and interpretation.

How well intentioned people get into this negative victim status is the focus of this booklet.  It appears to me that it all begins with the positive victim state that people enter into during the initial phases of dating.  I would venture to say that there is a relatively predictable series of steps that can be described in the life cycle of a relationship.  I will cover this more thoroughly later.

Initially, however, I want to focus on the basic notion of our individual perception and experience.  Although there may be an objective reality, that is not what we experience.  What we experience is our subjective reality.  We frequently share the following example with couples when they keep correcting each other during the initial session.  If we take a period of time, say two minutes, we can measure that with a watch.  However, the experience of two minutes is very different depending on which side of the bathroom door one is on.  The person on the inside is likely to experience that length of time as little more than half a minute.  The person on the other side of the door—with a full bladder—is likely to experience that same period of time as ten minutes.

Both people are correct.  They each had a real and unique experience of the two minutes—but they were quite different!  The point of the story is that each person experiences his/her own reality in a unique way.  The problem occurs when each of them assumes that he/she has the only valid experience.  Further, there is judgment involved, if the other person experiences the same situation differently, the other must be wrong.  Even further, it is important to correct the other person even if it involves a great deal of argumentation.  Thus, the two people mutually enter into a win-lose arm wrestling posture in spite of the fact that they have experienced the emptiness of arguing many times before.

The fact that many married people frequently argue is very interesting and seems to parallel a visual phenomenon.  We all have a blind spot in our eye, an area where we have no visual experience.  In spite of that, we are not aware of our blind spot because we “fill in” our visual experience so that it seems whole.  By arguing frequently and vehemently, married people demonstrate a blind spot in their psychological functioning. In spite of the fact that the couple hand selected each other on the basis of compatibility and enjoyment, they are likely to begin a series of arguments after they are married.  It appears that they get more interested in “being right” than in feeling good!

The reason people get married is to be close to each other and enjoy each other.  This is still their purpose in an argument:  they want to resolve an issue so that they can get on with the positive aspect of the relationship.  In spite of the massive negative data that they have acquired throughout their arguments, they still continue the process.

What I want to emphasize is that most people do not feel good either during or after an argument.  They have researched this over and over. However, in spite of the previous data, they are ready to participate in an argument at the drop of a hat, day or night, with no need to schedule.   Most couples schedule their time to go out to eat or to a show, but they will enter into an argument without a moment’s hesitation.  In fact, the argument takes priority over going out.  Isn’t it somewhat curious that people are quick to enter into an activity where they feel terrible while postponing a scheduled positive activity?

As a consultant who listens to clients talk about relationships, I would like to share some of my impressions about how people go about relating.  It appears that the people who are not involved in a relationship usually want one—even though they are wary of “being hurt.”  The people who are in a relationship frequently want to make it “work”(which many of them seem to have already done—which explains the lack of enjoyment) or else they want to find ways to get out of the relationship.  Admittedly,   I see a select group of people (clients) who come to consult with me regarding their problems.  However, as I watch TV, read the news, and observe people that I know personally, I think I can reach much the same conclusion.

When we expand our view to the population at large, the current statistics indicate that there is one divorce for every two marriages.  Although there is a large pool of marriages that have endured for a long time, there are not many that I would want to trade for.  How about you? Do you know a large number of happily married couples that you would like to emulate?

Most people have trouble thinking of more than one or two, if that many, even though they may know a relatively large number of couples.  In spite of the odds, people still keep getting together, enjoying each other for a while, and then ending up fighting and divorcing.  If they don’t divorce, they may end up living with each other and feeling misunderstood.  In other words, they do not bother to get a legal divorce, even though they are “divorced psychologically.”

How is it that people who hand select each other end up with so many “rotten apples?”  Doesn’t it seem peculiar to think that an individual will date a number of people but end up marrying the one who becomes a “jerk?”  ls it possible that what we see is not a case of “bad” people who have misrepresented themselves, but rather that the individuals are simply doing what they have been trained or programmed to do?  Do you suppose people are following a tradition or a script—outside of awareness?  I think it is possible and that is the angle I want to pursue.

If we think of tradition, custom, or practice, we can come up with any number of examples.  Some are rather brief or transitory, while others are more long lasting.  For example, from the fashion world, hemlines go up and down on skirts and men’s hair length varies according to arbitrary standards.  Football is played in the fall and typically on Saturdays and Sundays with a few minor exceptions.  Baseball, basketball, hockey, and soccer, on the other hand, are played any day of the week.  There may be all kinds of rationale for the basis of these practices.  I am not focused on that, however, I am simply pointing to the existence of the practices.

We have a long-standing tradition of hitting kids and calling it discipline while we would not dream of spitting in their faces.  When males commit suicide. they traditionally use an immediate and active method, like shooting themselves with a gun.  Females, however, traditionally follow a slower and less active or violent route—they take pills and chase them with alcohol.  Incidentally, there are many more women who attempt suicide, a ratio of 2 or 3 to 1.  However, more males actually succeed.  This does not mean that women will never shoot themselves or that men will never take pills.  I am simply pointing out a generality in terms of tradition.  What is even more interesting is that all this takes place in the absence of any formal training in how we should commit suicide.  I point this out because it seems to indicate that we follow “rules” that we do not know that we know.

