Engagement Rings Advice : Wedding, Marriage, Anniversary

While “family” isn’t the topic of this series and “marriage” is; yet it would be an injustice to any description of the marital system to assume that the child plays no role in the making or breaking of the marriage.’ To have children is one of the explicit reasons for marrying; indeed, in some religious groups, sexual intercourse between spouses is supposed to occur only for the purpose of procreation. It is easily observed that some spouses are totally child-oriented: they live for their children. In return, the children keep the marriage alive by providing the parents a raison d’ etre for the marriage, and help fill the emotional and physical distance between the spouses, so that the expression of tension and friction between them is kept at a minimum. When the children leave home, these marriages typically are in serious difficulties-unless the parents are fortunate enough to have developed outside interests sufficient to maintain the protective distance between them.

Certain basic questions, propositions, and observations concerning the effects of children on marriage merit special discussion. Let us consider, first, whether childless marriages are less successful than marriages which beget offspring. This is a real yes-and-no proposition despite the public’s general belief that marriages which result in children are more successful. For example, spouses who marry relatively late in life tend not to have children and yet appear to have a higher average of functional marriages than couples marrying earlier. But it is the fact that they do not marry until later than their peers that has most to do with how the marriages turn out; the fact that they do not have children is accessory. Several studies also indicate that professional women who marry later than their peers and choose not to have children have a better marital record than their undergraduate college classmates. Successful professional women who marry later than their collegiate peers tend to hold satisfying, well-paying jobs, so they do not rush into marriage for financial reasons and feel they must have children, in part, to hold their husbands. In the lower classes, a father may desert his family when he staggers under the realization of how many mouths there are to feed. Here the presence of children is clearly a liability.

Thus, one cannot generalize with certitude about the proposition that children help or hinder a marriage. Instead, the question becomes meaningful only when specific types of marital interaction within varying ethnic and socio-economic groups are studied. It is obvious, for example, that conventional, middle-class Midwesterners in agricultural areas are quite likely to marry, to stay married once they have said “I do,” and to have children-because their values teach them to do so. Again, one cannot say that they have more successful marriages than other groups because they usually have children; having children is just part of their larger cultural context and value system.

Another observation often made is that it is desirable for married couples to wait a year or two before starting a family. This statement, for a number of reasons, deserves a nearly unequivocal yes. Now that we have “the pill,” family planning should be as frankly discussed as the budget, and it should be as forthrightly carried out as the inevitable purchase of a television set.

Young people who marry because the girl is pregnant are very often doomed to find themselves parties to a divorce or an annulment. Marriages in which the wife becomes pregnant on the honeymoon seem to be much less risky than those beginning with a shotgun wedding. However, though there is no convincing set of statistics to indicate that these couples divorce more frequently than couples who postpone pregnancy, marriage experts agree that early pregnancy destroys (or at least maims) the important “getting-to-know-you” period of the first year or so of marriage.

Often serious problems result from the purely fiscal or physical aspects of early pregnancy. For example, the husband may have to quit school and get a job because there is an unexpected mouth to feed. Correspondingly, if pregnancy forces the wife to leave a job from which she derives a great deal of satisfaction, she may have a good many negative feelings about her new role as a mother. Pregnancy may throw the couple’s beginning sexual adjustment out of whack because the girl is resentful of what he “did” to her, and the young husband may feel trapped because of what she “allowed to happen.”

But what about couples that have been married for a number of years? Can a correlation be found between their chances for marital success and the number of offspring?

In Puerto Rico, India, and other countries where devices preventing pregnancy have been in use for five or more years, statistics are becoming available. These indicate that most couples do not wish large families, and that there are a higher percentage of happy, productive marriages among couples who have no children. Recent research suggests that the same situation exists in the United States, and that the parents of five or more children who so proudly point to their huge brood may be putting on an act.

In countries where the new contraceptives (pills and intrauterine contraceptive devices) are utilized, evidence is accumulating that not even those who traditionally have large families such as Catholics, Negroes, and the poor-necessarily want a great many children. In the United States the difference in family size between poor .people and the well-to-do used to be sizable. Now it is diminishing rapidly.

Our picture of the large, happy family (the poor and shoeless) was based on myth. Instead, it appears that desertion rate among fathers diminishes when family size is controlled-when the very size of the family doesn’t panic the father into leaving.

These facts do not mean that the presence of children reduces the chance for success of any particular marriage. However, it is clear that the begetting of children is not a magic which will improve an already shaky marriage; instead, it will help to destroy it even further.

One aspect of the myth that children will automatically improve a marriage stems from the parent’s unconscious (sometimes even conscious) belief that he can experience through his child the things he was denied or failed at as a child. Or, perhaps, from the belief that he can develop in the youngster those desirable qualities lacking in the other spouse. For example, a man who is secretly ashamed of his wife’s dowdiness may work extra hard to earn money to buy attractive outfits for his infant daughter. His wife may share his enthusiasm for their “cute little girl” and take pride in the neighbor’s comments about the daughter’s outfits, but she also understands (often unconsciously) her husband’s opinion that she is dowdy-even though he may not tell her so directly.

Childless couples can sometimes reconcile their marital differences and disappointments by ignoring the discords, pretending they do not exist. They can seek compensating gratifications elsewhere, perhaps in their work-it is simple for both of them to have jobs. However, when there is a child, this shift of emphasis is impossible, and the child becomes living evidence of the dissatisfaction in the marital relationship.

Children by their presence may aggravate an already unhappy marriage by virtue of the role which they play in the relationship between spouses that may be labeled the battle of the sexes. The power struggle between the sexes often focuses upon the question of who-husband or wife-does the more important work. Should the husband have certain prerogatives because he earns the money? Should the wife, who stays at home doing routine work and does not meet new people daily as her husband does, have some compensating rewards? Should she be taken out often, or have several nights off to attend motion pictures, or to play bridge with the girls? By finding some chore which the father may logically be expected to do for the child, the wife may be indicating to the husband that he is neglecting an important part of his function and that even if he earns the money and is important in his office, he is no better than she is. Conversely, the man who wishes to put his wife one down can always find some instance of child neglect, particularly if the child becomes noisy or ill.

It is obvious that sacrificing or compromising one’s personal desires in order to meet the needs and wishes of another can create a sense of deprivation and become abrasive in any relationship. Children require a great deal of care and attention which often conflicts with their parents’ own needs and desires. Yet in our culture fathers and mothers cannot often admit their sense of personal deprivation. Therefore, since they cannot feel guilty about having children, they end up blaming each other.

If when a child is conceived the parents hope the infant will mend a fractured marriage, the disappointment may be excruciatingly painful. The child’s presence in a discordant union, therefore, may instigate new troubles and the marital relationship may deteriorate even more.

For example, a young woman feels that her amorously adventurous husband will be “steadied” by becoming a father. Within a year she gives birth to a baby girl. The husband is pleased and proud of the little girl. He pours the majority of his affection on her, thus rejecting the wife in a blatant manner. The mother begins disliking the child almost to the point of hate.

At first the wife thinks it cute when the little girl (at eighteen months of age) refuses to obey her and waits for Daddy to come home and arbitrate matters between her and her mother. It is not so funny when the little girl becomes an accomplished enough actress to stage tearful scenes. If her mother appears adamant, the daughter, now four years old, dramatically tells other adults how bad Mommy is and declares that she and Daddy are going to live somewhere else. The father is usually flattered by this behavior and rarely interferes. Occasionally he becomes embarrassed and even frightened by the situation, and in a rage, punishes the child. The mother then attempts to protect her daughter and again the parents are caught up in mutually destructive behavior.

