This guide is written as a way of describing what a grounded, long‑term relationship with me might look and feel like. It is not a universal formula or a set of rules that will fit every person or every couple. Instead, it is a personal framework: the kinds of dynamics, agreements, and ways of caring that tend to support my nervous system, my history, and my values in partnership. It is informed both by psychological and relationship research, including attachment‑ and neurobiology‑based approaches (for example, the work of Sue Johnson, John Gottman, Stan Tatkin, and others), and by lessons learned through my own lived experience and many rounds of couples therapy. The research is offered as general patterns rather than precise guarantees or percentages, and any of these ideas would still need to be adapted to the personalities, identities, histories, cultures, and preferences of the people involved.
If you are someone I am building, or considering, a long-term relationship with, this is just a quick note about what usually helps me feel safe and connected. The rest of the guide goes into more detail.
Clear, steady communication around coming and going, time offline, and hard conversations helps my nervous system relax. Sudden silence or disappearing without context is especially hard for me.
Because of my history with medical, work, and relational stress, rough patches in those areas can hit me harder. Simple check-ins like "I’m here" or "We’ll figure this out together" go a long way.
I don’t expect you to be my therapist or my only support. I do appreciate consistency, honesty, and willingness to repair when things get bumpy. This guide is a map to what tends to work well with me, and we can adapt it together.
Rationale: Fundamental for a positive, fulfilling partnership.
Let’s prioritize activities and time together that generate joy, creativity, and meaning for both of us. Positive psychology research (Seligman, 2002; Lyubomirsky, 2005) shows that shared positive experiences strengthen emotional bonds and increase long-term well-being in romantic partnerships. Intentionally creating moments of awe, beauty, delight, and co-creation supports emotional intimacy and mutual appreciation.
Schedule regular quality time together.
Engage in activities both partners enjoy.
Research context (Gottman): John Gottman’s longitudinal research with couples highlights that regularly investing in shared time and everyday rituals of connection is associated with more stable and satisfying relationships. Popular summaries sometimes talk about a certain number of "magic" hours per week, but the core message is about consistent turning toward each other, not a specific percentage change.
Citation: Gottman, J. M. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work.
Rationale: Promotes a sense of freedom and joy.
Plan spontaneous activities or trips.
Allow for carefree moments together.
Research context (Lyubomirsky): Work by Sonja Lyubomirsky and colleagues on intentional positive activities shows that regularly engaging in enjoyable, meaningful experiences can boost happiness and well‑being over time. These studies focus on individual well‑being, but similar practices are often used in couples work to strengthen shared joy and connection.
Citation: Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). "Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change." Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131.
Rationale: Strengthens connection through shared experiences.
Try new hobbies or activities together.
Make time for regular shared experiences.
Research context (Aron): Arthur Aron and colleagues found that couples who take part in novel and exciting activities together report greater feelings of closeness and relationship quality compared with those who engage in more routine tasks. The research supports the idea that doing new things together can refresh a sense of "us" without claiming a fixed percentage increase in satisfaction.
Citation: Aron, A., et al. (2000). "Couples' shared participation in novel activities." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(1), 67–85.
Rationale: A shared commitment (such as monogamy) can provide a stable container for exploring different phases of a relationship over time. What matters most is clear agreement and ongoing consent between partners.
Talk explicitly about what commitment means to each of you.
Revisit agreements periodically as life and needs change.
Rationale: Maintains physical intimacy and strengthens the emotional bond.
Communicate openly about desires and boundaries.
Prioritize intimacy and make time for it.
Research context (Byers & Demmons): Byers and Demmons found that sexual self‑disclosure (talking honestly about one’s sexual likes, dislikes, and needs) is positively associated with both sexual satisfaction and overall relationship satisfaction. Their work points to communication as a key ingredient, without specifying a universal percentage increase for all couples.
Citations: Byers, E. S., & Demmons, S. (1999). "Sexual satisfaction and sexual self‑disclosure." Journal of Sex Research, 36(2), 180–189. Stan Tatkin (2012). Wired for Love.
Rationale: Fosters mutual appreciation and personal development.
Regularly acknowledge and praise each other’s strengths.
Set goals together to enhance these gifts.