Do you suppose that we are unwittingly following some sort of tradition or custom regarding relating in a relationship?  Is it possible that we follow a predetermined path without knowing it?  We do not have any formal instruction in how to ruin a relationship, and yet we seem to succeed in doing just that.  In most instances, I think it is possible that we are simply following accepted practice—outside of awareness.  In other words, I want to take a look at the “life cycle” of a relationship as most people practice it in our culture.  When I look at it from this perspective, it appears that people are simply “playing their respective roles,” not that there are “bad” people involved.

First, let’s begin with an apparent contradiction.  All relationships end.  Whether by death, divorce, or desertion, all relationships have an end.  Perhaps it isn’t possible to have a beginning if there is no ending.  Anyway, what is funny about this is that most of us are looking for a “permanent relationship.”  I was in a seminar once where somebody stood up and said, “I thought I’d never be interested in another permanent relationship after my divorce, but now, after being alone for 3 years, I’m ready to get permanently involved again.”  “Another permanent relationship” is a contradiction and the words do not belong together any more than “military intelligence” or “civil war.” (Thanks, George Carlin.)

Now, let’s take a look at the tradition of relating in a relationship—I think it can be graphed out like any other life cycle.  Again, I want to state that this is a generality.  I am making it up and somebody else may make it up or see it differently.

To begin with, we have two individuals, usually male and female, who are not very comfortable within themselves.  They are searching for somebody to “complete” them or change their lives, just as they were promised in the fairy tales.  I think we were all introduced to that tradition of finding the “mythical mate” so that we can “live happily ever after.”  What a jackpot!

In Snow White, we have the hard working girl who is having murderous attempts made on her life by the wicked Queen.  The Queen, driven by her jealousy of Snow White’s beauty, uses a poison apple to cast a spell of passivity on Snow White, who then lies helpless, on display, in the glass case.  We don’t know much about the Prince except that he is out wandering around in the woods when he fortuitously stumbles into the clearing where the glass case is kept.  This glass case preserves the virtuous maiden who is passively awaiting rescue.

The Prince is “overcome” by her beauty (notice how he cannot help himself).  He feels compelled to open the case and kiss her.  In his clumsiness, his kiss dislodges the apple (which fixes her), she wakes up and bats her eyelids at him (which fixes him).  At this point, they go into the “live happily ever after” trance as they ride off into the sunset.

The Cinderella story is similar with a few minor differences.  The fairy godmother feels sorry for Cinderella’s lot in life and is impressed with her cheerfulness despite the hard work and difficult circumstances.  As a result, she uses her magic wand to set up a series of events that culminate with the Prince putting the glass slipper on Cinderella’s foot.  Not quite as romantic as a kiss, but it still gets the job done.

In a reverse situation, we have the Prince who is under a spell and has been transformed into a frog.  Although he is one of the least likely to be kissed animals in the world (a dog or a cat would have made the odds more favorable), the “magic” finally occurs when the Princess kisses him.  In this way, she transforms him to his Prince status, whereupon they go into their “live happily ever after” trance.

I think that is enough to make the point.  The message is that there is something wrong with us or our life is miserable and lonely.  Then suddenly, the “right person” comes along and we live happily ever after.

With that as a foundation, we can see the potential at the beginning of a relationship.  Although we are adults and know better than to believe in fairy tales (we forget that adults are children who live in big bodies and have more miles on their odometer), our actions betray us.  We are on the lookout for that special person so that we can experience that magical moment that will “trance form” us.  Our chance meeting can occur anywhere or anytime.  Much of it depends on the timing, the gonadal pressure, and our exposure or contact with suitable or eligible individuals.  When “it happens,” we are not quite sure we can trust it, but it is delicious fun.

I have created the following diagram to illustrate how I think that the proportions of enjoyment and seriousness change over time.  Of course, the individuals involved were quite sure that they were going to be different.  They had seen their parents and many of their friends and relatives go through the cycle and they either vowed to each other, or certainly to themselves internally, that they were not going to be another statistic.  In spite of this resolve, they are very likely to follow the pattern described in the following diagram.  To me, the best explanation to account for this is that they are following a pattern or tradition outside of awareness, just as they dress or brush their teeth in patterns.

The first stage in the life cycle of a relationship is called dating.  At this point, if we graph two variables across time, we see that the variable labeled enjoyment is up in the high 90’s in terms of percentage.  The variable labeled seriousness is only at the 1st or 2nd percentile (I make up that they add up to 100%).  She releases endorphins (the little “feel good” chemicals we manufacture in our brain) and “attributes” her good feeling to him.  Meanwhile, he releases endorphins in his head (frequently along with sexual excitement) and attributes all this to her.

At this initial dating stage, they decide that they cannot get along without each other.  This is the time period that I call the “positive victim” trance where the song “You light up my life” is so appropriate.  It is so enjoyable and so much fun, they will go to all kinds of trouble to get together (it was no trouble).  All kinds of “primping and swooning” behavior prior to getting together occurs also.  In the midst of this trance, they can “communicate” so well, especially wordlessly!

If a little time with her/him is good, then more is better so the amount of time spent together increases rapidly.  Everything she says and does is simply wonderful.  After all, what would you expect of Snow White?  Similarly, everything he says and does is marvelous.  What else would you expect of Prince Charming?  SW and PC see each other through rose-colored glasses with an emphasis on compliments and a paucity of criticisms.  He even talks about his feelings with her, something he is not very good at if he is a standard or “normal” male.  At least that seems to be true of married men.

