Engagement Rings Advice : Wedding, Marriage, Anniversary

At the next weekly meeting, the questions and answers of the previous session are discussed. Whenever an answer has been “Yes,” the data supporting it is now presented. For example, if spouse A answered “Yes” when he asked the first question (”During the last few months, have I ever said, ‘If only you would do so and so, our marriage would be much better’?”), he now gives as many examples of his making this remark as he can recall. For instance, Mary may say, “Yes, I said that if you, John, would be home the same time every evening, I wouldn’t be so nervous about meals. I’d be more cheerful at dinner, and we’d have much happier evenings.” Then she goes on to mention other statements of this sort which she has made. When she is through, spouse B John, in this instance-lists further examples which he may remember but which spouse A forgot. Both spouses speak as dispassionately as possible, making statements of fact, without elaboration. The spouses do not discuss whether or not the remarks now recollected were justified. They do not discuss the effects of the statements. They simply list as many as possible. After A has gone through the list of questions and given examples, and B has supplied more examples, B takes his turn and goes through the same list, with A adding further illustrations. Even if the one spouse supplies examples which the other thinks are exaggerated or perhaps totally unfounded, there is to be no disagreement or arguing.

Once again, a mirror in the room is desirable, for the effect upon the spouses of watching themselves as they speak is enormous. The inclination to become angry or defensive during the dialogue is strong. If the spouses watch themselves in the mirror, they can see when they begin to look angry or grimace or make gestures of annoyance and are then able to control themselves. Even if the effort at control is not completely successful, just the fact that they have observed the development of anger in themselves, is a large step toward the establishment of a quid pro quo.

Most spouses can get through this dialogue in one session lasting about an hour and a half.

The participants will notice that the exercise has involved statements of facts as seen by each spouse. Nothing is argued about, defended, or fought over. This avoidance of argument is important to the process because neither spouse can eliminate the ideas or behavioral patterns of the other by arguing, defending, or fighting. Up until now the exercises have been intended only to get each spouse acquainted with the nature of the other’s thinking. Attempts to play district attorney or instructor must be avoided at all cost. The spouses must approach this undertaking as equals, with neither feeling superior in any way to the other. They must remember that if things have gone wrong, both are equally to blame. There is no victim without a victimizer. There is no victimizer without a victim.

Part II

The practice of mumbo-jumbo conversation is the basis of bad manners. In homes where there are several children, bedlam is common because when a child wants something he simply shouts until he gets it. The habit of shouting develops because the parents do not listen either to each other or to the children. Following the model set by the parents, the children may run in and out of others’ conversations in track shoes.

One method of installing the principles of good communication in children can be practiced at mealtime. The parents can insist that when a family member wants something passed to him, something like the following dialogue must occur.

CHARLES: Joannie?

JOAN (turning her head): What? (This is her way of saying, “I’m listening.”)

It is important that this little routine be practiced if there are several people present. If a name is not specified, no one mows who is being addressed. If the person who is named does not turn and acknowledge the communication, the original speaker, in this case Charles doesn’t know if he has been heard. We now continue the dialogue.

CHARLES (original message): Will you pass the butter, please? (JOAN passes the butter to CHARLES; this is her acknowledgment of the original message.)

CHARLES (acknowledging the acknowledgment): Thank you, Joannie.

The second type of major breakdown in personal communications occurs when the message sent is not the message received, as was pointed out in an earlier chapter.

How do husbands and wives manage to misunderstand each other so completely and so successfully? The major reason is that people are separate one from the other, and can transmit the state of their feelings, desires, intentions, and expectations only by verbal or nonverbal communication.

It will be recalled that the significance of a message is determined not only by its literal meaning (the report aspect), but also by the accompanying gestures, facial expressions, and the like (the command aspect), and by the nature of the total situation in which the message is sent (the context aspect). Communication between intimates is especially difficult in some respects because the sender may not realize that the understanding of his message may be affected by his nonverbal behavior or by a misinterpretation of the context. The most practical method for clarification of a message is for the receiver to ask the sender to elucidate, if there is any doubt about its meaning. For example, if John comes home a little bit tired and angry and finds the house looking slovenly, he may say to Mary, “I had to call on the Hatfields, and my gracious, Louise Hatfield keeps a lovely home. It’s a joy to be in it.”

