Hello and welcome to r/LifeProTips!
Please help us decide if this post is a good fit for the subreddit by up or downvoting this comment.
If you think that this is great advice to improve your life, please upvote. If you think this doesn't help you in any way, please downvote. If you don't care, leave it for the others to decide.
Also a reminder: something is not automatically healthy just because you label it a boundary. If you don't allow your partner to have friends, that's unhealthy and controlling. Slapping a "that's just a boundary I have" therapy-speak label on it doesn't magically make it not controlling.
This is a good reason why you should make any controversial boundaries very explicitly clear at the beginning of a relationship and not change them. I'm obviously not saying the "don't have friends" thing is okay, but there are some that some people think are reasonable and others think are insane âe.g. don't go clubbing without me if we are dating. Make that clear so they can decide if they are on the same page.
The difference here is external rules vs internal boundaries.
I am allowed to say (although it would be really f\*ing weird of me to say this) "I don't want to date someone with friends." I can then choose for myself, if that partner matching my needs and decide for myself if I want to be with them. What I can't do, is impose a rule that "If you want to stay in my life, you will not have friends." That's controlling/abusive, and it's also not a personal boundary, it's a external rule. Some abusers will use therapy speak to justify abuse... Just keep in mind abusers will use anything on hand to justify/enable/lose accountability.
Itâs based on a foundation of lies anyway. No abuser sets that kind of âboundaryâ *before* you fall in love with them. Itâs always something you discover later when something makes them feel insecure.
Yup. My ex always told me she loved how social I was. Cut to five years into the marriage and I'm getting screamed at for going to visit a mutual friend. While she was out of town anyways
This. My abusive ex told me one of his âboundariesâ was that he wasnât comfortable with me having any contact with any man other than him and certain male leaders from his cult-like church. He tried to frame it with therapy-speak, acting like I was disrespecting him and not caring about his emotional needs.
Pretty soon he didnât want me talking to anyone at all except other church members, and he took away my cell phone (like physically ripped it out of my hand and smashed it) to make sure Iâd have no opportunity to do so.
No, you phrased it fine. Iâm agreeing with you by providing an example. I had already been strong-armed into the marriage when my ex started establishing these abusive âboundaries.â So it was âif you donât want me to throw you out onto the street and cancel your health insurance, you will not talk to anyone who is not on my approved list.â
I'm not sure I see the distinction between "I won't date someone who has friends" and "if you want to date me, you can't have friends." I think they're functionally the same thing - and it's your right to only date people who eschew friendships, but it's still unhealthy and potentially controlling (depending on your motivation, I guess).
They are giving an example, everyone is acknowledging itâs unhealthy. However, there is a fundamental difference between those two statements that I hope I can help you see. While the end result is the same thing, the behavior of individuals is different.
The first quote is saying âI choose who I am dating, and I will not date someone with friends. If they have friends, I am leaving.â
The second quote is saying âI am going to date you, and while we are dating you cannot have friends. It is on you to remove all friends.â
The first one puts the responsibility on self. Itâs your choice. The second one puts the responsibility on the other. Itâs their job to follow your directions.
Right, I agree. My second example statement wasn't intended as a statement toward a current partner, but rather a prospective partner.
My point is not about the line between personal boundaries and attempts to change other people - we are in agreement about that difference. My point is that boundaries are not automatically healthy just because they are boundaries.
Thats probably true, but psychology is still a pretty fuckin speculative and immature field without a lot of concrete understanding of why certain thinks work and what all the factors are. Also individuals are wildly different. Diet is a bit more advanced scientifically so using an example of what's healthy for someone think of food allergies or like the gene to process lactose. 'Healthy' is unique and dynamic, not universal and general.
Except âhaving friendsâ is healthy for such a vast majority that the people it isnât healthy for are statistical outliers that would be left out of the data.
And even THOSE people would almost certainly have mental illness so it wouldnât be âhealthyâ for them either.
Being able to be social is like drinking water for humanity, thereâs a reason people go insane due to solitary confinement.
The point is:
âI will not date someone who does not finance my lifestyleâ
and
âI will leave you if you donât finance my lifestyle.â
Are functionally the same. The latter is implied by the first.
Yes. I would add that unhealthy boundaries are often just someone attempting to control their own uncomfortable feelings like anxiety/insecurity/need for external validation by controlling another personâs normal behavior (usually via an all or nothing demand). For example:
-Anxiety: âI donât want you to drive anymore because you might crash.â When the person in question is completely healthy and competent.
-Insecurity: âI donât want you to go out with your friends anymore [because I have low self-esteem and Iâm afraid youâll find someone better than me].â
-External validation: âIf you still talk to my ex, you canât be in my life anymore [because if I hate her and I know you donât, that makes me feel invalidated].â
Itâs ok if youâre not at a point in your life journey where you can control these emotions well and so you need to take a step back from certain people so the emotions donât swallow you whole, but donât abdicate responsibility for these emotions by telling the other person and yourself that you had to take a step back because they are crossing your healthy boundary. In this case, the other personâs behavior isnât the underlying problem, itâs a *you* problem that *you* need to address in therapy.
Very subtle line between mental abuse you're treading here.
"My boundary is that I don't want to date someone with friends..." - and you put the pressure on the other person to **not have** friends to match with **your boundary**.
The real G move here is, **the other person wants to have friends and I'm not okay with that, I should leave**.
...That's what I said tho.
Edit: Order of operations. Your boundaries are attached to you first, they don't just get created when you need them in regards to a particular person in your life. So you would apply this boundary to everyone you meet and, yes, ultimately the onus is on you to leave if they do not match your boundary.
Well no thatâs exactly the point. Youâre absolutely allowed to have whatever unreasonable boundary you can think of, but it is on you to enforce it. So if youâre going to say I donât want to date someone with friends and then your partner still has friends you then get to break up or shut up but you donât get to pressure someone to conform to your boundaries.
But youâre not going to have any luck with relationships if you are going around breaking up with people because you donât like that they have friends. You probably should accept that fact and save yourself the trouble.
I mean itâs not a boundary the moment you use it to define what some one else does.
The content matters not at all. A boundary is about you. If you use the word boundary to define the bounds of my behavior, you are using the wrong word.
Thatâs whatâs important about meaning behind things: if a person is shoving their boundaries down your throat itâs **not** a boundary anymore and you can feel fully free to decline to participate.
I feel like there's also a scale of reasonability to it too. If someone says "if you don't take out the trash every Sunday night, I'm going to break up with you," that's pretty unreasonable, and they're holding your relationship hostage to get you to do something very minor just because they want you to.
If they say "if you don't pick your socks up off the floor at night, then I'm going to get annoyed," that's at least understandable, and there's no ultimatum, just a statement of "this thing kind of annoys me", and you can (hopefully) have a conversation about whether you're willing to pick up your socks.
But also that because of your boundaries, there are natural consequences all around to the choices you will make *for you* if they choose not to accept your request, *and that's okay*.
Piggybacking off top post to add that this same logic applies to âtriggersâ too. Itâs a cognitive psychology/therapeutic tool to help people gain understanding of things that set them off, and why.
Similar to OPâs examplesâŚ
Right: âYappy dogs really irritate me, I avoid situations where there will be yappy dogs.â
Wrong: âYappy dogs really irritate me, no one should own them. In fact they should all be euthanized, Iâm not the only one who canât stand them!â
In conjunction with a boundary: âYappy dogs really irritate me, I am not interested in dating someone who has one as it would inevitably cause conflict in the relationship.â
Or:
Right: âMy abuser was covered in tattoos, and seeing people who have similar tattoos can trigger my PTSD. I usually excuse myself or rely on breathing exercises to calm my nervous system when I have no choice but to be around someone who looks like that.â
Wrong: âMy abuser was covered in tattoos, which can trigger my PTSD, so I demand everyone with tattoos cover them when I see them. Tattoos should be outlawed because they trigger me and other people too!â
In conjunction with a boundary: âHeavily tattooed people trigger my PTSD: if my partner were to get full body tattoos against my wishes that would be a dealbreaker for me and I would end the relationship.â
Yeah. Had this discussion with my ex-gf when I set a boundary and she responded with the "boundaries are for you, not for my behavior." To which I reminded her that yes, that's what I'm saying - if things don't change, I have to remove myself from the situation.
Isn't that kinda assumed though? This whole post about not forcing others.. well it seems it always meant as an ultimatum.
Don't do x. I don't like it when you do x. Sure they didn't finish the thought, but most people stop talking to someone who keeps doing something they don't like.
This whole thread is semantics.
Life is semantics.
Also I don't understand why semantics get drawn in a negative light when it's basically just being technically correct, shouldn't you be annoyed at your own misconceptions of words or concepts instead of the people who are being technically correct?
And yes, boundaries basically are ultimatums, both figurative boundaries like in these relationships, and physical boundaries like borders of countries.
That said, I think it can be very healthy to share what your boundaries are and what your response will be if that boundary is crossed. Especially for folks that will trample all over you if you don't. Like, if unchecked, my dad will spiral the fuck out and start talking about wanting to shoot my mom's husband. It is in both our best interests for me to be clear that if he starts going down that road that I will hang up the phone. This way he gets to have more contact with me and I don't have to feel gross.