As we move along the time continuum, we notice that the enjoyment is decreasing and the seriousness is increasing.  This can be accomplished very quickly (a steep slope) or spread out over a longer period of time (gradual slope).  As we near the point of intersecting (60-40 or 55-45), it must be obvious to others because they come up to the couple and ask, “Are you two getting serious?”  Even if they are not asked by others, they may ask each other, “Are we getting serious?”  Additionally, when we are alone, we may even ask ourselves, “Am I getting serious about him/her?”

This second stage is called “getting serious.”  Usually the two people are not quite synchronized so that one reaches that point slightly before the other.  If the one who reaches that point first is obvious and persistent about proceeding further, the second person may “back off” or “break it off” saying, “He/she  was getting too serious too fast.”

Following this break up, each of them typically will look for new partners and start the “dance” over again from the beginning.  It is interesting to note that the “dumpee” will usually take a longer time to date again than the “dumper,” a testimonial to our ability to pick up and follow a traditional role even though there was no formal instruction.

In the event that there isn’t much disparity in their positions, many couples will take a chance on ruining a perfectly good relationship by getting married.  They will do this in spite of the exceedingly high odds against their “living happily ever after.”  They act like gamblers pulling levers in Las Vegas—they know the odds are very low, but the promise and magnitude of the potential payoff (the jackpot) is so tempting that they think it is worth the risk.  Wouldn’t you take a chance on living happily for the rest of your life?  You bet your life you would!  I might add parenthetically that they do have the potential for a mutually rewarding relationship.  However, if they are “normal,” the probability is very low.

As they approach the altar, most people do a heavy combination of worry and panic (“cold feet”).  They are well aware of the fall-off in enjoyment and the increase in seriousness they have been experiencing.  It is almost as if they go ahead and plunge into marriage before they think too long about it.  Maybe they can stave off disaster.  Some people even say, “If we don’t go ahead and get married now, we never will.”  From time to time, they will glance back to their delightful beginning to reassure themselves.

As a part of the marriage tradition, we have somebody dressed in black (usually the same person who buries us) intoning heavy phrases like “This is not to be entered into lightly.”  The emphasis is on seriousness and responsibility.  They “solemnize the vows.” Doesn’t that sound delightful?  Although there is a party afterwards, it is usually not enough to dispel the heaviness of the occasion.  Frequently, the disagreements that precede the wedding are rehearsals for the arguments on the honeymoon.

Everyone “knows” that “marriage is serious business.”  Now the emphasis is on getting things done before enjoying each other, in contrast with the courting period.  This tradition is implicitly recognized when the young couple is asked, “Is the honeymoon over yet?”  The word “yet” is particularly telling.  The implicit message is, “Have you come to your senses and settled down and begun acting normal yet?”  By then, the couple has probably engaged in enough arguments to answer in the affirmative, although not in front of each other.

The husband usually is off to work where he has been programmed to experience his primary identity.  His job is to focus on a career, partly to bolster his own ego, but also to provide for his family.  He sees his job as “bringing home the bacon” and hopes that she will be full of appreciation and express her gratitude in a variety of ways, especially sexually.  She may be working also (not quite as career oriented as he is usually), but tends to focus on “making a nice home” so he will appreciate her and reward her with support, security, and thoughtful actions, perhaps even including flowers and poetic recitations.  With the attempt to move toward equality of the sexes, this picture may not be as clear-cut as it once was.

Since there is trash to be taken out and meals to be cooked, there may be a difference of opinion about who should do what and when.  In addition, there are some other situations to be dealt with in a mutually congruent way, situations that have been unfamiliar to the couple since they have only been dating up to the point of marriage.  I am referring to bills and babies.  There is usually a house and many household items to be obtained.  Thanks to easy credit—that is, easy going in, hard getting out—these items can be acquired rather easily.  Once the charges are loaded up, there is a pregnancy and that frequently ends one income.  If not, there is the day care expense when she goes back to work outside the home.  In addition, she is likely to feel guilty about not spending more time with her baby.

As for the husband, he frequently feels, resentful about having to share his wife with the baby.  Next, he feels guilty about feeling resentful, which is great self-torture and likely to lead to all kinds of interesting (but negative) behavior, such as pouting and withdrawing or drinking and gambling.

During this time, there are further traditional practices to be followed.  Compliments become rather scarce and criticisms are given in more generous quantities with a louder volume.  He stops talking about his feelings like he did when they were dating.  For example, he doesn’t say I love you often, if at all.  As for her part, she starts and then steps up her interrogation regarding what he is thinking about and what he is feeling.

In some cases, her sexual interest may begin to fade and he begins to do resentment, feeling like he has been had.  As a result, he feels totally justified in expressing his anger in a loud voice, attempting to bully her into physical intimacy.  He may pout and withdraw like a little boy in an effort to induce guilt.  If she feels guilty, she may “give in.”  In his mind, guilty sex is better than no sex, although as time goes on, he is less sure about that.

It is interesting to note that although sex was not a “commodity” during dating, during marriage the rules may change.  This is simply another example of turning a delightful relationship into something negative.  Further, it requires the participation of both husband and wife, so I am in no way assessing blame.

