A newer version of the platform is available. Please refresh the page.
Sign Up to Get information about Sales & Events Click Here
A newer version of the platform is available. Please refresh the page.
By Sage de Beixedon Breslin, Ph.D.
Table of Contents
I. Coming to Grips with Violence in Relationship
I sat on the porch one night, taking a long drag, listening to the sounds emanating from the floor below me, and wondering, “What happened?”
Like so many partners in long-term relationships, that question occasionally rings through my brain. I can feel the tension mount over weeks, sometimes days, maybe even hours, then wait for the hammer to fall. Sometimes it lands with a soft thud and I am able to shrug my shoulders and let it go. On other days, the sound is deafening, and I wonder if this all makes sense anymore. And then, there are so many other days, where the impact falls somewhere in between the two, and after a few hours, the reparation begins.
In her research on domestic violence, Walker (2000) found that the violence in relationships could typically be described in a cycle: in the tension-building phase, partners experienced mild, repetitive conflict. If the agitated partner was unable to calm, or some resolution wasn’t implemented, the tension escalated until violence erupted. In much of Walker’s research, the violence was physical: a push, a grab, or a blow. From there, couples often engaged in what came to be known as the “Honeymoon Phase” during which aggressors would express remorse and attempt to offer nurture and comfort to their wounded partners, as if to cajole them back into the relationship. Feeling loved, partners often conceded and recommitted to the relationship, seemingly forgetting all that had taken place. For some couples, this Honeymoon Phase could last weeks, or even months, before tension began building again in the agitated partner. For others, the Honeymoon Phase was but a brief respite before the battle began anew.
III. Common Couple Violence – Variations on a Cycle Theme
What Walker didn’t study in her initial research (published in 1984) was what Johnson (1995) eventually described as “common couple violence”. While physical and sexual violence is certainly a mainstay in partnerships dominated by “patriarchal terrorists”, it is less prevalent in the majority of relationships. What is far more common is relationships in which one, or generally both, parties express their stress and frustration in the form of verbal or physical violence against one another. And, while it is generally believed that physical violence is significantly more detrimental to the relationship than are verbal insults, the insidiousness of verbal violence in relationship may be vastly underestimated. That old phrase, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” may be one of our greatest myths in relationship.
Clearly, anyone who’s been at the receiving end of verbal violence knows that the sting is really no less than that of a back-hand blow. Even worse, most of us question our reactions to such insults, put-downs, and criticisms. Verbal violence, especially in its more subtle form, is “crazy-making”. Because it does not carry the weight of brute force or strangulation, we question its veracity. Partners with greater insecurity or lower self-esteem wonder if they’ve done something to bring it on – yep – just like the women that Walker studied.
Verbal violence, like incest, carries with it not only a deep sense of betrayal, but a pervasive subtlety that may invoke far greater damage than the occasional closed fist. When you don’t see it coming, and you fail to prepare for the blow, the traumatic sequelae can be far-reaching.
Partners in such relationships may become deadened to the cues to some degree. Because they unconsciously recognize that these behaviors occur in a cycle, they begin to numb themselves to the actual insults. The tension builds, and builds, and when the dam breaks in these relationships, there is an element of surprise, betrayal and resentment which may not have existed in the relationships that Walker originally studied. In these couples, the eruption may occur, and within days or hours, one or both partners may initiate reparation techniques similar to those described by Gottman (1999) in his research about successful coupling. And, whether the reparation comes in the form of an apology, a “post-mortem” discussion, or great “make-up sex”, the cycle doesn’t end there. Couples who become desensitized to this level of violence in their relationship cease to even recognize that their behaviors are cyclical. To them, the post-game wrap-up, or mind-blowing make-up sex will resolve it all. They are generally oblivious to the reality that the cycle continues, and is but months, weeks, days or even moments away from that “re-start button”.
And there, in the darkness, on the back porch, I wondered, “What happened to the afterglow?”
IV. Impacts on the ability to re-set: Blows to the afterglow
For most couples, make-up sex feels as if it can cure all ails. It is more passionate, more intense, and more recuperative than sex generated at any other point in relationship. And, in the early phases of relationship, the “afterglow” associated with make-up sex seems to last for quite some time.