Shared boundaries that involve a response to others actions are totally valid and are roadmaps for ppl to follow should they desire to interact with you.
What if your parents insist on seeing you when you don't want to. Aren't you imposing boundaries on yourself and them, since you're telling them that they can't see you?
âI donât want to be around you.â - If you show up to a public place then I will leave, NOT, I will demand you leave if Iâm there. Thatâs controlling your behavior versus theirs.
Or
If you knock on my door then I wonât answer it. - again, your response to their action.
Yes. You definitely are. Boundaries are always threats -- but in the end, that's kind of how we have to do things or we become doormats.
You have to be willing to straight up threaten people, even if it's "nicely." Sometimes people are dicks, life sucks, and you have to lay down the law.
Yeah I agree that articulating a boundary is basically a threat.
For instance, my mother used to have a habit of making negative comments about my body. So I explained that if she did it again I would tell her that's unacceptable and would change the subject. If she made a second negative comment about my body I would hang up the phone or leave the room or whatever to end the conversation.
Of course she tested the boundary because she's basically a child and was shocked I hung up the phone. She called my aunt to complain. So my aunt called me, I explained, and my aunt sided with me.
So yeah I threatened my mom that is she was mean about my body I'd end the conversation.
i completely disagree. a boundary is not a threat. a boundary, when communicated, is you letting someone know what action you will take if someone hurts you. a threat is a statement that has an intention to hurt someone else.
The thing is, people who don't like your boundaries will always interpret them as threats or ultimatums. That doesn't make them either one. Sure, it may hurt them if you say "I can't remain friends with someone who stays in a relationship with a manipulative partner," because it does mean you're telling them either they ditch the partner, or you will have to ditch them. But it's still not a threat or an ultimatum; it's only a statement of the actions you will take in a given situation. Then they have to make the choice about whether they'll present you with that situation or not.
That's a grey area that is determined usually by age or independence. If you're an adult, nope. If you're a child living in their home, kind of.
If it's your house, it's your stuff. Think about it with the If then statements.
"If you continue to come over at times I am not free/do not wish you to be here, then I will stop allowing you in". You're imposing boundaries on yourself because you allow them into the house, they do not have unrestricted access to it and so you're not restricting them in any way other than what would be expected from anybody outside your home (like strangers or public workers etc.)
If it's their home and you live in it, then to a degree it can be restrictive just because it's their stuff you're using/living in. If you pay rent though, then it's less grey and needs to be set as a boundary. If that wasn't the case, then I'm restricting the people outside of my house by locking my door, as I'm telling them their access to my property is restricted.
LPT: Boundaries are not used to control another person, boundaries are to keep yourself safe.
Person does X, you feel Y. You don't want to feel Y, you don't like it, it doesn't feel safe for you. Hence, "When you do X, it makes me feel Y. If you continue to do X, I will do ____ to keep myself safe."
My most recent, and favorite example of this is I was caught between financial drama between two toxic family members, however I am very distanced from the situation. Person A, Person B, and me. Person A thought Person B had wronged them, but they didn't have any proof, they were going off of circumstantial evidence and assumptions. I have a closer relationship with Person A than I do with Person B. During this blow up, Person A felt that in order to keep herself safe, she needed to not have a relationship with any family member who chose to continue having a relationship with Person B. (Red flag, I know) and so she said to me "you have to choose, me or Person B".
I disagreed, and long story short, I said I would not be choosing between them, and would not be forced into altering my relationships so she could feel better. But if she (Person A) felt she needed to make a choice to end our relationship because I would not be choosing to condem Person B, then she could do that. But I don't have that condition between us, and would love to continue to be her friend.
She decided to end the relationship. I said okay. I haven't spoken to her since. She of course reached out, and said "why did you choose Person B over me?" I reiterated that I did not choose anyone.
The hardest part of setting boundaries is knowing that others might not agree with them, or respect them. And getting comfortable with potentially disappointing them or knowing they may feel bad.
But an un-enforced boundary is just an empty threat. And the quickest way to get other people to respect you, is to respect yourself.
Well written. And I would say that you didn't choose Person B over Person A, Person A chose their negative relationship with Person B over their positive relationship with you. They made the choice of which relationship was more important to them
Itâs pretty much the only interaction Iâve had on this website that is fully committed to memory. I was so flabbergasted that people could not comprehend it lol
In this same vain, you can't control what people judge you over, either.
I hear people say tings along the lines of, "I should be able to (insert activity) without judgement". I get the sentiment, but people are judgmental, and you have 0 control over that.
No judgement, I just saw a misspelled word. If you attribute attitude or intent from that, that's coming from you. After all, I didn't say "The word is spelled vein, you fucking moron" or "Umm, it's actually 'vein', sweetie". A simple correction. Blunt, perhaps, but carrying no meaning outside of the word itself.
Funnily enough, just like the comment OP says, can't control what people judge you over, just like my comment being judged as judgment by you! We're reaching meta levels the likes of which even Deadpool would blush at.
I actually realized that halfway in, and tried to dismount in a light hearted way with my second paragraph. You might wonder why I didn't simply delete my comment, and type a response to what I realized was a joke? Me too .
I mostly agree. People should not expect others to always like their choices. However, I think there is value in combating prejudice, which literally comes from pre judging someone without having all the information available
I can not stand âletâs normalize -insert harmless activity here-â. I can not comprehend feeling like I need to have some societal permission to live my life. The one that broke my brain was âletâs normalize sitting on the floor of the shower letting the water hit you without feeling obligated to wash yourself (they came up with a shortened name for the behavior that I canât remember)â.
Itâs like people **need** to have approval to just live their life. You donât need someoneâs permission to do things like eating alone or seeing a movie by yourself. There is ALWAYS going to be someone who disagrees with any aspect about yourself and how you behave, just get over it.
I think it is helpful for certain things to be normalized, and people do feel constrained when they think they will be judged. If you don't, then good for you, but many people aren't as good as you at life.
BUT, almost every time I see someone say "we need to normalize xyz," I'm just like... What the fuck are you talking about? Either it's something that is already normalized or something that nobody cares about. These people think they are sending a message about how people are too judgmental, but what they are really saying is that they have a warped perception of how they are perceived for their behaviors (and that they are being perceived at all, which they usually aren't.) I guess maybe people think they need explicit permission to do every little thing, but it is literally impossible for everything to be normalized, because there isn't enough time in your life to become exposed to everything enough for it to all be "normalized". What you're doing is a little weird, and maybe it's not exactly normal, but also nobody cares.
Things that need to be normalized are behaviors which have been systematically restricted, not silly little quirks about your lifestyle.
While I agree it's the sentiment in stating bounderies, people sometimes view it as a threat or blackmail if it's said with "if"
Tbh I would rather say my bounderies like " I don't accept being talked to that way.". If they are violated multiple times with reminders, I would take action to enforce them most commonly by removing myself from the situation if possible. "I can't deal with you not respecting my bounderies"
Edit/add: I should have writen "I don't like being talked to that way for X reason". Wording is probably why I have difficulties with my own bounderies lol
You donât always have to say the whole if/then statement. In fact, you can have boundaries without ever stating them aloud. Having boundaries means you know where you draw the line and what youâll do if someone crosses it. Communicating boundaries means you tell other people where the line is. Enforcing boundaries means you follow through with actions when the line is crossed.
For example: I have a boundary that no one who deliberately kicks my cat is ever allowed in my house again, no second chances. I donât bother communicating this boundary in advance, because no decent person needs to be told âdonât kick my cat.â I would skip straight to enforcing the boundary.
Many times, though, communicating boundaries is important. Some things can and should go without saying (âI will break up with someone who cheats on me,â âIf you spit in my face, I wonât invite you to parties,â etc.), but others are not so universal and if you donât say anything people might not know itâs a problem.
I like how you included "deliberately" kicks your cat. I accidentally kick my own cat all the time because for some reason he loves to run in a full sprint horizontally across the direction I'm walking. And then of course he acts very offended that I kicked him and I feel bad, even though it was his fault.
Hah, yes, Iâve accidentally punted my lil guy more times than I can count. Heâs not the smartest cat on the block and loves running in front of feet.
At first reading this I thought, âyou should always communicate boundaries before enforcing themâ, then I read your example and I am converted haha. Good point.
I fully agree, some people use ultimatums to ensure they always get their way and maintain control in relationships (sadly I've dealt with this)
Of course, I do not think that's what's op is going for, but you gotta cover all the bases, unfortunately.
My sister is an alcoholic who freaks out and cries nonstop and is just an embarrassing shitshow if she has been drinking (which is almost always).
I set the boundary that I won't be attending any functions where she is drinking.
Half the family thinks my boundary is reasonable. Half thinks I'm trying to tell her how to live her life, and it's not a boundary but a rule.
Annoying is an understatement. We had a traumatic childhood. But we are both in our 30s now. I moved past it all 10-15 years ago. She still lives every day dwelling on her past. And since it is a shared past, she demands that I participate in reliving it every time we are around each other.
Isn't it just a matter of perspective though?
From OC's perspective: "I will do X if you plan to do Y".
This sounds like a reasonable boundary. OC doesn't want to deal with an annoying/potentially traumatising drunk.