Another way for him to step up the pressure for pleasure is to hint or even directly accuse her of “being frigid.”  He may even intimate that there is something wrong with her and suggest that she go see her gynecologist.  That is not very romantic talk.  In fact, she feels totally justified in getting angry, accusing him of only being interested in one thing, just like all men.  Here she thought that he was somebody special and now his true colors (animal nature) are coming out.

The husband is surprised at this outburst since his strategy was intended to have the opposite effect.  In his mind, the challenge of frigidity was supposed to make her want to take her clothes off and say, “I’ll show you I’m not frigid.”

Naturally, at this point, she doesn’t feel very aroused or romantic.  If they end up “going to bed,” she may be motivated primarily by duty, which does not satisfy either one of them.  She feels “used” and he does insecurity about his ability as a lover.

If he is a “normal” male, he may use force, whining, pouting, withdrawing, bribing, booze, or the threat of “going someplace else” to “get what he wants.”  Yet when it is all over, he still feels “empty” because she “wasn’t there.”

Another part of the tradition is that there is a great deal to be done first before the enjoyment of sexual activity.  Therefore, if there is any, it frequently occurs late at night when the kids are in bed and the couple is exhausted.  As a male, the husband can usually get aroused for this activity even though he was exhausted.  However, he usually falls asleep afterward without the holding and cuddling that she would like in order to be reassured that she was valued for more than “just her body.”  She lies awake and listens to him snore until she can’t stand it anymore.  At this point, she grabs a pillow and blanket on her way to sleep on the couch.  The next morning there is little or no discussion, instead it’s “I owe, I owe, it’s off to work I go” with a residue of resentment.  As they continue this process, it makes what one cynic said seem true:  “The sex drive arises in adolescence and ends in marriage.”

As the cycle is repeated, they do anger more and more often.  They feel “trapped in a bad marriage,” with one usually more focused on this feeling than the other.  They drift apart psychologically as criticism becomes commonplace and compliments almost extinct.  He can become a workaholic, fishaholic, alcoholic, golfaholic, affairaholic, or whatever.  She may get involved in similar or comparable activities.

At this point, seriousness has increased to the high 90’s and enjoyment has dropped off to just a few percent.  This is typically the final stage of the relationship—what I call wedlock, which rhymes with deadlock.  It is at this point that they may contact marriage counselors.  They say things like, “We don’t do things together anymore.”  Sometimes I say, “You seem to fight well together.”  Other statements include, “We can’t communicate, we don’t have fun together anymore, we never laugh or act playfully anymore.”  Isn’t that ironic when those were exactly the qualities that were so prominent in the selection process?

Usually, one or the other has been to see a lawyer and that person wants out.  The one who did not initiate is saying things like, “It’s come as a complete surprise to me” or “I didn’t have any warning, he/she made up her/his mind on an impulse, right out of the blue.”  You see they can’t agree on that either because he/she responds, “I’ve been telling you this for years, you just never took me seriously.”  Sometimes, there is a third party involved and the person so involved may go for marriage counseling simply to placate the spouse and to appease his/her own guilt—they tried everything, including marriage counseling, and it still didn’t work.

What a sad state of affairs, following a tradition like that. (Of course, I might add that it is not so sad for the divorce lawyers and us marriage counselors.)  Because we feel cheated (after all, he said that he was Prince Charming, she said that she was Snow White, or at least, that was implied), we are likely to get very angry and feel justified in whatever we do.

Recently, I read about a fellow out west who obtained a demolition permit, rented a bulldozer and demolished the house that was to be awarded to his wife.  Some people will pull the kids around, even kidnapping them in some cases.  As I write about this phase of a relationship, you can see that I am beginning to describe the tradition of divorce.  I won’t go into that issue further than to say we have our choice about whether we want a traditional resentment filled divorce or a mutually respectful divorce.

Of course, what I have written is a kind of composite caricature of the life cycle of a relationship.  I made up everything I wrote so please don’t take it seriously.  I might add that you are also “making up” all your reactions to what I wrote thus far…and to this sentence as well.

I want to point out that the lines on the earlier graph are smoother than what most people experience.  Generally, the individuals in the relationship experience a graph that is more like the stock market, up and down.  I was simply indicating a smoothed out trend.

When partners reach the last stage, most individuals conclude that they picked the wrong person or that the other person misrepresented him/herself.  Thus, they are ready to put another coin in the slot and pull the lever again—although they will be more cautious next time.  Some gamblers (Liz Taylor or Mickey Rooney) have gone through the cycle many times and still have not learned that they and their so-called permanent partner are simply following a tradition.

There are some individuals who feel that they are “to blame” and that there must be something wrong with them.  This is an especially painful position to be in.  I have spoken to numerous singles groups (separated or divorced) and I hear various stages—licking the wounds:  that bastard/bitch left, swearing off, what’s wrong with me, cautious interest, and desperation.

You may ask, “Is there anything that can be done for a relationship that has reached the ‘wedlock’ stage?”  My answer is yes, we need to increase our awareness.  You may wonder about awareness, awareness of what?  Awareness of our freedom, our choice, and our sovereignty within ourselves, as well as our impotence to change others.  Expanding our awareness is essential.

