When your spouse is dysregulated and shut down, and then lashes out in anger, what's

happening and what can you do about it?

The extremely short version on what to do about it is to stay regulated yourself.

The longer discussion is around responsibility.

And boundaries.

I will address all of this and more.

I'm Justin Sunseri, a therapist and coach who helps you live with more

calm, confidence, and connection without psychobabble or woo woo.

Welcome to Stuck Not Broken.

This is of course not therapy, nor is this intended to replace therapy.

I got an email that I'm going to respond to.

This response is not directly to this person.

I'm gonna respond to it generally.

This is not personal life advice whatsoever, but I, I think that

everyone, or a lot of people can relate to this listener's question.

So here is the AI-read and condensed version of the question.

Thank you for your material on Dorsal Vagal Shutdown.

It's helped me understand what my wife is going through.

However, I can't find anything on what I can do to better help her as her spouse.

I know I need to be a better anchor.

Unfortunately, I think much of her shutdown is due to marital problems,

which has led her to shutting me out.

I want to be there for her and prove I can be her anchor, but it's hard.

When she sometimes lashes out with anger, I know it's a sign

she's coming out of shutdown.

but then she slips right back in.

I just don't know what to do.

First off, thank you so much for the email and the really great question.

Again, I think a lot of people can relate to.

The core of this email of, of this question boils down to one of the most

difficult questions in any relationship.

How do I help somebody who I love when they're stuck in a defensive state?

But there's also other questions embedded here, like, what's my role?

What's my responsibility to my partner?

What's a safety anchor?

And can a spouse be a safety anchor?

What if they have not been one in the past?

There's a lot to get into.

The listener mentions an important distinction.

He says there's no abuse, violence, or infidelity, so she is in a safe space.

Logically this makes perfect sense.

He is saying the objective threats are gone.

And that's vital, super important, uh, necessary foundation.

So, good job, uh, no one should be hitting each other or being violent

toward each other in any way.

But in the world of the nervous system, there's a huge difference

between a space being technically safe and the actual feeling of safety

and the biological reality of safety.

When I discuss safety here on the podcast or in the Untucking

Academy or with my clients, I'm not referring to literal safety.

Yeah, that's part of it.

Um, a safe enough environment and safe enough people are extremely

important, but there's way more to it.

Safety refers to biology, the ventral vagal safety pathways from

the ba- the brainstem in particular.

We need these to.

In essence to activate, for lack of a better word, and the environment

and the people are a part of that.

But for someone who lives in a chronically defensive state, like shut down.

So for someone who has less activation of their safety pathways, they

need more than literal safety.

They need to access their safety state and then be, uh, practice being in it.

More than once a lot.

They need to put in the safety reps and exercise their safety state

similar to working out to increase your strength or to build any sort of skill.

Part of this process is connecting with and building safety, but another

part which is way more difficult is connecting with stuck defense.

One problem, however, is that someone who is stuck in defense has a difficult

time identifying safety, first off.

Being with it second, experiencing it mindfully third, and building the

strength of its fourth, and they have a much harder time connecting with stuck

defense and relieving the stuck defense.

Someone who is stuck in defense will identify danger when it's not there,

something that we call unhealthy neuroception in the polyvagal world.

So it's great that your home is free from overtly dangerous things.

Keep doing that.

But that doesn't mean your spouse is able to shift out of stuck defense.

On top of that, your spouse may not identify you as a safety cue, especially

if there's a history of issues between spouses, between partners.

On top of that, there may be very subtle cues of danger or non-safety

that we give to our partners that are very easily missed.

For example, the flattened tone of voice, uh, when we get annoyed or

a subtle eye roll as we look away.

Or a painful grimace when our spouse asks us to get them something right

when we sit down every single time.

And on top of that, in relationships, we tend to overly rely on the other

person to be the source of our healing.

Tell me I'm wrong.

We enable each other's behaviors and emotions.

Tell me I'm wrong.

We build codependency on each other.

We blame the other person waiting for them to change, thinking that when they

finally change, then we can change.

Tell me I'm wrong.

And the other person's waiting for the other person to do the same.

Point being, there are layers of stuff to deal with.

Having a safe enough environment is good and being a safe enough person is also

good, but there is a lot more to it.

If I asked this person's wife, "Hey, is your husband a safe person, a safe

spouse?" They would probably say yes.

But when I ask, "Do you feel safe with them?" They would probably also say

yes, or look at me weirdly, because people don't talk like this typically.

So we gotta narrow it down more if I ask, "Do you breathe easier when you're with

your husband? Do you smile? Do you wanna get closer to him?" Uh, they might say no.

So, the goal isn't to convince the thinking brain or your partner's

thinking brain that they are safe.

The goal is to show that they're safe to be in your presence.