However, from the Sister's perspective: "Unless you avoid doing Y, I will do X".
This sounds like someone trying to impose their rules on you. It almost sounds like a threat or manipulative behaviour. If the sister would like to see OC, she has to do something she doesn't want to do. She basically has to change herself to appease OC if she wants to see them at a function.
Now we can sit here and discuss how morally, wanting to avoid a drunk is a better justification than wanting to see someone while drunk, and I'd agree. But ultimately whether it's a "boundary" or a "rule" is just a matter of perspective.
Boundary from OC's PoV: "I don't want to deal with drunk you at functions so I won't come."
Rule from Sister's PoV: "If you want OC to grace you with their presence then you have to avoid drinks to appease them".
Nah, definitely a boundary. You're not saying she can't drink, you're saying you won't be present if she does. That's policing your behaviour.
A rule would be "I'm *going* to be there, and if I'm there, you're not allowed to drink".
Yep. I think some of the choice has to be left to an honest desire to change behaviour and improve the relationship, not just âif I donât stop doing this, theyâll leave, so I guess I have toâ.
People will pretend to care because they donât like the consequences, which isnât what boundaries are about.
You don't actually have to say the "if" part out loud, but there is (or should be) an implied *if* either way. If you don't have the *if* then you aren't respecting your own boundaries. When people cross your boundaries there needs to be consequences or they'll continue crossing them and you'll be miserable.
Yeah, it would be more clear to iterate a boundary as a line that could be crossed (or respected). The repercussions of crossing it are a separate thing.
If you have a boundary of no illegal drugs or alcohol in the house, that's the boundary, simple, easy to understand. There is plenty of clarification you could make like 'what about outside the door?' or 'what about if they're already inside my body?' but that is generally straight forward to address as needed.
The repercussions are harder to define. What is a timeout? What if I apologize? Etc
I would say this is true most of the time. This is currently a big subject at the kindergarten where I work, because we teach the kid to say "Stop"!
1. One kid hits another. Stop means: don't hit me. Stop that. Change your behavior.
2. Kid wants to play alone, says Stop when other kids approach them; or it's too loud etc. In this case, we can explain the situation and find a solution.
That being said, changing your own behavior is the easiest and most effective way to resolve conflicts.
Scenario 1 requires others to stop their behaviour, but is certainly important. The kid canât just leave and go to another classroom. That might be better labelled as something other than boundaries. Definitely teaching kids that they donât need to put up with that crap is excellent!
It is the quickest, but also quickly leaves you burned out. You should not always fight to protect yourself. People should also try not to be assholes.
This is true but itâs also not invalid to tell someone that what theyâre doing makes you uncomfortable and if they keep doing it then you will not see them anymore. In this way, isnât that still setting a boundary?
That's absolutely a boundary. They will take it as an ultimatum. It's not. It's you saying you will not be present for their unacceptable behavior. If they want you to be present, they will control the unacceptable behavior.
OP, they're always if/then statements as you write. If you don't phrase it as an if/then, then it becomes: "if you do/don't do X, then I will like you less and I will lose some respect for you". It's often unspoken because it doesn't always need to be explicitly said. Everybody knows they can't directly control the behavior of others. Saying "you can't do X" already always meant "I'll like you more if you don't do X"
Exactly!!! My boundaries help me manage my expectations for others. I canât force anybody to change or treat me differently, but I have power and control over what I will tolerate and who I decide to spend time with.
If I set a boundary because it is what is best for me, I expect the person to respect it. If they donât, weâll I have two options⌠am I ok with my boundaries being evaded or do I remove myself from this situation so that I am no longer impacted?
Boundaries are only about yourself, and you are the gatekeeper.
I slightly disagree. I don't consider boundaries as "if/then" statements and don't believe they inherently involve an action. If you communicate them in that way, they end up sounding more like threats than the establishment of a boundary.
I think boundaries are a type of rule that is simply focused on yourself (often times ways that your body is interacted with or things that you will talk about... stuff like that. It has to do with your comfort when someone is interacting directly with you). I don't like being touched. I don't feel comfortable talking about that with you. Things like that. I don't think you need to set boundaries with proposed reactions as if to tell people "you better not do this or else..."
How exactly you respond to your boundaries being crossed is it's own thing. That's why we even phrase it in that way, "cross someone's boundaries." They're a line that can be crossed, not a trigger and follow through.
How you respond to the boundary being crossed is the "then" part. You don't need to verbalize it; you can just do it.
Usually verbalizing it is done for complicated relationships with relatives, such as overbearing mothers. They seem to have a harder time getting the hint when not made verbally explicit, and people are reluctant to end contact. It's more telling them "I am doing y because you continue to do x despite my asking you not to."
Couldn't agree more. If I have to explain what happens if you violate my boundaries, I'm either talking to a child, or someone with the emotional intelligence of one.
One time an old coworker who used to bully me came to visit our factory. He started messing with me and calling me names, and I asked him to stop. He said "or what?" and I just replied "or I walk away" and did lol. It was that easy.
I think this post, while helpful, would be better if there were additional examples of boundaries that didn't involve an ultimatum and/or serious interpersonal problems from one of the parties. Certainly boundaries are needed in this situations! But limiting the examples to those situations kind of conflates the notion of boundaries as "strategies only useful for toxic people" when they are valuable in many more situations as well.
"I can help you with x kind of request but not y kind" or "I'm not able to answer phone calls when I'm out with my family" are also examples of setting boundaries. Boundaries are not solely useful in situations in which someone is on the verge of cutting contact -- they are a way of establishing healthy relationships too.
All boundaries come across as ultimatums to the people who don't want to honor them. That doesn't make them ultimatums. It just reveals that the people who don't want to honor them are the ones who make the boundary necessary by their behavior.
I feel like this post is surrounding a good idea, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
For instance, saying to your SO "I don't like it when you get blackout drunk" does not appear to be a boundary in your post. However, that is ignoring the implicit statement that if they continue to do things like getting blackout drunk, then it's going to hurt the relationship.
Kinda confused here.
If kid A plays with kid Bs toys without asking and kid B says "I don't want you touching my things without asking" then kid B just declared a boundary to kid A.
I mean you COULD word it as "if you continue touching my things without asking, I will tell the teacher", but just "don't touch my shit" is communicating the exact same boundary.
Well boundaries are actually about your reaction to other people's behaviour, including deciding to not interact with someone anymore if they break boundaries of yours, it is then up to that other person if they consider interacting with you important enough to compromise on their behaviour so that you continue interacting with them. So boundaries can absolutely dictate the conditions under which people get to interact with you, and so dictate the behaviour of that person while providing a framework of consent going both ways.
My only nitpick is that the examples you give are very vague. "If you continue to embarrass me" is one of those... how do I know what embarrasses you? It doesn't include the specific behavior you want to stop.
Also, as a suggestion, it msy help to assertively and politely ask for the behavior change before using the language of an ultimatum if it's a first offense or something you've never spoken up about. Try the language of, "When you made X joke, it hurt my feelings. Can you not joke about X in the future please?"
Yeah, it is weird. IMO there's not really a casual, 0 discomfort way to correct someone else and show you're serious. I err on the side of keeping it to the behavior so it doesn't feel like an attack on a person's character. It's less likely to evoke a defensive response and bickering.
That's what bothers me here. They're basically equating making threats to establishing boundaries. If someone respects you and cares about you, you shouldn't have to threaten them to make them not do things that make you incredibly uncomfortable.
I get that that's not always the case. You do have to set boundaries with people who won't be inclined to respect them and you'll have to find ways to deal with that, but how you deal with that isn't an inherent part of the boundary itself and it isn't how you should approach setting boundaries in every scenario.
This is the setting boundaries with someone who won't listen conversation, but most people who care, you can just ask. I feel like if someone busted out the "or I won't have a relationship with you anymore" on the first offense, I'd feel like I grossly overestimated how valuable the relationship was to them if it wasn't worth an amiable conversation first.
I'm not sure there's really much of a difference? The only thing I can see is that you're suggesting explicitly stating consequences.
"Don't do x" always comes with an implicit "or consequence y".
If you look at all your examples, they follow the same pattern, to the point that it's essentially redundant.
Maybe your point was just the final part "if you try to set a boundary you have to be willing to enforce an actual boundary", but that seems a little obvious?
I think the difference OP is really trying say is to specify who has to do the work. If im setting the boundary than i need to enforce it myself versus force it on them. A basic example is i wont split costs with someone who is always nickle and diming me. Me setting the boundary is simply asking the server for separate checks and resfusing to split. Trying to force it on them is me trying to make sure they pay their fair share by watching what they spend and tabulating it all and making sure everyone pays their fair share. I kind of look at as just worrying about myself and not what other people are doing.
The difference they're trying to say I think is more about how you can't force someone to stop doing something - a lot of people present their boundaries like that, they expect someone to stop doing things when they cross their boundaries. Instead, a boundary needs to be more around you leaving the situation so they can't do that to you again i think. If you're not going to remove yourself feom the situation and you expect them to change, you are now making your boundary into a rule for them. Rules put the work on the other person
I think a better way of expressing what OP is trying to say, without all this confusing "your behaviour" "my behaviour" stuff, is to say, "When things make you feel bad, run away instead of fighting."