What I am getting at is that we need to be aware of the following:  in the envelope of skin called Marlowe, there is nobody in here except me.  In that envelope of skin that bears your name, there is nobody in there but you.  If there is nobody in here but me, then I must be doing all of me.  If there is nobody in there but you, then you must be doing all of you.  Further, if I am doing something or feeling something, then it must be me doing it—whether I am consciously aware of making the choice or not. Likewise, for you, since you are sovereign in there.  If I am not doing me, then who is?  If you are not doing you, who is?

We need to use our sovereignty within ourselves to create a good relationship with our selves, before we can have a good relationship with another.  I know that is not traditional.  However, if we want to have a chance at good relationships with others, then we need to create the basis of a good relationship—within ourselves first.  It is important that we do not consider ourselves to be “half a person” in search of our other half so that “two become one.”  That is an impossibility.  What I am inviting you to consider is that you use your sovereignty to become whole (as I discussed at length in the chapter on self-esteem).

If you are whole and I am whole, if you are sovereign over you and I am sovereign over me, if you are a friend to you and I am a friend to me, if you treat yourself as if you were valuable, and I treat myself as if I were valuable, then we have an excellent basis for an enjoyable relationship.  If not, we don’t.  It is that simple.  By operating from wholeness, we do not enter into the relationship as a “positive victim.”  Thus, we do not set ourselves up for the “negative victim” position most of us take after we get married.

When we operate from the okay within position, we can do considerable comfort in a relationship.  We can be very accepting, the basis for intimacy, especially psychological intimacy.  We can feel comfortable sharing our inner thoughts and feelings because we are not going to be constantly doing worry or apprehension about being judged and evaluated.  Even if we are occasionally judged, it is not the end of the world.  The other person has a valid viewpoint, for that person, and we have the right to our viewpoint.  We have many facets within ourselves and it is important to be able to explore our private side within the safety of acceptance, especially our own.

So now you have heard the “bad news” and the “good news.”  The bad news is that traditionally most relationships do not end well.  The good news is that we can change and we do not need to wait for somebody else to change first.  The fundamental relationship is the one that we have with our selves.  If that relationship (the one you have with you and the one that I have with me) is not positive, gentle, and loving, then we do not have much to bring to the party except need.  When we are not whole within and “need” reassurance from others, we put ourselves in the position of being “needy.”  It’s as if we were holding out our tin cup to others and begging, “Please tell me that I count,”  “Please tell me that you love me,” “Please reassure me,” “Please acknowledge me.”  These are some of the ways of putting words to this silent plea.

When a potential Snow White or Prince Charming shows signs of noticing and valuing us, we send a message for our heart to speed up and our brain to release endorphins.   The problem is that when we are not at ease and whole within, our need is insatiable, i.e., our cup has a hole in it and we never get quite enough at quite the right time.  Meanwhile, the person who is doing the overt reassurance is covertly reassured that his or her opinion “counts” or “matters.”  That helps explain why there are so many rescuers.

What I make up is that when we operate from a “needy” position, we are acting as if we are “empty” and that we “need” somebody to “fill us up.”  It is not simply a matter of being important, but goes beyond to become a matter of being vital and desperate.  “You’re nobody ’til somebody loves you” is a song title that expresses what I am talking about.  If we are “normal” and traditional, we are a bunch of “nobodies” striving to find somebody who will love us and make us a somebody.

Unfortunately, there is a catch 22 in all this.  We know way down deep (if we are “normal” and traditional) that there is something basically wrong with us.  Why else would there be such a struggle to improve or “get better?”  The catch is that anybody who thinks we are a somebody has poor judgment (since we know the truth about ourselves) so how could we respect them?  Either that or we have fooled them and it is just a matter of time before we are found out.  In fact, some people recognize this inevitability and take the offensive, shoving their warts into the other person’s awareness to bring about the abrupt ending, unable to endure the period of time waiting for the other shoe to drop.

By this time, some of you readers may have begun to think that I am a pessimist about people and relationships.

I don’t see myself in that light; rather, I am very optimistic.  If a person has a good relationship with him/herself, then he/she has an excellent chance to create an enjoyable relationship with others.  Then the song becomes, “You’re already somebody, because you love yourself and you are really ready for somebody else.”  When two “somebodies”1 meet, that’s “something!”

You will value the other person because you value yourself. You will treat them as important because you are important to yourself.  The other person will be important, but not vital or essential to you.  The emphasis will be on enjoyment and light- heartedness, the “glue” that keeps people together much better than duty, obligation, responsibility, and commitment.  (The latter word may be more appropriately used in regard to mental hospitals.)  What results may best be described as interdependence, which is quite different from either dependence or independence.

Many readers may make up a shocked reaction to my statement about commitment, but if you look over your experience in relationships, it is probably the time when you were discussing duty and commitment that you felt the heaviest part of the relationship.  Isn’t that exactly the time when you felt most serious and most trapped?  It is kind of amazing that it is usually during those “serious talks” when most people discuss separation and divorce.  Generally, the two people feel worse rather than better after one of the innumerable (and often interminable) “serious talks.”

It is also interesting that there are parallels to other games.  For example, in checkers, in order to have a game, one must choose red and the other black.  Similarly, in a marriage relationship, one of the participants (usually the one that excels verbally-red) will want to have frequent talks and accuses the other one (the one who has difficulty expressing themselves verbally-black) of not being open or being interested in “doing something constructive” about the relationship.

