Supposing you have gone through all the exercises in the previous chapter, but still have a problem within the relationship. It may not be enough to communicate and negotiate well: you may need to look at other aspects of the relationship, including the boundaries between you and the boundaries around you as a couple. In this chapter my plan is to look at other ways of helping couples with problems when the simpler approaches do not seem to work. I will be covering this in four stages:
• first I will look at the question of how to define whose problem it is;
• next I will suggest some more creative techniques to help with the difficulties;
• then I will be dealing with some outside factors (including other people and work pressures) which may be contributing to the problems;
• and finally I will be suggesting some ‘last ditch’ solutions which might be preferable to splitting up.
One reason why communicating and negotiating might not work is that you may have located the problem in one partner rather than in the relationship. Many couples have problems that they seem to blame on only one partner. It’s often an arbitrary choice whether to think of a problem as consisting of one partner’s ‘bad behaviour’ or whether it may be more productive to label the problem as arising from a relationship difficulty between the partners. The advantage of calling it a couple relationship problem is that it becomes possible for both partners to change their behaviour, in order to make the problem more bearable, rather than one partner having to do all the work, with the other acting as the judge of whether he/she has been successful. Sometimes, of course, one person’s behaviour seems so bizarre or irresponsible to their partner that the partner labels them as suffering from a behavioural problem, or even thinks they should have a psychiatric diagnosis. This may of course be right, and in Chapter 8 I will be describing some of the ways that true psychological and psychiatric problems affect the couple. However, wherever possible, it is better in my view, and with the experience of seeing hundreds of couples in therapy, to treat most of these ‘individual’ problems by modifying the relationship. Some of the problems which can be labelled either way are included in the next section.
The more open partner might label the more secretive one as being pathologically shy or even paranoid, while the more secretive one might say the other is flirtatious or a gossip. Neither description is very helpful, because the assumption is that the partner who applies the label is completely ‘normal’ and has no need to change, whereas the labelled partner must mend their ways. A better solution is for the couple to discuss how to achieve a compromise position on the question of openness, which may not be ideal for either of them, but which may be tolerated by both.
This is another difference that may be escalated into a label of abnormal behaviour. The pessimistic partner may feel that the optimistic one is irresponsible and far too trusting of people and systems. The optimist may feel that the pessimist is depressed or pathologically anxious, and dismiss their concerns as neurotic. Actually, they both have valid points of view, in that one is seeing life as a glass that is half empty while the other perceives it as a glass that is half full. The couple should reach a compromise, looking at those issues which divide them and either dividing the responsibilities between them or deciding on a jointly agreed course of action which does not offend either partner.
Some couples have a difference over how much they should be involved with each other’s life, decision making and activities. The more controlling partner may again feel that the more easygoing one is irresponsible and needs to be helped to make sensible decisions, while the more easygoing one may resent the intrusiveness of the controlling partner. It could be seen as the controlling partner trespassing over the other one’s personal boundary. This issue is perhaps more difficult for the couple to work out than the preceding ones, because again it is possible to make a case for labelling both the controlling behaviour and the easygoing behaviour as pathological. However, it should be possible to reach a compromise, which may have to be a different one for each specific situation that demands decisions to be made.
Arthur (45) and Mary (46) had been married for 29 years. They had a son and daughter, aged 27 and 21. Arthur had been wrongly labelled by both himself and Mary as ‘depressed’ for the previous 20 years, and Mary had spent much time and effort trying to get the best treatment for him. The couple came for therapy because they wanted to have a fresh look at the problem. Arthur asked Mary to describe his problems to me, because he said he wanted her to give an accurate account, which he was unable to give. The behaviour she described consisted mainly of tantrums when he was intoxicated, and there was only a small part of the problem which was typical of depression. It seemed that the couple had effectively labelled their power struggles and communication problems as being due to Arthur’s ‘depression’. In therapy they were able to get away from Mary’s tendency to treat him as an irresponsible child, and in the process he began taking more responsibility for his own actions and decisions. Having been unemployed, he found a good job, and felt much more relaxed about life. Mary, however, went through a period of considerable stress while getting used to Arthur’s new independence, and had to be supported while she reduced her own employment pressures by taking part-time work. In fact, Arthur turned out to be quite a good ‘nurse’ for her when she had to rest because of her ‘fatigue and malaise’. This is a good example of the inappropriate labelling of Arthur’s ‘depression’, and the way that a couple with the ‘control versus laissez-faire’ problem were able to resolve their differences.