In another situation, common in white upper-middle-class marriages, the wife uses the children to undermine the husband’s authority and power. She manages this by unwittingly encouraging or assisting the children to break the rules established by the father when he is trying hard to be “in charge.”

For example, as the father backs out of the garage on his way to work, he notices the children’s toys in the driveway. He gets out, throws bicycles, skates, toys, and baseball bats out of the way, then dashes to the kitchen and shouts, “Coddamn it, Martha, you tell the kids to put their stuff in the playshed and the next time anyone leaves anything out he’ll spend the day in his room.”

That night he is late for dinner. When he drives into the garage, he hears the crunch of wheels rolling over a skate board and a bicycle. He storms into the house. His family has begun eating. Martha is looking fresh, clean, and relaxed.

He screams, “Martha, who in the goddamn hell left the toys in the garage? This morning …”

Martha replies, “Oh dear, that’s probably my fault. I chased the twins in to get their baths and didn’t think about the bicycle and toys. Dear, is that such a terrible crime?” The husband turns on his heel and leaves, loudly slamming the back door. Another devastating battle has begun with the usual first act, “The Defeat of Dad.”

All these examples illustrate Haws in the basic myth that when two people are about to be married and there are potential problems (caused, for example, by little money, different racial backgrounds, or different cultural levels), these major problems will be solved by the couple’s sheer joy in having a child. True, they may find pleasure in the youngster, but the presence of the child probably will not eliminate existing difficulties. The adults must find solutions on their own. And unfortunately, the child may well aggravate the problems.

The truth of this observation becomes apparent when one considers that the family is a system and that every person in a system is equally important in maintaining it. Just when Martha has forgiven John for one of his occasional temperamental outbursts, John junior puts on an act which Martha associates with his father, and she is angry at her husband all over again. When John senior comes home that night seeking solace, his wife attacks him for being temperamental; he feels, “But I haven’t done anything,” and has a temper tantrum. John junior, watching this outburst, has his own temperamental behavior reinforced. The three individuals are caught up in a system which will repeat itself, and Martha’s blaming John’s heredity for his being temperamental-or John’s blaming Martha’s physiology for producing “bad times” each month-will only obscure the nature of the system in which they are caught.

Even though people are reluctant to admit it, most husbands and wives are disappointed in their marriages. There is overwhelming evidence to confirm this.

At least one person out of every two who gets married will be divorced within about ten years. Many of these will indulge in legal polygamy-that is, they will marry and divorce several times. All told, the divorce rate in the United States is 51 per cent.

Marriage is so turbulent an institution that articles on how to patch up disintegrating marriages can be found in almost every issue of our family magazines and daily newspapers, with titles such as “How to Keep Your Husband Happy,” “How to Make Your Wife Feel Loved.” Surveys show that this sort of article frequently attracts more readers than anything else in the publication. It appears because of public demand, a demand which must originate from millions of unhappy, confused, and dissatisfied couples. Evidently the dreamed-of marriage often does not materialize. There are unexpected shortcomings, bickering, and misunderstandings. Most spouses to varying degrees are frustrated, confused, belligerent, and disappointed.

Almost every expression of our culture, including advertisements, has something to say about how to improve female-male relationships. Motion pictures, plays, television, radio, feature the friction between wife and husband more than any other subject.

The offices of marriage counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists are crowded with clients who are concerned over problems which mainly involve marriage, and who pay from twenty-five dollars to fifty dollars an hour for assistance. But these troubled people usually cannot identify their problems; even worse, they usually do not sincerely seek solutions. What each one wants is confirmation that he is correct and good, and that his spouse is the one at fault!

One reason for this marital disenchantment is the prevalence of the mistaken belief that “love” is necessary for a satisfying and workable marriage. Usually when the word “love” is used, reference is actually being made to romance-that hypnotic, ecstatic condition enjoyed during courtship. Romance and love are different. Romance is based usually on minimum knowledge of the other person (restricted frequently to the fact that being around him is a wonderful, beatific, stimulating experience). Romance is built on a foundation of quicksilver non-logic. It consists of attributing to the other person-blindly, hopefully, but without much basis in fact-the qualities one wishes him to have, though they may not even be desirable, in actuality. Most people who select mates on the basis of imputed qualities later find themselves disappointed, if the qualities are not present in fact, or discover that they are unable to tolerate the implication of the longed-for qualities in actual life. For example, the man who is attracted by his fiancée’s cuteness and sexiness may spend tormented hours after they are married worrying about the effect of these very characteristics on other men. It is a dream relationship, an unrealistic relationship with a dream person imagined in terms of one’s own needs.

Romance is essentially selfish, though it is expressed in terms of glittering sentiment and generous promises, which usually cannot be fulfilled. (”I’ll be the happiest man in the world for the rest of my life.” “I’ll make you the best wife any man ever had.”)

Romance-which most spouse’s mistake for love-is not necessary for a good marriage. The sparkle some couples manage to preserve in a satisfying marriage-based on genuine pleasure in one another’s company, affection and sexual attraction for the spouse as he really is-can be called love.

If romance is different than love, then what is love? We do best to return to the definition of Harry Stack Sullivan: “When the satisfaction or the security of another person becomes as significant to one as is one’s own satisfaction or security, and then the state of love exists.” In this sense, love consists of a devotion and respect for the spouse that is equal to one’s own self-love.

We have already shown that people usually marry on a wave of romance having nothing to do with love. When the average American (not long from the altar) lives with the spouse in the intimacy of morning bad breath from too much smoking, of annoying habits previously not known, when he is hampered by the limitations of a small income (compared with the lavishness of the honeymoon), or encounters the unexpected irritability of premenstrual tension or of business frustration and fatigue, a change in attitude begins to occur. The previously romantic person begins to have doubts about the wonderful attributes with which his spouse has been so blindly credited.

These doubts are particularly disturbing at the start. Not very long ago, after all, the spouse believed that “love” (romance) was heavenly, all-consuming, immutable, and that beautiful relationships and behavior were voluntary and spontaneous. Now, if doubts and criticism are permitted to intrude upon this perfect dream, the foundations begin to shake in a giddy manner. To the husband or wife the doubts seem to be evidence that one of them is inadequate or not to be trusted. The doubts imply that the relationship is suffering from an unsuspected malignancy.

To live with another person in a state of love (as defined by Sullivan) is a different experience from whirling around in a tornado of romance. A loving union is perhaps best seen in elderly couples who have been married for a long time. Their children have grown, the pressure of business has been relieved, and the specter of death is not far away. By now, they have achieved a set of realistic values. These elderly spouses respect each other’s idiosyncrasies. They need and treasure companionship. Differences between them have been either accepted or worked out; they are no longer destructive elements. In such instances each has as much interest in the well-being and security of the other as he has in himself. Here is true symbiosis: a union where each admittedly feeds off the other. Those who give together really live together!

But it is possible to have a productive and workable marriage without love (although love is desirable) as well as without romance. One can have a functioning marriage which includes doubts and criticisms of the spouse and occasional inclinations toward divorce. The husband or wife may even think about how much fun it might be to flirt with an attractive neighbor. Such thoughts can occur without being disastrous to the marriage. In many workable marriages both spouses get a good deal of mileage out of fantasy.

