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. 

To resolve problems effectively as they arise, couples might consider putting some ground rules in place before they need them.

Sometimes called “rules of engagement,” these are simply guidelines both partners agree to follow when a difficult conversation starts turning into an argument—or an argument starts becoming a full-on fight.

Because once you’re triggered, jacked up, and going straight into reaction mode, that’s a lousy time to develop an action plan.

Wouldn’t it be better to already have one?

One strategy I often suggest to couples is the time-out.

The basic rule is simple: Either partner can call a time-out, neither partner can prevent it, and the person calling it is responsible for saying when they’ll return.

Why Take a Time-Out?

One of the difficulties with conflict is that we’re responding not only to what we’re arguing about, but also to the physiological experience of arguing.

Our bodies become activated. Heart rate increases. Muscles tense. Attention narrows. Meanwhile, the argument may trigger older fears, expectations, and internal narratives: Here we go again. She never listens. He doesn’t care. I’m trapped. I’m being abandoned.

At some point, you’re no longer two people doing your finest problem-solving.

You’re reacting.

It would be wonderful to understand every emotional trigger as it occurs, but the middle of a heated argument is probably not the best laboratory.

Sometimes the more productive thing to do is simply stop.

A Time-Out Isn’t Walking Away

A time-out gives both partners an opportunity to reduce emotional reactivity, regain some composure, and return to the conversation in a better position to actually resolve something.

But there’s an important distinction:

Taking a time-out isn’t the same as walking out.

Walking out says, I’m done with this conversation.

A time-out says, I can’t have this conversation productively right now, and I’m going to come back.

I generally suggest couples begin with somewhere around 20–30 minutes, although different people need different amounts of time. More important than the exact number of minutes is that both partners know what is happening and when they will reconnect.

Make the Rules Before the Fight

Couples should discuss their time-out guidelines collaboratively and, importantly, before they’re needed.

The guidelines can include what each partner considers appropriate during the break.

Obvious examples might include not getting drunk or high, devouring a pizza, masturbating alone or accompanied by porn, or doing anything else likely to create an entirely new argument when you return.

The specifics aren’t really the point.

The point is to think about what will help reduce escalation rather than increase resentment, retaliation, or tit-for-tat behavior.

And whatever the guidelines are, both partners have to agree to them.

If one partner hasn’t agreed to a rule, the couple doesn’t have a rule. They have one person’s preference.

If you reach an impasse, keep the ball in play. Look for alternatives, compromises, or temporary solutions you can test and revise later. The goal isn’t to design the perfect conflict-management system on the first try. You’re building something together and getting better at using it.

Always Have a Return Plan

When the agreed-upon time is over, reconnect.

A text can be enough: I’m heading back.

If one partner needs more time, that’s okay. But they should say so and give another specific time: I need another 20 minutes. I’ll come back at 8:15.

Additional time is fine.

Disappearing isn’t.

That prevents a time-out from quietly turning into avoidance—and addresses one of the biggest reasons time-outs can go badly.

“You’re Just Walking Away From Me”

Not everyone experiences a partner’s departure the same way.

To one person, leaving the room may mean:

I’m trying not to make this worse.

To the other, it may mean:

You’re abandoning me.

Or:

You don’t care.

Or:

You’re deciding when this conversation is over.

That person may follow their partner, continue arguing through the door, or otherwise try to keep the conversation going.

Then the person trying to leave feels controlled.

The person trying to continue feels abandoned.

And congratulations: you now have two fights.

This is exactly why the agreement needs to exist beforehand.

Predictability Helps

In relationships, control is practically the F-word. Nobody wants to be controlled, and nobody particularly enjoys being accused of controlling someone else.

But when situations feel out of control, human beings often become more controlling. Uncertainty contributes to that.

If I don’t know whether you’re coming back, I may try harder to prevent you from leaving. If I know our agreement is, Either one of us can call a time-out, we won’t continue the fight during it, and we’ll reconnect at 8:15, there’s considerably less uncertainty to react to.

The point isn’t that both partners have to love time-outs equally.

It’s that they learn to carry them out consistently, predictably, and respectfully.

And none of this means the original problem magically disappears.

You still have to come back and talk about it.

A good time-out isn’t a way of escaping conflict.

It’s a way of preventing the conflict from becoming the problem.