The case of Arthur and Mary illustrates what is quite a common problem: the controlling partner enrols the medical services to treat the other one for what eventually turns out to be a relationship problem. Even when the problem is legitimately medical, as in some cases of morbid jealousy (Chapter 8) there are still things that the couple can do to alleviate the stresses on them.
The next issue to be discussed is the way that the couple deal with closeness and distance. Much has been written about intimacy, and (as I mentioned in Chapter 2) it is not very helpful to think of intimacy as a single idea, because this leads to confusion. Intimacy may be sexual, emotional, physical or operational. For some people the sexual side is the only kind of intimacy that is important to them, and this is fine as long as it suits both partners. However, when a couple is made up of two individuals with different intimacy needs, problems may arise.
If, for example, you value emotional sharing and your partner only wants you for sex, there may be a mismatch which threatens the continuation of the relationship. One possible solution is a timetable (see below) in which you agree to be intimate emotionally at certain agreed times during the week and sexually at other times. Another way to cope with this problem is for the person with the need for emotional intimacy to meet with a friend or relative with whom they can satisfy this need for emotional sharing and treat the partner as someone to be on friendly but not intimate terms with.
There is another form of closeness which is physical without being sexual. This is characterized by the way that couples who are quite intimate tend to groom each other, for instance by straightening each other’s clothing. It is a pleasant form of closeness, and shows care for each other, although it can also have an implication of possessiveness, which may not be totally welcome to one of the two. This kind of closeness often goes together with emotional closeness, but again some people may feel that the physical closeness is not enough and they need some extra sharing of feelings as well. It is often the man who is less comfortable with emotional closeness, and the woman who wants to be closer. As with the sexual–emotional problem, an agreement to be emotionally close at planned, but limited, times in the day may begin to help the problem (see timetables below).
In general, each person has his/her preference as to how close or distant they should be in a relationship. This type of closeness, which we can call operational closeness, is mainly concerned with how much time the couple spend together, and whether they live together or apart. It is also relevant to the question of how much they share plans and how much they know about each other’s daily activities. Much of the implicit negotiation that goes on when a relationship is forming is to do with the question of operational closeness. One partner may feel very strongly that they want to be part of a couple, while the other wants to have a bit more freedom of movement.
Within an established relationship the question may centre around the time the couple spend together and the time they are apart. If each has their own interests, this may be a good reason why they should spend time in separate activities, and this may be quite comfortable for both. However, one partner may be keener than the other to be together, and here problems may arise which can only be solved by negotiation and compromise. The methods outlined in Chapter 5 suggest how to negotiate these issues in a peaceful and constructive way.
There are many examples of this within a relationship. We are referring to those activities that one partner really needs to do and the other finds boring or off-putting. Here are some examples from my experience as a couple therapist:
• Wanting to talk (even to argue) late into the night
• Watching sports programmes on television
• Watching the news on television
• Watching soap operas on television
• Vacuum cleaning late at night (could interfere with sex!)
• Wanting to interrogate the partner (jealousy)
• Wanting more sex than the partner does
• Wanting to go shopping together
• Sitting at the computer
• Visits to relatives
• Attendance at sports clubs
The list could be extended, but I hope that you have understood that these disputes are very common and can often be troublesome. How could you resolve them?
Suppose that you have a dispute about what to watch together on TV (for example sports or soap operas). If Partner A wants to do a lot of this and Partner B wants to watch other things, or simply to talk more, you could work out a timetable in which the ‘activity’ is rationed to certain hours each day. It would be best to set up a different activity when Partner A is not watching his/her programmes, so as not to create unnecessary conflict: for example, sitting and talking about family matters, or listening to music of your choice. Similarly, timetables could be set up for when one partner might be sitting at the computer (a common problem in these days of easy Internet access) or for doing housework such as vacuum cleaning at unpopular times (e.g. late at night). In all cases it would be helpful for Partner B (who is bored or put off by the activity) to offer to do something instead which is attractive to Partner A, and which may be seen as a reward for giving up the activity.
Wherever there is something in their relationship that a couple, or even one partner, feels to be out of control, there is a chance that a timetable will help to solve the problem. It is not necessarily the whole answer, and it may not have to be used for long before things settle down and it can be discontinued. What the timetable essentially does is to treat both partners’ needs as legitimate, and simply say that there should be a fair division of the time that they spend together or separately, into time that is rewarding for Partner A and time that is rewarding for Partner B.