Research context (Algoe): Sara Algoe and colleagues have shown that everyday expressions of gratitude in romantic relationships are linked with higher relationship quality, stronger feelings of being valued, and greater willingness to be responsive to a partner’s needs. The emphasis is on consistent, specific appreciation rather than any fixed numerical gain.
Citation: Algoe, S. B., et al. (2010). "Everyday gratitude as a booster shot for romantic relationships." Personal Relationships, 17(2), 217–233.
Rationale: Ensures both partners maintain physical and mental well‑being.
Offer to join in on health activities.
Respect individual preferences regarding health routines.
Research context: Research in health psychology suggests that when partners support or participate in one another’s health behaviors—such as exercise or medical adherence—it can improve motivation and follow‑through compared with doing these things alone. Effects vary across couples, so this is best seen as a helpful pattern, not a guarantee.
Citation: Müller, A. M., et al. (2015). "Engagement in physical activity among married couples." Health Psychology, 34(8), 789–797.
Rationale: Strengthens the connection with broader social and family networks.
Attend family and community events together.
Discuss and align on roles and expectations.
Research context: Studies on social integration and mental health show that people who are more embedded in supportive social networks tend to report better psychological well‑being. While Hughes and Gove’s work focuses on living arrangements and social ties rather than couple satisfaction per se, the findings support the value of staying socially connected as a protective factor.
Citation: Hughes, M. E., & Gove, W. R. (1981). "Living alone, social integration, and mental health." American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(6).
Rationale: Provides stability and reassurance.
Establish a nightly routine for connection.
Use technology to stay connected when apart.
Research context (EFT): Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT), developed by Sue Johnson and colleagues, emphasizes that emotional accessibility and responsiveness in everyday interactions are central to building secure bonds. Regular check‑ins and "being there" when one partner reaches out are key attachment behaviors, rather than a specific quota of contact.
Additional perspective (Tatkin): Tatkin describes partners as each other’s primary "secure base" and "refuge." He encourages couples to become experts on one another’s nervous systems—learning what soothes, what agitates, and how to send quick signals of safety (tone of voice, eye contact, touch) especially at the beginning and end of the day.
Therapeutic lesson: A simple nightly question like "How is your heart tonight?" can become a small bonding ritual. In EFT‑ and Tatkin‑informed work, we focus less on frequency and more on whether partners can reliably reach each other when they are distressed or need closeness.
Citations: Johnson, S. M., & Greenberg, L. S. (1985). "Emotionally focused therapy: An overview." Psychotherapy, 22(2), 371–379. Stan Tatkin (2012). Wired for Love.
Rationale: Promotes emotional security and intimacy.
Be attentive to each other’s emotional needs.
Practice active listening and empathy.
Research context (Attachment): Adult attachment research shows that when partners respond sensitively to each other’s distress—with warmth, comfort, and reassurance—it supports secure attachment and a stronger sense of safety in the relationship.
Additional perspective (Tatkin): Tatkin points out that face‑to‑face, eye‑to‑eye, and skin‑to‑skin contact can down‑regulate the body’s threat response. Simple, reliable gestures (a hand squeeze, a hug when one partner arrives home) help both nervous systems register, "My person is here and on my side."
Therapeutic lesson: When one partner is overwhelmed, the goal is not to "fix" everything but to be a safe presence. Phrases like "I’m here," "It makes sense you feel this way," and "You’re not alone in this" mirror the kind of co‑regulation described in attachment‑based and Tatkin‑informed therapies.
Citations: Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in Adulthood. Guilford Press. Stan Tatkin (2012). Wired for Love.
Rationale: Co‑regulation is the way partners help each other's nervous systems move from distress back toward safety and connection.
Notice your own cues of moving into fight, flight, or shut‑down (for example: tight chest, raised voice, going quiet).
Learn your partner’s "tells"—the signs that they are getting overwhelmed, anxious, or checked out.
Experiment with regulating together: slowing your breathing, softening eye contact, using a calmer tone of voice, or gentle, agreed‑upon touch.
Research context: Attachment theory and interpersonal neurobiology suggest that close, responsive relationships shape how our nervous systems manage threat and safety across the lifespan. In adulthood, emotionally attuned partners can help each other return to a felt sense of security more quickly than either might alone.
