LOVE & HATE | The most annoying couples, categorized. 

Every couple, much like every individual, thinks they’re unique.  We all grow up believing we’re special and this notion bleeds into our adult romantic life.

We’re wrong.

The truth is, couples can be categorized.

And it’s way more fun to do so with annoying couples.

With the help of Vancouver-based, Registered Clinical Counsellor Jaminie Hilton, a relationship counselling expert, we’ve identified some of the most irritating couple dynamics and pinpointed some of their issues. Think of it as couple/classification.

CSIS, take note.

As for the rest of you: See anyone you know? Yourself, maybe?

All about the PDA

They’re the reason for the phrase “get a room” and most groups have at least one pair in their midst. They’re, in a word, gross.

Jaminie Hilton says: “[These couples] are velcroed at the hip, hands, feet, mouth, and so on. In the club or at the restaurant table, they cling, clutch, smooch, and paw each other making the world their bedroom. Loving touch and affection are excellent, but does everyone around them need to have this couple’s urgent desire for intimacy in their face while they’re eating?”

“One possibility is that they really are the perfect couple. Another is they used to be fighters, before counselling. Or, at least one of them is deeply insecure and hanging on for dear life. I am more likely to see this couple socially, or to hear about them from those who feel uncomfortable around them. My (again, unsolicited) advice: if you are truly happy, you can afford to be generous. Consider the comfort level of those around you, and maybe hold off a little on the drooling.”

Always ready to rumble 

This couple keeps getting into it in public, which puts a strain on otherwise fun group outings, leaving many wishing they’d just break up already.

JH: “[Couples like this] always get into it when they are out, usually after at least one of them has had a bit too much of the bubbly or (fill in the blank). One snipes, the other lobs a grenade. The evening degenerates to foul language, name calling like, ‘you always … you never … OH YEAH?’”

“If they thrive on battling, I won’t see them in my office. My advice (I know, they didn’t ask): If their friends are avoiding going out with them, they might consider the possibility that others do not want to be dining in a minefield. Or, and more likely, a few counselling sessions could help them learn what the anger is really about. There are more loving ways to interact. An evening out together does not have to leave scars.”

We we we, all the way home

JH: “[This couple is] a variation on [the PDA couple]. It’s all ‘we/us’. ‘We had the greatest weekend, we just had an awesome morning. Okay, enough about us, what do you think of our sweet vacation plans?’”

“This couple sounds truly blessed. Perhaps they could allow a chink in the conversation to focus on the people in their social space. Sensitivity, especially to less happy or single friends, would be welcome.”

Photo by Sabina Ciesielska on Unsplash.

Help, I need somebody (not just anybody)

Sometimes one half of a couple is subsumed by the other. For friends, this is annoying. What happened to the perfectly capable person we once knew? This couple is a pressure cooker, so look out. The lid’s gonna’ blow.

JH: “[This couple features one partner who is a ‘Helper.’] This is control masquerading as caring help. One partner is convinced that their partner needs their help to eat, talk, walk, sit, dress, etc. in order to be really cool. Without his help, she will never be the best she could be. The ‘Helpee’ buys into it, thinking, ‘I am so lucky that, despite my huge defects, this person cares enough to help me.’ Friends notice the continual corrections, ‘Aren’t you going to pour some for my sister? You’re not really going to drive yourself there, you know you’ll get lost. Don’t apply for that job, you won’t get it and you’ll just be disappointed.’ Others wonder why they feel a gnawing anger. Helper, back off. You are a partner, not a parent. Helpee, start standing up for yourself now. If you believe that no one else will want you and your faults, this relationship is becoming abusive. Find a counsellor who will make it safe for you to even out the balance.

Saccharine sickos

Sickly sweet, but still a variation on the last couple, this pair veils the dark underbelly of their relationship with terms of endearment.

JH: “[This couple is] a variation on [the last]. People hanging out with this couple will hear super loving words, but still feel their stomachs churning. ‘Sweetie, you’re not going to eat that, are you? Honey, you don’t want your hat to ruin your hair, do you? Oh, you better go look in the mirror.’”

“Along with this is the partner who always speaks for the beloved, if feeble, other. ‘Doug doesn’t really get communication. Oh, no thanks, Cindy doesn’t eat those. Darling, you don’t have to go again, just wait until we’re finished.’ As with the previous couple, my advice is for this pair is to find a good counsellor who will get under the smoochy-goochy words and address the infantilizing dynamic.”

Somebody save me/Rescue ranger

In the world of annoying couples, this one is all about habits – to addictive substances, behaviours, and each other. Tiresome for the rest of us.

JH: [The pair] requires an addiction, and someone addicted to rescuing. The partner with the Habit is the only person who can stop it, with or without support groups or professional help. Asking a loved one to monitor behaviour is unrealistic. The Rescuer will probably get a hostile response to doing exactly what is being asked. ‘Help me quit smoking.’ ‘OK. I’m throwing away this pack.’ Then, ‘DON’T YOU TOUCH THOSE.’ To the person with the Habit, whatever it may be, if you you’re going to stop the behaviour, ask for support as you succeed, then DO IT. If you’re the Rescuer, acknowledge successes, minimize slips, but avoid the trap of being more invested in your partner making changes than they are.

Jaminie Hilton, M.A., RCC, is a Vancouver-based therapist with more than 25 years of counselling experience.

She’s been in private practice for the past six years and primarily counsels about depression, marital therapy and/or relationships, communication skills, and parenting issues. Hilton holds degrees in creative writing and illustration and particularly enjoys working with young couples. More info is available on her website.

As amusing as categorizing these “annoying couples” may be, she carefully notes, “I see couples who are coming in for help with a huge spectrum of places that need healing in their relationships. Many are more seriously distressing than these categories.”

Sidebar: Not all experts agree that couples can or should be typecast.

Here, three other Registered Clinical Counsellors weigh in.

“We never know how a couple will present themselves when they come for therapy. Much of what happens relates to family of origin and what clients have experienced and/or witnessed in the relationships of their primary caregivers. It is always interesting as a therapist to realize that all of one’s pre-conceived notions can go out the window at any moment with any couple.” –Jeffrey Fisher, M.A., RCC [retired, website defunct]

“Yes there are certain types of couples such as dominant/passive, rational/emotional, healthy/sick, rescuer/rescue, etc. All of these couples can have satisfying or unsatisfying relationships. It’s HOW they interact with each other that determine the quality and satisfaction of the relationship. With a good working relationship a couple can handle anything that life hands them whether it be positive or negative. Having differences creates chemistry.” –Dr. Bea Mackay, Ph.D., R. Psych.

“Given the randomness with which we (mostly) select our partners, to be able to categorize couples, and therefore to predict the kind of problems each category would likely incur, would be difficult to pin down. The number of variables would be infinite.” – Gillian McLean, M.Ed., RCC. [website defunct]

A heavily edited version of this piece published in Dose, July 7, 2005. See clip below. More culture pieces are here.

Published in Dose, July 7, 2005