How, then, can we describe this functional union which can bring reasonable satisfaction and well-being to both partners? It has four major elements: tolerance, respect, honesty, and the desire to stay together for mutual advantage. One can prefer the spouse’s company to all others’, and even be lonely in his absence, without experiencing either the wild passion inherent in romance, or the totally unselfish, unswerving devotion that is basic in true love.

In a workable marriage both parties may be better off together than they would have been on their own. They may not be ecstatically happy because of their union, and they may not be “in love,” but they are not lonely and they have areas of shared contentment. They feel reasonably satisfied with their levels of personal and interpersonal functioning. They can count their blessings and, like a sage, philosophically realize that nothing is perfect.

We must return once again to the meaning of the word “love,” for no other word in English carries more misleading connotations. The following is an actual example of how distorted the thinking of an individual may become when he believes he is in love.

A young woman and her fiancé visiting a marriage counselor had completed an interpersonal test which told much about their behavior and how they viewed each other. The counselor, after studying the data, asked why the woman wished to marry this man, who was an admitted alcoholic. She said she had sought the counselor’s help because she did have some doubts. Her previous husband, from whom she had recently been divorced, was weak and passive. Now she was looking for a man strong enough to take care of her.

The marriage counselor explained that he could not understand why she had picked an alcoholic-obviously a weak man who could not possibly look after her. She would have to look after him.

Her fiancé sat passively by and did not enter the conversation. The counselor asked again, ‘Why do you want to marry this man who appears to be just the opposite of the spouse you say you need?”

The young woman shrugged her shoulders, smiled happily, and said, with dogmatic conviction, “Because I love him.”

Her fiancé smiled and nodded in support of her unsupportable statement.

It is obvious that this woman did not know what she meant by “I love him.” She did not even know how she felt about him. Because of her complex neurotic needs she had a desire for this man-and it could probably be shown that this was a unilateral and totally selfish desire. Her choice of someone to “love” had nothing to do with her prospects for having a workable or satisfying marriage. The word “love” was a cover-up for an emotional mix-up which she did not understand.

Often “I love you” is an unconscious excuse for some form of emotional destructiveness. Sometimes it is a camouflage for a status struggle, which may continue even after a couple has separated. A spouse who has been deserted (especially for another) may covertly or unconsciously wish to be identified and applauded as the good and loyal partner. The jilted spouse assumes a saintly, pious behavior-especially in public-and makes certain everyone knows he still “loves” the other and will lovingly and patiently wait forever until the other comes to his senses. This can be accomplished with operatic flamboyance while the individual simultaneously has a well-hidden affair with someone else’s husband or wife; and the apparent inconsistency later can be rationalized away: “After John’s [or Mary’s] departure there was such a hole in my life I had to do something to stay on an even keel. If I had had a breakdown it would have hurt the children. But my behavior didn’t alter the fact that I loved him.”

This type of “love” is especially likely to manifest itself when one spouse believes he received ill-treatment from the other for some years prior to the final desertion. The “injured” spouse (for so he regards himself no matter what he did to hurt and destroy the other) will loudly maintain with grief: “But I still love him.” It takes little clinical experience or psychological brilliance to recognize that usually this person really is exhibiting hurt pride and rage at being the one who was left, rather than the one who did the leaving.

“Love” may also be used as an excuse for domination and control. The expression “I love you” has such an immutable place in our traditions that it can serve as an excuse for anything, even for selfishness and evil. Who can protest against something done ”because I love you,” especially if the assertion is made with histrionic skill and in a tone of sincerity? The victim-the one on the receiving end-may intuitively realize that he is being misused. Yet he often finds it impossible to remonstrate.

Sullivan’s definition of love is important. It describes not a unilateral process, but a two-way street, a bilateral process in which two individuals function in relation to each other as equals. Their shared behavior interlocks to form a bond that represents mutual respect and devotion. One spouse alone cannot achieve this relationship. Both must participate to the same degree. The necessity for both spouses to “give” equally is one of the reasons that a marriage built upon mutual love is so rare.

People naturally wish to have a happy marriage to a loving spouse. But such a union is hard to come by without knowledge of the anatomy of marriage, plus much patience, work-and luck. Many people fail to face the fact that if their parents’ marriage was unhappy or their childhood was neurotic, they do not possess the prerequisite experience for choosing the correct mate. Where have they observed a good model for marriage? How can they possibly know what a loving marriage is like-and what elements must be put into it?

Most Americans enter marriage expecting to have love without having asked themselves the question, Am I lovable? Following close behind is another question: If I am not lovable, is it not likely that I have married an unloving person?

There is another misuse of the word “love,” Some people believe that they can love generously even if doing so requires behaving like a martyr. They believe their rewards will come not on earth but in heaven, or at least in some mystical, unusual way. Therefore they seem able to love unilaterally and want nothing for themselves. They suffer happily and enjoy making sacrifices while pouring their love out on another. The more undeserving the other is the more of this love there is to be poured.

This situation is deceptive. Martyrdom is actually one of the most blatant types of self-centeredness. No one can be more difficult to deal with than the one-way benevolent person who frantically, zealously, and flamboyantly tries to help someone else, and apparently seeks nothing for himself.

Nathan Epstein, William Westley, Murray Bowen, John Workentin, Don Jackson, and others who have conducted research on couples who are content with their marriages and have reared apparently healthy, successful children, agree that companionability and respect are the key words in the lexicon these couples use to describe their marriages. A husband interviewed in one study stated: “In love? Well, I guess so-haven’t really thought about it. I suppose I would, though, if Martha and I were having troubles. The Chinese have a saying, ‘One hand washes the other.’ That sort of describes us, but I don’t know if that’s what you mean by love.”

The happy, workable, productive marriage does not require love as defined in this book, or even the practice of the Golden Rule. To maintain continuously a union based on love is not feasible for most people. Nor is it possible to live in a permanent state of romance. Normal people should not be frustrated or disappointed if they are not in a constant state of love. If they experience the joy of love (or imagine they do) for ten per cent of the time they are married, attempt to treat each other with as much courtesy as they do distinguished strangers, and attempt to make the marriage a workable affair–one where there are some practical advantages and satisfactions for each-the chances are that the marriage will endure longer and with more strength than the so-called love matches.

Once upon a time there was a well-received television drama (it later became a motion picture) called Marty. At the conclusion of the performance, the viewer experienced a feeling of satisfaction and general good feeling, the same sense of well-being and joy that a person has when he has read a fairy tale, such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Little Red Riding Hood.

The story of Marty concerns a lonely, shy boy, Marty, who finds, or is found by, a lonely, shy girl. They supply each other’s needs, decide to marry, presumably live happily ever after. It could be wonderful if such events could take place frequently in the lives of lonely people. But the action in Marty represents-for most people-fantasies, not reality. Lonely people who marry each other to correct their situation usually discover that the most intense and excruciating loneliness is the loneliness that is shared with another.

There are several types of loneliness.

