The thing about indirect requests (or passive aggression) is that they become common in people because the outcome of asking isn't always yes, it's often no. Sometimes, having asked the question explicitly and being rejected is a more painful outcome than deliberately not asking and consoling oneself that one's loved one has simply failed to understand the request. You can frame it in terms of game theory, even.
Imagine you want something (could be a cheap snack, could be a big ask like an expensive appliance--and bearing in mind that money, time, and space all have value in your life). You could survive without it, but it would be really nice to have. You ask your partner, who's supposed to be a person who cares about you, to do something for you.
Either way you choose, you have two potential outcomes.
If you choose to use your words and ask directly for what you want, you may receive...
- A glad "oh, of course!" and the thing you asked for (success),
- a demurral of some intensity depending on how much the other person values your relationship and your happiness (failure), in which you may also discover exactly how much they do (or don't) value you (big failure). This is especially painful if your partner rejects you publicly, if they are scornful or aggressive about it, and if the request you made required very little effort.
If you choose to ask indirectly and just express how nice it would be to have something, you may receive...
- a warm reward when your spouse reveals that they just so heard you might enjoy the thing you asked for (success), potentially with the extra boost that shows you exactly how carefully they listen (big success!), or
- the status quo: you continue to not have the thing you want, but you also get to not have the conversation or any consequences of rejection.
I said game theory because you can vary how likely each outcome is by varying the function that describes the probability of successful requests. That is, say the likelihood of success (your partner gives you the thing) S(x,y,z) = [f(x) - g(y)] * h(z), where x is the level of value they place on your relationship, y is the amount of effort required by the request, and h(z) describes the likelihood of your partner correctly noticing your request with explicitness level z. Each person has their own peculiar f(x), g(y), and h(z) functions that vary independently of one another; h(z) is bounded between 0 and 1 (that is, it can never be negative, it can never be greater than 100% probability of being understood). Change your strategy accordingly, given that your partner is a familiar individual whose responses you are able to observe and predict.
The thing is, it doesn't become worth it to be more muted and subtle about your requests unless you think your odds of success S(x,y,z) are probably pretty fucking low. You're a human, so you can't really control the level of effort the things you want require. But you sure can decide whether or not to ask, and you can decide how obviously you want to ask. If explicit requests typically carry the risk of explicit rejection, and that sucks, you get more indirect about the things you think might get rejected. if that's most of the requests you make, well, you develop certain habits about asking.
the other thing is, we learn from experience, not just from our partners but throughout all our lives. All these dynamics also carry over for coworkers and siblings and parents and friends. and we learn our value from the frequency with which we hear "yes."
it's so easy to get in the habit of not asking explicitly, because the explicit rejection hurts more: at least the implicit one leaves you some comforting illusions, or maybe fantasies, of the problem being about being noticed rather than being valued. hurts less.
so if you are having an access conflict, where one partner needs assistance feeling safe making explicit requests and one needs assistance parsing the requests, there needs to be a discussion about how the situation can be adapted to support both parties through the problem. it is, funnily enough, quite possible to be both partners at once.
very possible. and neurodivergent folks are very prone to both ends of the breakdown. so, you know, friends. we ought to be talking explicitly about how to do things better amongst ourselves. yes?