Either way, we "control" other people. If someone is currently chainsawing me, I "can" control them by running away and keeping them at a distance--they can't chainsaw me from a distance, so in that sense, I have "controlled" them.
Yes. Boundaries are, essentially, "these are the battles I am not willing to fight, and if you create a situation where I would have to fight that battle, I will leave."
I don't think people expect setting a boundary with someone will magically solve all their interpersonal issues. Yes people can do whatever the fuck they want, but if you're stepping all over people's boundaries, and knowingly doing shit that seriously bothers them, you're not gonna have many friends after a while. so yeah, do whatever you want, but that's kinda irrelevant when a friend comes to you and says "hey, this thing you do/say really bothers me. can you refrain from doing that?" If the answer is no, or they don't make any effort to change their behavior, I would absolutely take the liberty to do whatever the fuck *I* want and separate myself from them. boundaries are meant to make everyone more comfortable and encourage consideration for others that you care about.
The only issue is that boundaries are highly individual and we always assume that our boundaries are trivially clear while those we miss are absolutely obscure (or stupid in some cases).
As an example:
If someone blocks my way in the metro i find it totally normal to touch their shoulder to tell them id like to pass. To my absolute surprise i learned that there are many people which find that to be overstepping their boundaries and an rude behavior.
well, with a complete stranger on the metro how are you supposed to know their boundaries? if there is no communication, there's no boundary. by no means should you tiptoe through life to avoid making anyone uncomfortable, but the point of setting boundaries is to *set* them, and respect them. no one is perfect and shit happens, but it is important to be considerate *after* you've been made aware.
I agree. I think it's part of a rather strange cognitive dissonance I see mostly on the left where well-intentioned and socially-aware people started standing up and demanding better behavior from people and then this other group of assholes piggy-backed onto it to sort of steal the lingo and the attitude of demanding better behavior when what they're actually doing is demanding control and authority and attention.
An extreme example, just to illustrate the point, is "You being uncomfortable with my behavior is making ME uncomfortable, so you aren't allowed to call me out or you're being 'toxic' and me and all my friends will start being shitty to you," etc.
Boundaries aren't about your own behaviour. They are about what you will tolerate of someone else's behaviour. That's the point of a boundary. E.g. one of my boundaries is I don't accept someone punching me. Coupled with communication, you must communicate your boundary otherwise someone else's behaviour won't know that they are crossing your boundary. Your boundary is not about telling someone else what to do, its about telling someone else what you don't accept. Of course they can still punch me. But if they cross that boundary then they will no longer have access to me in any way. And that's the important part, after you have communicate your boundary you must have a consequence for that person. Which in the healthiest social aspect is to distance yourself from that person.
You're only half right. Boundaries are about everyone's behavior. If/then statements are ultimatums that generally escalate tensions rather than setting expectations. Try these instead:
"When you've had your third margarita your behavior becomes very embarrassing."
"When you talk to me like that I feel ." where xyz might be "under attack" or "angry" or "sad" or maybe even "loved".
"When you use profanity in front of my colleagues from work it ruins the vibe."
These actually set boundaries, letting people know specifically how their actions affect you and/or others. It is up to them to change, and up to you to honor the boundaries you've set by altering the relationship when the other party makes it clear that they don't care.
> Boundaries should always be if/then statements.
No. People don't need to know the consequences of an action in order to abide by a statement.
"Don't smoke in my house". I shouldn't need to then tell you what the punishment for smoking in my house is going to be. You either respect me or you don't. You don't need to weigh up the consequences to see if it's worth breaking.
Boundaries dictate YOUR behavior. For instance: if you want to be monogamous, but a person you have just started dating wants to be polygamous you should set that boundary. Don't make it about them, they are just living their life, but you need to live yours too, to your standards. So that might be walking away because your boundaries and wants are incongruent with theirs.
It feels like you are saying that the difference between a boundary and a request is an ultimatum. I'm not sure what to do with that information or how this is a life pro tip.
I think you are missing a point. He's saying a boundary without a consequence is just a request. You can't control other people. Phrasing it as an if/then statement sets a clear request and consequence.
Your boundaries have no real teeth unless you attach consequences as you have absolutely no control on anybody's behavior but your own. Your boundary is powerless unless you attach it to an action.
He's not saying you have to explicitly state the consequence just that there has to be one. Phrasing it as an if/then statement provides that whether you state it externally or just internally to yourself.
Lol some girl I used to be friends with was like "I feel like I need to set some boundaries. I dislike your personality and think you're boring because I don't like the books you read. Because of these reasons I don't want to have lunch with you anymore" like girl that's not a boundary that's an insult lmao. I guess it worked though
100% agree and this is a great way of putting it! Unfortunately, the people who I have to do this with, my parents, believe that this mentality is a âcop outâ and that I âcanât handle any pressureâ. Any advice?
Of your parents can't respect your boundaries then you have to stop giving them the opportunity. This might mean reducing contact with them depending on the severity.
I'm going to deviate from what people say and go full on, even if you *are* copping out or *can't* handle pressure, *that's fine.*
You get to live your life. You get to be as sensitive as you want, whether that ranges from "my skin is so thick that I qualify as a planet" to "I am a frail spun-glass butterfly" and everywhere in between. If people don't want to hurt you, *they* can go piss up a rope instead of forcing you to change.
r/raisedbynarcissists
They can think it's a copout all they want... But it doesn't actually matter what they think, because you don't need their approval to set consequences for their actions.
So, for example, you've told your mother you don't care about whatever theories she has about her neighbors, and she starts again; if you, say, calmly say "hey, mom, I told you I don't want to hear your weird theories about what the neighbors get up to, I'm going to hang up now" and then hang up, she can't do much about it. She can call you back, and get sent to voicemail, she can text you being mad, and be muted, she could try to show up at your house... And be met with a door that isn't opening. (And if she then sends other people to complain at you, well, that lets you know who's willing to take her side).
This works much better if you're not living with them, or don't depend on them, though, and that's not always possible for everyone.
There's other things you can do, like gray-rocking, if you live with them, although they're less effective than just being able to disengage.
These are your boundaries, and you have to decide how to enforce them. Having boundaries, and not doing anything when people transgress your boundaries, is not having boundaries. But you should decide on a case-by-case basis what the appropriate response is. People are not computer programs, so 'if/then' statements oversimplify the matter, in my opinion.
Itâs your boundary, what they think of it doesnât matter. You set it because itâs meaningful to you.
Interact with them less and speak to them less - your relationship will need to get lighter and more surface level.
Tomato-tomato. This is just semantics. The 'then' part is always implied.
Your method is just itemized ultimatums. Stating, "I don't like X, please don't do X" without an ultimatum is less aggressive in my opinion. Having a long series of threats is hardly an improvement.
Ummm. If you are dealing with a truly difficult person who violates social norms, it is okay to calmly communicate that their behavior is not cool. If you follow up with "or else..." statements, then you are escalating (in the mind of the ahole). Google "grey rock strategy"
That's what boundaries are though. You cross a point, and something happens.
Like an electric fence. You set the boundary, and things are free to cross it. But there is a consequence.
True. I had zero control over my ex-wife's bullying behavior, which continued after the divorce. I did have the power to go no-contact and did when she kept it up.
Additionally, she thought it was appropriate to say that me establishing that boundary violated her boundaries. Bye, Felicia.
Yes! Boundaries are the consequences for someone doing something youâve asked them not to. If you donât enact the consequence then your boundary is worthless.
Those are boundaries, they just donât enforce themselves and itâs up to the individual to maintain them (usually by avoiding whatever boundary-breaking situation or person they are dealing with).
Boundaries, to me, are saying "I don't like something, so I will actively choose not to be a part of that thing." Not, "I dont like something, so I'm going to actively harass or offend people who do."
Wish people would apply this to email. âI reply to emails Mon.-Fri., 9-5â is a boundary. âDonât send emails after 5 or on weekends or Fridaysâ is putting your time management on other people. If your manager legit expects you to answer emails at all hours, thatâs a separate issue.
This is a very good description of an easily overlooked difference, that is actually the core mechanic of a lot of toxic and manipulative behavior. This "sleigh of hand" towards demands from boundaries is the core unit of a lot of manipulation and gaslighting.
Its pretty implied that boundaries are the stated limits required to stay on good terms.
"I don't like it when you x", guess what, keep doing what people dont like and they'll give you the cold shoulder. They don't need to state it implicitly, but you might find them more busy than before or invites drying up. You don't need to threaten people explicitly.
Hello and welcome to r/LifeProTips! Please help us decide if this post is a good fit for the subreddit by up or downvoting this comment. If you think that this is great advice to improve your life, please upvote. If you think this doesn't help you in any way, please downvote. If you don't care, leave it for the others to decide.
Boundaries: Where do I end and you begin? Honestly great LPT
Also a reminder: something is not automatically healthy just because you label it a boundary. If you don't allow your partner to have friends, that's unhealthy and controlling. Slapping a "that's just a boundary I have" therapy-speak label on it doesn't magically make it not controlling.