First is the loneliness of individuals who have a limited behavioral repertoire. The “behavioral repertoire” is the accumulation of behavioral acts that have been learned since birth and are at the individual’s command. People afflicted with this type of loneliness find themselves to be strangers in a more than normal number of situations involving relationships. They yearn to be on a cheerful, or perhaps competitive, or perhaps collaborative, action-interaction basis with other people. But they have difficulty because their behavioral repertoire is limited and therefore in many cases they do not understand other people and other people do not understand them. So they are strangers-and lonely.

When such lonely people marry each other, each has expectations of his spouse, and neither realizes that the other is paralyzed by a limited behavioral repertoire. Neither of these individuals has much to give to the other, unless the behavioral repertoire is enlarged and developed. If lonely spouses recognize this problem, they may have a chance for a workable marriage; if they are cognizant of their limitations, perhaps they can form a team and slowly and painfully increase the range of their behavior. Usually, however, each expects satisfying behavior from the other-the kind of action which is beyond the capability of his spouse. As a result, both of them end up lonelier than ever before. And to this loneliness, bitterness frequently is added. For each of them is vulnerable, and when he does not receive the behavior he expects from the spouse, he believes he has been given a rebuff. Usually it is not a rebuff at all, but merely a reflection of social inadequacy. What happens next? The “rebuffed” spouse draws back and then the other feels that now he is being rebuffed and rejected; and thus the distance between the two quickly increases.

An extreme example of the result of limited behavioral range in marriage occurred with a couple known to the authors. The situation described here actually existed. A shy young woman married a shy young man. His mother and sister had reared him much as one would raise a hothouse plant. Several years after the marriage, the girl formed a close friendship with the young lady who lived next door. From her she learned that sexual intercourse was supposed to take place in a normal marriage. She and her husband had been so ill informed that they had merely embraced. Neither of them had been brave enough to bring up the question of how babies were made.

When the young wife learned the facts about sex, she felt humiliated and cheated. Vituperatively, she scolded her surprised husband, and as a result they experienced so much turmoil that it became necessary for them to seek the help of a psychiatrist.

One of the mysteries of this situation is why the young woman did not recognize that she was just as uninformed as was her husband, and why he did not point this out to her.

A second type of loneliness (more prevalent among males than females) frequently characterizes the individual who lost his mother at a very early age. This type of person has been denied love as a child and unconsciously seeks “triumphs” over others as a love substitute. He cannot get along with anyone over whom he cannot triumph in some way, or except in some rare instances in which he collaborates with someone else to triumph against society.

Within this category we find many “successes” in the arts, in industry, and in business. These are the perfectionists, the people who are obsessed with becoming champions or innovators, or the top person in a field. Such people have limited emotional repertoires. Usually they can be loving and kind and considerate only to those who are useful to them; and they define usefulness only in terms of their drive for perfection or success. In the marriage of such a person nothing which the spouse does is ever good enough. He is constantly critical of the spouse’s performance level. People of this sort trust no one to do anything well. They suspect that almost everyone will impede their gallop toward success. They require almost everything to revolve around themselves; and as this seldom happens in married life, these individuals drift from one marriage to another, always looking for the impossible and becoming more and more suspicious and more and more lonely.

The third type of loneliness is perhaps the most painful of all.

It is usually experienced by individuals who have had an intelligent, dominant mother and a passive father who behaved as if he were her inferior. These people are obsessed with the desire to be popular and well thought of. They have bright personalities and well-developed social skills. Frequently they are glib talkers and good dancers, and dress attractively. Often they are excellent salesmen, advertising personnel, and social leaders, and they tend to be gossips. By gossiping (transmitting malicious information about somebody else) they bribe others to approve of them. A high percentage of these people give the appearance of being flirtatious and “sexy,” but really are sexually unskilled, and often frigid, even though they act passionate and may have had more than the normal number of affairs. This type of individual finds it difficult to be intimate and collaborative with anyone unless their mutual behavior results in his being the center of attraction. This can happen only if he marries a passive person, probably his inferior. But the fact is that in marriage-and in relations with people in general-unless one can participate in behavioral interactions which are characterized by equality, one is lonely despite the appearance one may give of being very gregarious and a great mixer.

Loneliness cannot be cured by marriage. Loneliness is better tolerated by those who live alone; they have no expectations, and thus no disappointments. Lonely people who live together have about the same chance of realizing their expectations as the host who insists that everybody have a good time at his party.

The first myth is the belief that people get married because they are “in love.” It is extremely difficult to define love satisfactorily. Dictionaries disagree. Psychiatrists and psychologists who specialize in marital problems usually are unable to define love. When they are asked the question by a client, they usually evade the issue by asking, ‘What do you think love is?”

The definition of perfect love which is most cherished in the Western world is the one given by St. Paul in the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians. True, it is a Christian definition; but it is so universal that its almost exact equivalent is used by Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews.

Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Love never faileth…

We however, have never met a person who consistently loves according to St. Paul’s definition. We have known many decent people, people who have integrity and who are kind most of the time; but they do not consistently love in this biblical sense. It is our opinion that it would be too difficult for spouses to practice this kind of relationship described by St. Paul-unless both were saints.

A more practical definition of love has been given by the great American psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan: ‘When the satisfaction or the security of another person becomes as significant to one as is one’s own satisfaction or security, then the state of love exists.”!

The state of love described by Sullivan is possible in marriage -but few spouses are prepared for it, or capable of experiencing it, right after the wedding. Its coming, if it comes at all, is the result of luck or of years of hard work and patience-as we hope to demonstrate later. Observation of hundreds of married couples shows that very few experience love.

It is a false assumption that people marry for love. They like to think of themselves as being in love; but by and large the emotion they interpret as love is in reality some other emotion often a strong sex drive, fear, or a hunger for approval.

If they are not in love, then why are they impelled to marry? There are several reasons.

During courtship, individuals lose most of their judgment.

People who believe themselves to be in love describe their emotion as ecstasy. “Ecstasy” - from the Greek ekstasis, which means “derange”-is defined as the “state of being beside oneself; state of being beyond all reason and self-control.” When an emotional courtship starts, the man and woman appear to relinquish whatever sense of balance and reality they ordinarily possess.

Courtship-the time of ecstatic paralysis-has been cleverly designed by Nature to lure members of the species into reproducing themselves. Courtship is a powerful manifestation of sexual excitement. In Western culture, it has well-defined rituals; these are simple steps leading up to the ultimate goal-legal breeding. The man and the woman are in a trance. By the magic of Nature, they have become wonderfully attractive to each other.

It is marvelous to observe how ruthless and cunning Nature is in her effort to perpetuate the species. Individuals are in such a dizzy state that they become reckless. The problems of marriage are not noticed or considered. The frightful divorce statistics mean nothing; it seems obvious that bad marriages, like death, are for others only. Frequently, the partners-to-be know that they are marrying the wrong persons, but they are in such a passion (some call it romance), and are being driven so hard by the applause of society, that they cannot help themselves. For example, they may realize that the man is unable, as yet, to earn a living; or that the woman is incompetent to manage a home; or that each has radically different tastes and values from the other. These and many other obstacles to a workable marriage usually have no significance to a couple in the courtship stage. The courting individuals are obsessed by one desire only-to mate. And society ordains that a ceremony must sanctify the mating. Although in a majority of marriages the magic and marvelous attractiveness of courtship diminishes (and often vanishes entirely) within a brief time after the honeymoon, it is obvious that the instinct to reproduce-the sex drive (which mistakenly is called love)-lures a great many individuals into marriage.

