The joke that is not a joke is doing more damage than the shouting

The points below about sarcasm and contempt between partners are ordered by how much difference they make, not by how often they get repeated.

What separates contempt from criticism

A complaint concerns an action and a criticism concerns a pattern, while contempt concerns the person and carries an implied position above them. The distinguishing feature is the suggestion that the other person is lesser, whether through mockery, an eye-roll, an imitation or a superior tone.

Clinicians and researchers who observe couples have long regarded contempt as among the most corrosive patterns, and that direction of finding is widely reported. It is worth being careful with how such observations are cited, since popular accounts frequently attach precise predictive claims that the underlying work does not support. The practical point stands independently of the statistics: a household where one partner is routinely made small is in trouble regardless of what any study says.

Why humour is the usual vehicle

Delivered as a joke, contempt is deniable, and the partner who objects can be told they are humourless, which adds a second injury to the first. It also works in company, where a running gag at a partner's expense recruits an audience and makes objecting look disproportionate. That deniability is precisely why the pattern persists long after open criticism would have been challenged.

The receiving partner usually knows exactly which jokes are not jokes, and can often name them years later. That recall is a reasonable test: a remark that is still remembered is not being received as comedy.

Where it comes from

Contempt frequently develops where a complaint has been raised repeatedly and nothing has changed, and the complaint curdles into a judgment. It can also be inherited, since a household where sharp mockery was the normal register produces adults who use it without any hostile intent.

Neither origin makes it harmless, though both are worth knowing, since the response differs depending on which is operating. Where it comes from unaddressed grievance, the grievance is the thing to address, and the remarks will usually reduce on their own. Where it is a communication habit, naming it as one and asking for a change is usually enough among people who did not realise.

Raising it

General complaints about tone invite denial, so raising it works better with two or three specific examples and a plain statement of the effect. Doing it away from the moment matters, since raising it immediately after a remark tends to produce a debate about whether the joke was funny. Asking for a specific change, such as no jokes about a particular subject in company, is more actionable than asking for more respect.

A year in, the partner receiving the request should be aware that the person raising it has probably been tolerating it for a long time before saying anything. A defensive response at this point is understandable and it is also the response most likely to end the conversation permanently.

What replaces it

The direct substitute for contempt is a plain complaint about a specific action, which is harder to say and considerably more effective. That requires the complaining partner to be willing to be direct and the other partner to be able to hear a complaint without treating it as an attack. Households that can hold direct complaints tend to have less sarcasm, because the sideways route is only used when the direct one is closed.

Deliberately noticing and stating what a partner does well is not a technique so much as a counterweight, and it is usually the first thing to disappear under strain. Couples who have let this run for years often need outside help to reset it, and a couples counsellor is a reasonable route rather than a last resort.

Two people can both be reasonable and still want incompatible things.

The line worth naming

Ridicule that is sustained, that targets a partner's appearance, intelligence, family or background, and that continues after clear requests to stop, is not a humour problem. Where it is combined with isolation, control of money or movement, or intimidation, it is a recognised feature of emotional abuse. That is a different category and it should not be approached as a communication issue or addressed through better joke etiquette.

Sharing a household, a domestic abuse support service or helpline is the appropriate place to take it, and many operate confidentially in most countries. For ordinary households the pattern is usually habit or unaddressed grievance, and both respond well to being named directly.

Everything above, in order of what to do first

1. What separates contempt from criticism. A complaint concerns an action and a criticism concerns a pattern, while contempt concerns the person and carries an implied position above them.
2. Why humour is the usual vehicle. Delivered as a joke, contempt is deniable, and the partner who objects can be told they are humourless, which adds a second injury to the first.
3. Where it comes from. Contempt frequently develops where a complaint has been raised repeatedly and nothing has changed, and the complaint curdles into a judgment.
4. Raising it. General complaints about tone invite denial, so raising it works better with two or three specific examples and a plain statement of the effect.
5. What replaces it. The direct substitute for contempt is a plain complaint about a specific action, which is harder to say and considerably more effective.
6. The line worth naming. Ridicule that is sustained, that targets a partner's appearance, intelligence, family or background, and that continues after clear requests to stop, is not a humour problem.

The takeaway

Say the complaint directly instead of sideways, raise specific examples away from the moment, and treat sustained ridicule combined with control as a matter for a support service rather than a technique.

The recurring argument is usually one argument in different clothes.