In this instance Mary may say, “John, you said that Louise Hatfield keeps a wonderful home. The message which I hear, what I think you’re trying to tell me, is that our home looks like a pigpen. Is that right?” If John says yes, that’s what his message was, and then Mary can say, “I know the house looks a mess this afternoon, and I don’t like it any more than you do, but the water pipes burst at four o’clock and I had to go after the plumber and I haven’t had time to clean up.” The ambiguity of the message is cleared up unless John feels that Mary’s response is an old ploy; in that case they must continue struggling for a resolution.

A similar exchange may occur at a party when Mary says, “Isn’t it wonderful the way Jim Power always holds his wife’s hand and sticks with her throughout the party? It sure is nice to see people so much in love.”

John can understand this message either as an expression of sincere admiration for the Powers or as a criticism of himself. He is not sure which interpretation is correct, so he says, “Are you implying that I’m neglecting you at the party, Mary? Does it bother you when I leave you and talk with the boys?”

Mary can answer “Yes” or “No,” and again, the problem can be resolved because what they are talking about has been made clear.

Suppose John says instead, “Yes, the Powers are a lovely couple.” He is choosing to take Mary’s remark literally and thus while appearing to be in polite agreement, he is actually blocking off clear communication. When spouses repeatedly encounter obstructions of this sort, they begin to despair and lapse into permanently unclear communication.

As soon as families begin to squabble, the number of messages incorrectly received increases. People who are quarreling fall into the trap of saying one thing when they mean another, or of hearing one thing when something else has been said, because they are angry, hurt, or frightened. It has often been remarked that none are as blind as those who will not see. Unfortunately, we may say as well that none are as deaf as those who will not hear.

A communication problem occurs when a message has two or more possible meanings: The “meaning” is therefore dependent upon the interpretation of the listener, which may be different from the interpretation given by the speaker.

For example, one spouse may attempt to be witty at the expense of the other, either as a way of retaliating for previously incurred injuries, real or imagined, or to make himself look good in the company of others, without regard for the partner’s feelings.

The spouse who is always making sarcastic jokes at the expense of his partner can usually be stopped if the victim says, “John, the message I get from that bit of humor of yours is as follows . . . ,” and then spells out the message. The sender will usually try to laugh, and say, “Oh, you know I was only kidding.”

‘Well, maybe you were kidding, but that’s the message I got.” “You shouldn’t be so thin-skinned.”

‘Well, darling, would you please not pull that kind of joke on me in the future? I would consider it a great favor because it embarrasses the hell out of me. Or if you really are angry with me, let’s talk about it and knock off the sarcasm. Otherwise, I won’t be able to appreciate your humor because I’ll always be watching out for digs at me.”

The argument in this case arises over the nature of the command aspect of John’s message. His spouse takes the message literally, while John insists he wanted it to be taken humorously.

A response of this sort may cause some small fights in which the sender of the “kidding” messages accuses the receiver of being thin-skinned and oversensitive or perhaps of having a persecution complex. It may result in an admission by the “teaser” that something is indeed “bugging” him or her. But the essential point is that this confrontation permits the couple to discuss their problems openly and explicitly, so they can be dealt with. The communication system has moved toward a higher degree of functionality.

Part I

There are two major ways in which communication between individuals breaks down. The absence of clear and workable communication almost always involves both parties.

The first type of breakdown is in a sense physical. The spouses speak to each other, but neither “hears” what the other says. Sometimes this failure is the result of a lifetime of “non-listening” -a practice unfortunately common in the United States. The non-listening habit can also develop between spouses after they have been fighting for several months or years. Both spouses are on the defensive, and as soon as one begins to speak, the other starts preparing to defend himself against an attack; his mind is concentrating on what the reply will be, not on what is being said.

The physical breakdown of communication is present in almost every marriage in which there is trouble. We know of one New England housewife who, on a cold January evening, got a screwdriver and removed the front door from its hinges. The cold air and the snow began blowing into the house, and her surprised husband came out bellowing, ‘What the hell have you done?”

“I asked you three times to shut the door when you come in,” said the wife.

“You never said any such thing.”

‘When you left the house at eight o’clock this morning,” said the wife, “you left the door open. I ran out and knocked on the car window and said to you, ‘Please shut the door when you leave the house; you’re freezing the place out.’ ”

The husband said angrily, “I don’t remember you saying any such thing.”

“Do you remember my coming out to the car and shouting at you?”

“Yes, but I thought you were still bitching because I didn’t eat any of the pancakes you made for breakfast.”

The wife said, “You rolled the window down while I was talking and looked me right in the eye.”

‘Well, I don’t remember you saying anything about closing the door.”

“But,” said the wife, shouting, “I told you the same thing when you came home for lunch, and I told you the same thing when you left to go back to the office, and every time you were looking right at me.”

