To effectively resolve problems, as they arise, couples might consider putting some ground rules in place. Sometimes called: rules of engagement, these can be guidelines, courses of action that both partners agree to follow in difficult situations. For example, arguments, or full-on fights. Anytime one’s amygdala is overriding their abilities to respond productively, participate rationally, are triggered or jacked up, and going right into reaction mode. Wouldn’t it be better to have an action plan? One already in place, that you and your partner both have previously discussed, and agreed to? A stratagem I’ll often suggest to couples. 

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

If there’s an irony to conflicts, it’s that it isn’t the argument that’s vexatious, but the physiological experience of arguing. It’s the feelings of being in the state of conflict, not the conflict itself, that triggers our individual array of negative feelings. Of course it’s exquisitely difficult to distinguish these when, at the same time, there’s a quick surge of mobilizing chemicals rushing throughout your brain, activating, and thus urging the fight, flight, or freeze response. All of this happens in milliseconds, triggering further adverse responses in the process, and potentially increasing the length and intensity of negative emotional states. All of these, in turn, effect, and compromise, our ability to think. 

However, if there’s an even bigger irony it’s that recent studies in Neuroscience have revealed that negative emotions, such as those triggered during relationship conflicts, actually last for only 90 seconds. For most though, looking back on such arguments, the negative feelings didn’t just come and go, but lingered, usually increased, and probably lasted for days after the argument. However, the reason negative feelings linger is our susceptibility to getting sucked further into them, in response to our past experience of conflicts. Each of us have preexisting, internal narratives and beliefs, which influence and contribute to our susceptibility to specific emotional triggers, subsequently inducing prolonged negative narrative loops. 

Now, it would be wonderful to untangle and understand the relationship between our internal narratives and their triggers, to do so may not be realistic while currently in such emotionally triggering circumstances. It may actually be more productive to simply step away and take a break, rather than risking the negative feelings increasing, and wind up looping on, rather then sorting out the feelings.

Having the option of taking time outs, couples stand a better chance of avoiding what, in actuality, may end up just being negative drama. Time outs offer partners a viable safeguard against volatility, shouting matches, while navigating a difficult discussion, or an ordinary disagreement devolving into a heated argument. I usually suggest time outs be anywhere from 20-30 minutes, strongly recommending they include specific guidelines that both partners have previously discussed and agreed to before putting time outs in place. That way if either feels they need a break from a difficult, or triggering fight, they can (at least for their own part) mitigate, or prevent, further emotional reactivity, regain composure, and be in a better place to resolve the conflict after. Guidelines are individual requests or specific limits they’d like there to be, during a time out. Obvious examples might be, not getting drunk or high, devouring a pizza, masturbating alone or accompanied by porn during a time out. The point is for partners to recognize their needs in relation to what would help prevent negative emotional escalation, resentment, the impulse for tit for tat behaviors. However, whatever the particular guideline, again both partners have to agree to guidelines: before any are put into place.

To come up with guidelines, I emphasize couples do so collaboratively, and encourage they treat it as a team building exercise. This helps ensure that both partners participate, and that each has a say in continuing to shape the relationships. If one partner can’t, or hasn’t agreed to a specific guideline, then the couple hasn’t agreed to that specific guideline. They will need to continue discussing it, amend it, or agree to set it aside for now. If it poses getting stuck at an impasse, I suggest that couples try to keep the ball in play by being creative. For example, looking for other possible solutions, work arounds, or temporary placeholders. View things as learning opportunities to be improved with practice. In fact, allowing for creative solutions offers more possibilities, and increases partners’ sense of agency, and mitigates the rigidity influenced by negative feelings. This helps decrease the susceptibility to prolonged negative states, and potentially unnecessary reactivity—from some emotional trigger that, in reality, only lasts 90 seconds.

Smart phones being practically ubiquitous, when either partner’s time out has ended, it might be helpful to text the other to let them know they are returning. If either partner doesn’t feel ready, that’s ok, however, they do need to let their partner know that they need some additional time. I usually suggest any additional time be no more than 10-15 minutes. After having additional time, if they still don’t feel ready, they do need to come back in person and let the other know, and giving a specific, concrete, time they can resume.

Although every partner has the right to take a time out if and when they choose, not every partner initially sees this the same way, and this can make time outs tricky. Especially in the heat of an argument when emotions are already difficult to control. One partner taking a break can feel like a slight to the other, that they’re being disregarded, treated or seen as a crazy person, or the other parter is taking their control away. They may try to prevent, or detain, the other from taking a time out, to regain a sense of control. The problem is that it’s easy to confuse a partner’s need for agency, for a partner assuming control, and thus, in turn, assert, or increase resistance. 

The point isn’t necessarily whether partners relish time outs in the same way, but that they carry them out in the same way: consistently and reliably way, maintaining respect for themselves, and equally extending respect to their partner, and with the intention of preventing arguments from escalating. It’s when there’s a lack of guidelines that things typically go sideways.  

In the world of relationships, control is the equivalent of the F word. Just as nobody wants to be controlled, nobody wants to be perceived as controlling. However, spoiler alert, it’s human nature that when things are out of control, humans get controlling. Because, for humans, uncertainty is like kryptonite. Where emotions, and thus reactivity, are volatile, it’s best to steer clear of uncertainty. That’s why if partners agree to specific guidelines for time outs beforehand, it increases the likelihood both will be less reactive to a partner taking a time out.

Now this isn’t to say: any problem will be automatically resolved, and onto the next issue. Just because couples have established, and agreed to guidelines, they still need to practice, further develop and revise the guidelines; following the same steps they followed previously: both partners collaborating, both agreeing, and each being individually responsible for practicing them according to the guidelines they’ve agreed to.