I would like to point out that when two people are enjoying each other, they usually do not bring up separation or divorce.  (Incidentally, we have contrasting songs about the separation—“Breaking up is hard to do” and “Fifty ways to leave your lover.”)  They are having too much fun for that.

Unfortunately, the tradition that we follow, without being aware of it, limits the fun and enjoyment to only the first phase of the relationship.  However, if we become aware of our choice, aware of our inherent (and inescapable) sovereignty within ourselves, and aware of the ease of change, we can do something now, right now.  This brings me to the question, “Can a relationship that has reached the wedlock stage be saved?”

The answer is yes.  Mary and I have seen numerous couples who are having “serious” problems and say that they want to make their relationship “work.”  Each of them are quick to recount their upsets and many have “laundry lists” of the wrongs or faults of their partners.  Usually, they will include “communication problems” as part of their issues.  Frequently, they want to see us as the “judges” who will find the other one guilty and set things right.  Unfortunately, we are powerless to “fix” them, but we can invite them to do themselves differently.  It is obvious that what they have been doing is not working too well or they would not have come to see us.

After getting a little background on each of the participants, as well as their perception of current issues, we usually have a pretty good idea of the particular kind of blame game that is going on.  I will usually cover the life cycle of a relationship and many agree that they are in the wedlock phase and not having much enjoyment.  I may label this as the “bad spouse” trance.  Just as in the dating phase, he/she can’t do anything wrong, now it is a case of he/she can’t do anything right.  Rather than being selectively insensitive to some of the little quirks (not putting the seat down, humming under one’s breath—name your own), the partners become increasingly sensitive to all kinds of idiosyncratic behaviors and focus on them so exclusively that they do not see much else.

In addition, they attribute “bad motives” or malevolence to their partners.  They may say, “He/she does it just to get under my skin.”  Clear evidence of mendacity.  I remember hearing one of my clients talk about his wife’s breathing, “Just lying in bed listening to her breathing was enough to drive me up the wall.”  Another client said about her husband, “His touch makes my skin crawl.”  I innocently asked the first person, “Was your wife breathing when you married her?”  The second, I asked, “Did your husband ever touch you before you married him?”

Those are dumb questions, but they seem to illustrate where the change took place—and it was not in the other person.  Rather, it was in the trance that the spouse was “seen” with or through.  One of the ways to get a glimpse of the initial trance is to ask each of the individuals what they found attractive about the other.  Although there is considerable variation in the length of the lists of qualities, by far the most commonly mentioned comment is some variation of, “He/she was fun to be with “or” He/she was so accepting of me.”

As Mary and I ask these questions, we usually see them look at each other differently than they did a minute or two before when they were focused on the other person’s faults.  They are likely to lighten up and even smile as they snap into their positive trance.

In addition to the fun, sense of humor, and acceptance, they will usually say something about how easy it was for them to communicate with each other.  Incidentally, the ease of recapturing the original trance state is dramatic and a pretty good indication of a positive outcome.  Obviously, they still have the words for communicating well, the sense of humor, the ability to laugh, and the potential for acceptance and enjoyment, they just haven’t been utilizing these skills and  attitudes because the emphasis has been on the seriousness of marriage.

One way to look at feelings is that we can only do one feeling at a time, just as we can only watch one TV channel at a time.  It is possible to stay on one feeling for a considerable length of time, but not forever since life is a process and we frequently change our minds.  If we do only one feeling at a time and we can lump feelings into one of two categories—feeling bad (anger, guilt, envy, depression, anxiety, etc.) and feeling good (joy, laughter, comfort, serenity, hope, whimsy, love, etc.), then it seems clear that the only reason that most people feel bad a majority of the time is that they are not busy feeling good.

The opposite is also true.  The reason some people (very few, I might add) don’t feel bad very much is because they are busy feeling good.  Everybody has circumstances surrounding them that can be used to justify or legitimize each set of feelings.  We typically play victim to our environment or circumstance because we started out that way when we were youngsters.  We want the world and the people in it, especially the one we are married to, to be the way we want them to be on our schedule.

Our position is likely to be:  as soon as he/she changes, I will be happy.  Since we are impotent to change them—no matter how hard we try—and sovereign internally, it seems like a good idea to use our sovereignty to change our selves in the direction of feeling good.  The other person may or may not change.  However, that is not as crucial as using our sovereignty to feel good right now.

The ease of that shift is very obvious when we observe what happens when we ask, “What did you find attractive about him/her”?  The person asked usually shifts into the “good spouse” trance.  Following this, when we ask more about an area of disagreement, they slip back into their “bad spouse” trance.  Can it be that easy and simple?  Certainly!  Unfortunately, most people do not believe in simplicity and ease.

I will take an example that one of my clients gave me, even though it is not directly on the topic of relationships.  He recalled that when he was about ten years old (somewhere in the 1940’s), he was visiting his friend of Italian descent and since it was raining outside, they were playing inside.  They began wrestling, knocked over an end table with a lamp on it, causing the lamp to fall and break with a loud crash.  The friend’s mother came storming out of the kitchen, yelling at them—half in English and half in Italian.