“I don’t remember hearing you tell me about shutting the door.” Probably this husband did not hear his wife tell him to shut the door, even though the sound reached his ears. Variations of this episode occur several times a day in most unhappy families. Fortunately, this kind of breakdown is easily repaired. If both spouses agree to improve their communication, there is a small exercise which will help.

A completed communication consists of the statement made by the first speaker, the acknowledgment by the recipient of the message, showing that he has heard it, and then the acknowledgment by the original speaker that he has heard the acknowledgment. If for about two weeks a husband and wife will conscientiously make certain that every message is a completed one, even though it sounds forced and silly at the beginning, the chances are that their physical communication will improve greatly. But this exercise, with its exaggerated emphasis, must be performed with every communication, no matter how small.

For example:

MARY: My, how blue the sky is. (This is the original statement.)

JOHN (acknowledging that he has heard): Yes, it certainly is a beautiful blue.

MARY (acknowledging JOHN’S acknowledgment): I’m glad you like it too.

Spouses will make many short statements like Mary’s in the course of a day-”Gracious, this must be the coldest day of the year;” “Phew, but I’m exhausted;” “Something smells good in the kitchen;” “I had a hell of a day at the office.”

The usual response to statements of this sort is a grunt, a nod of the head, or perhaps nothing at all. IT one of the spouses tends to be a chatterbox, the other may easily get into the habit of not listening to anything, thereby only reinforcing the chattering behavior, which doesn’t require a response.

When an attempt is made to complete all messages (so that each consists of statement, acknowledgment, and second acknowledgment), the amount of “nothing” talk is soon reduced. Spouses learn not to speak unless they desire to have a completed communication. Some examples of the completed communication follow.

MARY (original statement): Please shut the door when you come in or go out. It’s damn cold outside.

JOHN (acknowledgment): I’ll try to remember, and if I forget, will you remind me again?

MARY (acknowledgment of the acknowledgment): Thank you, John. Yes, I’ll remind you if you forget.

Another example:

JOHN (original message): Something smells good in the kitchen.

MARY (acknowledgment): Yes, I have an apple pie in the oven.

JOHN (acknowledgment of the acknowledgment): Oh, good, I hope we’re having it for dinner.

Even if the messages are negative, they must be completed:

MARY (original message): John, will you bring me ten pounds of potatoes on the way home from the office?

JOHN (acknowledgment): I’d rather not. I work late today, and if I stop at the supermarket there’s a hell of a long line at half past six.

MARY (acknowledgment of the acknowledgment): Oh, all right, I guess we can hold off till I go to the store the day after tomorrow myself.

It is unnatural for most couples to complete every communication in this way, and at the beginning of the exercise the routine will frequently be forgotten. Spouses must help each other to remember. If Mary makes a statement and John grunts an answer, Mary must say, in a courteous manner, “John are you going to acknowledge?” If John has acknowledged and Mary simply nods her head, John must remind her: “Mary, are you going to acknowledge my acknowledgment?”

For spouses intending to improve their marriage, the development of a functional communications pattern is the first step to be taken. Furthermore, the exercise just described can be a great deal of fun. It can be a good game; and when it is done quietly in public, the participants frequently gain a great feeling of shared understanding, because as they look around they see that other husbands and wives are usually paying no attention to what each says to the other. Besides, this little exercise can be of enormous benefit to all of one’s human relationships. It gradually transforms the habitual “mumbo-jumbo” conversation into an I-am-thinking dialogue, which is an exciting experience.

The failure of spouses to evaluate their differences as being only differences-not marks of inferiority.

A Frenchman considers himself superior to an Italian, and an Englishman feels superior to both of them. The Italian, in turn, looks down on both the French and the British. Most people evaluate cultural differences as better or worse, inferior or superior, good or bad, instead of simply accepting them as differences.

In many marriages, one spouse considers certain aspects of his rearing or traditions or tastes as superior to those of the other spouse. Naturally, the other spouse resents this attitude. The resulting tension is like a pebble in the shoe. At first it is only uncomfortable, but after some miles it breaks the skin and may cause a painful lesion.

This tendency to make the mistake of evaluating differences as inferiorities is most easily illustrated by the misunderstanding between nations and races. For example, before World War II, the Chinese thought American motion pictures which showed men and women kissing were in bad taste, and indeed, obscene. Partially for this reason, the Chinese considered Americans to be inferior barbarians. Yet in Chungking a respectable Chinese woman might, only a few yards from a highway, lift her skirts, squat over a “honey pot,” and defecate. This custom originated because in this part of the world human feces were prized as fertilizer and were collected. Also, Western-style plumbing was considered expensive and unnecessary. To the Chinese, their custom appeared practical and wise. Yet almost all Americans who saw Chinese publicly crouching over the smelly “honey pots” turned away in disgust. They ridiculed the Chinese as an inferior and backward people not sufficiently civilized to use modem plumbing.