People often marry because society expects it of them. In our society a spinster is frequently regarded as an unattractive failure; and a middle-aged bachelor is suspected of being a homosexual, or of having a mother complex. Society encourages marriage in many ways and for many reasons. For example, marriage is-to put it crudely-good for business. It gives employment ‘to ministers, justices of the peace, caterers, florists, dressmakers, printers, jewelers, furniture manufacturers, architects, landlords, obstetricians, and so on almost endlessly. Whenever there is a wedding a hundred cash registers tinkle. Therefore members of the profit-making multitude smile and applaud, frequently in honest approval. This approval adds to the myth that the very act of marriage is a good thing; it brings prestige in society’s eyes to the young couple.

For the clergy and for officials, marriage is a source of power and control, a means of perpetuating loyalty to the Church through the children. Certain historical necessities-which in point of fact may no longer exist-are also reflected in the attitudes of society. For example, in earlier days, when mortality rates were high, a “big family” meant more people in the community and thus a greater chance for survival; and marriage was prerequisite for the existence of the big family. Though circumstances have changed now, the approbation of marriage has not. In short, almost all segments of society disapprove of the single state but approve of marriage. This universal attitude tends to cause people who think they are in love to be impetuous, hurried, and careless in getting married. Marriage, they have been taught, is a “good thing.”

The pressures and the maneuverings of parents often push their children into premature and careless marriages. Parents maneuver, manipulate, and meddle. Fathers and mothers claim that they meddle for their children’s benefit. The truth is that parents often feel failure or disgrace if their children aren’t married at the conventional age. And parents are seldom fully honest to their children about their own relationships. Therefore, most youngsters believe that their parents are or were in love, and that they must be emulated in this respect.

Romantic literature, tradition, and social hysteria have given marriage false values which the excited male and female often accept as true. They enter wedlock expecting a high level of constant joy from that moment on. Although they take an oath to love and cherish each other throughout all adversity, in fact they do not expect any serious adversity. They have been persuaded that love (which they cannot even define) automatically will make it possible to solve all problems.

Loneliness often drives people into marriage. Many individuals simply cannot bear to be alone. They get bored and restless, and they think that having somebody of the opposite sex in the house will stop them from being miserable. Thus they marry because of desperation, not love.

Many people are fearful concerning their economic future. Men may believe that the responsibility involved in supporting a wife and children will automatically motivate them to produce more than they would if they remained single. Women often feel they will find financial security through marriage, regardless of the current ability of their fiancés to provide for their needs.

Some individuals marry because of an unconscious desire to improve themselves. Almost all human beings have a mental image-called the ego ideal-of what they would like to be. In reality an individual seldom develops into this ideal person. But when he meets someone of the opposite sex who has the qualities which he desires, then up pops another false assumption. The individual unconsciously concludes that if he marries, he will, without effort, acquire the missing desirable characteristics or talents. For this reason a drunk sometimes is attracted to an abstainer; an inherent liar may be drawn to a simple, naive person; a man with poor physical coordination often marries a slender, athletic woman; a person who cannot carry a tune often marries one who can sing well; and so forth. After the marriage the spouses learn that intimacy does not bring about the desired self-improvement. Each blames the other and the discord begins,

Many marriages are motivated by neuroses. Certain individuals pick as mates those who make it possible for them to exercise their neuroses. These people do not wish to be happy in the normal sense. If they enjoy suffering, they unconsciously choose partners with whom they can fight, or who will abuse or degrade them. Some of these marriages endure for a considerable time because the partners get pleasure from discord, but this type of perversion can hardly be called an expression of love.

Some people miss their father or mother and cannot live without a parental symbol. Therefore they find-and marry-a person of the opposite sex who will play the parental role.

In summary, then, it may be said that people generally enter matrimony thinking they are in love and believing that marriage will bring them “instant happiness,” which will solve all problems. Actually, in most instances they are swept into marriage on a tidal wave of romance, not love. Romance is usually ephemeral; it is selfish. Romantic “lovers” are distraught and miserable when separated, and this misery is caused by selfishness of the most egocentric type. The “lover” is sorry for himself and is grieving over his loss of pleasure and intimacy. This state of mind is closely related to another selfish emotion-jealousy. Romance is exciting -but it is no relation to love, no kin to that generous concern for someone else which Harry Stack Sullivan defines as love.

Most people believe they are marrying for love. This is a false assumption and a dangerous myth.

Both individual experience and statistical surveys make it clear that almost everyone suffers severe disappointment within a few months after marriage. A study conducted by the Mental Research Institute with couples married for an average of one year indicated that they felt marriage was different from what they had expected.

One young woman said, “Marriage is not what I had assumed it would be. One premarital assumption after another has crashed down on my head. I am going to make my marriage work, but it’s going to take a lot of hard work and readjusting. Marriage is like taking an airplane to Florida for a relaxing vacation in January, and when you get off the plane you find you’re in the Swiss Alps. There is cold and snow instead of swimming and sunshine. Well, after you buy winter clothes and learn how to ski and learn how to talk a new foreign language, I guess you can have just as good a vacation in the Swiss Alps as you can in Florida. But I can tell you, doctor, it’s one hell of a surprise when you get off that marital airplane and find that everything is far different from what one had assumed.”

This realistic and candid young woman is now happy in her marriage. But for her to reach this point required two years of patient working and changing and of expensive visits by herself and her husband to a competent marriage counselor for a once-a-month “checkup.” She learned that the institution of modem marriage is based on many false assumptions and untrue beliefs.

Whenever a decision or a system is based on false assumptions it is almost certain to be a failure. And marriage is no exception. We believe that if men and women were acquainted with the realities of marriage before they entered it, and if they accepted these realities, the divorce rate in the United States would diminish markedly.

To understand the realities of the marital relationship it is essential first to recognize the unrealities. What follows is a discussion of seven of the major myths of marriage.

• People Marry Because They Love Each Other: Myth
• Most Married People Love Each Other: Myth
• Loneliness Will Be Cured by Marriage: Myth
• Love is Necessary for a Satisfactory Marriage: Myth
• Children Improves a Difficult or an Unfulfilled Marriage: Myth
• Telling Your Spouse to Go to Hell a Sign of a Poor Marriage: Myth
• Behavioral Differences in Partners Cause Marital Troubles: Myth

After each partner has at last been able to select an area of agreement with the other, and to develop a means of accomplishing the desire expressed, the spouses are ready for their first full hedged quid pro quo discussion. At a time when they feel at ease and safe from interruption, they sit down together to exchange viewpoints about what each feels is necessary, to determine the extent to which these aims are compatible, and to decide what can be done to achieve them.

If through the preceding exercises they have developed clear communication and a spirit of cooperation, each should find it possible to yield on some points in return for concessions from his spouse on others, and to maintain the attitude that his purpose is not to gain more than the other, but to help make decisions which will be to the advantage of both.

The following is an example of a successful start in a quid pro quo discussion.

HUSBAND: I hate to sound like a tightwad, but I feel I must tell you that we have to cut down on our expenses at least until I get some of the new office equipment paid for.

WIFE: What particular items were you thinking of?

HUSBAND: I’ve been looking over the checkbook and I find that clothes make up a considerable item. I’m willing to forgo any new outfits. How about you?

WIFE: You know very well that I spend much more on clothes than you do. If you’re telling me to cut down, why not come out and say so?

