RELATIONSHIP COMMUNICATION

 THE COMMUNICATION RULES

These communication rules are designed to help couples, close friends and close family members communicate better with each other.  Good communication can make a night and day difference in a relationship.  Imagine watching a traffic intersection or football game with no agreed rules at all.  What would you expect that to be like?  So if you see the benefit of rules in a game of cards, football, and traffic signals, at least have good set of rules for something as important as communication in your significant relationships.

RULE 1:  TAKE TURNS TALKING ABOUT PROBLEM ISSUES

When someone explains a situation that is not a "problem issue" between those two people, like about a situation involving that person's past, a movie, or about only other people, it's fine for the person doing the explaining to give a long uninterrupted explanation, and for the other person to just mostly listen.

However, when talking about problems between those two people, each person should be trying to leave regular pauses and openings as much as possible allowing the other party to reply regularly and join in on the conversation.  Normally, when discussing problems, if a person isn't allowed at least a few word reply every minute (10 seconds out of every two minutes), this imbalance is a sign that this is not going to be a productive conversation, and the conversation dominating person should talk less.  However, sometimes when discussing problem issues, someone needs a longer uninterrupted explanation to connect a number of dots in a row, or give a longer overall explanation of things, and so they need the floor for a longer period of time.   In these cases, the person that wants to give a long uninterrupted explanation should ask if it's OK for them to be the only one to talk until they say they are done with their explanation.  The drawback to talking for an extended period of time, without the other person being able to respond, is that it might be hard for the listening-only person to remember all the points being made and all the good replies they may have had, greatly hampering their ability to address the raised points and work out corrective action on those points.  So if a long uninterrupted explanation has been given, and if the points being raised are points that the explainer wants corrective action to be taken on, then the long-talker should then restate those points ONE AT A TIME, allowing the other person to address and respond to each point ONE AT A TIME. Sometimes, taking notes can help with this.  Otherwise, any of the points in the stream of many points that were raised all in a row should be expected to be not acted upon or corrected, in general.  If you want corrections on issues of concern, one point must be discussed and responded to at a time before moving on to another point. 

Another option, is that when people start talking over each other too much, and when a person feels they are not getting enough speaking time in a conversation, they have the right to ask for a "talking stick", which means both people need to start taking equal turns talking.  This is in reference to a technique used by ancient American Indian tribes, where they would pass a stick around and only the person holding the stick had the right to speak. The person asking for the "talking stick" gets the second turn, meaning the other person who didn't request the talking stick gets the first turn so they can wrap-up a good stopping point before letting someone else talk.   The length of the turns can be negotiated, but if there is not a quick consensus on acceptable turn length, the default turn length is one minute.  These equal turns should be timed on a phone timer with a loud beeper. 

RULE 2: DON'T TELL THE OTHER PERSON WHAT THEIR POSITION IS IF THEY DISAGREE

       The point of talking is to bring new thoughts to light, to clarify, correct and to expand understanding.  The human language, with all the short-cuts of thought and explanation that are needed, inherrently do not convey things perfectly with a guarantee of no mistake or misunderstanding. So, if you are assuming the other person has good intentions of trying to be honest with you, you need to accept their clarification or correction if they give one. If you say "No, you said X, so your position is X", this means you are arguing against YOUR statement and understanding of their position, not theirs, which means you are arguing with yourself.  This rule is that you must accept the other person's clarifications and corrections if they give one.

Further, when addressing issues regarding relationship problems, it is important to reiterate to the other person what you understand them to be saying, and to get a confirmation that you got it right before assuming you really understand their position.  

RULE 3: ALLOW INTERUPTIONS

       If either person interrupts, the other person should immediately stop talking and listen for at least five seconds.  If after at least five seconds of listening the interruption appears to not be about a communication concern the interrupted person has three main choices;  a) continue listening and accept the interruption as part of the conversation, b) ask for a talking stick (turn talking, explained earlier), or c) ASK how (or if) the interruption is about a communication concern.  If the reply to this question (c) is still not about a communication concern the originally interrupted person may interrupt back to say they'd like "the floor" back to continue expressing their original thought, and the floor should be immediately given back if requested.  If the interruption is about a communication concern, the interrupted person should stop talking and instead LISTEN to the full extent of the communication concern, and reply with ONLY an "OK", "YES", "Thanks for reminding me", or "I will keep that in mind", and try to change something about the way they are speaking, and NOT, deny, refute, disagree, counter or explain.  This is the time for a speedy acknowledgement of at least hearing the issue, not the time for a counter argument that doesn't respect why the person brought up the issue, and instead detracts from getting back to the original subject matter, and further detracts at least the subconscious ability to remember and correct the communication problem.

