The question now becomes «Can she find other ways of behaving which insure that she has her autonomy and independence, and that she has his respect?» When she has that, then she can allow what they both want, more satisfying sexual behavior. In order to do this, you have to separate the notion of her independence or autonomy from the sexual behavior itself. She has to have some other way of knowing that she's her own woman and can exercise choice, that is at least as convincing for her personally as being sexually unresponsive. When she has that, you've detached the outcome of independence or autonomy from the specific behavior of being sexually unresponsive. If she wants more sexual behavior and he does too, then they are free to engage in it with her autonomy still protected.

It's always by going to the context, by going to the frame, by going to the outcome, that you get the freedom to move around behaviorally. If you address the behavior directly, it may be ecologically unsound for them as a couple. Once I've gotten the intent and validated that they both agree to it, then I can begin to vary the behavior.

Let me give you another example. Let's say a father has just said to his daughter «If you don't listen to me and don't come home by ten o'clock, I'll ground you for a week, and blah, blah, blah …»

«Sam, did you notice what happened as you said that to your daughter?» «And, Martha, what were you feeling at that moment?»

«Oh, I feel like a little kid, you know, having to be told exactly what to do, and blah, blah, blah.»

«Now, was it your intention, Sam, to deliver the message to Martha that she's still a little kid and you have to take full control over her life with an iron fist?'

«Well, no. That's not what I intended.»

«What was your intention?»

«Well, I care. I don't want her hanging out with hoods. I don't want her out in the street. There's dope out there. I want her to be in the house, safe and sound. She's my girl, and I want to make sure that she has the kind of experiences that she needs to grow up like I want her to grow up.» The daughter says «But it's my life!»

«OK, Sam. Is part of that image that you have of your daughter growing up for her to be independent? Do you want her to be a woman who knows her own mind, who can stand on her own two feet and make decisions for herself based on the realities of the world? Or do you want her to be pushed around by other people's opinions?»

What I've done with this is relate his complaint about his daughter— that she doesn't do what he tells her to do—to his outcome of wanting her to grow up to be independent.

Woman: It's like having interchangeable lenses on a camera: you just put on a wide angle lens to get it into a wider frame.

OK, that's a nice visual metaphor for reframing. A behavior which in isolation seems to be a problem, or inappropriate, makes sense when placed in a larger context. This is really an example of a context reframe. I shift the behavior that the father complains about to the context of his daughter's growing up and becoming independent.

Exploring the father's intention will loosen up the ways in which he will go about expressing the message he originally intended. «Remember, be in at ten o'clock» is not the message received. How else could he get the message across to her that he wants her to be protected and yet allow her to grow up to be independent? How can he be assured—in a way that doesn't offend the daughter—that she is growing up appropriately? The specific behavior of coming home at ten o'clock may be totally irrelevant to achieving that.

This is the same kind of negotiation situation that you have with a couple of corporate executives who disagree on how to achieve a particular goal. You first remind them of the common general frame in which they are operating and that they will both agree with. You remind them, for example, that whatever specific policies they eventually decide on, their goal is to increase profits and maintain or improve the quality of the services or products they offer. We'll go into the business applications in more detail later this morning.

Woman: If you have not accurately specified the general frame— what the positive intention is—will you get a delayed polarity response?

Yes, typically you will. Whenever you deal with content, you run the risk that it is not appropriate for them. Even when the content is not appropriate, you may get agreement at the time, because of your rapport and personal power. But later you will get a backlash—a polarity flip.

There are three ways to avoid that. One way is to do a pure process reframing using the six–step model, in which there is no opportunity to impose any inappropriate content.

Another way is to take the time to gather lots of information. «Well, what is it specifically that you intend to do by demanding so vehemently that she be in at ten o'clock?» «Well, I want …» and you get whatever set of words are the appropriate ones for this particular unique human being. Then if you use that same set of nominalizations and unspecified verbs and idioms as you describe the new way for him to transmit the information, you will match what he is trying to do at the unconscious level, as well as at the conscious level. That will avoid the polarity problem.

The third and really indispensable way to be sure that your reframe is appropriate is to have enough sensory experience to notice the responses that you are getting, and observe whether your client is responding congruently.

Man: So far you've covered examples of incongruence between the intention and behavior. Do you ever have a case where a couple's relationship is in conflict because they intend different things? He wants more of this; she wants less of this.

If there's a basis for negotiation, there's always a frame within which they can both agree to a common outcome. Give me an example where you think there probably isn't a common frame.

Man: She wants monogamy and he doesn't.

OK. Let's role–play. Jean, you want an exclusive sexual relationship with him, and George is not willing to commit himself to that. First I ask for the meta–outcome of what each of them wants. I ask Jean «What is your intent in demanding a monogamous sexual exclusivity with this guy? What will that do for you?»

Jean: Oh, it will give me a sense of security that I'm the most desirable woman for this man.

Then I find George's meta–outcome. «What is your refusal to be monogamous based on? What will it do for you if you can be other than monogamous and involve yourself with other women?»

George: It lets me know I'm still desirable to other women, and makes me feel important.

Every time that I ask them an outcome question, I loosen up the context in which the behavior occurs. That gives me more freedom to move. George probably won't object to her having a sense of security, and she won't object to his feeling important and desirable. What they each object to is the specific behavior, not the outcome.

Now I use this information to formulate a common outcome that they can both agree to. «So am I correct that you both would like to find some mutually agreeable arrangement whereby, Jean, you can have a sense of security and desirability, and George, you will also feel important and desirable.»

If Jean and George both agree to this, I've got a common agreement frame within which to begin negotiations. Now I can work toward finding a specific solution. I can ask Jean, «What other ways could he unequivocally demonstrate to you that you have this kind of security that you desire?» And I can ask George, «What other ways are there for you to feel desirable and important?»

Man: Suppose that she says «No, that's the only way," and he also says «No, that's the only way.»

I have my doubts about that; I believe there is always something else behind the behavior and other ways to accomplish it. But if they both firmly believe that there are no alternatives, I will question the frame around our interaction.