HUSBAND: Because something occurred to me and that was that you’ve spent more on clothes lately since you lost that weight. I was very much for your losing it, too.

WIFE: That’s right, I did have to buy a number of things right after finishing the diet, but it was nice of you to remember it. How about reviewing this matter in a few months but agreeing not to buy anything in the meantime?

HUSBAND: Whew! I feel off the hook. I won’t forget to bring it up when finances get better.

Note that although the husband begins tentatively, he manages to be at the same time specific and not attacking.

Complete examples of quid pro quo discussions, both unsuccessful and successful, are to be found in upcoming resources.

The fifth session is by far the most difficult and can be attempted only if both spouses feel they have accomplished the following:

1. Decided that the marriage should be continued, and indicated a willingness to make a vigorous effort to develop a functional relationship.
2. Practiced the rudiments of effective verbal communication.
3. Become conscious of some of the nonverbal methods of communication utilized by each, bringing them into awareness and learning to identify what they mean.
4. Learned what each spouse believes he has done to create discord in the marriage.
5. Learned that one cannot evaluate marital interactions unilaterally.
6. Learned that the developing of a quid pro quo need not be a battle, but can be satisfying.

We now approach the bargaining table-which separates the adults from the children. Here one’s capacity for maturity is put to a harsh test. Here it is possible to find out whether the spouses really wish to have a functional relationship, or whether they are only playing cruel games.

Both come to the bargaining table with paper and pencil. If possible, a mirror should be placed where they can see themselves in it. At this meeting each spouse presents his wishes, desires, and needs.

Once more they flip a coin to see who will begin.

The first speaker then describes what he would like; he does not dictate how his spouse should behave, or criticize his past behavior. Some examples follow.

“I would like to learn to be more patient with the children.”

“I would like to see myself have more time to practice the piano.”

“I wish that we could get a station wagon.”

“I wish that I had a feeling of greater importance in our marriage.”

“I wish that we could have dinner at the same time every evening.”

“I wish I were not so jealous of you whenever you go on a trip.” “I wish we had a greater income.” (Here the speaker should specify any practical suggestions for implementing the desire, if possible.)

Since these are to be important items, from six to ten should generally be sufficient to convey the individual’s principal wishes.

One of the major hazards here is that one or Beth of the spouses will tend to use the bargaining table to present what they do not want in the future instead of making simple, declarative statements of what they do want. This practice in reality is a way of condemning the other spouse and of bringing up the past.

At this stage, then, one spouse expresses his needs, wishes, and desires and the other simply listens, asking for clarification when necessary, but not arguing. As the items are mentioned, both spouses write them down.

When one spouse has finished, the other has his turn to present a list of wishes, desires, and needs.

After both spouses have spoken, they must spend about fifteen or twenty minutes studying the two lists. Then each (if possible) identifies the first desire or need of the other which he feels can be fulfilled. We are suggesting here that the spouses find at least one area for collaboration, if they can.

The extensive use of teaching machines in the last few years has confirmed the commonsense notion that success reinforces the learning process and accelerates the rate of learning. So too in “teaching” the quid pro quo we are suggesting that the spouses can learn more easily to trust each other enough to bargain if they are successful from the first. The simplest way to accomplish this is for one spouse to pick from the list of the other an item on which he can agree, or about which he at least has very little negative feeling. He will then find it easy to “aid” the other spouse in working out something in relation to his wish. The other, having had the pleasure of cooperation, will be in a mood to cooperate in return.

If the spouses (and we consider this highly unlikely) are unable to select even one area of agreement for a beginning collaborative effort, they require further discussion and training in quid pro quo formation.

For example, if they have been unsuccessful, they should quickly review the session in their own minds to see if they have employed any of the dis-affiliative techniques most common in such discussions:

First, has either spouse made the assumption that he is right and the other is wrong? If so, and if he is unable to feel differently after independently reading the material on the quid pro quo to follow, he is in need of discussions with a third party before attempting further meetings with his spouse.

Second, has either spouse attacked the other with all-encompassing criticism which leaves the impression that there is no possibility of improvement? Such statements as “You never do anything right,” or “You have always been like that,” are fatal to this effort.

Third, has either spouse employed defensive withdrawal, a destructive though ineffectual way of behaving? In defensive withdrawal, one spouse breaks off contact and leaves the other feeling abandoned and righteous, like a modem-day Joan of Arc perishing in the flames of her own indignation. The wife who becomes silent and tearful as her husband’s voice takes on a rasping, accusatory tone may feel she is trying to avoid making him even angrier, but she is, in fact, doing just the opposite. She is also indicating that she feels he is impossible, a message which does little to improve their communication.

As we have already indicated, these initial sessions will be difficult, especially since one spouse is required to sit silently while the other states how he would like to change the marriage. Hence, a failure the first go-around is not fatal to the process. The spouses must be sure they do not get carried away and continue the discussions over approximately an hour.

In the third session, the spouses ask each other questions which must be answered by “Yes” or “No” and nothing more. If attempts are made to qualify or explain the answers, the value of the session is decreased. The spouse whose turn it is to lead asks two questions of the other, waiting for a reply to the first before proceeding to the second:

Do you believe that this marriage of ours can be improved? Apparently we have to do a lot of work and perhaps give up some things in order to improve the marriage. Do you think our marriage is worth the enormous effort?

When these two questions have been asked by spouse A and answered by spouse B, then the roles are reversed. B asks and A answers the same two questions.

The next step is for spouse A, speaking out loud, to ask a series of questions of himself, answering each in turn by saying “Yes” or “No.” Spouse B listens. The questions are as follows:

1. During the last few months, have I ever said, “If only you [the other spouse] would do so and so, our marriage would be much better?”
2. In the last few months have I often stated, “If you [the other spouse] had a different personality, I would be much better off and the marriage would be a much smoother one?”
3. Have I in the last few months used past history against you?

Have I brought up your past errors and ways of behaving, things I didn’t like about you in the past, in order to prove a point, or to intimidate you, or to get some degree of control over you?

[Remember, these are all to be answered by the spouse who is asking the questions.]

1. In the last few months have I generalized about some fault of the opposite sex? Have I done this either out loud or in my own thinking? [Here the speaker should try to recall whether he has indulged in the common tendency to play the game of the battle of the sexes. It is easy to forget that our biases are reinforced constantly, and are thus enlarged, unless we become aware of this danger and learn to look around and think for ourselves.]
2. In the last few months have I felt vulnerable in relation to you? [Only by avoiding a sense of vulnerability can one be open, fully trusting, and non-defensive. The speaker should try to remember if he has withheld loving behavior for fear that it would be interpreted as approval of some of the disliked behavior of his spouse.]
3. In the last few months have I used the children against you at any time?

While spouse A has been asking and answering these questions, spouse B has been sitting silently. Now the procedure is reversed. Spouse B asks and answers the same questions, while spouse A listens.

After this has been done, the same questions are used once again, only in this instance, we start off with spouse A asking the questions of spouse B. For example, spouse A will ask, “During the last few months, have I ever said, “If only you would do so and so, our marriage would be much better’?” Spouse B answers with “Yes” or “No.”

The procedure is then reversed; spouse B asks and spouse A does the answering.