Timetables may therefore be seen as a fair way of rearranging a couple’s time together, and making it rewarding for the partner who is giving something up by providing an alternative way of spending the time. They may be used in more serious conflict situations, such as a partner who is excessively jealous (see Chapter 8), a partner who desires sex more frequently than the other partner (see Chapter 7) or a couple who are having intractable arguments and fights (see Chapter 9).
Exercise: Setting up a Timetable
• You need to establish what the activities are that need to be timetabled
• Get together, if necessary using a time-limited discussion (see Chapter 5) with no distractions such as TV, music or radio, and the telephone on ‘answer’
• The partner who is feeling uncomfortable about the activity should say what the problem is and what they would like to be done
• The other partner should then make an offer for a timetable
• You should then agree on how long the activity should go on for, and how often
• Then you need to plan when it should happen, how long for and how often (for example a visit to Partner A’s relatives on a weekend once a month for four hours)
• For some activities there should be more specification (for example Partner A to sit at the computer for a maximum of three hours on Monday, Wednesday and Friday)
• You might like to think of a mutual timetable, for example watching sports on TV for two hours twice a week and soap operas for half an hour daily
I am not referring here to the understanding of everyday language, but to emotional understanding or empathy (see Chapter 5). You may feel that you have a fairly good way of communicating, but that there is something missing in your emotional rapport and that this is getting in the way of being open with each other.
Before getting into the ways in which you can achieve more openness, a word of caution. In even the closest relationships there are some things that you might be wise to keep to yourself. A man who walks along the road with his wife and says ‘Look at that attractive girl over there’, is playing with fire if his wife is worried about her own attractiveness. He should not really raise that kind of ‘open’ discussion if he values his marriage. Similarly, a woman who praises a friend’s ability to understand her may be taking a risk if her partner feels that by implication she is saying that he doesn’t understand her.
If you have real difficulty getting into your partner’s mind, it may be worth trying a technique called ‘reverse role-play’.
Exercise: Reversed Role-play
• Sit down together with no distractions (TV, music, telephone or radio) and the timer set for ten minutes
• If you are used to sitting in your favourite place or chair, change places
• Start to have a discussion, perhaps about some fairly ordinary subject that you disagree on (but not something serious like religion or education) but taking your partner’s point of view
• Perhaps you might change your voice tone and use the kinds of reasoning that your partner usually uses
• Try to enter into your partner’s way of thinking about the subject
• This means, of course, arguing the opposite case from the one you would normally support
• At the end, perhaps for the next ten minutes, you should change back to your usual chair, your own voice and your own point of view
• Try to talk together about the discussion you had, and discuss how it felt to be taking your partner’s side, and exploring their way of thinking
This exercise is an interesting one that we have tried many times in the couple therapy clinic, and it usually helps the partners to gain a greater degree of empathy with each other.
This is in some ways an easier exercise, in that you just have to argue from your own point of view. However, it is also a bit more risky, in that the argument could get out of hand, and if you are in the habit of having fierce or bitter arguments already, this exercise may not be for you (see Chapter 9). Alternatively, if you are prone to fierce arguments, but really want to change things, you could try the exercise, but agree that if it gets too heated you could ‘call time’ and go to separate rooms to cool down.
Every couple from time to time gets into arguments, and for most it is a necessary way to express their differences and hopefully resolve them. Thus arguments are not a disaster to be avoided, but a healthy way of interacting which can make the relationship interesting and lively. Problems arise because sometimes you say things which cannot be taken back, and this may sour the relationship to the extent that you might even think of separation. Even when arguments don’t reach this level of destructiveness, there is always the risk that things may get out of hand, and for this reason many couples try to avoid them altogether.
In our therapeutic work we have found that in many couples, especially those who have a very bland and polite relationship, a healthy argument can clear the air, and we actually encourage couples to have arguments in the session in the presence of the therapist. They are asked to choose trivial topics to argue about. This is for a good reason: if a serious topic is chosen, there is a risk that the argument will raise issues which threaten the stability of the relationship, and expose, for example, differences on religion or education which might be insoluble.