In order for this rule to work well, both parties need to know and memorize these communication rules well enough to immediately recognize which rule is being talked about by the simple mention of only a few words. For example, "allow interruptions", or "stating thoughts", "talk first", or "prohibited response".   If you know these rules well enough to recognize what is being explained by hearing only a few words, and if the interrupted person replies with only the allowed few-word replies, this allows a communication concern to be both addressed and answered in a total of only five or six seconds, which allows the floor to go back to the originally interrupted person quick enough to not even hardly break their flow of thought or cause them to forget what they were saying.  If you derail from this by even an few extra seconds, it makes it much more likely for the whole conversation to derail. 

RULE 4:  DO NOT STATE THE OTHER PERSON'S THOUGHTS, FEELINGS OR MOTIVATIONS AS FACT

This means you should not say things like: "You don't want to listen to me", "You don't care". "You're angry", or "You are doing something to or because...", unless the other person has already agreed or stated that this is what they're thinking.  Instead, state the reality that you are guessing the other person's thoughts & motivations, or explaining how it appears to you.  If you make one of these guesses or statements, allow the other person to interrupt to correct you on their true thought or motivation, and assume the correction as true for purposes of further conversation.  If you're going to call the other person a liar about their own thoughts and motivations, that's a rude insulting attack, and you would be declaring yourself to be "enemy" combatant that is not on the same side as your partner, and so these rules and a healthy relationship would not pertain to you any more, and you should not be together unless you're going to stop and retract the attack.

 RULE 5: LET BOTH PARTIES FULLY TALK OUT PROBLEMS BEFORE RETRACTING THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT 

       When problems occur, assume the other person has good intentions and that only a misunderstanding or mistake has occurred, (give the other person the benefit of the doubt) and refrain from BEING SURE the other person is wrong, and refrain from your anger and upsetness, at least as much as possible, until after both parties have had a chance to fully explain themselves. That means, each person should refrain as much as possible from anger and condemnation of the other person (remain unsure) until after both parties have confirmed that they have been allowed to express their full thoughts on the subject of concern, and until after each party has confirmed that the other person has correctly reiterated what they were trying to explain.  This is all to make sure there's no misunderstanding or mistake before implementing the destructive consequences of turning "against" each other with condemnation and blame.  If the relationship isn't important enough to spend a few minutes to make sure first, to give your partner the benefit of the doubt, there's not enough value in the relationship (prior to the problem) to be worth having in the first place, so the "problem" is irrelevant, guilty or not.  This also means no demanding an apology prior to the utilization of this rule.

This also means you should usually try to address or focus on only one problem issue at a time.  Fully talk out one issue before moving on to another, if you want the issue improved.  The point of bringing up a problem issue should be to try to help or fix the problem, not just to make the other person feel bad in general.  If you bring up a whole string of problem issues at the same time, that makes it much harder to fully address and work out a solution to any one of the issues, as it becomes too much to handle, remember and respond to all of them properly at once.  The only time you should stack up issues at the same time is when you want to give an overall perspective, without expecting the other person to address any of the mentioned issues, but if you do this, you should clarify that's what you are doing, and you can't hold the other person accountable for, or blame them for (or get fully upset about) any of those problem issues you bring up until after you later discuss them individually and get feedback individually.

RULE 6: DO NOT STATE THINGS IN A WAY THAT MAKES THE OTHER PERSON NECESSARILY WRONG  

         Do not state things in a way that makes the other person necessarily wrong; i.e. "No, it did not happen that way", but rather "my memory is that ....", or "It seems to me...".   Both people can have different memories and different opinions, and it is an insult and attack to say that "my memory and opinion is infallible and yours is garbage".  If you are both on the same side, and if you respect each other, that means you need to give the other person's memories and opinions the respect of at least the possibility of being right, which means you have to give the other person the benefit of the doubt, at least in the way you you talk to them.  To do otherwise is to demean, attack and insult the other person, which is frankly a form of verbal abuse. 

RULE 7: DO NOT BLAME OTHER PEOPLE FOR YOUR EMOTIONS 

        Take responsibility for your own thoughts. Don't blame someone else for your emotions or actions, or state things as such, i.e. "You make me angry".  Instead say the truth of what you are feeling when certain things happen; i.e.: "I feel x when you do such and such".  This is not just a formality, it causes a different path of accurate thought that can much more likely lead to improving the situation, on the part of both the person expressing this and on the part of the person listening.