Answering the questions is a sufficiently arduous task for one session. The reason for requiring a simple “Yes” or “No” is that it is important, at this time, for the spouses to avoid discussing the content of the questions. The urge to enlarge on the answers, and thus to become both defensive and aggressively destructive, is very great, and at this stage such behavior must be made impossible because one cannot truly evaluate marital interaction unilaterally: if A thinks that B is at fault, he is not considering how his own effect on B may have helped bring about that particular action.

During the next week the spouses are to think about the questions which they asked and answered, but they are not to discuss them between themselves-or with anyone else.

The second session consists essentially of one spouse’s learning to take directions from the other. One of the most common and grievous problems in the ordinary marriage is that spouses cannot accept instruction from each other. In the course of any relationship, in the course of getting family work done, it is necessary for the spouses to divide areas of work responsibility and for each to be willing to cooperate by taking instruction from the other in the other’s particular area. In actuality, however, this is rarely done. Usually, there is avoidance-”I’m doing it because I want to”-or a slight changing of the instructions so as to make them seem to have been issued by the spouse who is doing the work. The following exercise, then, is one in which one of the spouses learns to take instruction from the other.

On a morning shortly after the end of the rest period (approximately one week) the spouses again flip a coin. Then, in the course of the day, the winner plans in detail a weekend for the two of them; the children (if any) are not to accompany their parents. The other spouse is told about the plans that evening. He can make no suggestions, and during the weekend is expected to accept all of the arrangements made by his partner. The weekend is to consist of only two days and one night, for it is likely to be a difficult period for the couple. Couples frequently fail in their first try at the one-spouse-dominated weekend; the strain can be particularly great if the coin toss has resulted in a complete role reversal-as when the spouse who usually dominates becomes the follower, and the submissive spouse becomes the leader. Several attempts may be necessary before success is achieved. But when it is, the resulting relief and self-understanding will be recognized by both spouses.

One highly competitive couple achieved weekend success through humor. The husband, who had lost the toss of the coin, responded to his wife’s detailed orders throughout the weekend with a cheery “Yes, boss I” Laughter followed, and suddenly both found the pattern easy to carry out.

The next exercise will be enlivened by recollection of the weekend experience and should not take place before the following Wednesday or Thursday.

In reorganizing a marriage so that it can operate with maximum workability, establishing a quid pro quo is essential. To achieve a quid pro quo it is necessary to understand two fundamentals:

First, the spouses must learn what their total communication facilities are. As we know, a marriage is an interlocking, self-contained system. The behavior and the attitudes of one partner always stimulate some sort of reaction from the other. Because these attitudes, and the resulting actions and reactions, usually originate at the unconscious level, both spouses may be unaware of them. In bringing the quid pro quo procedure to maximum functionality, each partner must learn to recognize his own behavior and attitudes and the reactions which they stimulate in the other. He must become fully conscious of the many aspects of communication with the other, and also of how the other one will respond to each communication, be it by a word, a lifted eyebrow, a silence, or a punch in the nose. One way to get started on this is for the spouses to read the communications chapter aloud to each other, alternating on paragraphs.

Second, it must be realized that with the exception of such rare couples as the Heavenly Twins, spouses have many differences in behavior-in attitudes, in tastes, in methods of performance, and in levels of performance. Therefore, if each behaves naturally and spontaneously, scores of conflicts between the spouses are inevitable. If the wife, for example, wishes to watch a variety show on the single television set at the same time that the husband wants to tune in the boxing matches, one of the spouses will have to yield. This is a simple example, but differences of this sort may be found with respect to food, to moods, to sex; they may permeate the entire range of behavior, tastes, and attitudes of a man and wife. Marriage may be a source of many advantages and many comforts, but it does eliminate some of the spontaneous behavioral repertoire. Perhaps that is why a spouse is often referred to as “the better half.” This may well be a folk method of expressing the fact that in marriage one reduces by half the free and spontaneous ways of behaving which were available before marriage. If both spouses are rigid and insist that all of their desires be granted, the marriage cannot continue as a functional relationship. Day after day and night after night each of them will seek to exert power over the other, to gain his own way. Some of the maneuvers and ways of behaving which are instruments of this power struggle are unconscious; therefore, if the marriage is to be improved, they must be identified, as we indicated in the preceding paragraph.

In establishing a quid pro quo the spouses acknowledge that they have differences-at many levels, both conscious and unconscious-and that in order to maintain the marriage, in order to achieve the benefits of collaboration, each is willing to sacrifice a percentage of his natural and spontaneous behavior. The process of establishing a workable quid pro quo could well be called a “marital bargaining session” or “negotiations for the betterment of the marriage.” Both spouses are saying “I can’t have everything I want and you can’t have everything you want, but let’s arrange our behavior in such a manner that we each get the maximum; let’s negotiate so that each has those things which are most important to him and at the same time tries to nourish the well-being of the other to the maximum extent.” The establishment of a quid pro quo means the making of behavioral rules which are of the greatest mutual benefit. Only rules equitable to both work in marriage. It is a union in which both parties win or both lose.

Naturally, the more hate-filled the spouses, the more discordant the marriage, the more difficult it will be to start afresh with a new quid pro quo.

Getting the marital process back in balance often can be a long and arduous task. Even with professional help it may require a year or more. In some cases, however, spouses working on their own may be successful in only six to eight weeks, or perhaps a few months, provided both have a keen desire to solve their mutual problem. They may experience certain zeal, a certain zest for mutual victory, which might be lacking if they were leaning on a professional counselor.

The danger in self-therapy is that the spouses may expect a balanced marriage, a good functional quid pro quo, to appear almost instantly. It will not. They should assume that at least six or eight weekly sessions of an hour apiece will be necessary before any degree of success is apparent. If after a reasonable trial the spouses are convinced that they cannot bargain, their alternatives, as has been mentioned, are to seek outside help, to separate, or to permit one spouse to dominate entirely.

The sessions should be looked upon as an important ritual, a ritual almost as important as the marriage ceremony itself, for in many cases if these sessions are not successful, the marriage will terminate. It is helpful if the spouses pick for the first session a date coming roughly a week after they have completed this book, and mark the appointment on the calendar. The circumstances of the meeting should be as convenient as possible for both. For example, it may be necessary to spend a night in a hotel to avoid interruption by the children. Even if the meeting is conducted at home, it should be approached as something very special. One couple we knew took the attitude that they were now attempting to make a beginning in their “real and lasting marriage,” and that their earlier wedding ceremony amounted to just a legal piece of paper which didn’t count in human terms. Though they had been married for seven years and had three children (and many problems), they prepared for their quid pro quo meetings as if for a festivity, at which each wished to be at his very best. They bathed, dressed up, and in every way tried to appear as attractive as possible. At first they held their meetings at home after the children had gone to sleep. Later, they learned that they made more progress if they hired a baby-sitter, had dinner out, and conducted their discussion in a hotel room. The use of the hotel room is frequently advantageous because it is a neutral area without any personal associations; both spouses are certain there will be no distractions, and in many cases it brings back memories of courtship days. This couple also used a tape recorder so they could later listen to the sessions separately.

Married couples, in short, can do something for themselves, and if they exhibit patience and stick to certain ground rules they will not damage their marriage, but rather improve it. If quid pro quo formation is to be attempted, the procedures described below must be explicitly and conscientiously followed.