Stan Tatkin’s perspective: Tatkin describes secure‑functioning couples as becoming "experts on each other"—learning what soothes or agitates the other’s nervous system and using face‑to‑face, eye‑to‑eye, and voice‑to‑voice contact to send fast signals of "You’re safe with me."
Therapeutic lesson: Instead of only asking "How do I calm myself down?", you can also ask "How can we calm together?" In practice, this can mean agreeing on a few co‑regulation moves (for example: a hand‑on‑heart hug, three slow breaths together, or saying "We’re okay, we’re on the same team") that you reach for when either of you starts to feel flooded.
Citations: Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in Adulthood. Guilford Press. Stan Tatkin (2012). Wired for Love.
Rationale:
Emotional Attunement
Safety begins with attunement — the ability to notice and respond to each other’s emotional states. Emotionally Focused Therapy (Johnson, 2008) emphasizes the importance of secure emotional bonds, where each partner can reliably turn to the other for soothing, understanding, and co-regulation. Small daily practices of checking in, validating, and listening deeply build a sense of felt safety.
We aren’t meant to regulate emotions entirely alone. Through warm tone, safe presence, eye contact, shared breathing, or affectionate gestures, we can help each other down-regulate stress. Polyvagal Theory (Porges, 2011) explains how the body uses social connection as a pathway to safety. Couples who regularly co-regulate build a calming relational baseline and recover faster from conflict.
I have a history of complex trauma (CPTSD), and certain relational behaviors can be especially distressing like stonewalling, abandonment during medical crises, or prolonged ambiguity. I don’t expect perfection, but I do need a partner who can communicate clearly during hard moments and work with me to reduce harm. I don’t want/need my partner to be my therapist. But we must be willing to learn each other’s pain points so we can co-create a safer bond. The best trauma-informed partners are simply present, consistent, curious, and willing to repair. Complex PTSD (CPTSD) is a way of describing what can happen when someone has lived through long-term or repeated stress or trauma, especially in close relationships. The nervous system learns to stay on guard. Reactions like shutting down, getting very upset quickly, or feeling panicked are not "being too much"—they are how the body has tried to stay safe. In a caring partnership, those old patterns need extra understanding and support.
Shared language: Talk together about how this shows up for you now—for example: feeling suddenly overwhelmed, going very quiet, wanting to run away, people-pleasing, or "checking out." You only share as much of your story as you want. The key is to name these as nervous-system responses, not as personal failures.
Predictability and communication: Agree on simple habits that make things feel steadier: clear goodbyes, "I got home" or "I can’t talk right now but I’m okay" texts, saying when one of you needs time offline, and checking in if there’s a delay. For a trauma-impacted nervous system, unexpected silence, cancelled plans without explanation, or vanishing during a hard time can echo earlier experiences of abandonment or betrayal.
Feeling safer in conflict: Make a few ground rules for arguments—for example: no threatening to break up in the middle of a fight, no giving the silent treatment to punish the other person, and permission for either of you to call a pause. Every pause comes with a promise to return (for example: "I need 20 minutes to calm down, then I’ll come back so we can keep talking").
Disappearing, stonewalling, and abandonment fears: For many people with CPTSD, the most painful triggers are not about physical touch but about people suddenly pulling away—emotionally or practically. Talk explicitly about what stonewalling, ghosting, or going silent does to you, and agree on what you both will and won’t do when things are hard. For example, you might both commit to: no unexplained disappearing, no "cold punishment" with silence, and naming when you feel like shutting down instead of acting it out.
Plans for triggers: Notice early signs that you are getting overwhelmed, such as tightness in your chest, faster breathing, tunnel vision, going very quiet, or feeling dread around medical, work, or money conversations. Decide together how your partner can respond—maybe by slowing the conversation down, breaking big topics into smaller steps, or saying "I’m here, I’m not abandoning you, we can face this together."
Repair and responsibility: CPTSD can make reactions bigger for both people. The goal is not perfection—it is repair. After a difficult moment, both partners practice naming their part (for example: "My raised voice scared you" or "My shutting down felt like rejection") and trying again, instead of blaming the diagnosis or using it as an excuse.