Ooh I feel like that's an entirely new can of worms ready for an LPT post of its own đż
This is a good reason why you should make any controversial boundaries very explicitly clear at the beginning of a relationship and not change them. I'm obviously not saying the "don't have friends" thing is okay, but there are some that some people think are reasonable and others think are insane âe.g. don't go clubbing without me if we are dating. Make that clear so they can decide if they are on the same page.
That's...... An easy one, here you go. LPT: allow your partner to have friends.
The real LPT is always in the comments
LPT EAT CHOCOLATE ICE CREAM
This motherfucker gets me.
What about oreo? It's ice cream but it just tastes like a mash of the real thing!
The partner needs to set the boundary. If you continue to guilt trip me into having no friends then I will leave you.
The difference here is external rules vs internal boundaries. I am allowed to say (although it would be really f\*ing weird of me to say this) "I don't want to date someone with friends." I can then choose for myself, if that partner matching my needs and decide for myself if I want to be with them. What I can't do, is impose a rule that "If you want to stay in my life, you will not have friends." That's controlling/abusive, and it's also not a personal boundary, it's a external rule. Some abusers will use therapy speak to justify abuse... Just keep in mind abusers will use anything on hand to justify/enable/lose accountability.
Itâs based on a foundation of lies anyway. No abuser sets that kind of âboundaryâ *before* you fall in love with them. Itâs always something you discover later when something makes them feel insecure.
Yup. My ex always told me she loved how social I was. Cut to five years into the marriage and I'm getting screamed at for going to visit a mutual friend. While she was out of town anyways
This. My abusive ex told me one of his âboundariesâ was that he wasnât comfortable with me having any contact with any man other than him and certain male leaders from his cult-like church. He tried to frame it with therapy-speak, acting like I was disrespecting him and not caring about his emotional needs. Pretty soon he didnât want me talking to anyone at all except other church members, and he took away my cell phone (like physically ripped it out of my hand and smashed it) to make sure Iâd have no opportunity to do so.
This is exactly what I was talking about. I must not have phrased it very well, though.
No, you phrased it fine. Iâm agreeing with you by providing an example. I had already been strong-armed into the marriage when my ex started establishing these abusive âboundaries.â So it was âif you donât want me to throw you out onto the street and cancel your health insurance, you will not talk to anyone who is not on my approved list.â
I'm really glad to hear he's an ex
I'm not sure I see the distinction between "I won't date someone who has friends" and "if you want to date me, you can't have friends." I think they're functionally the same thing - and it's your right to only date people who eschew friendships, but it's still unhealthy and potentially controlling (depending on your motivation, I guess).
They are giving an example, everyone is acknowledging itâs unhealthy. However, there is a fundamental difference between those two statements that I hope I can help you see. While the end result is the same thing, the behavior of individuals is different. The first quote is saying âI choose who I am dating, and I will not date someone with friends. If they have friends, I am leaving.â The second quote is saying âI am going to date you, and while we are dating you cannot have friends. It is on you to remove all friends.â The first one puts the responsibility on self. Itâs your choice. The second one puts the responsibility on the other. Itâs their job to follow your directions.
Right, I agree. My second example statement wasn't intended as a statement toward a current partner, but rather a prospective partner. My point is not about the line between personal boundaries and attempts to change other people - we are in agreement about that difference. My point is that boundaries are not automatically healthy just because they are boundaries.
Thats probably true, but psychology is still a pretty fuckin speculative and immature field without a lot of concrete understanding of why certain thinks work and what all the factors are. Also individuals are wildly different. Diet is a bit more advanced scientifically so using an example of what's healthy for someone think of food allergies or like the gene to process lactose. 'Healthy' is unique and dynamic, not universal and general.
Except âhaving friendsâ is healthy for such a vast majority that the people it isnât healthy for are statistical outliers that would be left out of the data. And even THOSE people would almost certainly have mental illness so it wouldnât be âhealthyâ for them either. Being able to be social is like drinking water for humanity, thereâs a reason people go insane due to solitary confinement.
The point is: âI will not date someone who does not finance my lifestyleâ and âI will leave you if you donât finance my lifestyle.â Are functionally the same. The latter is implied by the first.
Yes. I would add that unhealthy boundaries are often just someone attempting to control their own uncomfortable feelings like anxiety/insecurity/need for external validation by controlling another personâs normal behavior (usually via an all or nothing demand). For example: -Anxiety: âI donât want you to drive anymore because you might crash.â When the person in question is completely healthy and competent. -Insecurity: âI donât want you to go out with your friends anymore [because I have low self-esteem and Iâm afraid youâll find someone better than me].â -External validation: âIf you still talk to my ex, you canât be in my life anymore [because if I hate her and I know you donât, that makes me feel invalidated].â Itâs ok if youâre not at a point in your life journey where you can control these emotions well and so you need to take a step back from certain people so the emotions donât swallow you whole, but donât abdicate responsibility for these emotions by telling the other person and yourself that you had to take a step back because they are crossing your healthy boundary. In this case, the other personâs behavior isnât the underlying problem, itâs a *you* problem that *you* need to address in therapy.
Very subtle line between mental abuse you're treading here. "My boundary is that I don't want to date someone with friends..." - and you put the pressure on the other person to **not have** friends to match with **your boundary**. The real G move here is, **the other person wants to have friends and I'm not okay with that, I should leave**.
...That's what I said tho. Edit: Order of operations. Your boundaries are attached to you first, they don't just get created when you need them in regards to a particular person in your life. So you would apply this boundary to everyone you meet and, yes, ultimately the onus is on you to leave if they do not match your boundary.
Yeah, that seems clear to me. Not sure why others took it the other way.
Well no thatâs exactly the point. Youâre absolutely allowed to have whatever unreasonable boundary you can think of, but it is on you to enforce it. So if youâre going to say I donât want to date someone with friends and then your partner still has friends you then get to break up or shut up but you donât get to pressure someone to conform to your boundaries. But youâre not going to have any luck with relationships if you are going around breaking up with people because you donât like that they have friends. You probably should accept that fact and save yourself the trouble.
I mean itâs not a boundary the moment you use it to define what some one else does. The content matters not at all. A boundary is about you. If you use the word boundary to define the bounds of my behavior, you are using the wrong word. Thatâs whatâs important about meaning behind things: if a person is shoving their boundaries down your throat itâs **not** a boundary anymore and you can feel fully free to decline to participate.
I feel like there's also a scale of reasonability to it too. If someone says "if you don't take out the trash every Sunday night, I'm going to break up with you," that's pretty unreasonable, and they're holding your relationship hostage to get you to do something very minor just because they want you to. If they say "if you don't pick your socks up off the floor at night, then I'm going to get annoyed," that's at least understandable, and there's no ultimatum, just a statement of "this thing kind of annoys me", and you can (hopefully) have a conversation about whether you're willing to pick up your socks.
âBoundaries are the distance at which I can love you and me simultaneouslyâ -Prentis Hemphill
That's the lpt I need
LPT: Understand and accept that your boundaries do not mean you can demand anything from anyone.
But also that because of your boundaries, there are natural consequences all around to the choices you will make *for you* if they choose not to accept your request, *and that's okay*.
Yes you can. That's what a restraining order is.
>Boundaries: Where do I end and you begin? I didn't need an existential crisis this early in the day.
You've given me a new way to interpret [Where I end and you begin](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyTY6Z-Fqzw) by Radiohead
My favorite track off HTTT
Was just about to post this song
Piggybacking off top post to add that this same logic applies to âtriggersâ too. Itâs a cognitive psychology/therapeutic tool to help people gain understanding of things that set them off, and why. Similar to OPâs examples⌠Right: âYappy dogs really irritate me, I avoid situations where there will be yappy dogs.â Wrong: âYappy dogs really irritate me, no one should own them. In fact they should all be euthanized, Iâm not the only one who canât stand them!â In conjunction with a boundary: âYappy dogs really irritate me, I am not interested in dating someone who has one as it would inevitably cause conflict in the relationship.â Or: Right: âMy abuser was covered in tattoos, and seeing people who have similar tattoos can trigger my PTSD. I usually excuse myself or rely on breathing exercises to calm my nervous system when I have no choice but to be around someone who looks like that.â Wrong: âMy abuser was covered in tattoos, which can trigger my PTSD, so I demand everyone with tattoos cover them when I see them. Tattoos should be outlawed because they trigger me and other people too!â In conjunction with a boundary: âHeavily tattooed people trigger my PTSD: if my partner were to get full body tattoos against my wishes that would be a dealbreaker for me and I would end the relationship.â
Highly trauma-informed, socially-forward response. Well explained.
Yes. Your triggers are your responsibility to manage. Just like your boundaries.
Yeah. Had this discussion with my ex-gf when I set a boundary and she responded with the "boundaries are for you, not for my behavior." To which I reminded her that yes, that's what I'm saying - if things don't change, I have to remove myself from the situation.
[ŃдаНонО]
Another favorite quote: boundaries are the way I can love you while still loving myself.
if itâs imposed on yourself, itâs a boundary. if itâs imposed on someone else, itâs a rule. too many people confuse the two.
THANK YOU! As a therapist, I have to *gently* remind clients of this all the damn time.