First, as has been stated, the spouses should pick a date and make a formal appointment with each other for the first meeting. They should choose a day when both can be relaxed and unhurried. If, for some reason a possibility develops that interruptions may occur, the meeting should be postponed to the following week. If there are several postponements, one or the other spouse should force agreement on a date, since one or both of them may be attempting to avoid this kind of confrontation.

The first session should be devoted to understanding the material, described at the end of the preceding chapter, on establishing communication. Readers who have previously performed these exercises will find some review sessions useful. This is a good way to start for several reasons. First, throughout the sessions to come, the highest degree of communication must be exercised. Second, learning to communicate fairly well can be done almost mechanically by following the instructions. If the exercises are performed with care, success is usually easy. We deliberately start these discussions with procedures which we are confident both spouses can accomplish. If they cannot, the reason is more apt to be unwillingness or sabotage than inability. If this is the case, the services of a therapist will probably be necessary.

Most people find the communication exercises to be fun, and are able to carry them on with considerable success, especially if they limit the use of the exercises to twice a week.

During the period required to complete these exercises, each spouse should observe the various methods of nonverbal communication employed by the other. Each should make notes specifying what behavior, attitudes, motions, grimaces, silences, and so forth are interpreted as messages and what these messages mean to the receiver. Here are some examples.

‘When Mary sleeps in pajamas instead of her silk nightgown, I know she’s annoyed. I wonder if she realizes this is how I know not to approach her sexually on certain nights.”

‘When John simply slides his eyes around at me without moving any part of his body, and says nothing, I know he disagrees with what I have said.”

‘When Mary fixes her hair in a bun on the top of her head early in the morning, I know she’s happy.”

‘When John leaves the house without shining his shoes in the morning, I know he’s in a bad mood.”

“When John has little wrinkles by the side of his eyes and tugs on the end of his ear, I know he’s about to playa practical joke.” ‘When Mary sits up very straight in the chair and stares straight at me when I’m telling her something important, I know she has something else on her mind and isn’t even listening.”

During the first week or two the spouses put down as many of these observations as possible, each listing at least six nonverbal communications, of which two or more give a happy, or positive, message. Spouses have an inclination to search out the nastier types of message, and competition as to who can obtain the most negative material should be avoided. At first, getting six nonverbal communications may appear difficult. But it is one of the most effective methods of increasing the number of objective communication channels.

When the verbal communication exercises (described earlier) have been completed, the spouses move on to the attempt to make each other aware of their nonverbal methods of communication. They flip a coin to see who goes first. Then, taking turns, they playa kind of charades. One spouse acts out a way of behaving which serves the other as a nonverbal communication and the other tries to guess what the acted-out behavior indicates. If the guessing is unsuccessful, the actor explains how he interprets this particular action, grimace, or whatever. Then the roles are reversed.

When this exercise has been completed, they move on to the next. One partner looks at his list of observations and calls out the message which he receives from one of his spouse’s ways of behaving. For example, John says, “Mary, I’m telling you something very important, but you really don’t want to hear it so you’re pretending you’re listening and you’re really not.”

The spouse responds, if he can, by acting out his nonverbal behavior for transmitting this message. In this instance, Mary sits up straight in the chair and stares at John. John then may say, good-naturedly, “Mary, that’s pretty good. But usually you sit up a little bit straighter and you thrust your head forward just a little and you don’t have that twinkle when you’re staring at me. It’s a sort of glazed look, as if you’re starting right at the end of my nose.” Then Mary tries acting her own behavior out again. H it turns out that Mary is not aware of what nonverbal method she uses to transmit some particular message, John describes it to her, and she then attempts to act it out.

Next, Mary may say, “John, it’s Monday morning. You’re in a bad mood, and the eggs which I fixed for your breakfast weren’t quite right. Will you please act out your usual behavior in this situation?”

John pretends he’s eating at a table. He frowns, looks at his wristwatch, and mutters, “There’ll be a lot of traffic this morning. I’d better leave fifteen minutes early. I don’t have time to eat everything.” He stands up and walks to the end of the room, pretends he’s opening a closet, looks down as if searching for the shoe-shining equipment, shakes his head, frowns, pretends he’s tossing on his coat and hat, and mimics himself walking out the front door without saying anything.

Mary may clap her hands and say, “You did that very well, John, but you left out one thing. You usually mutter as you open up the closet, ‘Nobody ever puts the goddamn shoe-shine gear back in the right place.’ ”

John now goes through the whole thing again, overemphasizing his scowling, perhaps caricaturing his swearing, and stamping out of the house.

This exercise can be an enormous amount of fun, and it is an easy and practical way for both spouses to become aware of their nonverbal methods of communication. The most difficult part of the exercise is the beginning-the observation and listing of the forms of nonverbal communication which are employed. At first they will be formed only after a good deal of looking, but once the spouses are caught by the spirit of this exercise, their recognition will become easier and easier.

A large movable mirror, in which each spouse can see himself as he reenacts his own nonverbal behavior, is desirable. Watching oneself in the mirror not only makes the exercise more enjoyable for almost everyone is a ham actor-but also provides an opportunity for the other spouse to coach the one who is acting. Mary may say to John, “You’re doing that very well, but, really, the comers of your mouth go down a little more when you’re annoyed at me at breakfast.” Here John will try to push the comers of his mouth down a little bit more and Mary will applaud him and say, “That’s right.” Now John is likely to respond with a burst of merriment, and he may caricature himself. Interplay of this sort helps individuals slowly to visualize their own nonverbal behavior and to begin to understand how this behavior sends powerful messages to the other spouse, and why sometimes the message received is not the one the sender believed he was transmitting.

When the spouses have completed the communication exercises they are ready for the actual quid pro quo practice sessions. The first of these should be started at the next meeting.

It is recommended that the first quid pro quo session be divided into three segments of fifteen minutes each. The spouse who speaks first is elected by Hip of a coin, after which they alternate. During the first segment, each of the spouses has his turn to state as factually as possible what characteristics he would ideally like to see in the other, to make the marriage more workable. The spouse who does not have the floor remains completely silent, making every attempt to listen to what is being said.

The second segment begins when the spouse who last was silent summarizes what he has heard from the other and inquires if his summary is approximately correct. Then he adds supplementary comments, but only about himself (for example, “It seems to me that if I were in your position I would want me to be more prompt than I have a tendency to be”). Note that the spouse who is summarizing is not allowed to introduce defensive or attacking material. When he is through, then the other spouse does the same thing. At first, the habit of introducing such harmful material will be hard to break, but if both spouses are conscious of the problem, success will come.

The summary which opens the second segment should be easy to complete quickly. During the third segment (after again Hipping a coin to see who starts) one spouse is required to spend exactly fifteen minutes (timed by the listening spouse) describing how he himself contributes destructively to the marriage and how he could change so as to improve the marital situation. If the individual cannot think of any ways in which he contributes destructively or is failing in the relationship, this fifteen-minute period must be spent in silence. It is surprisingly difficult to remain silent this long, but it is even more difficult to be so perfect in a marital relationship that one cannot think of a single fault in oneself. The fifteen minutes seldom pass silently.

If the spouses have reached this point in the practice sessions without destructiveness or mutual antagonism, they can feel they have made considerable progress and are urged not to hold any discussions of their marital problems until the next exercise which is at least one week away. If either one brings up the topic of their marriage during this recess, the other is to remind him that the book says, “Thou shalt not.”