The sadomasochistic contract goes like this. The sadist says, I can do whatever I want to you, because I know you won’t leave me. The masochist says, You can do whatever you want to me, as long as you don’t leave me.

In the kink world, “masochism” means getting pleasure from pain. But in the mental health world, it refers to something very different: a chronic, unconscious need for punishment, and all the things a person does to indulge that need—unconsciously motivated mistakes, losses, self-defeating behaviors, regrettable remarks, anything that will trigger an authoritarian response from within, and/or a retaliation from without.

Kink is not to be pathologized, and people who enjoy it don’t have to fear that therapy will take their kinks away. But kink should be a free choice, an informed and deliberate selection among the options for a healthy sex life. Your submissiveness or sexual masochism might be an unchosen temperament that you discover inside yourself, but the erotic exercise of it ought to be a free choice.

Masochism outside the sexual sphere—an ongoing, dynamic need for punitive suffering—generally has no redeeming value. You might suppose it serves as a spur to achievement, but that’s just compulsion, not the voluntary embrace of work for work’s own intrinsic goodness. You might use it to assuage guilt, but that reinforces the guilt without addressing its irrational roots and its basic injustice. You might use punishment to stay connected to a parent whose love was autocratic and severe in a way that felt reassuringly firm and unmistakably present, but that prevents a healthier form of love from developing in its place. The need for punishment is a relic of old defenses that have come to cost more than they’re worth.

The way out involves correctly labeling the masochism as an old solution to an old problem, reinforcing its connection to the past that explains it. That was then; this is now. So there’s a new opportunity to settle things differently, in a less moralistic way, geared to the facts at hand, not to the old situation and its more primitive world of tyranny and hierarchy. Long ago, that world taught you that a cosmic balance would only be maintained if you contributed sacrifices to it, in the form of large chunks of your personal pain. This has long since turned out not to be true, but the masochism somehow got locked-in by a hidden contract that runs on misguided loyalty to the child parts-of-self that first signed onto it. It may also be enforced by an equally unconscious hope of eventual rescue-from-outside, so that breaking the contract (giving up the need for punishment) is linked to despair about rescue and guilt about disloyalty.

The present masochism gets dissolved by reaching for the past, where the explanation lies, and the future, where the possibilities are. In the future, I will one day die—and my renewed awareness of this finitude wakes me to the fact that I might-as-well let go of the old need for suffering. Also in the future, but closer to the present, are all the nights and days I still might enjoy if I can dissolve the masochistic pact in a solvent stronger than fear, which is love. I am more loyal to my child self, not less loyal, if I dissolve the contract I signed as a little kid and replace it with loving nurturance and protection, the free gift from my adult self to this terrified inner kid. The long-awaited rescue from outside is really a rescue from inside, because it’s from a part of me—but it is from outside the child part, as its source is the grown-up self I have become in the long meantime. Therapy helps to direct resources to this loving adult self, rather than let those current resources get routinely burned-up in the service of the old masochistic machinery. The well-resourced adult self is better able to bestow those resources, as loving-kindness, onto the child parts of you that need it most.

What do couples fight about? Well, in the great dialogue called the Euthyphro, Plato says “people disagree about the just and the unjust,” since if they merely disagreed about, say, the size of a stone, “they would simply resort to measuring.”

When couples argue, it’s usually about one person’s perception of unfair treatment from the other person. Someone feels some kind of injustice, and then takes a chance on bringing it up, hoping for a resolution of some kind (e.g., an apology). But when an argument becomes a fight – when it really goes off the rails, so that both people get caught up in rage –  it’s usually because someone felt as if their personal value as a human being has come under threat. Depending on that person’s life history, they may be more susceptible to feeling that way, even when it’s triggered by something pretty trivial.

Let’s use some inclusive, genderless names to paint an example of this. Call one partner Gamma, and the other, Theta. The conversation begins as a relatively cool-headed chat about some recent bit of behavior (say, Theta left dishes in the sink again) that doesn’t sit right with Gamma. So Gamma talks about it, and Theta acknowledges the reasoning, but feels judged and micromanaged. Theta doesn’t get upset, but doesn’t apologize either. Theta might even make the mistake of calling Gamma “too sensitive.” One way or another, Gamma gets the message that Theta won’t take the complaint seriously. This is because Theta experiences Gamma’s complaint as a bid for power and control, whereas Gamma experiences Theta’s dirty dishes as a direct insult.

At this point, things are deteriorating. What triggers the sharp decline in the quality of the conversation is this: Gamma feels undervalued as a person. It goes like this: “If my hurt feelings aren’t worth any serious attention, then I don’t matter; I’m not seen as a fully human somebody; I have no rights; we are not peers; I’m being taken for granted. If Theta can get away with slighting me this way, I am being erased from the universe. I just don’t count. And if I don’t put a stop to it right now, who knows where it will end?”

A few dishes in the sink. A loose cap from a toothpaste tube. A few minutes of lateness for a date night out. Why do these small disappointments sometimes kindle bonfires of anger and indignation? Such slights, real or perceived, can feel like a matter of life and death because for every one of us, feelings really were a matter of life and death in the beginning, when we were infants. The baby loves the mother (or primary caretaker), and if the mother doesn’t love her baby in return, the baby can actually die. Even with plenty of food and clean clothing, a baby can die of emotional starvation (“marasmus,” or “failure to thrive”).

Next, the person who feels undervalued may escalate the fight even higher by thinking, “Since my very worth as a human being is under attack, and everything is now at stake, it’s appropriate (even necessary) for me to blast my partner to smithereens, without restraint. If I don’t explode in protest, my not-exploding will mean I agree with my partner that I am indeed worth nothing. So my self-respect would be gone, too, and I’d become nothing.” That’s when the fight escalates still further, because Gamma’s emotional threat detection system is on red alert, calling all hands to battle-stations. What started out as a few dirty dishes – perhaps an act of passive-aggressive immaturity, perhaps just a thoughtless oversight – is now a mutual emotional hurricane.

How does couple’s therapy help here? It helps by coaching both members of the couple to reframe experiences of disagreement so that they do not trigger a state of emotional emergency based on perceived threat to personal value. Exploring the individual life histories of each partner may illuminate just why it is that their threat-detection systems are triggered by some things and not others.

In other words, the therapy opens up a gap between the objective issue at hand – what the fight seems to be about – and the emotional interpretation it produces in the person who feels insulted by it.

That gap is a breathing space, a pause, where the angry person has a chance to slip out of the rage and instead remain focused on the relational issue at hand. It’s a chance to respond, instead of reacting.

In terms of the brain, it’s an opportunity to keep one’s mind in the human prefrontal cortex (where we can think clearly, and even speak clearly), instead of dropping into the amygdala, an ancient reptile part of the brain that is only capable of fight-or-flight reactions to perceived threats.

In terms of personality, it’s a chance to solve the problem using your most adult self, who is experienced, well-informed, and ethically ambitious, rather than a more primitive part of self, such as an inner toddler or inner teenager who is full of gigantic, overwhelming, intensely unpleasant feelings like wrath, yearning, fear, and emotional pain.

Once a couple has learned to keep their ordinary conflicts from escalating, they are then free to collaborate in making informed choices about how to improve the relationship, or whether to end it. Whatever they choose, it will be a free choice of responses to what has happened within and between the two people. At that point, couple’s therapy moves beyond the emphasis on improving communication, and into an exploratory process of decision-making about where the two people want the relationship to go.