In the middle of her tirade, the phone rang.  She picked it up, instantly turned off her tirade and said, “Hello.”  Next, she smiled and said sweetly, “Yes, Father, I’ll be sure to bring the book.  Thank you for reminding me.  The meeting is at 7:00?  Yes, I’ll be there and I’ll bring the book.  Okay, thank you.” As she hung up from talking to the priest, she instantly reinstated her tirade at the same level as if she hadn’t skipped a beat.

I have shared this example with a number of my clients and they quickly acknowledge that they have seen and done similar quick shifts in trances.  As soon as we acknowledge this demonstration of sovereignty, it doesn’t make much sense to use our sovereignty to pretend that we are helpless to change our feelings or that we have “lost” control.  We go through these kinds of shifts constantly.  For example, there are times we love our children very much while other times we may be tempted to wring their necks.

The question becomes, if we can make these shifts so easily, why not use our control to feel good more of the time?  In other words, we could shift into trances that feel good.  The main reason that we don’t is that it is not traditional pattern—especially in a serious relationship like marriage.  I don’t know if people have a serious problem in their marriage or if they have a problem of seriousness in their marriage.

What is amazing is that if we viewed our selves as valuable, i.e., we had a sense of high self esteem (a valuable trance state), we would automatically put the most charitable construction on the behaviors and activities of our spouse, simply because we felt secure and because it would benefit us.  Secondarily, our spouse would also be a beneficiary, although that is incidental and accidental.  In other words, relating well with others is the by-product of managing ourselves in a gentle and loving manner.

Take an example.  Before marriage, she laughingly grabs the “roll” around the waist of her boyfriend and says, “What nice handles to hold on to.”  He smiles because she is so cute and funny.  After they have been married awhile, she does exactly the same thing—except that her laughter is more muted and he doesn’t smile at all.  Instead, he goes into a rage, saying, “You’re always on me about my weight.”  Or, she marries him because he is so smart and ten years later, she is ready to divorce him because he is a “know it all.”  He marries her because she is so vivacious and able to express her feeling so openly.  Ten years later, he is fed up with her being so emotional all the time.

Make up your own example.  I make up that we never experience the world or that other person directly, but rather experience our interpretation, representation or internal creation of the world or that other person.  When we were born, we had no sexist, ageist, or racist ideas.  We did not care if the person who held us was fat, skinny, used Dial soap, had half their teeth missing, or whatever.  When we were infants, we might crawl around on the floor and put just about anything in our mouth.  It took several times of our mother’s disgust for us to learn what was dirty and disgusting.  Societal functioning depends on us learning common interpretative frameworks.  I am all for using those frameworks that have utility in terms of feeling good.  Our feelings depend on what we make up interpretatively in our internal representation.

Let me expand on this somewhat.  I have an idea about who I am.  This concept is an abstraction of me, it is not me.  It is my representation or creation of me.  I am in here by myself and I can make up the concept of me any way I want.  Nobody can stop me.  If I am “normal” in our culture, I will make up that I am not okay, that I am inadequate or incomplete in some way.  This can be called a poor self-image or creation of me, by me.  Of course, I can also use my sovereignty to create an idea of an okay me, a unique and worthwhile being, a positive self-image, even though that would not be “normal” in the context of our Puritanical culture.

Next, I have an idea of who you, the other person, are.  Obviously, my idea of you is not you; my idea of you is in here (within me) and you are out there.  Again, I can use my sovereignty to make up my idea of you as threatening, demeaning, insulting, or uncooperative.  If I do that, I can use that as a basis for anticipating difficulties in dealing with you.  Of course, I am also free to make up my idea of you as warm, accepting, cooperative, and easy to get along with.  This, of course, will tilt the probabilities positively and I will expect to get along with you.

So here I am, free to make up (or interpret) me and my behavior as positive and you and your behavior as positive.  However, if I am “normal,” I will restrict this particular delusion to the time we call dating.  As soon as that time is over, I will gradually shift into the opposite type of interpretation so that the person I hand selected out of all the others is exactly the person I can’t stand anymore.

Isn’t that a curious state of affairs?  It is not quite as dramatic a shift as the Italian mother I described earlier, since we usually take considerably more time.

Let me further add one of the comments that I frequently make to couples that we counsel. I say to him, “If she had as much control over your feelings as you think she has, you would be the happiest man in the world.  This is true for two reasons: number one, she loves you.  Number two (and probably even more important), it would be of immense and immediate benefit to her if you were a joy to be with, just like you were when you were dating.  The fact that you are not happy is a testimony to her inability to control or change you.”

Next, I turn to the wife and make the same statements with the appropriate shift of pronouns.  Frequently, the couple will be somewhat startled by this realization.  In other words, they are using their sovereignty or freedom of choice to choose to operate from a “bad spouse” trance, without being aware of their choice.

Of course, I quickly add that this ties in with the “bad me” trance.  Since you are nobody ’til somebody loves you, you are in desperate need.  (However, it is not fashionable to admit this since it is not “cool”).  Your spouse must not be acting right since you married because you are not feeling very good—like your spouse is not “doing you” very well, and it is all up to your spouse.  We get ready to play “negative victim” after marriage by playing “positive victim” during the courtship.  Remember the dating phase, you lit up my life or you made me feel so good.

Back to my optimism about relationships.  After Mary and I meet with the couple, I usually see each of them individually two or three times in order to focus on internal communication.  I could call this “gentle self-management strategies.”  The immediate benefit of changing internally is to the self; they are not changing for the spouse since that does not seem to work too well.  As soon as they begin to play around with, and benefit from, more positive trances or interpretative frameworks, the relationship generally begins to improve dramatically.