If you decide to try this approach, you should find something that you disagree about, but which is not too serious, and which you can allow to rumble on without real harm coming to the relationship. An example might be the toothpaste tube. Almost all couples have their differences about this, one partner favouring squeezing it from the bottom, and the other either not minding or preferring to squeeze it from the middle. Another one might be what to do about dirty clothes. One partner might prefer them to be put in a laundry basket or a special place in the bathroom, while the other may feel that the bedroom floor is the best place until something can be done about washing them. The two topics that I have suggested are both essentially trivial (although I recognize that for some people these areas are more important than they might be for others) and they are usually capable of bearing two different points of view.
As I have previously suggested (see Chapter 5), if you are planning an exercise, whether it is an exercise in communication, negotiation or arguing, it is safest to allow only a limited time for it, such as ten minutes at first, and to make sure that you have a way of separating from each other at the end. The best way to ensure this is to set a timer at the beginning and to stop the exercise and move into separate rooms at the end. You should ideally not raise the topic again until the next planned exercise in arguing.
The argument should be good-natured and humorous if possible, and the topic should be small enough for it not to matter if you can’t agree at the end. In fact, it is probably better for you not to reach an agreement, but to shelve the issue or ‘agree to differ’ as you finish the session. It could then be possible to have the same argument on a future occasion, with the same opinions being expressed by you both and the same lack of a conclusion at the end. The important thing about these exercises is the process of arguing and expressing your opinions openly and forcefully; the conclusion you reach in unimportant. It can be liberating, especially for couples who are rather inhibited emotionally and who tend to opt for the easy way out in disputes, that is, to give in before the argument has really developed.
This approach is not really necessary for all couples. It is best used by those couples who have had difficulty in expressing emotions or who ‘never have an angry word’. If you are a couple who regularly argue anyway, there is not a great deal of point in deliberately having another argument, but it may help you to learn the ability to walk away from arguments without necessarily resolving them there and then. Most couples have areas which they cannot agree on, and there is no shame in that. The problem is that sometimes the fact that you never discuss your unresolved differences can sour an otherwise good relationship.
Exercise: Trivial Arguments
• Sit down together with no distractions (TV, music, telephone or radio) and set the timer for ten minutes
• Choose a trivial topic that you have differing views on (toothpaste tubes or dirty clothes are good examples)
• Argue the case in a light-hearted manner
• Don’t let it get too serious
• Keep to the topic, don’t get into other controversial areas
• Don’t start name-calling or insulting each other
• When the timer goes, stop and go to separate rooms
• It’s OK to talk about it afterwards, but stick mainly to discussing how it felt to be arguing, and don’t resurrect the argument until the next planned session
(For a case example of an argument see Chapter 7, page 169.)
It may be that you are living a life which is very restricted, and especially in a new relationship there may be too much reliance on each other, and not enough socializing with others, either friends or family. This is an example of boundaries around the couple that are too tight and impermeable. It may be fine if both of you are comfortable with it, but it is likely to prove problematic if one of you is content with this situation and the other is restless and wants more of a social life. As with other differences between partners, it would be sensible to discuss the problem and arrange some sort of compromise. It might be that you can set different nights of the week for social outings and for staying at home.
Much of what I have already discussed, especially in this chapter and in Chapter 5, is based on the principle that it is always necessary to strike a balance between the needs and preferences of both partners.
This includes a balance between male and female in a heterosexual relationship (see Chapter 3 for more detail). For example, the man may be keen to solve problems at a stroke, without going on to discuss the issues again; the woman, on the other hand, may feel that the exercise of discussing these issues is healthy for the relationship, and that not doing it would be irresponsible.
It also includes a balance between the sexual and the general relationship, and between closeness and distance (sexual, emotional, physical and operational – see above). The couple that feel comfortable with the degree of closeness that they have in all these four areas will have a much better chance of a long and successful relationship than the couple who are in constant conflict over it.
There is in most couples one partner who values excitement (see Chapter 1), while the other prefers calm and peace, and again a balance needs to be found between these needs. Indeed, the issue of arguing dealt with earlier in this chapter may separate those partners who prefer excitement (and who would welcome the arguments) and those who prefer tranquillity (and feel uncomfortable with them). In other ways these types of individuals may clash over issues within the relationship. The more adventurous ones may be keen to try new experiences, while the more cautious will probably prefer the daily routine to be undisturbed.
There is also a balance to be achieved between openness towards others and keeping confidences within the couple (the issue of how open or impermeable the boundaries are around the couple itself). Many people who are in a relationship feel that the relationship is a kind of extension of their circle of friends or their families. Others, however, will see the relationship as something that ought to provide enough satisfaction for them not to need too much outside contact.