The goal is to show that it's okay to come out of hiding or to drop your defenses.

But again, lots of layers and way easier said than done.

Um, if that's not complicated enough, here's where it gets more complicated.

This listener, and I'm sure you listener maybe can relate, says that

his wife's shutdown is due to marital problems, which means that he's

in a uniquely difficult position.

He is simultaneously a potential source of safety.

Potential.

There is some history there.

There's fa familiarity, there's love, but they're also a potential

source of threat or danger.

Her nervous system may not distinguish between "He's trying to help" and "He's

part of the problem." Again, this is a biological process, not a cognitive one.

One's spouse may know the other person's safe, but biologically

their body is not in a safety state.

Now let's address the moments of lashing out.

The listener could be exactly right.

This is a sign of, or could be a sign of, of movement, of self-regulation.

It's potentially a very good sign.

Is it a good sign that she's lashing out in anger and

directing it at another person?

No.

That that is not what I mean.

We are mammals.

If we can't be safe, we run.

If we can't run, we fight.

If we can't fight, we shut down.

But we can get stuck in one of those defensive states.

For someone who's stuck, they need to come out of this sequence in the reverse order.

They need to immobilize and shut down, and then emerge into fight activation

and then flight, and then safety.

So from immobilization to mobilization to safety.

Deb Dana calls this the polyvagal ladder.

So coming outta shutdown and into anger is sort of a good sign.

It's a signal that the body is attempting to come out of immobilization.

At least attempting the body may be trying to self-regulate to, uh,

to get unstuck from stuck shutdown.

But when the anger is chaotic and taken out on others, on the self

or on property, then, then that is obviously less than ideal.

That signals the body is trying to come out of immobilization, but

it lacks the safety capacity to handle the returning mobilization.

The safety state needs to be strengthened first.

As it strengthens, self-regulation becomes much more of a possibility.

I've actually found this to be true in the last two cohorts that I ran.

Safety, simplify, simplified.

It's a four week thing, and self-regulation simplified

an eight week thing.

In both cohorts, safety activation went way up and all defensive activation

overall went way down, but not entirely.

Fight activation increased in both cohorts.

Why would this be?

Because through the cohort material, the practices, the co-regulation

amongst the students, when we met live, the levels of safety went way up.

And as safety went way up, shut down and freeze went way down.

As they went way down, fight, activation went up.

In other words, as the body came out of immobility, mobility increased.

But not like disorganized, chaotic immobility.

The cohort members shared stories where they felt empowered.

They were using that mobile energy, that activation to take on new

challenges, to speak up for themselves and like start new projects.

It was not a chaotic, disorganized thing because the safety state had developed

enough to not only decrease shutdown and freeze, but also welcome and guide the

defensive activation back into mobility.

So yes, fight activation from shutdown is a potentially

great sign if it's regulated.

When we take it out on others, that is not regulated.

It is totally okay to speak from empowerment toward our spouses or

others when things need to be said.

That is totally fine.

That's different than lashing out and blaming, shaming,

belittling, or humiliating.

Do not get those two things confused, please.

So here's what I suspect is happening in situations like this.

Partner A comes outta shutdown.

The anger surfaces, it gets directed at partner B, who then of course gets hurts

and reactive even if they don't show it.

Partner A picks up on it and their nervous system says "Not safe."

Back in the shutdown along with life themes going through

the mind like I knew it.

I cannot rely on partner B. This is a, a loop.

It's a painful, but.

Very predictable loop and we'll, we'll come back to this loop

later and what to do about it.

The fight activation isn't the problem.

Fight is showing up as anger, but it's, uh, mobilized energy

finally moving, that's progress.

One problem is how it's expressed.

Partner A ultimately needs to strengthen safety, and then mindfully welcome the

fight activation back into the system.

Another problem is what happens next though.

Partner B justifiably has a reaction to partner a's anger, but lacks the

regulation to do something different, just like partner A also lacks the regulation.

There's a rupture or misattunement in the biological communication between both

partners as well as behavioral and verbal miscommunication between the two as well.

On top of that, there is potentially no repair happening, no return to

safety together, just the familiar, you know, aggression and then

retreat probably over and over again.

If you've been on the receiving end of this cycle as partner B, I guess, your

nervous system has been through it too.

Being patient and caring does not mean absorbing verbal abuse indefinitely.

Your biology matters, your safety matters.

Being a doormat is not anchoring for you or the other person.

Some people would call that fawning.

I would call it codependency or insecurity, or shutting down or freezing.

If I never ask someone in shut down to just snap out of it because that's not

how biology works, then I'm also not going to ask their spouse to endlessly tolerate

mistreatment because the other person is struggling, quote unquote struggling.

That's that's not okay.

Both things can be true.

Your partner's in pain and you don't have to be their doormat or their punching bag.

