Then the daughter demonstrated a particular tone of voice that she wanted her mother to use, and I said «OK, let's try it. And if it doesn't work, do you know what that means? That means you're a liar, and your mother's right that you won't listen!»

So I turned to the mother and said «Pick one of the things that you think is important for your daughter to know, and try to do it in the way she demonstrated.» After a couple of sentences I interrupted and asked the daughter «Is she doing it the way you want?»

«Well, her voice is still a little whiny.» So we helped the mother adjust her voice and she started in again. The daughter sat there and listened, and then said «I'll do that.» The mother was shocked! «You will?» Previously most of the time the daughter hadn't even heard what the mother was saying because she reacted to her tone of voice.

The important point is that within the context I had created, there was no way for either of them to respond otherwise. The daughter was not going to let the mother be right by not listening. And the mother was certainly not going to say «These things are so important, but not important enough that I'll change my tone of voice» — not when she's just sworn on a stack of Bibles that getting the information across is the most important thing in the world. Going after their willingness to communicate before I went after restructuring the communication was a very important syntactic choice. Doing it in the other order would have set up conflict. You do the same thing with the six–step model: you ask the part if it's willing to communicate, and you determine its intention before you go after changes in behavior.

The key question is this: «What is going to make it possible for me to get the change I want?» «What's a prerequisite for the change that I want?» If you go directly after the change itself, two things will happen that are not useful. One, it's going to be like digging ditches. It's going to be hard work, because you're going to have to fight with the person's parts. Two, if you go after it too directly, you may interfere with her strategies.

Teri is a good example of this possible interference. Let's say that I was a well–intentioned therapist who had a belief system that said «Everybody has got to have a way of being able to generate experience.» So when I said «Now, it's time for everyone to lie congruently," rather than allowing Teri to go outside the room, I would have said «You must stay and learn this!» If I did that, I would mess with her strategies and make her crazy. She was sitting there saying «If I do this, I'll be crazy!» and her complaint was completely accurate. Given the strategies that she had, that was absolutely true. So I had to find out what prerequisites would make it possible for her to do what I asked.

The same thing is true with the rigid know–it–all mother I talked about, or with a guy who has a belief system that women are out to control him. The same thing is true of every change that you make. I want to know the appropriate sequence to go after what I want, instead of deciding that I'm so all–knowing that I know the right way to do it. There's an elegance in the way people object. Their objections, as far as I'm concerned, are always valid, and they tell you exactly what you need to know. There are real dangers for your clients if you ignore their objections. If you can't communicate an idea to someone it's because of the way he is organized. The way he is structured right now doesn't make it possible for him to do certain things, unless you do other things first.

As soon as I have a well–formed outcome, I always back up, asking «What would make it possible for them to just fall into that?» If I try something and it doesn't work, I always back up in the process and ask «Well, if they can't do that, what else must be true?» When I answer that question, I have more information to go on.

Woman: I have seen a lot of couples where the woman's outcome, what she wants, is aggravating to the man. How do you deal with that?

Usually it's a specific behavior rather than the outcome that's objectionable. If the outcome is objectionable, then you go to meta–outcomes. You find out what the intention is behind the intention that she just stated. Rita, what does it do for you to get his attention?

Rita: It makes me feel good, like a desirable woman.

Good. What other ways do you have to feel good and desirable?

Woman: Let's say her intention is that she wants to get his attention, and he says that the way she could do that is to have sex in weird ways that she's not willing to do.

First I want to point out that this is an example of the specific behavior being unacceptable to her, not the outcome. If that happens, I can say to her «How else could you get his attention? What other ways could you use?»

Woman: I'm not having very much success finding any other ways.

OK. Then try modeling. «Would you think of half a dozen women who seem to be able to get their husbands' attention and notice the ways—publicly, at least—that they seem to succeed in doing that?» If she doesn't know any women who can do that, send her out in the world to find them.

Another alternative is to induce a deep trance and use a technique called «pseudo–orientation in time.» You have her jump three months into the future: «Remember three months ago when we first got together? I was just talking to a woman in the same position that you were in three months ago, and I remembered how you really couldn't get your husband's attention at that time except by bizarre, unacceptable sexual activities. Since that was unacceptable to you morally and ethically, I remember that you came up with some alternatives that were so effective that they surprised him as much as they surprised you. But I can't remember exactly what they were. Would you describe in detail what you did?»

There are lots of alternatives at that choice point, but you have to be respectful of the ecology of the system. You could also find out if you could make the bizarre sexual practices acceptable to her. «If you engaged in these bizarre sexual practices, what would happen that is unacceptable to you?» It may be that you could deal with her objections. There are lots of ways you can make a satisfactory change. You have to respect both her integrity and his integrity, find out the intention in both of their communications, and find effective ways for them to get together.

Woman: OK. I thought you were moving toward finding out his intention: what he would get out of the bizarre sexual activities.

You can do it that way, too. (He turns to Joe.) «If she engaged in these bizarre sexual activities, what would that do for you?»

Joe: It would give me excitement and intensity.

OK. Is there any other way that you have ever been involved that allowed you to feel excited in this intense way?

Joe: In the beginning of our relationship I felt that way.

So now I could access what those experiences were, and what the difference is between those and what's going on now.

You can go for the outcome with either or both members of the couple. Think of the basic reframing model here. There's an imbalance between the conscious and the unconscious, so you always go to the unconscious for the flexibility for the new choices. When you are doing reframing between people, you can make the assumption that they are equally flexible. In that case you can go in either direction at any point. When he's making a demand on her that she refuses, you can discover what that's going to do for him, or you can find out what the refusal is going to do for her.

I've run into cases where the man wants to engage in more sexual behavior. He's not satisfied with their sex life. She's not satisfied with their sexual behavior either, but she's using turning him down as a way to accomplish something else. For example, if she were to be sexually responsive to him, she thinks that would mean he would dominate her in all aspects of her life. She becomes sexually unresponsive in order to assert her autonomy. I've had it go the other way, too. The husband is sometimes the one in this position. Protecting autonomy is the outcome, or what is often called «secondary gain.»