In all these areas there is a process to be gone through in setting up a new relationship, but it also needs to be continually revised as time goes on, the couple encounter new challenges, and new balances have to be achieved. This is one reason why it remains important for couples to continue to reappraise their relationship as the years go by, and to ensure that new factors such as the arrival of children, the death of older relatives and changes in job or living arrangements do not unbalance the equilibrium that existed before the changes took place. For discussion of the family life-cycle see Chapter 1.
In this section I will be describing the way in which the couple can be affected by outside factors, which might consist of work pressures, children, relatives or friends. In many cases these situations could be described as taking the form of triangles, in which the couple, whose relationship is conceptualized as a straight line, are reacting as a team in relation to a third person or thing (the point of the triangle). The ‘point’ of the triangle also has the power to draw one partner away from the relationship into a new alliance with the outside individual or activity.
Triangles of course are almost universal in human experience. Mostly they cause no difficulty, and if they involve a couple they may be a positive thing and be a source of pleasure. For example, a mutual friend may be a great support to both partners and never cause rifts or tensions between them. In this part of the chapter, however, I will be mainly dealing with the problems caused by certain triangular situations.
The outside factors, whether people or things, could also be thought of as raising the issue of the boundaries around the couple, in which they have to decide how much they are working as a team and how much they are two separate individuals. Because of the profound effect that these ‘triangular’ situations can have on the couple, you need to be as clear as you can about where your boundaries are and how tight they are.
Some of the most common triangular situations involve your children. Children can show their distress in many ways, from overactive behaviour in a young child to teenage rebellion or anorexia in an older one, or severe arguments and fights between siblings. The child’s behaviour may evoke different responses from the two parents. It may also be that the child’s behaviour problem is partly caused by the tensions between the parents. The behaviour of the child may be seen as a cry for help, not only for the child but also for the whole family. The child whose parents are at loggerheads is going to feel insecure, and will often behave badly as an expression of that insecurity. The behaviour can have two positive results for the child: firstly it may bring the parents closer together, and secondly it may bring the child a greater sense of power within the family. These results are, however, bought at a price, in that the child will feel more insecure than before, and sometimes this insecurity (which is connected with a fear that his/her parents are too weak to be in control) will lead to an escalation of the behaviour. A vicious circle then builds up, with more parental anxiety leading to more of the behaviour, leading to recriminations between the parents, and this in turn leading to a greater sense of insecurity on the part of the child.
There is a set of techniques based on behavioural principles which has been very successful in helping parents to cope with badly behaved children (see the section on behavioural principles in Chapter 2). The two main principles are to reward desired behaviour and to ignore undesired behaviour. Punishment, on the other hand, can disrupt behaviour in the short term, but has unpredictable results in the longer run, and is usually ineffective. In order for the behavioural rewards to work, you must work as a team, and in some ways this teamwork may be as important as the techniques themselves. A case, which is based on several actual families, may make this clearer.
Case example
David, aged 6, is a lively and intelligent boy, who is quite jealous of the attention his mother (Jennie, 25) gives to his younger brother Mark (3). His father, John (26), is out much of the time, and Jennie is the main carer for the boys. On shopping trips, David continually embarrasses Jennie by having tantrums, especially when she does not give him the sweets or toys he wants. In therapy Jennie would be encouraged to give David a lot of attention when he is being ‘good’, with a constant programme of keeping him interested and amused, for example by making a game out of his helping her with the shopping. If, however, he has a tantrum, she would be encouraged to ignore him, however embarrassing it is, perhaps explaining to curious bystanders that this is an important part of his learning experience. This way, he realizes that there is no reward for tantrums, and will soon begin to cooperate with Jennie. It would be even more effective if John can go on some of the shopping trips and if both parents share in the management of the two boys. John should also back Jennie up in keeping David interested in the shopping or other activity while ignoring the tantrums. The prediction is that David will also feel more secure in the new family atmosphere, in which he is a valued collaborator rather then an uncontrolled rebel.
Many people do not realize that their children need quite a lot of attention when they are with their parents, and will work to get it, for example by misbehaving, by teasing their siblings or by being destructive. Parents who only give their children attention when they are naughty, even if that attention is in the form of telling them off or punishing them, are actually encouraging naughty behaviour. What the parents see as a way of controlling their children’s behaviour is actually encouraging it. The alternative way outlined above is a better way. It is labour-intensive at first, especially in the planning of activities which interest the problem child, while at the same time not neglecting the younger brother. However, in the end it saves time and effort, and can help to avoid the progressive alienation of the problem child.