Person B, the one being targeted by A's anger, can hold compassion

for their struggle while also holding a boundary for themselves.

In fact, boundaries are safety cues, in my opinion.

A person who can calmly say, "I hear that you're upset and I'm not going to continue

this conversation while you're talking to me this way," is demonstrating regulation

that may not feel great for person A and they might interpret that as abandonments

or rejection, but that is ultimately person A's problem to deal with.

Person B can totally be a support, but not at the expense of their own wellbeing.

Healthy boundaries, including an assertive refusal to participate

when person A is being hurtful is a cue to person A that person B is

self-regulated and a safe other, even if it does not initially feel that way.

And even if person A initially interprets the refusal as abandonment or rejection.

If you've done things in the relationship you need to make amends for, you

should probably hurry up and do so.

So if you're a person B in this situation.

If you've done something you need to apologize for it.

Do it.

And if your spouse needs to share how those choices impacted them,

then person B, you need to listen.

Even if it hurts.

Once they start to shame and belittle, that's different.

That is not okay.

We need each other's co-regulation, but we can't get that when we're

mistreating the other person.

When we mistreat others, it will instantly put them into a uh,

defensive state and then co-regulation gets cut off, understandably.

And when co-regulationons cut off, we return to familiar habits of

hiding or blaming or avoiding, and we return to familiar stories of being

abandoned yet again or being unlovable, or, I knew I could never trust you.

This isn't about blame.

It's a biological communication between two organisms with very

complex, multi-layered backgrounds.

Breaking old individual and old relational cycles requires, uh, a much different

approach, and it's extremely difficult.

Somebody in this dyad has to do something different.

Ideally, both people -A and B- confront difficult conversations only after

first anchoring into their own safety state, and then coming together and

focusing on healthy communication skills.

But that is not likely to happen, is it?

It could happen, but both people need to be on the same page, and that's not

typically how relationships go, is it?

So, dear listener, it falls on you.

I don't have your spouse here listening to me.

I only have you if you want your relationship dynamics

to change, it's on you.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Don't give up on me now.

Let me explain.

If you show up differently, the relationship must change.

Imagine the relationship like a machine that is made up of only two gears.

You and your spouse are the gears.

The machine is the the relationship.

Both gears move together.

Whether this is pleasant, handholding, walks on the beach or

unpleasant fighting and retreating, the gears are moving together.

If one of the gears refuses to move the same way, something must change.

Ideally, both gears work together to change the machine.

Realistically, that is not going to happen.

Even when couples show up to therapy together, it's usually one of the

gears that's forcing the issue.

So is it up to you, dear listener, to heal the relationship?

No.

Is it up to you to heal your partner also?

No.

Don't hear it that way please.

But if you want your relationship to change, it is up to you

to show up differently.

You need to be the gear that refuses to move in the same way.

Yes.

Heck yes.

This causes more friction initially.

Change always does.

Maybe especially in, uh, intimate partner relationships.

If I had you in the therapy room with your spouse, I would

put it on both of you easily.

But I probably have only one of you, one of the gears in the machine listening

to the podcast, and so it's on the listener to do something differently

because you're the one hearing it.

The listener, you, all of you listening, I mean, need to be

first and foremost, self-regulated.

If you can be self-regulated, you can act as your partner's, co regulator.

You can be their anchor and the catalyst for change in the relationship.

actually have a podcast episode called "Self-Regulate to Co-Regulate," and

I'll put that, uh, link to that in the show notes to the, the YouTube video.

"But Justin, they need to change. They keep doing X, Y, and Z and

I hate it." That may be true.

I won't disagree with you.

That could very well be true.

But if you wait for them to make a change, which they won't, you

give them a ton of power over you.

If you wait around for them, they have the power over your life, your

emotions, your wellbeing, maybe.

I encourage you to take ownership over your wellbeing in all regards.

Hopefully this helps shift the dynamics in the relationship and your

spouse's nervous system picks up on it.

Hopefully.

And then hopefully their nervous system begins to shift.

And then that gets reinforced within the relationship that is

ultimately outta your control.

What is in your control is what you do today to make a change.

If you're honestly making changes and building more self-regulation, uh,

you will be better able to ride the highs and the lows of the relationship.

I sincerely hope your loved ones follow.

If they don't, if they refuse to better themselves and to, you know,

work on their own self-regulation that is out of your control.

Let's talk about what you could do to start shifting the

dynamics in your relationship.

I have two general recommendations and two more specific things that

you can do in these four tips.

Tip number one is a general recommendation.

Self-regulate first.

Before you can co-regulate with someone, you must be able to self-regulate.

Your most powerful tool is your own nervous system state.

When that wave of anger comes from your partner.

The work is to notice your own defensiveness rising, and instead

of reacting from that, stay grounded in your own body, feeling your

emotions, and being with them while staying firmly anchored in safety.