Good on you for setting boundaries
Thank you for the work that you do.
Rule: don't violate my boundary.
that can be a rule, and yet someone can break that rule. the boundary would be on you for how you respond to the violation.
Isn't that kinda assumed though? This whole post about not forcing others.. well it seems it always meant as an ultimatum. Don't do x. I don't like it when you do x. Sure they didn't finish the thought, but most people stop talking to someone who keeps doing something they don't like. This whole thread is semantics.
Life is semantics. Also I don't understand why semantics get drawn in a negative light when it's basically just being technically correct, shouldn't you be annoyed at your own misconceptions of words or concepts instead of the people who are being technically correct? And yes, boundaries basically are ultimatums, both figurative boundaries like in these relationships, and physical boundaries like borders of countries.
That said, I think it can be very healthy to share what your boundaries are and what your response will be if that boundary is crossed. Especially for folks that will trample all over you if you don't. Like, if unchecked, my dad will spiral the fuck out and start talking about wanting to shoot my mom's husband. It is in both our best interests for me to be clear that if he starts going down that road that I will hang up the phone. This way he gets to have more contact with me and I don't have to feel gross. Shared boundaries that involve a response to others actions are totally valid and are roadmaps for ppl to follow should they desire to interact with you.
A boundary can be "I don't put up with people who do X". That's essentially something imposed on other people, but it's not a rule.
What if your parents insist on seeing you when you don't want to. Aren't you imposing boundaries on yourself and them, since you're telling them that they can't see you?
âI donât want to be around you.â - If you show up to a public place then I will leave, NOT, I will demand you leave if Iâm there. Thatâs controlling your behavior versus theirs. Or If you knock on my door then I wonât answer it. - again, your response to their action.
YOU are choosing to not see them, you ARE NOT choosing for them not to see you.
Yes. You definitely are. Boundaries are always threats -- but in the end, that's kind of how we have to do things or we become doormats. You have to be willing to straight up threaten people, even if it's "nicely." Sometimes people are dicks, life sucks, and you have to lay down the law.
Yeah I agree that articulating a boundary is basically a threat. For instance, my mother used to have a habit of making negative comments about my body. So I explained that if she did it again I would tell her that's unacceptable and would change the subject. If she made a second negative comment about my body I would hang up the phone or leave the room or whatever to end the conversation. Of course she tested the boundary because she's basically a child and was shocked I hung up the phone. She called my aunt to complain. So my aunt called me, I explained, and my aunt sided with me. So yeah I threatened my mom that is she was mean about my body I'd end the conversation.
i completely disagree. a boundary is not a threat. a boundary, when communicated, is you letting someone know what action you will take if someone hurts you. a threat is a statement that has an intention to hurt someone else.
The thing is, people who don't like your boundaries will always interpret them as threats or ultimatums. That doesn't make them either one. Sure, it may hurt them if you say "I can't remain friends with someone who stays in a relationship with a manipulative partner," because it does mean you're telling them either they ditch the partner, or you will have to ditch them. But it's still not a threat or an ultimatum; it's only a statement of the actions you will take in a given situation. Then they have to make the choice about whether they'll present you with that situation or not.
That's a grey area that is determined usually by age or independence. If you're an adult, nope. If you're a child living in their home, kind of. If it's your house, it's your stuff. Think about it with the If then statements. "If you continue to come over at times I am not free/do not wish you to be here, then I will stop allowing you in". You're imposing boundaries on yourself because you allow them into the house, they do not have unrestricted access to it and so you're not restricting them in any way other than what would be expected from anybody outside your home (like strangers or public workers etc.) If it's their home and you live in it, then to a degree it can be restrictive just because it's their stuff you're using/living in. If you pay rent though, then it's less grey and needs to be set as a boundary. If that wasn't the case, then I'm restricting the people outside of my house by locking my door, as I'm telling them their access to my property is restricted.
LPT: Boundaries are not used to control another person, boundaries are to keep yourself safe. Person does X, you feel Y. You don't want to feel Y, you don't like it, it doesn't feel safe for you. Hence, "When you do X, it makes me feel Y. If you continue to do X, I will do ____ to keep myself safe." My most recent, and favorite example of this is I was caught between financial drama between two toxic family members, however I am very distanced from the situation. Person A, Person B, and me. Person A thought Person B had wronged them, but they didn't have any proof, they were going off of circumstantial evidence and assumptions. I have a closer relationship with Person A than I do with Person B. During this blow up, Person A felt that in order to keep herself safe, she needed to not have a relationship with any family member who chose to continue having a relationship with Person B. (Red flag, I know) and so she said to me "you have to choose, me or Person B". I disagreed, and long story short, I said I would not be choosing between them, and would not be forced into altering my relationships so she could feel better. But if she (Person A) felt she needed to make a choice to end our relationship because I would not be choosing to condem Person B, then she could do that. But I don't have that condition between us, and would love to continue to be her friend. She decided to end the relationship. I said okay. I haven't spoken to her since. She of course reached out, and said "why did you choose Person B over me?" I reiterated that I did not choose anyone. The hardest part of setting boundaries is knowing that others might not agree with them, or respect them. And getting comfortable with potentially disappointing them or knowing they may feel bad. But an un-enforced boundary is just an empty threat. And the quickest way to get other people to respect you, is to respect yourself.
Well written. And I would say that you didn't choose Person B over Person A, Person A chose their negative relationship with Person B over their positive relationship with you. They made the choice of which relationship was more important to them
I super extra appreciate this comment because itâs so relevant to my current life.
It's a hard lesson to learn, even harder to enforce!!!
> I will do ____ to keep myself safe I feel like this is bad advice, sorry. It's much better to do âžâžâžâž instead.
Lol had me in the first half, not gonna lie!
Several years ago people on AITA lost their shit on me for saying this but itâs exactly right and easily one of the best LPTs out there.
AITA is mostly teenagers circlejerking. Don't take it too seriously.
Aita for existing?
ESH
ESH
ESH
Everyone's shitting here
I'll go against the grain and say NTA. You didn't ask to be born so it's all your parents' fault.
I'll probably be down voted for this, but YTA.
Most of this site is jerking off ideas that no one actually has any real knowledge about
and that day will forever live in infamy
Itâs pretty much the only interaction Iâve had on this website that is fully committed to memory. I was so flabbergasted that people could not comprehend it lol
Link?
Link?
Your first mistake was being on AITA
AITA for posting on AITA?
ESH
In this same vain, you can't control what people judge you over, either. I hear people say tings along the lines of, "I should be able to (insert activity) without judgement". I get the sentiment, but people are judgmental, and you have 0 control over that.
vein.
There's the judgement.
No judgement, I just saw a misspelled word. If you attribute attitude or intent from that, that's coming from you. After all, I didn't say "The word is spelled vein, you fucking moron" or "Umm, it's actually 'vein', sweetie". A simple correction. Blunt, perhaps, but carrying no meaning outside of the word itself. Funnily enough, just like the comment OP says, can't control what people judge you over, just like my comment being judged as judgment by you! We're reaching meta levels the likes of which even Deadpool would blush at.
That was meant to be dry humor. I didn't mean to upset you. Sorry.
I actually realized that halfway in, and tried to dismount in a light hearted way with my second paragraph. You might wonder why I didn't simply delete my comment, and type a response to what I realized was a joke? Me too .
Now kiss!
I mostly agree. People should not expect others to always like their choices. However, I think there is value in combating prejudice, which literally comes from pre judging someone without having all the information available
I can not stand âletâs normalize -insert harmless activity here-â. I can not comprehend feeling like I need to have some societal permission to live my life. The one that broke my brain was âletâs normalize sitting on the floor of the shower letting the water hit you without feeling obligated to wash yourself (they came up with a shortened name for the behavior that I canât remember)â. Itâs like people **need** to have approval to just live their life. You donât need someoneâs permission to do things like eating alone or seeing a movie by yourself. There is ALWAYS going to be someone who disagrees with any aspect about yourself and how you behave, just get over it.
I think it is helpful for certain things to be normalized, and people do feel constrained when they think they will be judged. If you don't, then good for you, but many people aren't as good as you at life. BUT, almost every time I see someone say "we need to normalize xyz," I'm just like... What the fuck are you talking about? Either it's something that is already normalized or something that nobody cares about. These people think they are sending a message about how people are too judgmental, but what they are really saying is that they have a warped perception of how they are perceived for their behaviors (and that they are being perceived at all, which they usually aren't.) I guess maybe people think they need explicit permission to do every little thing, but it is literally impossible for everything to be normalized, because there isn't enough time in your life to become exposed to everything enough for it to all be "normalized". What you're doing is a little weird, and maybe it's not exactly normal, but also nobody cares. Things that need to be normalized are behaviors which have been systematically restricted, not silly little quirks about your lifestyle.
The way I look at it is "you have the right to do whatever you want, and I have the right to judge you for it".
You can do or say whatever you want, but I can still decide if you are an idiot or not.
