Things to discuss before getting married!

There are matters requiring the emotional intelligence that can be generated with Consideration, Respect, Attentiveness, Fairness, Time and a Yearning for courage, responsiveness, assertiveness, focus and tenderness.
Intelligent optimism is also desirable.

Intelligent optimism is NOT the avoidance strategy of "Oh, don't worry, I will always love you!" or, "I promise you, everything is going to be OK!" or, "Why do you always wants to think about the negative?" or, "Don't you trust me?".
If one party is resistant and reluctant to engage in discussion on these issues, and the other sees the merits of such discussion, that suggests that a profound difference of attitude, perhaps of beliefs and values, already exists.
If that difference cannot be resolved, expect real problems later on, certainly after the passion wanes, if not long before.
To enable the discussion to flow well, it can be useful to agree ways to structure the process.
To give just one example, each person speaks without interruption for a set amount of time. Then the partner can ask questions - then swap, and so on.

Relationship experts suggest that couples explore the following - and I strongly reccommend that each person puts their thoughts in writing before you start the in-depth debate.

1. How important is it for each of us to become a parent?
2. How will we share the responsibilities, chores and burdens of parenthood?
3. How clear are we about each other’s financial obligations and goals?
4. In what do our ideas about spending and saving mesh or clash?
5. What are our respective expectations for maintaining the household?
6. How will we decide and maintain managing the chores?
7. What do we need to know and to share about our physical and mental health histories?
8. What does each of us want, need and expect in terms of displays of affection?
9. What inhibits either of us from comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences and fears?
10. Will there be a television in the bedroom?
11. Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas and complaints?
12. How clear is our mutual and respective understanding of our spiritual beliefs and needs?
13. What have we agreed about our children exposure to religious/moral education?
14. How do we feel about other’s friends?
15. How do we feel about each other’s parents?
16. What, if any, concerns do we have about our parents interfering in the relationship?
17. If they do, what might prevent us discussing it before it gets out of proportion?
18. What does my family do that annoys you?
19. What might either of us NOT be willing to give up in the marriage?
20. If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?
21. Does either of us have any doubts about the other’s commitment to the marriage?
22. What do we need to do to ensure that we will survive any challenges we may face?

Sample Contract

Three Great Crafty Questions

I wrote, well, finished, this article today.

These three questions will improve communication, especially when there is a power differential in a supervisory, managerial, mentoring, teaching, or counselling context. ‘Facilitator’ and ‘Learner’ represent the relationship and, hopefully, the intent or attitude behind the interpersonal transactions.

This approach might have a more specific application in formal contexts, supervision or counselling, but the general principle and specific frameworks can be modified for casual and informal discussion or meetings. They are not only of immense help in improving communication between two people, but also in groups of almost any size – team meetings, for example, decision making forums, or focus groups. They can also help to prevent or resolve misunderstandings, tension, conflict and so-called ‘personality clashes’, which are usually power-plays fuelled by rebellious or resentful Child ego-state dynamics!

Inevitably, some power holders are not much interested in facilitation. Low self-confidence, poor communication skills might mean that, instead of facilitating other people’s development, they diminish people’s confidence by blustering or bullying or power-playing. These power-plays and so-called personality clashes deplete time, money, energy and morale.

The process of inquiry suggested here can reduce the likelihood or effects of these clashes. One caveat: some power-players will not learn from any amount of training because their emotional and psychological distress is profound. Without counselling, therapy of some other form of healing process, their inner turmoil will manifest in all their dealings with others!

I want to emphasise the importance of intent! A mutual belief in other people’s positive intent can compensate for inadvertent misunderstandings. Different communication and learning styles or differences of culture, experience, education or other variables can easily lead to misunderstandings.

If that happens, it is easier to regain equilibrium because awareness of mutual positive intent, can act like a beacon that realigns our focus and refocuses our attention.
Most Learners respond – as opposed to react – better to managers, bosses, teachers, and other Facilitators who show patience, respect and consideration. Resistance in one person often indicates a lack of flexibility or empathy in another. Having the wisdom and humility to look to our own communication style will serve us well.

The three questions can be used to help (re)build confidence and self-esteem. Facilitators can determine the Learner’s levels of competence and ascertain whether, for example, it would be appropriate to delegate.