Anyone who has ever had sex knows what I mean. Just after orgasm, men enter what is described as the “refractory period”. Following climax, men deepen their relaxation to a state of near unconsciousness – frankly, most men just pass out and fall asleep. And, it’s not because men are unfeeling jerks. It’s because their bodies are driven by reparative biochemistry that requires deep sleep following this sexual rigor.
When they rise, it is as if they do so from deep hibernation. Slowly, the hormones wear off and they re-enter the relational world. Early in partnership, this post-coital stupor is followed by a period of cooperation and collaboration. For women, there is a post-coital afterglow – a period during which women regard their partners with greater love and affection because of the perceived intimacy and connection associated with the sexual act. Early on in relationships, make-up sex can actually improve how the partnership is perceived.
But, what about in long-term relationships? Is the effect enduring? Do we still benefit from make-up sex in the same way? The initial survey of my own clients generated a different response. Like my own inquiry from time to time, they simply wondered, “What happened to the afterglow?”
V. Walker’s violent trends: Do they hold in those who experience common couple violence?
In her research of violence in couples, Walker (2000) discovered a trend: she recognized that as the phases of the cycle shorten, or even disappear, violence escalates and becomes more lethal. So, I wonder now, if we apply this to those in Johnson’s (1995) research who reported common couple violence, would we see the disappearance of make-up sex altogether? And, without the reparative recommitment of make-up sex, might we see increased resentment, detachment and separation, maybe even resulting in the development of extramarital affairs? Unfortunately, as so many researchers of Intimate Partner Violence suggest, jealousy and infidelity fuel the fire of domestic violence even further.
So what about the afterglow? Is there any way to maintain it? Does it undergo a natural decline with age or duration of relationship, or can it be remediated or rehabilitated in order to stave off further acts of verbal violence?
Perhaps there is a biochemical phenomenon we can study here. With a little help from an Endocrinologist, could we avert certain disaster, or are we just doomed?
VI. Averting disaster: What successful couples do
I look at our friends and family who have experienced successful relationships for a decade or more. I recognize similarities and differences in our marriages, and when searching for elements of success, I locate many similar to those offered by Gottman (1999):
Gottman’s work on successful couples culminated in the development of his Seven Principles for making marriage work. The Principles are based on the notion that couples must maintain positive feeling and provide support to one another while actively using conflict resolution strategies and repair attempts to keep resentment out of the relationship. The Principles are as follows:
Principle 1: Enhance your love map
Principle 2: Nurture your fondness and admiration for one another
Principle 3: Turn toward each other instead of away
Principle 4: Let Your Partner Influence You
Principle 5: Solve Solvable Problems
Principle 6: Overcoming Gridlock
Principle 7: Create shared meaning
In addition to living the Seven Principles, Gottman notes that it imperative that the couple manage or avoid what he terms, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. They are:
VII. Redirecting couples for success
So, where do we go from here? As clinicians, we seek to discover and learn techniques which will allow our clients to resolve their issues. Thirty years ago, the solution for domestic violence was to flee, and move on. With the ubiquitous stressors of today’s world, common couple, or “situational couple” violence has become even more ordinary and the pressure has increased for clinicians to help couples resolve these issues and move forward. It has become our duty to teach couples to not only identify sources of violence in their relationships, but also to resolve these differences. Our journey leads us to places we did not think we’d go – out of the fire, into the bedroom, and beyond. If we are to actually eliminate the pervasive violence which now exists in so many relationships, it is imperative that we teach couples how to break through the denial, stop the cycle, and begin the process of reparation: one belief, one word, and one touch, at a time.
Gottman, John M., and Nan Silver. (1999). “Principle 3: Turn toward each other instead of away,” in The Seven Principles for Making Marriages Work (Chapter Five, 79-97). New York: Three Rivers Press (Random House, Inc.).
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 (May), 283-294.
Walker, L. (2000). The Battered Woman Syndrome, 2nd Edition. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.