Sincerely Human
By Norman Araiza, MA, Nov 17, 2006

Endangered relationships: the four choices

Anytime a relationship experiences survival problems, meaning that one or both parties are considering making major changes that may forever affect the current relationship, the participants always have four options. It is helpful to know that there are only these four choices and they forever remain the same. The first choice is what usually occurs to one or both participants whenever a serious breach in trust has occurred or after a series of disappointments that lead the injured party to question the viability of the relationship—to end the relationship! 


Ending the relationship means just what it says. You go your way and I’ll go my way. Let’s hope we never cross paths again. From this point on there is no relationship. It’s over! Kaput! Terminamos. No more. We all know there are 50 ways to do this. I won’t quote all of Paul Simon’s advice on how to go about it, but we can sum it up with “Make a new plan, Stan.”

This first choice is what usually comes to mind first. It is not always possible, nor is it always the best choice. For example, when children, either adult or young, are a product of the relationship, parenting responsibilities suggest some form of continuing relationship beyond that which fostered the child. Often, financial entanglements make rash and emotional decisions needlessly expensive and ending the relationship is clearly not in the best interest of both parties. To quote another bit of wisdom put to song, “It’s cheaper to keep her.” Almost always this is true, but sometimes breaking up is unavoidable. One way or another, we pay for our mistakes.

The second choice is limited only by our creativity and our flexibility—changing the relationship. Changing the relationship means changing the structure of the relationship. It may be that we don’t make good husbands and wives but we do make good lovers and want to keep this part of the relationship. It may be that we aren’t good lovers but we are good business partners and want to keep our financial involvements together. 

It could also be that we don’t live well together but want to continue the relationship. This brings to mind a couple I worked with. Each had been single until they married when they were both in their late 40s. After five years of marriage they were both ready to hang it up when they decided to seek professional help first. After exploring the strengths and weaknesses of the relationship it became clear that their love was strong but that they had serious differences in their living patterns. They were both entrenched in their solitary lifestyles, and this called for dramatic adaptations in order to live together. Ultimately, this proved to be too stressful. When they came into my office they were convinced it was a failure in the relationship that would cost them their marriage. It didn’t take long before they began to understand it was not a reflection of their love but rather of their compatibility in living together. At the end of our sessions they had opted to change the living arrangement but keep the 
marriage. At my last contact with them they had purchased two separate condos on different floors of the same building. They continued to do things together like always.


They ate together most evenings and slept together many nights of the week. But his leaving his dirty clothes about ceased to be a problem for her. Likewise, her waking at 4am to work on some project and her compulsive neatness failed to irritate him as it did in the past. Now they enjoyed the companionship, the support and the security of a partner committed to spending the rest of their lives together.

The third choice in all endangered relationships is to build or rebuild trust. This refers to the process of exploring and identifying the problems that have caused the relationship to become endangered in the first place. It also calls for a serious commitment to do what can be done to make the relationship mutually satisfying. Rarely can this be done without professional help. By this time, the relationship has usually become so toxic that effective communication isn’t possible without the intervention of a marriage counselor.

Unfortunately, by the time couples finally seek the services of a marriage counselor, one of them usually has decided the relationship should not continue. Seeking professional help at this point is more often not to save the relationship but to assist in a more humane demise. This may not be entirely clear to either party when they first enter the office, but after repeated attempts to correct problems are met with resistance, this unconscious attitude becomes apparent.

Inherent in this third choice is a sense of hope. There needs to be some spark of health, some sense of desire that there are qualities of this relationship worth saving. Without at least some sense of hope, relationships are doomed to end, leaving each partner forever marred by the experience. Anyone who has gone through divorce knows the permanent scarring that is common from this experience. Not only does it leave the partners emotionally wounded, it can also rob the individuals of their faith in their ability to pick a good partner for themselves in the future.

The last of the four choices is perhaps the least favorable of all. Nonetheless, many couples opt for this choice without ever discussing it, in a tacit agreement not to mention the problems. In their silent agreement they have decided to ignore the fact that there are problems and continue to do as they have been doing with little hope for improvement. Both are trapped in an unsatisfying relationship without the prospect of improvement.

On the other hand, those couples who seek help have already decided that the relationship is unacceptable as is, which makes the fourth choice out of the question.

Why some couples choose to seek professional assistance and others do not is perhaps the subject for another article. Yet, I can’t help but think that one reason couples choose outside help has something to do with their level of sophistication. The oldest couple I worked with had been married 56 years. He was 84 and she was 81. They had come to recognize that they had lost something over the course of their marriage and wanted to get it back. What a special couple they were. They had nightly responsibilities that included his choosing a nice bottle of wine and selecting their dinner music, while she added final touches to the meal presentation. He raved about what a fine cook his wife was and how every meal was a culinary adventure. She told me that throughout the day she tried to read or listen to the news so she could add something of interest to the dinner conversation. He was concerned that his nightly glasses of wine was making him dull and that he had lost some of his charm. She expressed her appreciat
ion for his great taste and knowledge of music. In our sessions, I was sure I had gained more than they had. But in the end they thanked me enthusiastically for helping them reunite and reconnect with each other. They walked out of my office arm-in-arm, dignified but slow-moving.


Norman Araiza, MA is a US-trained family therapist enjoying a limited practice in SMA. He can be reached at 154-5449 or nearaiza@hotmail.com . Comments on the subject and value of articles and ideas for future articles are encouraged.