RULE 8:   PROHIBITED RESPONSES.   DO NOT "PUNISH, RANSOM OR THREATEN" TO COERCE

       Allowed responses to perceptions of the other person being "bad" are only: talk nice and kind, take/get space, cry, leave, break up, be sad, and/or end the conversation (for the time being).  Prohibited responses for all circumstances are: 1) yell, scream, hit/kick/throw, spit, break/slam, damage property, theft/not returning property, 2) repeat call more than twice without a reply or answer, 3) disallow the other person to leave or cease interaction (or consider this harm), 4) make false claims to get the other in trouble with authorities or others, 5) retribution for purpose of coercion through harm, 6) threaten any of these.  Holding these responses as "hostage" poisons and ruins a relationship.   This does not mean don't call the police if your partner has committed a crime against you, but if you do you should also get out of that relationship, it's toxic. Unless that's the only level of relationship you've decided to aspire to.

The allowed responses fall under the category of exercising one's personal space rights.  The prohibited responses fall under the category of "punishments" aimed only to hurt the other person (with things that are not personal space rights) for the purpose of coercion and manipulation (don't defy me or I will hurt you).  There is a long lasting devastating consequence of "punishing" the other person (with harm that is not personal-space-rights).  The harm to the relationship is that this proves it is truly not safe to interact with this person, and that this danger is a valid cause to protect one's self by not exposing vulnerabilities by being honest about facts or emotions which could be used against you, or risk harm from a possible misinterpretation or misunderstanding.  For example, if there was a man who killed your dog and then threatened to kill your family, and he then asked you if you thought he was a hard working person, would you be thinking about how to most accurately answer him honestly, or would you be thinking that he gave up his right to openness and honesty when he killed your dog and threatened to kill your family?  The safety of you and your family becomes the priority over "honesty". The purpose for never using prohibited responses is to demonstrate a longer track record of it being safe for the other person, with them not having to guard what they say, feel or reveal to you.  This leaves the door much more open to possibly growing much closer.  Understand that the cost of doing otherwise is to loose the right to honesty and openness, which will greatly restrict the potential for a deeper closer relationship.  This point is the agreement to never, not even once, use prohibited responses, and to fully recognize how bad it truly is, the extent of the loss consequences, if you slip up and do so. So decide strongly enough to not do it, so that you don't actually do it.  

Rule 9: RIGHT TO TAKE SPACE OR HAVE THE OTHER PARTY STOP OR GO AWAY

       We each have the right to "take space", or break up, or have the other party leave the home or car of the party that owns the title to the home or car, from only a simple request, regardless of perceived motivation, without the other person acting with retribution, negativity, considering it harm, or denying the right to do so.  This right overrides all other priorities.  The default understanding is that each party must be granted permission to come to the other person's place each time before doing do, unless the other party specifically waves this requirement.

RULE 10:  RESPECT THE OTHER PERSON'S RIGHT TO DECIDE THEIR OWN BUSINESS

       Each person has the right to decide issues concerning their own business, home, vehicles, personal property, and their own body, health and sexual contact, and to decide when discussion on those subjects is over and the final call is made, which may not be violated or further argued.

RULE 11:  THINGS WE DO FOR EACH OTHER ARE NOT FOR A FEE.  THERE'S NO OWING UNLESS SPECIFIED

       If you do or pay for something for the other person it is agreed to be a gift, not a charged service, unless the paying and owed person both TEXT a record of a pay or owe agreement (or have some other written payment contract) prior to the event.  Otherwise, there currently is and never will be anything owed between the parties.

RULE 12:  ASK FOR WHAT YOU WANT, BUT BE OK WITH WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DECIDE

It's hard enough to try to figure out the best way to interact with other people, and to guess what's going on in their heads about what they want and don't like, based on the very limited way most people talk to each other. But since the premise of these communication rules is that you are communicating with a loved one, partner, good friend or close family member, you might as well take advantage of the fact that this special closeness gives you the unique opportunity to bypass the wall of secrecy about what's going on in their heads.  That means, why be in the dark when you have the unique opportunity to find out what's going on in their head? If your closeness means the other person's happiness is important to you, then you can reach that goal better by each of you telling the other person what you like and don't like, in detail to the degree of your closeness.  Closer = more detail, more vulnerability. Less should give less.  If someone cares about you, they should want to know this and use that information to see you happy.  You can help this situation by asking what they like and don't like, but asking too much can get a little invasive, and so it's even more important for you to volunteer this information about yourself regularly.  "I want x", "I like it when you ...", "I don't like it when ..", etc. Volunteer this information in proportion to your closeness, and in proportion to how positively receptive the other person is to hearing about it and doing something about it.  This is to avoid needlessly missing all the loving things people could do for each other if they only knew what the other person liked or didn't like.  Don't keep what you like or want a secret, if your partner is positive about hearing about it.  And don't choose the preference for righteous resentment by declaring to yourself "they should just know".   Your loved one should WANT to hear this regularly.  