This kind of misunderstanding is not self-limiting. Once started, it grows and grows. In marriage (with its day-after-day intimacy) the negative value judgments made by one spouse about the habits and traditions of the other constitute a slur on his background, a disparagement of his family, a slander on his breeding, and even an insult to his intelligence. The expression of such judgments is a cruel and effective way of repeating in endless ways, “You are inferior! You are inferior!”

Often the barbs are disguised as wit. For example, listen:

“Damn it, no one but poor white trash eats parsnips. If you had any taste . . .”

“Hell no. It’s simply that no one in your family ever knew how to prepare parsnips properly.”

Whether deliberately or not, one spouse is telling the other that he is inferior. If this message is taken seriously (and it usually is), it raises the crucial question, “If I’m no damned good, why did you marry me in the first place?”

And then the battle and the deterioration begin.

3 Parts to Destructive Omission

Destructive Omission I
Destructive Omission II
Destructive Omission III

Molding the marriage into a rule-governed system may seem unromantic and boorish. But people are misled by the myth that if there is “love,” all problems will work themselves out automatically. It just doesn’t happen that way.

A workable relationship (which is the first step toward a loving, enduring union) requires order, not chaos. If the rules and the resulting order do not come naturally-and they seldom do-they must be established through conscious effort. One cannot just go on hoping that they will grow spontaneously and satisfactorily. This principle applies to all relationships, whether between spouses, between business partners, or between nations. Part of the satisfaction and security of a workable marriage originates in the development of agreed-upon predictable behavior in basic family activities-the everyday chores, responsibilities, emotional exchanges, and exercises of taste. Accomplishing this is one of the great triumphs of a successful marriage. It is the cornerstone of survival in this age of rapid change, loosening cultural role assignments, and increased education tending toward the equalization of all people.

It is this predictable behavior that breeds trust, which is the greatest cohesive strength of a lasting, mutually nourishing marriage, as the discussion of trust in Chapter 12 makes clear. The reader must recall, however, that negative trust will develop if one repeatedly does not live up to his bargains and promises. An individual can be predictable by never being trustworthy. The kind of predictability that breeds positive trust is based on the fulfillment of one’s responsibilities, promises, and agreements.

In the establishment of order, not only who does what, but also how it is to be done must be determined. The spouses can only perform tasks within the limits of their behavioral repertoires and acquired skills. These limits must be discussed. In any particular area, either the performance level must be accepted by both, or steps, mutually agreed upon, must be taken to improve the skill. For example, if a wife cannot cook well enough to please her husband, perhaps the husband will do some of the wife’s chores while she attends cooking school. If both decide that the husband needs more education to increase his earning power, perhaps the wife will take a part-time job while he goes to school, mining areas of competence and responsibility. This myth has such a hold on people that they usually cannot shake it off. The situation breeds trouble.

When the spouses’ temperaments, abilities, and training make an established cultural prescription unnatural, husband and wife may find that they can neither change the rule (as established by society) nor follow it. They may then resort to subterfuge. Perhaps a husband goes to the PTA meeting only if his wife has a headache-and she usually develops a headache on PTA night. In this case there has been no agreement on who should stay home with the children and who should go to the meeting. Therefore, the husband may one day feel that he is being “done in,” even though he enjoys the meetings. Or, as happens more often than is realized, the wife may resent having to feel sick to get her husband to do something which she senses that he wants to do anyway. A rule-making session would eliminate discord here.

It is imperative that the spouses deliberately and mutually develop rules to guide their behavior. Omission of this procedure can destroy a marriage. Husband and wife should operate in ways which mutually assist each other-regardless of custom or tradition. Decisions must be made, for example, about who washes the dishes and when, who takes the children out on weekends, mows the lawn, goes to PTA meetings, takes care of minor repairs, and so forth. If spouses fail to make such arrangements, then every time a question of who does what comes up, it must be renegotiated, even if it has arisen many times before. The result is squandered energy-and destructive power struggles. What might have been a mutually helpful interaction turns into an argument in which each says, in effect, “I must have my way, you stupid, stubborn idiot!” Examples are common. Suppose a husband and wife have not decided on early-morning rush-period rules concerning who gets up first, who uses the bathroom first, and at what time, who fixes breakfast, who feeds the children, who sees that they get to school. If there are no rules, there will be bedlam every morning-and in most homes there is. A mother with several small children may believe it is her husband’s duty to help in the morning. However, he may feel that he should have a quiet, leisurely breakfast, reading the paper in peace, to prepare him for a day of decision making at the office.