Research context (in simple terms): Trauma and attachment research suggest that steady, kind, emotionally present relationships can gradually offer "corrective experiences"—moments when you expect danger but instead receive care. Over time, these moments can slowly teach the nervous system that closeness can be safer now than it was in the past.
Therapeutic lesson: A trauma-informed relationship does not turn either partner into a therapist, crisis manager, or sole source of support. The partner offering support is responsible for being as consistent, honest, and caring as they reasonably can be, while honoring their own limits. The partner living with CPTSD is responsible for sharing what is happening inside at a pace that feels safe, seeking their own healing supports (for example, therapy, groups, or trusted others), and letting the relationship be one important resource—not the only one.
Rationale: Relationship agreements aka "couple bubble" is a shared, explicit pact to protect each other and the relationship first. It is about mutual safety, fairness, and mutuality—two people who agree to be one another’s secure base and refuge. According to Stan Tatkin (2012), secure-functioning couples act as a team. They create protective structures — like rituals of connection, shared calendars, public loyalty, and clear agreements — to safeguard the relationship from chaos, ambiguity, or outside threats. These practices create a resilient foundation and help prevent avoidable ruptures.
See yourselves as a team: "If it affects one of us, it affects both of us."
Use "we" decisions for anything that touches the relationship (time, money, big changes).
Aim for fairness and mutual benefit rather than "one wins, one loses."
Core agreements (examples):
We do not throw each other under the bus in front of others.
We share important information with each other quickly, especially things that could impact trust.
We back each other up in public and give feedback in private.
We prioritize repair after conflict and do not let ruptures linger when we can help it.
Boundaries with others: Together, we decide what is and is not okay with ex-partners, flirtation, private messaging, and emotional intimacy with others, so both of us feel protected instead of blindsided.
We talk about friends or family who feel unsafe to the relationship and agree on how to handle those situations as a united front.
Research context: Attachment theory and interpersonal neurobiology suggest that reliable, emotionally responsive bonds help regulate stress and support mental and physical health over time. Clear agreements about protection and loyalty make it easier for both partners’ nervous systems to relax into a sense of "I am not alone with this."
Stan Tatkin’s perspective: Tatkin describes secure-functioning couples as people who consciously organize their relationship around shared principles like fairness, justice, and mutual sensitivity. The couple bubble is the agreement that "we are in each other’s care," and that each partner is responsible for guarding the relationship from unnecessary threats, both internal and external.
Therapeutic lesson: Instead of assuming you’re on the same page, write your couple-bubble agreements down. Ask: "What do we each need to feel protected and prioritized here?" Revisit these agreements during transitions or when conflict patterns show up, and adjust them so both partners still feel safe inside the bubble.
Rationale: Ensures mutual care during tough times.
Discuss health plans and preferences.
Be proactive in offering support during medical issues.
Research context: Work on family involvement in chronic illness indicates that coordinated support from close others can improve adjustment and coping for people living with health conditions. This includes both practical help and emotional presence during treatment and recovery.
Therapeutic lesson: In therapy, we often explore how to share the emotional load of illness without either partner disappearing into the roles of "patient" and "caregiver" only. Naming fears, limits, and hopes aloud can protect the bond while you navigate appointments, symptoms, and changing capacities together.
Citation: Martire, L. M., & Schulz, R. (2007). "Involving family in psychosocial interventions for chronic illness." Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 90–94.
Rationale: Managing the end of the partnership or major life transitions with care and transparency supports each person’s emotional, structural, and financial well‑being, and helps create a meaningful conclusion or reconfiguration of the connection.
Communicate openly about the transition process.
Provide emotional and practical support where possible.
Research context: Research on separation, divorce, and widowhood highlights that clear communication, ongoing social support, and attention to practical stability can reduce loneliness and distress during and after a transition.
Therapeutic lesson: A compassionate transition centers on dignity and clarity rather than blame. In a therapy context, this can look like structured conversations about what each person needs for closure, how to communicate with others, and how to honor what was good even as the form of the relationship changes.
Citation: Dykstra, P. A. (1995). "Loneliness among the never and formerly married." Journals of Gerontology, 50(5), S321–S329.
Rationale: Maintains harmony and mutual respect.
Use active listening and other conflict resolution techniques.
Focus on the issue, not the person.
