Mel ended it after Ethan crossed a line, but they still act like a couple. Here is a therapist's advice.

When Mel first came to me, she and Ethan were in a turbulent "situationship".

She had initiated the breakup, stepping away after Ethan crossed a clear boundary regarding communication with an ex-partner. Although they weren't official anymore, they were spending just as much time together, trying to salvage the relationship.

Ethan, 50, was "all in" and desperate to repair, while Mel, 41, was holding her cards close, fearful of fully committing.

The irony was that the central issue wasn't about whether Ethan was willing to change (he was), but whether Mel was willing to allow herself to forgive and trust, without feeling like a "pushover" or repeating the mistakes of her past.

The core conflict: past trauma vs. present love.

The relationship's progress was entirely blocked by the weight of their respective histories, creating a cycle where Ethan's efforts to love clashed with Mel's fear of abandonment.

Mel's block: Fear of self-betrayal

Mel's reluctance to commit stemmed from a core belief rooted in her family of origin and a painful divorce: if she compromised her boundaries, she would be betraying herself.

• The blueprint: Growing up in a culture where women had less of a voice, Mel was role-modelled quiet compliance. Her core messaging was, "You don't really have needs" or "Don't cause a burden".

• The defensive behaviour: To compensate, Mel created incredibly rigid boundaries to protect herself from disappointment, often acting hyper-vigilant and critical in the early stages of the relationship.

• The internal conflict: When Ethan broke a boundary and later showed sincere change, Mel's fear shifted into guilt. She feared accepting his repair meant she was "weak" or a "doormat," echoing old patterns from her divorce.

Watch: Does your relationship have these 'microcompatibilities'? Post continues after video.

Ethan's block: Dysregulation and lack of attunement

Ethan's struggle wasn't intentional malice; it was a deeply ingrained, reactive communication style rooted in his childhood environment of "zero to 100" intensity.

• The communication gap: Ethan's communication style was based on logic (applying reason to emotions) and was loud, defensive and aggressive when triggered by anxiety. Mel's subtle, softly-spoken approach fell on "deaf ears" unless she was pushed to scream.

• Lack of attunement: When Ethan was dysregulated, his focus turned inward in self-preservation, causing him to miss Mel's needs entirely. For instance, if Mel said she needed to talk, Ethan would "fix it" by buying her lunch, completely missing her emotional need for a safe space to share her day.

• Fear of abandonment: Ethan also carried a fear of abandonment, leading him to withhold his own relational issues out of fear Mel would leave.

The therapeutic solution: Bowen Family Systems.

To break this cycle, I introduced principles from Bowen Family Systems Theory to address their relationship blueprint and rigid behaviours.

Homework and strategy

1. Mel's homework (confronting origin): Mel was assigned to identify behaviours no longer serving her (e.g., perpetual hyper-vigilance) and link them back to her family of origin. This process aimed to separate her adult values from her childhood fears, helping her recognise that accepting love now doesn't make her "weak," it makes her secure.

2. Ethan's homework (I Position): Ethan was asked to identify his "I Position" (a concept representing a clear, calm, principle-based stance) and pinpoint when he loses it. Ethan often lost his I Position in two ways:

• Fear: When he feared Mel would leave, his I Position dissolved into fear and defensiveness.

• Ego: When he mistakenly believed his opinions (like joking about stereotypes) were harmless because they were aligned with his ego, even though they were disrespectful to Mel's deeply held values.

• The goal was for him to maintain his I Position (calmly stating his needs/values) even if Mel was angry, and always respect Mel's reality, even if he didn't agree with it.

Universal truths: Negotiating respect

The dynamic between Ethan and Mel highlighted several core issues relevant to every couple:

• Feelings always make sense: Applying logic to emotion is frustrating and dismissive. Even if the content of a fear seems illogical, the feeling of fear is real and must be empathised with first.

• Respect isn't implied: Many couples assume they share the same views on what constitutes "appropriate" or "respectful" behaviour, until one person is deeply hurt by a comment, text, or social action the other considered innocent. It is essential for couples to explicitly negotiate and state their boundaries about acceptable behaviour, treating it as a core value discussion.

• The unwinnable game of certainty: Mel's block was the fear of future disappointment, an absolute certainty no partner can guarantee. The bridge across this uncertainty is accepting that she must trust her own ability to leave if a deal-breaker occurs, trusting her boundaries, not Ethan's perfection.

Ethan and Mel left the session with a renewed sense of purpose. Ethan was making visible, solid change, and Mel was given the therapeutic tools to address her internal conflicts, opening the door to the possibility of a permanent, safe relationship.

Listen to the full episode of This Is Why We Fight with Mel and Ethan here.

Feature Image: Supplied.