Arrangements for situations like this should therefore be worked out and agreed upon.

Molding the marriage into a rule-governed system may seem unromantic and boorish. But people are misled by the myth that if there is “love,” all problems will work themselves out automatically. It just doesn’t happen that way.

A workable relationship (which is the first step toward a loving, enduring union) requires order, not chaos. If the rules and the resulting order do not come naturally-and they seldom do-they must be established through conscious effort. One cannot just go on hoping that they will grow spontaneously and satisfactorily. This principle applies to all relationships, whether between spouses, between business partners, or between nations. Part of the satisfaction and security of a workable marriage originates in the development of agreed-upon predictable behavior in basic family activities-the everyday chores, responsibilities, emotional exchanges, and exercises of taste. Accomplishing this is one of the great triumphs of a successful marriage. It is the cornerstone of survival in this age of rapid change, loosening cultural role assignments, and increased education tending toward the equalization of all people.

It is this predictable behavior that breeds trust, which is the greatest cohesive strength of a lasting, mutually nourishing marriage, as the discussion of trust in Chapter 12 makes clear. The reader must recall, however, that negative trust will develop if one repeatedly does not live up to his bargains and promises. An individual can be predictable by never being trustworthy. The kind of predictability that breeds positive trust is based on the fulfillment of one’s responsibilities, promises, and agreements.

In the establishment of order, not only who does what, but also how it is to be done must be determined. The spouses can only perform tasks within the limits of their behavioral repertoires and acquired skills. These limits must be discussed. In any particular area, either the performance level must be accepted by both, or steps, mutually agreed upon, must be taken to improve the skill. For example, if a wife cannot cook well enough to please her husband, perhaps the husband will do some of the wife’s chores while she attends cooking school. If both decide that the husband needs more education to increase his earning power, perhaps the wife will take a part-time job while he goes to school.

The clear assignment of authority and responsibility by the spouses does not result in a rigid relationship. Quite the contrary, it creates a flexibility which is impossible in a chaotic marriage. When behavior and performances are predictable, exceptions to the rules are possible-without suspicion or haggling.

Deciding who does what also conserves energy and time, thus leaving room for humor, good cheer, experimentation, and emotional virility. In contrast, if there is a failure to make and abide by rules, then the “business” of marriage saps the energy from the spouses and little is left for enjoyment and loving.

3 Parts to Destructive Omission

Destructive Omission I
Destructive Omission II
Destructive Omission III

The failures of spouses to identify, determine, and mutually assign areas of competence and responsibility, of who is in charge of what.

Married people are involved in an almost endless number of activities. In some, the determination of which partner is more competent and responsible can usually be made without question. For example, infant rearing is generally regarded as a female function, while chopping wood is assumed to be the responsibility of the male. In other activities such as, say, finances, both spouses may participate. One may do the bookkeeping, while the other pays the bills.

But there are many areas in which the competence and responsibility of each are difficult to determine. They range from relatively unimportant matters such as sweeping the leaves off the walk, or chaperoning a children’s party, to activities of major importance, such as making out the family budget. In certain pursuits each partner believes himself to have superior competence. Certain others-often bothersome and disagreeable-are regarded by each as the responsibility of the other.

These issues must be decided and agreed upon by the spouses.

Frequently the decision involves negotiations, discussions, and compromises. Suggestions on how to accomplish the negotiations are given in additional articles. Of course, cultural cues, social pressures and mores, influence the spouses in their mutual decision making; and husband and wife often are dominated by social pressures even when they sense that the socially directed methods won’t work. They often forget that social patterns and mores change; indeed, in this era entire cultures may change within a decade. It is far more common today than it was a few years ago for the husband to cook (his special gourmet dish) when the pair entertains. In some homes the father may not be the sole wage earner; both mother and father go to work, and both share the housework.

Often the myth (deriving from tradition and social habit) that the male must be in charge of certain things and the woman in charge of others frightens the couple from independently determining areas of competence and responsibility. This myth has such a hold on people that they usually cannot shake it off. The situation breeds trouble.