Next, the four of us meet again and we focus on external communication skills between the two of them.  Examples include the use of “I language” (representing self in a non-demanding way) and “active listening” (checking to see if the emotional message was received the way the sender intended, an approach that is based on acceptance, not necessarily agreement).

Another concept, somewhat educational in nature that we share involves problem resolution.  Many people think that if they find the “right” partner, then they will never experience any problems in the relationship.  The extension of this is that since a couple are having problems, they must be married to the wrong person.  If married to the wrong person, a couple better get divorced so they can find the “right” person, a la Elizabeth Taylor or Mickey Rooney.

I see it somewhat differently.  I expect that in any relationship, two people with different life histories and different perspectives will have differences of opinion.  In other words, there will be problems.  The quality of a relationship is not measured by the absence of problems, but rather how easily and gently problems can be resolved without rancor and “scar tissue.”  The problem is not in the disagreement, but in the disagreeable natures that a couple traditionally reserves for their marriage.  One of the mottoes I once heard was, “Save the worst for home.”

Some people ask how they can change; they have been doing this argumentation, nagging, or withdrawing for years.  I will ask if they know when they are at the beginning of an argument or on the verge of “uproar.”  Most will say yes and indicate that they get a sinking feeling in their stomach or they can feel their blood pressure increasing, etc.  I indicate that is how they can tell they are “in it.”  What we suggest is that when they initially recognize their upset, even if they are halfway into it, that they do something different, preferably silly.  (I say do something silly because having the same argument over and over again sure isn’t silly, or is it?)

What are some possibilities?  Here are a sampling from the innumerable options at hand.  Do a somersault.  Stand on your head.  Sing the Star Spangled Banner.  Eat an apple as fast as you can.  Take off your clothes (not recommended at a restaurant).  Whistle Dixie.  Play a musical instrument.  Imitate a crow, a rooster, or a duck.  Floss your teeth.  Count out loud all the bricks in your fireplace.  Gargle some mouthwash.  Take a shower.  These are just a few suggestions.  You can be creative and silly in your own style.  If you substitute any of the above activities for your half of the argument, you may burst out laughing, an immediate benefit to you, however untraditional during an argument.  The basic idea is do something different, anything but continue arguing.

To begin with, many individuals stand around waiting for their spouse (or serious partner) to “go first.”  This is the old Mexican Standoff.  One says, “You change first and then I’ll change.” The other one responds, “No, you change first and then I’ll change.”  This exchange can go on forever.

We recommend that you do not wait for your partner, but initiate first.  Further, do not initiate in order to change the other person, simply to be gentle with yourself.  In other words, do not monitor your partner to see if you have had an effect because this will distract you from the sense of freedom you can generate within yourself.

I think it is difficult to argue when you are gargling or singing.  Of course, it is silly, but you can’t get out of seriousness by getting more serious any more than you can get out of a hole by digging it deeper.  The best way out is through silliness, which is why it is typically dismissed as not pertaining to serious situations like marriage.  It is only applicable to dating—which is the reason we got into this situation in the first place.

A variation of the Mexican Standoff that we sometimes encounter is where one member of the partnership calls and says, “We’ve got a serious problem but I can’t get him/her to come in with me.”  I respond with an invitation to come in alone and we can discuss it further.  If that person does, he/she typically makes changes that are immediately and primarily beneficial to themselves.  For example, they may use their sovereignty to be less judgmental or to feel more calm and relaxed.  Of course, this is likely to have an incidental and secondary benefit to the relationship.  I explain it this way, “If you and your spouse have been cooperating in a particular pattern, call it argument or tennis, as soon as you show up without a racket, the game will change.  I don’t know how it will change or what you will call it, but I know it won’t be tennis.”

For those on the other side of a relationship, i.e., separated and/or divorced, I also invite you to treat yourself as if you were valuable and not participate in the game of upset.  The tradition regarding separation and divorce is such that we do maximal upset for a long period of time.  I agree that you are justified in doing upset, not that you need my agreement or permission.  However, I want to point out that no matter how much or how long or how well you do upset, it will not change your “ex.”  Further, it does not feel good for you now, and in the long run, the most likely outcome is some sort of negative impact on your health.  I know that you are going to get off your upset eventually, even if you wait until the moment that you die.  Why not make it sooner, rather than later?

There is more that I could write about relating in relationships, but this is sufficient for now.  I only suggest that as you go through life, making up your very own unique and personal version, add plenty of silliness (especially humor and whimsy) along with such untraditional attitudes as relaxation, serenity, joy, acceptance of self, and acceptance of others.

Again, I want you to know that I have made up this whole booklet.  The reason I say that is that I do not want you to take me seriously.  Perhaps the French philosopher, Montaigne, said it best, “No one is exempt from speaking nonsense, the pity is to do it solemnly.” Amen.

Lighten Up!

 

Note:  This blog was originally self-published as a booklet for clients in 1987 by Marlowe O. Erickson, PhD.  Marlowe and Mary Erickson speak from a lifetime as marriage counselors. They well know how often relationships fail to end in “happy ever after.”  This booklet explores the myth of the fairy tale and how to turn disappointment into happiness.