However, it's equally important to be actually OK with another person's informed decision as to what they choose to do, whether you like it or not, as long as it respects YOUR personal space rights.  That's not to say their decisions shouldn't effect your choice of the depth of your relationship with them, it should, only that you should be OK with their right to choose their ultimate path.

RULE 13:   JOINT CHOICES FOR COUPLES

When we are talking about a couple that is "together" (not other relationship types) there are times when the couple needs to make a joint decision as to what the couple is going to do as a couple.  The couple should always be able to talk about and put their heads together to try to jointly decide on the best course of action on any subject.  This always applies. But there are going to be times when a joint consensus isn't reached, yet the couple still needs to decide on a joint single action for the both of them.  If there is a pre-existing agreed way to handle the split decision, and the pre-agreed way is just automatically executed by default, then there can be no "fight" about it, and there will only be quick "commando like" team work.   Quick, clean, efficient, no hard feelings, no arguing, only loving agreement like a unified dance step. So what is that pre-agreed way?  This contract says that the couple is to pre-agree upon areas of "final call", in which, when that area of subject matter arises, the designated final caller of that subject matter gets to make the final call on that split decision.  For example, person A might be the designated "food and entertainment director", while person B is the designated "House maintenance decider", etc.  The person who has the strongest mastery of that subject matter should be the designated final caller of that subject matter.   This has been jokingly referred to as "squaw work" and "buck work", (the man fights the enemies, the woman knows the herbs and clothing) not meant in a derogatory way, but rather in reference to the wisdom of the American Indian elders and the old ways of natural human tribes, or at least that's the usefulness I see in it.  It makes for a unified coordinated pack (like a pack of wolves).

Yet all this will still fall short of a happy life if this is thought of as an "equal" trade 50/50 of who gets what they want.  As non-politically correct as this might be perceived, in relationships where the couple has committed to be "in the same boat", the man should make the happiness and well being of his woman (or equivalent roles) the number one priority of what's going on.  If he doesn't find joy in that, they're not the right people for each other, at least not as a truly great relationship.  Just like fish and deer have instincts that make them healthier and function better, so too do human males and females have natural behavioral patterns that are healthier (and less healthy), and this is one of those healthy patterns. The man should be taking care of his woman, seeming to him that he is giving far more than 50% (actually 80%) because HE WANTS TO, and finds joy in this natural extension of loving her.  He should normally do the things she wants.  If it seems a 50/50 balance you've got it wrong.  In the right situation, the woman should also be letting her man take care of her, she should be listening to him with respect, and she should also be taking care of her man, in all the ways that her man might have as weak spots, because she loves him and WANTS TO, AND VIEWS HIM AS BEING PART OF HER (thinking of them as "us"), which requires that in her mind they are together as "one", committed "in the same boat", not just headed in the same direction temporarily for a while, as a visitor.  It's the joy of building something together that you've commited to last.  This also requires having similar goals as far as where the relationship is going and what you want to do with your lives.  This requires deciding to take the plunge to decide to be in the same boat, and to love and trust the other person to be able to really see where this could go.  It's trust that the other person will not betray you, and will be there for you in the long run, and have your best interests truly at heart.  If you haven't decided to commit to be "in the same boat" through the good and the bad, the depth of your relationship and potential feelings that could develop is greatly limited, and this "together deciding" section doesn't really apply, other than as a "dipping your toe in the pool" tester (which is also a good idea to start).  You have to take the bigger risk with your feelings to have the potential for the true deep meaningful connection that can make like so much more meaningful.  Or be safe and don't take the risk.

However, the right situation to try this is a very small sub-set of relationships.  For the man and woman to deserve this trust, there must be a track record of evidence of safety, good communication and looking out for the other person.   To commit to be in "the boat" together without this track record is to make a bad decision, asking for bad results.  Frankly, the percentages of people that are mature enough for this, and right for each other, are very low.  It may take a long time to come across the right person for you.  But you should balance the choice of who you want to take the risk of a plunge with, with the knowledge that you will not find a person who is perfect in every way, in all ways.  That person does not exist. That's not what human people are. There is only the right person for you, who is going to have imperfections and problems, even in the best of cases.  Also, how you feel when you are around that person is a big needed part, although that can develop much more later where it might not necessarily be so much in the beginning.  Somewhere in between all this is the right choice.    