Sometimes a child will seem to monopolize one parent, sharing secrets with that parent and making them promise not to tell the other one what is being discussed. This is a classic example of the parent being ‘triangulated’ by the child, away from their partner. Alternatively the child may develop symptoms for which no cause can be found, and for which they get much sympathy from one of the parents. These are good examples of a triangle. Triangles, as mentioned above, exist in all families, and sometimes they are problematic, while usually they are completely harmless. In this case it is important for the parents to be a parental team, and to act together in the care of the children. So, when a child makes a request of one parent to keep something secret from the other, it would be better not to promise to keep the secret, but to say that the parents don’t have secrets from each other. If the relationship between one parent and a child becomes too close, this could unbalance the whole family and lead to a permanent alliance of parent and child against the other parent. I will return to this topic in Chapter 11, in connection with blended families, where the child-parent relationships, especially in a recently formed family, are much more problematic.
Both partners in a relationship are usually in touch with their own parents, and although this is usually a great support for them, it can sometimes cause difficulties. The problem may arise where, say the parents of Partner A do not approve of their son/daughter’s partner, and conflict arises. The dilemma that Partner A has is to keep both relationships going without losing either his/her parents or his/her partner. It may take quite a lot of skill to balance this situation, for example not challenging either the partner or the parents too heavily when they express their opinion of the other, and managing to keep the peace at times when the two antagonistic parties meet. Christmas and birthdays may be a particularly tense time for partners in this position. One trap to avoid is talking negatively about one party to the other, because a kind of amplification process may build up, in which the person being talked to begins to sense that they can win the battle and detach the partner from the other party. If you are forced to make a decision between partner and parents, this can be difficult, and your decision will have to depend on how much is at stake (e.g. the welfare of your children) and on how much you value your partner and your parents.
Another problem with families of origin is when Partner A’s parents want to be a controlling influence in the relationship, especially where the rearing of children is involved. Their advice may be very good, but when Partner B (often the male in this situation) is bypassed in making important decisions about the children, for example about education or religion, he may feel neglected and resent it. This situation may arise especially when children are very young, and their mother is insecure about parenting. The father may feel really out of touch, and either becomes a non-participant parent or fights for his parental influence, with negative consequences for the relationship. The answer, as is often the case, is for both partners to act as a team, to consult each other as much as possible and to discuss Partner A’s mother’s advice together before deciding whether to follow it.
Case example
Liam (45) is married to Siobhan (42) and they have two boys, aged 10 and 8. Liam’s mother, who has not worked outside the home, used to be very close to Siobhan, meeting her regularly to take the children out, and giving the children presents. There was a serious argument, however, between her and Siobhan, and Siobhan has now refused to see Liam’s mother without Liam being present. The mother is very upset by this, and puts pressure on Liam to arrange meetings with Siobhan and the children.
In therapy the couple agreed that it would be sensible for Liam to see his mother alone on a regular basis, and to arrange frequent family meetings including her, himself, his wife and children. The mother was not completely satisfied by this arrangement, but accepted it, and at the eldest son’s first communion there was a pleasant family gathering with all attending. The important thing in this case is that the couple worked out their strategy (as the ‘decider subsystem’, – see Chapter 2) and then put it into practice with Liam’s mother and the children.
Often a couple find that they have very different interests, and that they don’t really enjoy each other’s activities. A young man may be very interested in sport, and have a commitment to a tennis club which is long-standing, and which involves quite a lot of socializing after matches. His new partner may find this very boring, and wishes that he would join her on shopping trips instead, an activity which he finds uninteresting. The two competing interests each form a kind of triangle for the relationship, and the problem may become so acute that it jeopardizes the relationship. The answer is to discuss the competing interests as a couple, trying to find a compromise which suits both partners. This could take the form of a timetable, in which both partners agree to give up some of their leisure activities for the sake of the relationship. If this cannot be done, and if both the activities annoy the opposite partner too much, they should perhaps think about the future of the relationship before they enter into too deep a commitment together.
Similar problems can arise with friends of both partners. If Partner A cannot get along with Partner B’s friends, a decision may have to be made, as with the problem with parents mentioned above, as to which relationship Partner B is most committed to, and he/she will have to make arrangements to reduce the conflict, perhaps by meeting the friends without the partner or by dropping the friends for the partner’s sake.