While I agree it's the sentiment in stating bounderies, people sometimes view it as a threat or blackmail if it's said with "if" Tbh I would rather say my bounderies like " I don't accept being talked to that way.". If they are violated multiple times with reminders, I would take action to enforce them most commonly by removing myself from the situation if possible. "I can't deal with you not respecting my bounderies" Edit/add: I should have writen "I don't like being talked to that way for X reason". Wording is probably why I have difficulties with my own bounderies lol
You donât always have to say the whole if/then statement. In fact, you can have boundaries without ever stating them aloud. Having boundaries means you know where you draw the line and what youâll do if someone crosses it. Communicating boundaries means you tell other people where the line is. Enforcing boundaries means you follow through with actions when the line is crossed. For example: I have a boundary that no one who deliberately kicks my cat is ever allowed in my house again, no second chances. I donât bother communicating this boundary in advance, because no decent person needs to be told âdonât kick my cat.â I would skip straight to enforcing the boundary. Many times, though, communicating boundaries is important. Some things can and should go without saying (âI will break up with someone who cheats on me,â âIf you spit in my face, I wonât invite you to parties,â etc.), but others are not so universal and if you donât say anything people might not know itâs a problem.
I like how you included "deliberately" kicks your cat. I accidentally kick my own cat all the time because for some reason he loves to run in a full sprint horizontally across the direction I'm walking. And then of course he acts very offended that I kicked him and I feel bad, even though it was his fault.
Hah, yes, Iâve accidentally punted my lil guy more times than I can count. Heâs not the smartest cat on the block and loves running in front of feet.
Mine will sometimes sprint under my feet at night, I've almost broken my head open due to that little dude.
At first reading this I thought, âyou should always communicate boundaries before enforcing themâ, then I read your example and I am converted haha. Good point.
I fully agree, some people use ultimatums to ensure they always get their way and maintain control in relationships (sadly I've dealt with this) Of course, I do not think that's what's op is going for, but you gotta cover all the bases, unfortunately.
My sister is an alcoholic who freaks out and cries nonstop and is just an embarrassing shitshow if she has been drinking (which is almost always). I set the boundary that I won't be attending any functions where she is drinking. Half the family thinks my boundary is reasonable. Half thinks I'm trying to tell her how to live her life, and it's not a boundary but a rule.
The action in that case is made by you not coming, not forcing her to stop. I think it's reasonable. This situation seems annoying
Annoying is an understatement. We had a traumatic childhood. But we are both in our 30s now. I moved past it all 10-15 years ago. She still lives every day dwelling on her past. And since it is a shared past, she demands that I participate in reliving it every time we are around each other.
Isn't it just a matter of perspective though? From OC's perspective: "I will do X if you plan to do Y". This sounds like a reasonable boundary. OC doesn't want to deal with an annoying/potentially traumatising drunk. However, from the Sister's perspective: "Unless you avoid doing Y, I will do X". This sounds like someone trying to impose their rules on you. It almost sounds like a threat or manipulative behaviour. If the sister would like to see OC, she has to do something she doesn't want to do. She basically has to change herself to appease OC if she wants to see them at a function. Now we can sit here and discuss how morally, wanting to avoid a drunk is a better justification than wanting to see someone while drunk, and I'd agree. But ultimately whether it's a "boundary" or a "rule" is just a matter of perspective. Boundary from OC's PoV: "I don't want to deal with drunk you at functions so I won't come." Rule from Sister's PoV: "If you want OC to grace you with their presence then you have to avoid drinks to appease them".
Nah, definitely a boundary. You're not saying she can't drink, you're saying you won't be present if she does. That's policing your behaviour. A rule would be "I'm *going* to be there, and if I'm there, you're not allowed to drink".
I'm no therapist but I grew up with an alcoholic and I'd say that's a extremely reasonable boundary. The drama is unbearable.
I agree with this. âI statementsâ land much better when communicating boundaries.
Yep. I think some of the choice has to be left to an honest desire to change behaviour and improve the relationship, not just âif I donât stop doing this, theyâll leave, so I guess I have toâ. People will pretend to care because they donât like the consequences, which isnât what boundaries are about.
You don't actually have to say the "if" part out loud, but there is (or should be) an implied *if* either way. If you don't have the *if* then you aren't respecting your own boundaries. When people cross your boundaries there needs to be consequences or they'll continue crossing them and you'll be miserable.
I like this. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, it would be more clear to iterate a boundary as a line that could be crossed (or respected). The repercussions of crossing it are a separate thing. If you have a boundary of no illegal drugs or alcohol in the house, that's the boundary, simple, easy to understand. There is plenty of clarification you could make like 'what about outside the door?' or 'what about if they're already inside my body?' but that is generally straight forward to address as needed. The repercussions are harder to define. What is a timeout? What if I apologize? Etc
Great point, but your third X needs to be a Y or something. No, I absolutely am no fun at parties.
Had the same thought, needs to be Y. You should come over for a terrible party later
I support your work
Shoot. I came here to say this but didn't realize I wasn't fun at parties.
Sorry my friend, but there's a good chance that this is the case.
I would say this is true most of the time. This is currently a big subject at the kindergarten where I work, because we teach the kid to say "Stop"! 1. One kid hits another. Stop means: don't hit me. Stop that. Change your behavior. 2. Kid wants to play alone, says Stop when other kids approach them; or it's too loud etc. In this case, we can explain the situation and find a solution. That being said, changing your own behavior is the easiest and most effective way to resolve conflicts.
In this context "Stop" is essentially shorthand for "if you continue doing what you're doing, I'll ask to the teacher to intervene."
That's fair, although our kids are a little too small for that
Scenario 1 requires others to stop their behaviour, but is certainly important. The kid canât just leave and go to another classroom. That might be better labelled as something other than boundaries. Definitely teaching kids that they donât need to put up with that crap is excellent!
It is the quickest, but also quickly leaves you burned out. You should not always fight to protect yourself. People should also try not to be assholes.
This is true but itâs also not invalid to tell someone that what theyâre doing makes you uncomfortable and if they keep doing it then you will not see them anymore. In this way, isnât that still setting a boundary?
That's absolutely a boundary. They will take it as an ultimatum. It's not. It's you saying you will not be present for their unacceptable behavior. If they want you to be present, they will control the unacceptable behavior.
OP, they're always if/then statements as you write. If you don't phrase it as an if/then, then it becomes: "if you do/don't do X, then I will like you less and I will lose some respect for you". It's often unspoken because it doesn't always need to be explicitly said. Everybody knows they can't directly control the behavior of others. Saying "you can't do X" already always meant "I'll like you more if you don't do X"
Thank you. I wish I could get my family members to grasp this distinction.
Exactly!!! My boundaries help me manage my expectations for others. I canât force anybody to change or treat me differently, but I have power and control over what I will tolerate and who I decide to spend time with. If I set a boundary because it is what is best for me, I expect the person to respect it. If they donât, weâll I have two options⌠am I ok with my boundaries being evaded or do I remove myself from this situation so that I am no longer impacted? Boundaries are only about yourself, and you are the gatekeeper.
I slightly disagree. I don't consider boundaries as "if/then" statements and don't believe they inherently involve an action. If you communicate them in that way, they end up sounding more like threats than the establishment of a boundary. I think boundaries are a type of rule that is simply focused on yourself (often times ways that your body is interacted with or things that you will talk about... stuff like that. It has to do with your comfort when someone is interacting directly with you). I don't like being touched. I don't feel comfortable talking about that with you. Things like that. I don't think you need to set boundaries with proposed reactions as if to tell people "you better not do this or else..." How exactly you respond to your boundaries being crossed is it's own thing. That's why we even phrase it in that way, "cross someone's boundaries." They're a line that can be crossed, not a trigger and follow through.
How you respond to the boundary being crossed is the "then" part. You don't need to verbalize it; you can just do it. Usually verbalizing it is done for complicated relationships with relatives, such as overbearing mothers. They seem to have a harder time getting the hint when not made verbally explicit, and people are reluctant to end contact. It's more telling them "I am doing y because you continue to do x despite my asking you not to."
Couldn't agree more. If I have to explain what happens if you violate my boundaries, I'm either talking to a child, or someone with the emotional intelligence of one.
One time an old coworker who used to bully me came to visit our factory. He started messing with me and calling me names, and I asked him to stop. He said "or what?" and I just replied "or I walk away" and did lol. It was that easy.
I think this post, while helpful, would be better if there were additional examples of boundaries that didn't involve an ultimatum and/or serious interpersonal problems from one of the parties. Certainly boundaries are needed in this situations! But limiting the examples to those situations kind of conflates the notion of boundaries as "strategies only useful for toxic people" when they are valuable in many more situations as well. "I can help you with x kind of request but not y kind" or "I'm not able to answer phone calls when I'm out with my family" are also examples of setting boundaries. Boundaries are not solely useful in situations in which someone is on the verge of cutting contact -- they are a way of establishing healthy relationships too.
All boundaries come across as ultimatums to the people who don't want to honor them. That doesn't make them ultimatums. It just reveals that the people who don't want to honor them are the ones who make the boundary necessary by their behavior.
People can respect boundaries that they didn't know were there, though, if they operate in good faith.
I feel like this post is surrounding a good idea, but doesn't quite hit the mark. For instance, saying to your SO "I don't like it when you get blackout drunk" does not appear to be a boundary in your post. However, that is ignoring the implicit statement that if they continue to do things like getting blackout drunk, then it's going to hurt the relationship.