Ideally.

This is super hard.

Some might say super duper hard, mindfully connecting with the

present moment through your senses?

That's easy compared to this meditating for 30 minutes, no problem.

Compared to this.

Self-regulating through someone else's emotional dysregulation?

That's a challenge.

Um, that doesn't mean you're happy.

I don't expect you to smile through somebody else's anger.

You can be upset.

Sad.

Angry too.

But you need to be self-regulated while feeling those emotions.

Not just in your behavior.

That's a great start though, in your emotions and in your biology too.

Someone who can hold back on their behavioral impulse to yell and to

swear back and insult back at their spouse is off to a really great start.

If that's you, keep it up.

Great job.

But someone who can notice and be with their anger while also

connecting with their spouse's emotions is even further along.

Again, not easy.

And the person who can listen to their spouse's emotions without their

own emotions getting triggered has a strong level of self-regulation.

I don't mean numbness, that's not what I'm saying.

I don't mean not caring.

I mean the ability to stay present and empathetic without your body

losing access to its safety state.

That is not something, it's not a skill you learn overnight.

That is something you practice.

Again, super hard.

So prioritize your self-regulation before, during, and after

discussions with your partner.

Tip number two, focus on small, consistent safety cues.

You don't have to be perfect.

You don't have to have long drawn out discussions that go until 2:00 AM

with cathartic cries about childhood.

It might be enough today to intentionally, uh, make eye

contact and smile when you mean it.

Or to share a coffee together in the morning without any expectations.

Or to bring up a happy memory out of the blue and laugh together.

Or just text that you're thinking of them even though you're on

the other side of the wall.

Small and spontaneous without trying too hard is good.

Uh, but so is routine, so be predictable.

When you say you're going to do something, do it.

Do the boring stuff, like proactively cleaning up.

Small, steady, predictable cues of safety.

Tip number three.

Stop trying to fix your spouse.

This one is counterintuitive.

Maybe you want to help.

Of course you do, but the pressure to help, it can itself be a danger cue.

It's not really a danger cue, but that person may interpret it as a danger cue.

"I want to prove that I can be her anchor." That energy as as

well-intentioned as it is, I'm sure might feel intrusive to someone in shutdown.

It can feel like a demand, even though you don't mean it that

way, like an expectation like.

One more thing that that person, person A is failing at.

Sometimes the most helpful thing you can do is less.

Be present without an agenda.

Exist nearby without requiring anything.

Let them come to you and accept them as they are today, not how they treat you.

As they are.

And tip number four is to validate the feeling, not necessarily the

content of what they're saying.

When anger does appear, you don't have to agree with the words being said to

validate the emotion behind the words.

Instead of trying to defend yourself.

Um, try naming the feeling and even normalizing it like, "I can see why you're

mad at me. I haven't been reliable," or "you felt let down when I blank. I

would probably feel disappointed too."

None of these tips and countless more tips like these are quick fixes.

It's a slow and steady process to change ourselves, but also our relationships.

So do your part in the relationship and be that gear that refuses to turn

in an unhealthy and dysregulated way.

Be as self-regulated as possible.

And over time you will prove to your loved one that it's

okay to soften their defenses.

You can't control it, but over time you'll show it.

Ideally, they are also working on themselves in some way.

If the relationship itself is the source of threat for your partner, you may not

be able to be their anchor right now.

Or their co their codependent, their co regulator.

That's not failure, that's reality.

She may need to build safety elsewhere first.

Like an individual therapy with or with friends or through other

solo self-regulation practice.

She may need to develop her own regulation before she can receive

yours or person A I'm talking about.

And couples therapy might be indicated here as well, but not framed as

fixing person A more framed as.

We are both going to work on this together with professional support.

It's an US issue, not a person A issue.

You showing up differently is powerful, but it's not, it's not a guarantee at all.

You could do everything right and person A may still need time, space, or outside

support to find their way back to safety and, and back to you, ultimately.

Your job is not to drag that person out of shutdown.

Your job is to become the kind of regulated presence that makes

safety possible if and when they're able to receive it.

So if your person, B, the person who is trying to support a partner in

shutdown, the work begins with you.

It begins with your own regulation, your own capacity to be an

anchor in the relationship storm.

And it includes holding boundaries for yourself too, because your nervous

also, your nervous system also matters.

And if you're looking to get started on that journey.

The foundational knowledge of Polyvagal Theory is the best

place to begin, in my opinion.

I have put together a free course called Your Next Steps

Within the Unstuck Academy.

It curates my podcast episodes about the Polyvagal Theory and also some

resources to guide you through these concepts in a very structured way.

You can get access to that for free in the Unstucking Academy

through the link in the description.

Thank you so much for listening.

Bye.