When the spouses’ temperaments, abilities, and training make an established cultural prescription unnatural, husband and wife may find that they can neither change the rule (as established by society) nor follow it. They may then resort to subterfuge. Perhaps a husband goes to the PTA meeting only if his wife has a headache-and she usually develops a headache on PTA night. In this case there has been no agreement on who should stay home with the children and who should go to the meeting. Therefore, the husband may one day feel that he is being “done in,” even though he enjoys the meetings. Or, as happens more often than is realized, the wife may resent having to feel sick to get her husband to do something which she senses that he wants to do anyway. A rule-making session would eliminate discord here.

It is imperative that the spouses deliberately and mutually develop rules to guide their behavior. Omission of this procedure can destroy a marriage. Husband and wife should operate in ways which mutually assist each other-regardless of custom or tradition. Decisions must be made, for example, about who washes the dishes and when, takes the children out on weekends, mows the lawn, goes to PTA meetings, takes care of minor repairs, and so forth. If spouses fail to make such arrangements, then every time a question of who does what comes up, it must be renegotiated, even if it has arisen many times before. The result is squandered energy-and destructive power struggles. What might have been a mutually helpful interaction turns into an argument in which each says, in effect, “I must have my way, you stupid, stubborn idiot!” Examples are common. Suppose a husband and wife have not decided on early-morning rush-period rules concerning who gets up first, who uses the bathroom first, and at what time, who fixes breakfast, who feeds the children, who sees that they get to school. If there are no rules, there will be bedlam every morning-and in most homes there is. A mother with several small children may believe it is her husband’s duty to help in the morning. However, he may feel that he should have a quiet, leisurely breakfast, reading the paper in peace, to prepare him for a day of decision making at the office.

Arrangements for situations like this should therefore be worked out and agreed upon.

3 Parts to Destructive Omission

Destructive Omission I
Destructive Omission II
Destructive Omission III

One out of every two marriages ends in divorce.

• Several studies have shown that the divorce rate in this country is high because people seem more willing to leave a relationship than to get to the root of the problem through “honest and open” communication. One of today’s biggest fears is the fear of intimate communication.

Extramarital affairs among married men and married women are at a peak.

• Oftentimes couples will not leave a marriage but instead have extramarital affairs. As studies have shown, it is not the “sex-act” that couples are longing for, but rather the closeness of someone who will “listen” to them, who will understand them, and who will “talk” to them. If couples would learn how to better communicate with one another by using what I call the Sex Talk Rules-the do’s and don’ts of how to communicate with the opposite sex-there would be virtually no need to look for someone else.

Sexual dysfunction in on a dramatic rise.

• The rate of sexual dysfunction for both men and women has increased dramatically over the last five years. Psychologists feel that poor communication skills are to blame for this.

Understanding and incorporating Sex Talk can enhance intimacy between couples.

• Most marriage and sex counselors believe that the major cause of impotence in males and frigidity in women results from not knowing how to communicate desires openly and honestly. Oftentimes both words and tone of voice alienate people, causing emptiness, and sometimes hostility. By learning how to utilize talk sex, couples can sidestep or eliminate these problems.

The fact that many men and women continue to communicate in sexual stereotypes perpetuates these problems in our society today.

The way in which both men and women have been raised, conditioned, and socialized has created genuine and sometimes even insurmountable communication problems for both sexes. We take for granted that the opposite sex understands us, yet it has been clearly proven that men and women do not communicate in similar ways.

Nature vs. Nurture

Why are males and females different in their communication styles. Some reasons are obvious. Others are less apparent. To date, there is great controversy concerning these differences. Are they biological, environmental, or a combination of both? Are we different because of the way we are raised or because of our biology, neurochemistry, or hormones?

For centuries biologists, neurologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists have searched for one definitive answer. The only consensus is that a combination of all these variables contributes to differences between the sexes.

Several researchers have discovered that hormones are responsible for “masculinizing” or “feminizing” the developing brain in utero, which allows little boys and little girls to experience the world differently as they mature.

This may be why men and women do not handle such behaviors as stress or aggression in the same way. For instance, men may become more physically agitated than women during stressful situations because of an increase in their testosterone level.

Women, on the other hand, become more emotional and have more memory loss when there is a lack of the female hormone estrogen. According to Beverly Hills gynecologist and reproductive endocrinologist Dr. Gil Mileikowsky, an increase in estrogen leads to more water retention which thereby causes the irritability familiar in Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS).