Research context (Markman): Relationship education and prevention programs, such as those described by Howard Markman and colleagues, find that couples who learn and use constructive communication skills—like soft start‑ups and active listening—tend to experience less distress and more stability over time.
Additional perspective (Tatkin): Tatkin encourages "win‑win or no deal" conflict, where both partners aim for outcomes that feel fair and protective of the relationship. He also highlights the importance of fighting "with eyes open"—staying physically oriented toward each other and using calmer tones to keep the nervous system from tipping into threat.
Therapeutic lesson: A key shift is moving from "You always…" to "When X happens, I feel Y and I need Z." In session, we slow conversations down, help partners really hear each other’s underlying emotions, and practice staying on the same team against the problem rather than against each other.
Citations: Markman, H. J., et al. (2010). Fighting for Your Marriage. Jossey‑Bass. Stan Tatkin (2012). Wired for Love.
Rationale: Prevents resentment and promotes resolution.
Take breaks if needed to cool down.
Return to the discussion with a calm mindset.
Research context: Daily diary studies of couples suggest that how partners handle everyday stress and conflict—including whether they come back to repair after cooling off—plays an important role in long‑term relationship satisfaction and emotional well‑being.
Additional perspective (Tatkin): Tatkin stresses rapid repair as a hallmark of secure‑functioning couples. Even if partners need to step away to regulate, the commitment is to return quickly, take responsibility, and restore a sense of "we" as soon as possible.
Therapeutic lesson: In therapy, we often normalize taking structured "time‑outs" during intense conflict—as long as there is a clear plan to return and repair. The healing part is not never arguing; it is being able to circle back, own your part, and reconnect.
Citation: Timmons, A. C., et al. (2015). "Daily patterns of stress and conflict in couples." Journal of Family Psychology, 29(3), 388–399.
Rationale: Enhances communication and deepens connection.
Discuss and agree on core values and beliefs.
Integrate these into daily life.
Research context: Studies on spiritual intimacy and value alignment suggest that couples who share and openly discuss their core beliefs tend, on average, to report higher marital quality and a stronger sense of shared meaning.
Citation: Mahoney, A., et al. (2009). "Spiritual intimacy and marital quality." Journal of Family Psychology, 23(5), 582–590.
Rationale: Builds a sense of continuity and shared history.
Create new traditions that reflect shared interests.
Celebrate these traditions regularly.
Research context: Reviews of decades of research on family routines and rituals show that predictable, shared activities are associated with stronger family cohesion, smoother transitions, and a greater sense of security for both adults and children.
Citation: Fiese, B. H., et al. (2002). "A review of 50 years of research on family routines." Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), 381–390.
Rationale: Supports clarity and alignment around long‑term commitment, legal or structural partnership, and the kind of shared life you are choosing together.
Talk about what marriage or long‑term partnership means to each of you in practical terms (time, money, home, privacy, support, sexuality).
Explore how you each imagine day‑to‑day life, holidays, crises, and aging together, and where your pictures match or differ.
Research context: Relationship research suggests that couples who have explicit conversations about commitment, expectations, and shared goals tend to navigate major transitions with less confusion and more satisfaction than couples who rely on unspoken assumptions.
Rationale: Adoption is a profound, life‑shaping commitment that asks for emotional, relational, practical, and community readiness. Being "open to adopt" means being willing to explore this path thoughtfully rather than promising it regardless of circumstances. I'm open to the idea of adoption under the right circumstances; when it feels deeply aligned, supported, and grounded. This would require mutual readiness, long-term stability, and the emotional, financial, and logistical support to provide a nourishing home.
Talk about what adoption would mean for each of you—not just in principle, but in everyday life (time, energy, finances, housing, support systems).
Explore what "conditions are right" would include for you both (for example: stability in the relationship, mental and physical health, supportive community, trauma‑informed resources).
Consider different forms of adoption (domestic, international, foster‑to‑adopt, open vs. more closed arrangements) and how each aligns with your values and capacities.
Research context: Adoption research and clinical practice highlight that adoptive families often navigate additional layers of complexity—loss, identity, and possible trauma histories for the child. Access to support, openness in communication, and realistic expectations are associated with better long‑term adjustment for everyone involved.