  However, if the trust has been earned, if good communication is there, if he's highly intelligent, and if the decision to commit to be in the same boat has been made, only then should the woman let the man "husband" or "Lead" their boat, meaning specifically to let him take the lead (follow his directions) ONLY on those occasions when he feels it's critically important to do so.  It's like being able to go into "emergency mode".  However, if the woman is clearly more intelligent than the man, this is an exception and the woman should be Lead.  But if there's a ballpark equality of intelligence, the man should be allowed to be the Lead (Husband).   It is important to HAVE a Lead, just like in a tango dance or in a commando team.  Without a lead, there's no real unity of team at a critical moment, or at least not one that's anywhere near as unified in direction and effectiveness at critical moments.   If the woman can't let her man (who fits these qualifications) be "the man" at critical moments, then she has not really opened herself to fully exploring what it could be like to be a woman in that man-woman relationship.  In these descriptions, the term "man" and "woman" is referring more to a "masculine" and "feminine" aspect, not necessarily to a person's sexual desires.  "Masculine" and "feminine" is a real aspect of our instincts and make up, that is as real of a part of how humans function as a fishes' gills and a deer's rutting instinct.  To deny this is to loose the benefit of better understanding ourselves as humans.  If you're a fish then soak up the experience of being a fish and you'll be a better fish.

  To some degree, the plunge must be taken to follow the Lead, in order to see and find out how well the Lead's directions for the two of you would have turned out, because if the woman (or non lead man) judges preemptively to not follow the Lead's directions, the couple would never really find out how the Lead's directions would have turned out, and then you will just never know.  You can't really know what would have been.  Resentful, disapproving, begrudging cooperation is so distracting and undermining that it does not allow it to be seen how true support and full backing could have turned out.  There is risk in following a Lead, but also equally greater reward if you've made a good gamble on who you are trying this with.  Done with the wrong person, it is a bad idea. With the right person, it's a great idea. 

  But remember, if you only follow when you agree, that's the opposite of letting the other person Lead, and that would make all this "joint decision" stuff irrelevant. You'd just be doing your own thing, tagging along with each other only on occasions when you happen to agree, while being two separate singles when you don't agree (and also when you do agree), which means you are not in "the boat" together at all.  You are just single.  That's not seeing where a "team boat" could lead.  That's hanging around a visiting friend on occasion with you still being single.  Maybe that's the best thing for you.  But you should decide which you want to try, what kind of life you want to have, possibly for the rest of your life.  Decide knowingly, and let the other person know, purposefully, when you're ready to decide.  

RULE 14:   PROBLEM ENCOUNTERS SHOULD BE VIDEOED AND REVIEWED

When there becomes a lot of different memories about who is following the rules or not, and what's actually happening, problem encounters should be videoed and reviewed so that it can be seen by both parties who is following the rules or not, and what's actually happening.  While entirely different memories of events persist, there can be no solving of the problems. 

RULE 15:  TIME PERIOD OF COMMITMENT TO THESE RULES, NO EXCEPTIONS.

       Both parties should document that they are agreeing to try and commit to these rules (or your modified set of rules) for a certain length of time.  It does no good to change your mind part way through this trial, or you're not really trying the rules in the first place. It must be for a fixed length of time that you can't change your mind about part way through.  Copy, paste, print a copy of these rules.  Make what adjustments you feel you need. Pick a time length that you and your partner are willing to commit to try this, and indicate your chosen time length of the commitment in the line below.  It can be an hour, a day, a month or for life.  During the agreed commitment period, the rules are not suspendable or changeable for any reason, no exceptions.  An exception means you are not really trying these rules when it counts most. When this contract expires, you have the option to sign another contract for a new agreed time length, or even customize a different modified version of a contract. Just don't modify a contract during the commitment period. Asking for these rules to be applied may not be considered a negative.  Both people must each continue to try to follow these rules especially when you think the other person is not following these rules, and/or is horrible, and/or you're broke up. That's WHEN these rules are most critical to apply. These rules are not contingent on relationship status.  This paper is a contract.

Time length of agreed commitment to these rules: ________________________________________

Name: _______________________________ 

Signed: _______________________________ date: __________________

Name: ______________________________    

signed:  _______________________________ date:  __________________