Other aspects of behavior are not hormone related. A woman’s ability to nurture, for instance, has not been connected scientifically to estrogen levels. Studies show that “nurturing” behavior is mostly a learned phenomenon. After all, adoptive mothers do not have biological hormonal elevations as they haven’t physically birthed the child. Yet, they usually do a superb job nurturing their infants. Researcher Harry Harlow’s experiments with female monkeys at the University of Wisconsin also confirm that “nurturing” is a learned behavior instead of a hormonally influenced one. He found that those female monkeys raised in isolation were not very effective at nurturing their young, despite their increased hormonal component.

In essence, hormonal influences do seem to have some influence on the behavior of the different sexes, but it is not this influence alone which can affect male and female behavioral patterns.

There are many spouses who operate according to a tit-for-tat system. If Mary performs and behaves in a manner which John desires, then John will behave in a manner which Mary desires. But if Mary displeases John (and sometimes he requires the impossible), then John will, with effort and planning, behave so as to make Mary as miserable as he can. Unlike the quid pro quo process, in which the relationship agreements originate largely out of awareness, the tit-for-tat system implies a revengeful kind of conscious motivation which seeks equality in a punitive way that cannot possibly succeed. (Unfortunately, even nations seem not to have learned this elementary distinction.)

The following statements are characteristic expressions of the tit-for-tat relationship.

“If you treated me as if you really loved me, I could stand anything, accomplish anything.”

“You are negative about everything I do. Whether I swing a big deal or take the children camping, you suggest that it could have been done better. When we do things together, you always try to take charge, making it clear that my method is no good. If you encouraged me, the sky would be the limit in our relationship.”

“If you’d only make a good home, I’d be here all the time and I’d be loving.”

“If only you wouldn’t drink so much, I wouldn’t be so nervous and bitchy.”

“If you didn’t interrupt me whenever I started talking, I’m sure I could cure myself of the habit of using filthy language about the house.”

“If you didn’t shout at me or embarrass me in front of strangers, and if you’d hold my hand and look after me at parties, I’m sure I’d never hurt again in my life.”

“If you’d only read a few important books and some good newspapers, maybe we could find something to talk about.”

“If you’d stop going to those damned bridge parties every afternoon and stay home more…”

“If you didn’t watch television day and night and would talk to me just a little…”

“If you’d stop apologizing to guests about the miserable house, the poor meals…”

“If you’d only go to cooking school and learn how to prepare a meal…”

“If you’d only be a little neater and stop dropping your ashes all over the house…”

“If you’d only stop pampering the children…”

In each of these statements, one spouse indicates that he feels his own behavior depends on that of his partner.

Here we have the old chicken-and-egg problem. Even if it would help for the husband to be neater and for the wife to play less bridge, who will make the first move? And if someone does take the initiative, will his spouse regard this as an admission that he is the villain? More important, are these complaints valid, or do they really represent oversimplified attacks based on more general relationship problems? There are ways to avoid some of these traps, and we shall describe suitable methods. But in any event, if you find yourself simply blaming your spouse for all your problems, you had better seek a new constructive approach. For whatever else you do, you would have a hard time picking a worse technique to help a bad situation.

In the discussion of the symmetrical relationship and the status struggle we mentioned that certain statements or actions may unconsciously be directed at the spouse in a derogatory, attacking manner by a person who is attempting to establish that he is the peer or the superior of the other, in order to build his self-esteem, his self-respect, his dignity. This behavior is often of the youhurt-me-so-I’ll-hurt-you variety; in many instances it becomes a form of mental plundering, pillaging, and weakening.

The cause of this sort of conduct is likely to be vague, hidden, or camouflaged. It may be something which the other partner is believed-whether correctly or not-to have done or to have omitted doing. Perhaps one of the spouses suffers from his own sense of inferiority and in compensation attempts to elevate himself by stepping on his partner. Often an individual may attack his spouse on any insignificant issue when his real criticism is related to something entirely different. For instance, a husband may nag his wife for being a mediocre cook (even though he really doesn’t mind her cooking) because he is jealous of her social success. He is shy and awkward socially, but may unconsciously sense that if he attacks her on this issue, he automatically will expose his own feeling of inadequacy and his envy. In order to avoid painful self-disclosure, he chooses to pick on one of his wife’s sensitive areas-her cooking. He is probably not even aware that he is doing it, and certainly does not understand why.

Attacks of this kind are not restricted to husbands and wives.

They may involve employer and employee, brother and sister, two congressmen who happen to sit next to each other. But they are most obvious and (probably most damaging) in the case of marital partners simply because marriage lasts so long and is so intimate. Spouses cannot keep up a front with each other, no matter how much they wish to do so, or how hard they try to deceive themselves.