The questions are also an excellent framework if, say, a person, or a team has completely messed up and the Facilitator wants to raise morale by lifting people out of any depression.
My point is not so much asking the questions, but with creating a process of benign exploration, so the answers are developed. Questions that are focused and incisive can elegantly elicit high value information!

The first question “What do you like or appreciate about what you contributed to the whole process?” starts to explore historical positives and to rebuild confidence. If re-motivated, people and projects can move on. All parties can recognise that, despite any errors or failure, the transgressors had positive intent, and devoted time, energy and commitment. Open acknowledgement of each person’s contribution helps determine organisational, team and individual ethos.

The second question “What might you differently in the future?” directs attention toward the future. Compare that with “What should you have done differently?” which directs attention into an immutable past. It also implies that the person will have learnt something from any mistakes and errors of judgment. The question, and the positive intent of the process, also conveys the message that ‘failure’ is not a mortal sin, merely a human probability. The word ‘should’ can trigger an enervating and disheartening ‘adapted child’ response, especially if asked by an authority figure with poor communication, listening, questioning or motivating skills.

“What would you like from me?” From the answers to the third question, the Facilitator potentially gleans some high value information about the Learner’s readiness to listen, to learn, to ask for or accept support. The answer can also give clues to the Learner’s Emotional Intelligence, including awareness of hir own competency: Unconscious Incompetence, Conscious Incompetence, Conscious Competence, or Unconscious Competence.

Good Facilitators help people get closer to their goals, and by modelling good listening and exquisite questioning skills they help them to recognise limiting beliefs and bedrock assumptions that might keep them running on habit.

YOU!

When I was a child, it was inconceivable that a child would swear at an adult! When an unreasonable parent inflicted an unjust punishment and ignored or shouted down my or my sibling's pleas for justice or leniency, the unutterable frustration occasionally drove us (children) to say "YOU!"

This word was spat out with all the pent up fury that comes from being oppressed by the overwhelming power of those in control and the impotence of those being controlled. It oozed with frustration, hurt, anger and the futile contempt of the underdog.

This one little word, almost always, would result in a physical assault, usually a slap - a VERY hard slap, even though, up until that point, no physical chastisement had been threatened.
Even knowing that such a blow would follow "YOU!" we would spit it out.

Why? because it was the one small way we had to 'prove' that we were not totally oppressed. That, although powerless, insignificant and, unimportant in an unjust situation, we had not been crushed and would not be silenced.

There we times when the anger so overtook us that we would repeat "YOU!" and receive a harder slap, and again... and again... Of course, the adults always prevailed (although a whispered 'you!' enabled a shred of false triumph), and the child would lay on the bed sobbing and plotting the adult's downfall or imagining our own funeral ("then they'll be sorry!").
But, we would also have some sense of dignity, we had not backed down. Metaphorically, at least, we could hold our heads high.

And the strange thing is the power of that one, ostensibly innocuous little word!
That it could trigger aggression, physical assault, and violent retaliation in the power holders; and a semblance of dignity in the relatively powerless.

How come? Because, whatever definitions might be found in a dictionary or personal history or cultural heritage, meaning 'happens' in each individual's head.

We attribute meaning, individually, personally, subjectively. Of course we will be influenced by our culture and conditions, by the dictionary and the thesaurus, but books can seldom give us the emotional overlay, or the intent, real or imagined, as we perceive it, in the speaker or author - as in "YOU!" spat out at adults by us kids.

If we feel attracted or demeaned by the use of words, and if we believe that people INTENDED us to feel that way, and of we believe that other people or their views are The Cause of our feelings and emotions, it 'makes sense' to defend ourselves, perhaps by attacking the other person - who then retaliates.

And so we take a stance, defend a position, demand 'respect', accuse each other of ... well, each doing what the other is doing!

If the adults in my childhood had been willing to hear us out and then said, for example, "Well, yes, and the punishment still stands!" It would still have been unjust, I / we would still have been upset and we would certainly have pouted and stomped a little and talked about them behind their back. And I believe that, even if we had said "YOU!" it would have merely been an expression of frustration, not contempt.

go well