Some jobs are very demanding, and one partner may be in such a job, with the need to work long hours or to spend time on long business trips, with no possibility of changing this without loss of earnings or damage to their career. However, the other partner may resent the time that their partner spends at work, and once again a triangle has formed which causes tension in the relationship. The person with the absorbing job may find it hard to understand why the other partner can’t accept the importance of his/her career, while the other partner finds it hard to see why the demands of the job are given such high priority. Again the solution will depend on how important each partner rates the relationship and the job. There isn’t always an easy solution, but talking and trying to understand each other is the best that can be done.
There may be couples who aren’t able to make use of the various ideas presented here, although they should be varied enough to have something for most people, if you can choose the right one to suit you. What then if the techniques are all ultimately ineffective? Something I have found useful for couples who want to stay together, but are unable to change in order to improve the relationship, is the idea of being ‘good housemates’ and (if there are children) co-parents, without trying to have a close marital relationship. There are some advantages to this arrangement over the otherwise inevitable separation or divorce. The advantage for the children is that they do not have to move or have alternating parental care, and they can retain their friends and outside interests. It is just about sustainable, and while there is life left in the relationship there is, in my opinion, still hope for it. The couples who have adopted this policy have usually had children of school age, and the unspoken agreement is usually that they will eventually divorce, perhaps when the children have left school. However, the difficulties of divorce (see Chapter 10) make it in some ways better to remain good housemates rather than going down the road to divorce in the current situation. It does not rule out the possibility of one or other of the partners developing outside relationships, and of course this will complicate the domestic arrangements if it becomes known. Even in this eventuality, it may be sensible to remain together for the benefit of the children, until the partners are both ready for their divorce.
Sometimes in the face of insoluble relationship problems, it may be possible to adopt creative solutions which come from the couple’s own ideas about the relationship. You may, for example, think of a completely crazy idea such as buying the house next door and living separately in both houses. You may divide up the family by sending the children to one or other grandparents, and you as a couple become weekend visitors. You may divide up the childcare differently, perhaps by the man becoming a house husband and the woman going out to work.
In some cases in our clinic, faced with the couple’s inability to make any changes in their relationship, we have used the so-called paradox. In this we tell them that there is no real problem with the way that they are treating each other, however bad it seems to them, and however much they say they want to change it, because it has positive spin-offs for their relationship (such as creating excitement or providing stability). By thinking this way the couple either feel a sense of relief that there is nothing that they can do about the problem, and relax and get on with their lives; or alternatively they will tell the therapist they are wrong, and proceed to make the changes that then lead to improvement. This is, however, very much a last resort in terms of therapy, and we are careful not to use it indiscriminately. I mention it here so that, if you really find that there is nothing you can do to change things, you might consider the advantages of the status quo and see if that brings any relief.
There are now a large number of therapists and counsellors who are experienced in couple therapy, and if there is no improvement as a result of your own efforts, especially if this is due to your being unable to cooperate together well enough to make progress with the techniques, you may wish to consider referring yourselves, or getting a referral (perhaps from your doctor) to a therapist or counsellor. The waiting list for relationship-counselling organizations is sometimes rather long, but there are private therapists/counsellors available, of whom I have given some details in the appendix.
• It is often better to consider labelling a problem as being a relationship problem rather than one person’s ‘illness’ because that way there is more possibility of solving it.
• When people differ in personality they may see the partner as being ‘ill’ when there isn’t really anything wrong, just a clash of personalities.
• Couples can have problems with closeness and distance, and this may lead to conflict.
• If one partner needs to do something on a regular basis that the other partner dislikes, you may think of arranging a ‘timetable’ in which you agree to do it on a regular but controlled basis: this legitimizes the activity without making it unbearable for the other partner.
• If you can’t see your partner’s point of view, you could try ‘reversed role-play’ in which you have a discussion taking each other’s role (putting forward your partner’s point of view).
• If you never argue, you might try exploring the process of arguing by having a trivial argument in which you keep it light and humorous, but end by ‘agreeing to differ’.
• Couples can be stressed by third parties, whether children, parents, friends, work or leisure activities.
• Suggestions are made for how to deal with each of these stresses as a couple.
• If all else fails, you could decide to live as ‘housemates’ for the sake of avoiding the trauma that divorce would cause for the children.