Introduction
One indication of the increasing acceptance of hypnosis is the recent legislation that has given licensed marriage, family and child counselors in the state of California permission to employ in their work a means of therapeutic intervention that they have been prohibited from using in the past – hypnosis. Yet hypnosis and marriage counseling are terms that very seldom appear together in scientific literature. For example, a scan of article titles under the heading of Hypnosis in Psychological Abstracts for the years 1972- 74 reveals only one listing that mentions marriage and hypnosis to- gether (in three pages of listings) and no listings that deal with hypnosis and marital therapy. Perhaps this void stems from a belief that the improvement of marital communication processes is not likely to be facilitated in a therapy that places both partners in a
trance state, a situation where real communication could not occur.
On the other hand, it is possible that hypnosis has not been used as a tool in marital therapy, simply because of uncertainty as to how it might be applied. It seems appropriate then, especially in light of the pioneering California legislation noted above, to explore ways in which hypnosis might be effectively applied in relationship counseling.
In earlier chapters, we have discussed Physical and Emotional suggestibility and Physical and Emotional sexuality in depth. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss how the interrelationship be- tween suggestibility and sexuality will influence the success or fail- ure of a relationship. While studying this material, it is important to keep in mind the basic premise that suggestibility is the way we learn and sexuality is the way we perform or act out what we have learned. About a decade ago, I observed a correlation between reported relationship difficulty and opposing suggestibilities in the partners. I noticed this because, when working with a client for relationship prob-
lems, I often felt it was appropriate to see the client’s mate alone for a session. If both partners were cooperative, this is what generally occurred. In the first session with my client, I would routinely induce hypnosis as the first step in therapy and, as a result, assess his or her suggestibility type. Next, I would meet with the client’s mate. Invari- ably, the mate required the opposite type of induction to enter hyp- nosis. For instance, if the client was a Physically suggestible male, his wife or girlfriend was found to be Emotionally suggestible. This was a very significant finding, especially in light of some of my ear- lier findings relative to suggestibility, summarized below:
1. The way in which an individual receives messages to enter the state of hypnosis parallels the way he receives messages in his waking state. That is, the type of suggestion to which one responds in hyp- nosis parallels the type of message to which he is most receptive in everyday life. Carried further, the knowledge of whether an individual is receptive pri- marily to literal or inferred suggestions tells us whether he is most receptive to interpersonal com- munication phrased in literal or inferred terms. Therefore, if aspects of a person’s suggestibility can be altered in hypnosis (as they can), the potential exists to alter aspects of his behavior in daily life outside of hypnosis.
2. Each person tends to send messages in predomi- nantly the same mode in which he receives them. That is, Physically suggestible people tend to com- municate their thoughts and feelings in literal terms, Emotionally suggestible persons communicate through inference, and balanced persons commu- nicate, both, literally and inferentially.
3. A person who communicates on either a literal or inferred level assumes that other people communi- cate to him on that level as well. This assumption on the part of the individual is not a conscious one. Rather, it is subconscious and stems from the way in which an individual has learned to receive and send information, thoughts, and feelings in commu- nicating with other people.
As I worked with more and more couples, I began to observe similarities in the ways individuals described their mates during pri- vate therapy sessions. For example, I quite often found Emotionally suggestible female clients depicting their partners in surprisingly similar ways. As their partners came to meet with me, in accordance with my relationship therapy strategy, I also noticed a similarity in their descriptions of their mates.
I began to make notes of the descriptions that different types of clients gave about their mates. Trends, such as the following, soon became observable:
1. Emotionally suggestible women often described their men as wanting to engage in sexual inter- course all the time. These women also frequently stated that their partners suffocated them with at- tention.
2. Physically suggestible males tended to view their mates as having a weaker sex drive than was de- sirable. These men often depicted their women as
moody and non-communicative.
3. Emotionally suggestible males described their part- ners as always ready for sex and as extremely so-
cial people.
4. Physically suggestible women tended to see their mates as unemotional and non-communicative, with respect to sex and social interaction.
These observations clearly tied in with my concepts of Physical and Emotional sexuality in that the Emotionally suggestible partner was describing his/her partner as being Physically sexual, and the Physically suggestible partner was describing his/her mate as being Emotionally sexual. Further research verified the obvious implication that a person’s type of suggestibility is usually consistent with his type of sexuality. In other words, a Physically sexual person usually has Physical suggestibility, and an Emotionally sexual person usu- ally has Emotional suggestibility.
However, because of confusions in upbringing, or because of emotional, physical, or sexual traumas, a person may alter his/her sexual or suggestible behavior as a defense against re-experiencing
past hurts or confusions. He then develops what we call incongru-
ent behavior, which simply means that his suggestibility is the op-
posite of his sexuality. In other words, he is performing (sexuality) differently from how he learns (suggestibility).
If a person’s verbal expression is inconsistent with his actions, this is also incongruent behavior. For example, when a person says, I
agree with you, while, at the same time, shakes his head no, or if he
says, I want to communicate with you, but leans away from you, this is incongruent behavior. Recognition of such behavior by one part- ner within a relationship is often expressed in such comments as, My
partner dresses very sexually, but avoids sex, or My partner’s body movements and verbalizations do not say the same thing.
