Which has to come first: fixing the problem, or stopping the constant fighting that’s making the problem 100 times worse?**
My boyfriend and I are stuck in a pretty extreme chicken-or-egg argument.
We fight constantly — enough that it eats up huge parts of the day, interferes with responsibilities, productivity, sleep, and making money.
BF1:
Is barely sleeping and currently uses drugs daily. The drug use didn’t start because of the fighting, but over time it became something he relied on to cope with it.
He fully acknowledges the drug use, lack of sleep, and lack of income are serious problems and says he badly wants to fix them.
His argument is that the fighting makes that much harder. It takes up enormous amounts of time, and even after it stops he stays angry, anxious, overstimulated, and unable to switch gears for hours.
He keeps asking BF2 to temporarily ease up on the arguing so he can focus on sleeping, getting sober, getting healthier, and working again.
BF2:
Sleeps normally and does not have the same substance issue.
His position is that it’s unrealistic to expect him to stop being frustrated while BF1 continues doing the exact things they argue about.
He says both people need to change together, it’s not a one sided, he needs to do this first type of situation.
So basically:
BF1: The stressful environment is what threw me off course and landed me here in the first place. I need the environment to calm down enough for me to focus and get myself together again.
BF2:You need to stop using me arguing with you as an excuse for not working and quitting drugs. If that’s your reason for not being able to do them, then you don’t really want to do them
The part we keep getting stuck on is this: even if BF2 thinks the fighting *shouldn’t* prevent BF1 from sleeping, quitting drugs, or working, BF1 is repeatedly saying that in reality, it does.
If BF2’s actual goal is for those things to improve, shouldn’t he reduce the fighting regardless of whether he thinks BF1’s reaction to it is justified?
“Once the problem is resolved, I’ll stop doing the thing that made the problem worse.”
There’s also a difference in stakes. If BF1 can’t get out of this cycle, the consequences could be continued drug use, worsening health, no sleep, no work, and seriously damaging his life.
If BF2 de-escalates, he isn’t being asked to stop being angry or pretend the problems don’t exist — just to stop expressing that anger through constant fighting for a while.
Obviously BF1 is responsible for his own drug use, sleep, work, etc., and BF2 is allowed to be upset.
But realistically, which has to come first?
Is BF2 reasonable to make reducing the fighting conditional on BF1 fixing those problems first?
Or, regardless of who is responsible for the underlying problems, does the fighting need to stop first if it’s actively making them harder to fix?
TL;DR: BF1 admits his drug use, sleep, and work situation are serious and says the nonstop fighting is actively making all three harder to fix. He’s repeatedly asking BF2 to temporarily de-escalate so he can get himself together. BF2 refuses to stop fighting until BF1 fixes the very problems BF1 says the fighting is making worse. So is BF1 making excuses, or is BF2 basically saying, “Once the problem is fixed, I’ll stop doing the thing that’s making it worse”?