The symptoms of this type of human aggressiveness-though not necessarily the causes-have been reasonably well identified by psychiatrists and psychologists. In most cases in which marriages break up, several varieties of this destructive kind of behavior have been at work It is probable that these patterns of behavior are present in almost all marriages, but they need not be damaging. In the same way, the germs of tuberculosis and pneumonia are present in the bodies of most human beings, but these pathogenic germs are kept under control and do not become pernicious unless the body becomes weakened by fatigue, other illnesses, or the malfunction of an organ. Correspondingly, in a healthy marriage the natural defense system of the individual can handle the derogatory attacks, sometimes by tolerance, sometimes by quid pro quo techniques, sometimes by rendering the attacks harmless through personal change or a good old-fashioned fight.

Many a spouse, after spending expensive months with a psychiatrist or marriage counselor, has at least become aware of the extreme, constant attacks that he unconsciously makes on the other. It is one of the great rewards of psychiatry to witness the client’s explosive surprise upon recognizing that he has unconsciously been beating his partner into an emotional pulp. Usually the response is, “But I love my wife (or husband); how could I have done such a terrible thing for so many years?”

If this illumination comes before the partner has erected permanent defenses against the tormentor, there usually follows a satisfying revitalization of the marriage. Because the marriage process is an interlocking system, anyone action which has been fed into it has effects in a dozen different ways. When a person recognizes and understands the attack he has been making on the other, he is likely, almost in a moment of revelation, to understand a variety of past experiences which were discordant and confusing.

In the hope that some readers will experience illuminations of this sort, we present in the following sections on “How to Drive Your Spouse Crazy” examples and analyses of the most common methods by which one partner attacks and cripples the other, without even knowing what he is doing,

Yet the reader should recognize that it is incorrect to say that one spouse has “ruined” or “castrated” or “undermined” the other. A law of physics states that every action has an equal and opposing reaction; correspondingly, while there is no victim without a victimizer, it is equally true that the victimizer requires a willing subject. For instance, there can be no aggressive or dominating husband unless there is an accepting or passive wife. However, in each of the following examples we are concerned only with techniques employed by one of the spouses; it is up to the reader to remember that this approach is used for the sake of simplicity, so that the reader perhaps will be able to recognize the complexities of actual life.

We must recognize that human sex can be used for various purposes. First, it serves as a basis for procreation. Lust is the inducement of nature to lure every being into the service of maintaining and preserving the species. Religious and state laws regard this as the only permissible purpose of sex, any sexual activity outside of wedlock and any artificial prevention and interruption of pregnancy being prohibited or frowned on.

Second, sex can be used as a tool for personal gratification, mainly as a vehicle of pleasure. As man learned to escape nature’s compulsion, he made sex independent of the process of procreation. Today, the two functions, namely fertilization and sex experience as pleasure, are for most people completely unrelated, the percentage of sexual acts which lead to pregnancy being rather small. But pleasure implies many sensations, some of which have completely different and sometimes contradictory meanings and significance. Pleasure can imply superficial and rather incidental gratification or deep emotions which involve the whole personality. The kind of gratification sought determines the role sex plays in the lives of different persons. There are those who consider pleasure of any kind as the only reason for living; to such persons, sex is merely an inexhaustible source-perhaps the only source-of enjoyment. Their hedonism or “pleasure hunger” as Wexberg calls it, makes them grasp any opportunity for pleasure, with little or no regard to the price or consequences. Hedonists are usually disappointed and cynical people and, therefore, shortsighted in regard to life as a whole. They do not believe in their own future and happiness and, therefore, do not care what will happen later. For them, pleasure has to compensate for their feeling of being a failure. In the same category belong those who use sex for the purpose of gaining power, prestige, social status, or personal superiority.

Sex, however, can have a third function, that of unification. It is a tool which can unite two persons more closely than anything else. Through sex two may become one, physically and spiritually. This unifying function of sex also provides pleasure, of course. But it is a fundamentally different pleasure from the previously described pleasure. Its gratification is deeper and lasting. It implies giving oneself, while hedonism implies mainly taking advantage of another. While hedonistic excitement seeks variation and depends upon the spur of the moment, the desire for unification looks for stability and future happiness.

The subjective feeling of love may employ all three types of sexual functions. The first and the third, however, involve a long-range program, while the second, the tendency to seek mere gratification, is likely to neglect human and social values.

It seems that in our time sex has lost to a great extent its first, primary function, but people have not yet found the third, the fulfillment of unification. The concept of sex as being useful only for pleasure is prevalent and deprives people of deeper gratification, of lasting love, faithfulness, and devotion.