Incongruent behavior is one of the notable causes of relationship and personal conflicts because it results in a breakdown of com- munication and compatibility between partners, and in confusion within the person himself. Even a temporary incongruent behavior pattern can drastically affect a relationship. The most common tem- porary behavior change takes place during the honeymoon stage of a relationship. At the beginning of any relationship, both, the Emo- tional and Physical partners are more Physically sexual than they would normally be. If, as the newness wears off, the Emotional part- ner withdraws into his or her normal behavior, and that behavior is extreme, the Physical partner will become even more Physical, as he experiences what he interprets to be rejection. If the Emotional part- ner’s normal behavior is less extreme (and the change is thus less apparent), the Physical partner will feel secure and confident.
Behavioral changes that take place during the honeymoon stage are particularly deceptive, however, because incongruent behavior is not as apparent as it would otherwise be, due to the blind emotions that characterize that phase of a relationship. Also, there is an over- abundance of potential levels and areas of communication at that time, arising simply from the fact that the couple has just met and they know nothing about each other, as yet. The tendency of both partners, of course, is to put their best foot forward and try to com- municate what they think the other wants to hear.
Typically, a person will be drawn to his natural opposite in, both, sexuality and suggestibility. Even though many people choose a partner for a certain lifestyle, it still does not alter the pattern of the attraction of opposites within those lifestyles. If an Emotionally sex-
ual and suggestible woman in a relationship with her natural oppo- site suddenly develops Physical suggestibility, she will not only begin to exhibit incongruent behavior within herself, but she will also throw off the balance of the relationship. Unless the Physical partner also alters his behavior (develops greater Emotional suggestibility) to level out the imbalance, the two cannot help but grow apart.
Individuals who normally function with incongruent behavior will also tend to pick their natural opposites – an Emotionally suggestible, Physically sexual person will be drawn to a Physically suggestible, Emotionally sexual partner, and vice versa. Because both partners have the conflict of incongruent behavior within themselves, they are bound to have additional problems, but, ironically, their problems often draw them together. They may also transfer the blame for their prob- lems to children, relatives, working conditions, etc., and maintain the disturbed relationship, with the rationale that it is the environment or social pressures that cause them problems, and not their own interrelationship. In such cases, their children will tend to reflect the family pathology, by exhibiting unhappiness and bizarre behavior.
Since the maximum percentage of suggestibility or sexuality a person can have is 100%, a variance of five or ten degrees in a per- son with 80-90% of a particular behavior is much more critical than the same flux would be to a person with a more balanced behavior. Therefore, partners who have at least 30% of their opposing sug- gestibility and sexuality traits will have enough flexibility to maintain communication and balance through periods of stress or change. If they have less than 20%, it is unlikely that their relationship will sur- vive any undue pressure.
The major overall cause of relationship problems, of course, is simply the coupling of an extreme Emotionally sexual and sug- gestible partner with an extreme Physically sexual and suggestible mate; and the resulting communication difficulties. The three major conflicts that come about as a result of suggestibility and sexuality imbalances are in the areas of sexual and financial disagreements and communication difficulties. If two of the three are problem areas in a relationship, the chances of a breakup are very high.
A thorough understanding of the correlation between sug- gestibility and sexuality is the foundation of relationship counseling. It is especially important to remember that, although the base sex- uality of a person cannot be altered, suggestibility is always subject
to change, in accordance with alterations in one’s learning and un- derstanding processes or his life experiences. Therefore, by alter- ing suggestibility, you can actually eliminate exaggerations, misconceptions, and defenses that cause incongruent behavior or that cause a person’s sexuality to appear extreme.
The first step you must take when dealing with a couple report- ing communication difficulty is to assess the suggestibility and sex- uality of each partner. This is done, by meeting with the partners one at a time. The couple is then seen together so that the thera- pist may explain his findings.
Always begin a joint relationship counseling session by describ- ing the basic traits characterizing Physical and Emotional sexuality, as described in Chapter Five. It is a good practice to also have both clients answer the sexuality questionnaires for themselves, and then also from what they believe would be the viewpoint of their partner. Comparisons of the differences in the way they see themselves and the way their partners see them will give you an immediate insight into the major problem areas affecting their relationship.
Next, you must explain the concept of Physical and Emotional sug- gestibility, in order to reopen the channels of communication between the two. Each partner must be made to understand that the other thinks, expresses, relates, and functions in a way that is different from his or her own way. This understanding is the first step in pulling the suggestibilities of each individual toward a more balanced state. It is also the first step in breaking down their communication barrier and paving the way for improved communication and increased compatibility, even in cases of exaggerated sexuality differences. When explaining opposing suggestibilities, it is best to explain that the suggestibility has to do with the way in which a person re-
ceives messages that influence the way he enters the state of hyp-
nosis. For example, you might say to the Physically suggestible partner that:
You respond to hypnotic suggestions of a literal na- ture. When you are given messages that tell you what to feel, you take these messages at face value and respond to them accordingly. You are, therefore, most receptive to literal messages.