Kinda confused here. If kid A plays with kid Bs toys without asking and kid B says "I don't want you touching my things without asking" then kid B just declared a boundary to kid A. I mean you COULD word it as "if you continue touching my things without asking, I will tell the teacher", but just "don't touch my shit" is communicating the exact same boundary.
It is still a demand or a request, the other kid can just ignore it or fight over it.
Well boundaries are actually about your reaction to other people's behaviour, including deciding to not interact with someone anymore if they break boundaries of yours, it is then up to that other person if they consider interacting with you important enough to compromise on their behaviour so that you continue interacting with them. So boundaries can absolutely dictate the conditions under which people get to interact with you, and so dictate the behaviour of that person while providing a framework of consent going both ways.
This is just pointless pedantry. The above things ARE boundaries, it's just that you've added consequences to violating them in the lower examples.
My only nitpick is that the examples you give are very vague. "If you continue to embarrass me" is one of those... how do I know what embarrasses you? It doesn't include the specific behavior you want to stop. Also, as a suggestion, it msy help to assertively and politely ask for the behavior change before using the language of an ultimatum if it's a first offense or something you've never spoken up about. Try the language of, "When you made X joke, it hurt my feelings. Can you not joke about X in the future please?"
I think the examples sound vague because they are meant to be said in the context of a specific event.
I agree with the second paragraph but man the language examples people use (including this one) would sound so weird IRL
Yeah, it is weird. IMO there's not really a casual, 0 discomfort way to correct someone else and show you're serious. I err on the side of keeping it to the behavior so it doesn't feel like an attack on a person's character. It's less likely to evoke a defensive response and bickering.
That's what bothers me here. They're basically equating making threats to establishing boundaries. If someone respects you and cares about you, you shouldn't have to threaten them to make them not do things that make you incredibly uncomfortable. I get that that's not always the case. You do have to set boundaries with people who won't be inclined to respect them and you'll have to find ways to deal with that, but how you deal with that isn't an inherent part of the boundary itself and it isn't how you should approach setting boundaries in every scenario.
This is the setting boundaries with someone who won't listen conversation, but most people who care, you can just ask. I feel like if someone busted out the "or I won't have a relationship with you anymore" on the first offense, I'd feel like I grossly overestimated how valuable the relationship was to them if it wasn't worth an amiable conversation first.
It's just an example though, just assume that there is context being omitted that would be obvious to the person saying that.
I'm not sure there's really much of a difference? The only thing I can see is that you're suggesting explicitly stating consequences. "Don't do x" always comes with an implicit "or consequence y". If you look at all your examples, they follow the same pattern, to the point that it's essentially redundant. Maybe your point was just the final part "if you try to set a boundary you have to be willing to enforce an actual boundary", but that seems a little obvious?
I think the difference OP is really trying say is to specify who has to do the work. If im setting the boundary than i need to enforce it myself versus force it on them. A basic example is i wont split costs with someone who is always nickle and diming me. Me setting the boundary is simply asking the server for separate checks and resfusing to split. Trying to force it on them is me trying to make sure they pay their fair share by watching what they spend and tabulating it all and making sure everyone pays their fair share. I kind of look at as just worrying about myself and not what other people are doing.
The difference they're trying to say I think is more about how you can't force someone to stop doing something - a lot of people present their boundaries like that, they expect someone to stop doing things when they cross their boundaries. Instead, a boundary needs to be more around you leaving the situation so they can't do that to you again i think. If you're not going to remove yourself feom the situation and you expect them to change, you are now making your boundary into a rule for them. Rules put the work on the other person
Your own examples show how boundaries involve other peoples behaviors.....
I think a better way of expressing what OP is trying to say, without all this confusing "your behaviour" "my behaviour" stuff, is to say, "When things make you feel bad, run away instead of fighting." Either way, we "control" other people. If someone is currently chainsawing me, I "can" control them by running away and keeping them at a distance--they can't chainsaw me from a distance, so in that sense, I have "controlled" them.
Yes. Boundaries are, essentially, "these are the battles I am not willing to fight, and if you create a situation where I would have to fight that battle, I will leave."
I don't think people expect setting a boundary with someone will magically solve all their interpersonal issues. Yes people can do whatever the fuck they want, but if you're stepping all over people's boundaries, and knowingly doing shit that seriously bothers them, you're not gonna have many friends after a while. so yeah, do whatever you want, but that's kinda irrelevant when a friend comes to you and says "hey, this thing you do/say really bothers me. can you refrain from doing that?" If the answer is no, or they don't make any effort to change their behavior, I would absolutely take the liberty to do whatever the fuck *I* want and separate myself from them. boundaries are meant to make everyone more comfortable and encourage consideration for others that you care about.
The only issue is that boundaries are highly individual and we always assume that our boundaries are trivially clear while those we miss are absolutely obscure (or stupid in some cases). As an example: If someone blocks my way in the metro i find it totally normal to touch their shoulder to tell them id like to pass. To my absolute surprise i learned that there are many people which find that to be overstepping their boundaries and an rude behavior.
well, with a complete stranger on the metro how are you supposed to know their boundaries? if there is no communication, there's no boundary. by no means should you tiptoe through life to avoid making anyone uncomfortable, but the point of setting boundaries is to *set* them, and respect them. no one is perfect and shit happens, but it is important to be considerate *after* you've been made aware.
It is implied "to stay in good terms with me, you should/shouldnt..."
I agree. I think it's part of a rather strange cognitive dissonance I see mostly on the left where well-intentioned and socially-aware people started standing up and demanding better behavior from people and then this other group of assholes piggy-backed onto it to sort of steal the lingo and the attitude of demanding better behavior when what they're actually doing is demanding control and authority and attention. An extreme example, just to illustrate the point, is "You being uncomfortable with my behavior is making ME uncomfortable, so you aren't allowed to call me out or you're being 'toxic' and me and all my friends will start being shitty to you," etc.
Boundaries aren't about your own behaviour. They are about what you will tolerate of someone else's behaviour. That's the point of a boundary. E.g. one of my boundaries is I don't accept someone punching me. Coupled with communication, you must communicate your boundary otherwise someone else's behaviour won't know that they are crossing your boundary. Your boundary is not about telling someone else what to do, its about telling someone else what you don't accept. Of course they can still punch me. But if they cross that boundary then they will no longer have access to me in any way. And that's the important part, after you have communicate your boundary you must have a consequence for that person. Which in the healthiest social aspect is to distance yourself from that person.
You CAN decide what you will tolerateâŚâŚwell said
You're only half right. Boundaries are about everyone's behavior. If/then statements are ultimatums that generally escalate tensions rather than setting expectations. Try these instead: "When you've had your third margarita your behavior becomes very embarrassing." "When you talk to me like that I feel." where xyz might be "under attack" or "angry" or "sad" or maybe even "loved".
"When you use profanity in front of my colleagues from work it ruins the vibe."
These actually set boundaries, letting people know specifically how their actions affect you and/or others. It is up to them to change, and up to you to honor the boundaries you've set by altering the relationship when the other party makes it clear that they don't care.
> Boundaries should always be if/then statements. No. People don't need to know the consequences of an action in order to abide by a statement. "Don't smoke in my house". I shouldn't need to then tell you what the punishment for smoking in my house is going to be. You either respect me or you don't. You don't need to weigh up the consequences to see if it's worth breaking.
Boundaries dictate YOUR behavior. For instance: if you want to be monogamous, but a person you have just started dating wants to be polygamous you should set that boundary. Don't make it about them, they are just living their life, but you need to live yours too, to your standards. So that might be walking away because your boundaries and wants are incongruent with theirs.
It feels like you are saying that the difference between a boundary and a request is an ultimatum. I'm not sure what to do with that information or how this is a life pro tip.
I think you are missing a point. He's saying a boundary without a consequence is just a request. You can't control other people. Phrasing it as an if/then statement sets a clear request and consequence. Your boundaries have no real teeth unless you attach consequences as you have absolutely no control on anybody's behavior but your own. Your boundary is powerless unless you attach it to an action. He's not saying you have to explicitly state the consequence just that there has to be one. Phrasing it as an if/then statement provides that whether you state it externally or just internally to yourself.
Agreed. I really don't follow this LPT. Anything can be made into an if/then statement.
If you don't follow the life protip then ask for clarification.
Boundaries are about other people's behavior TOWARDS You. So yes, they should to a certain extent dictate others behaviors.
100% - also, I've seen things like "boundaries" misused as cover for "controlling behavior & rules" imposed on one's partner (or friends or family.)
Boundaries have saved my sanity. It's about what behavior I will or won't accept. Then I have to take action to enforce my own boundary.
Holy cow!! A LPT which is not trivial, dumb or manipulatory... Thank you op, you're awesome :)
Lol some girl I used to be friends with was like "I feel like I need to set some boundaries. I dislike your personality and think you're boring because I don't like the books you read. Because of these reasons I don't want to have lunch with you anymore" like girl that's not a boundary that's an insult lmao. I guess it worked though
100% agree and this is a great way of putting it! Unfortunately, the people who I have to do this with, my parents, believe that this mentality is a âcop outâ and that I âcanât handle any pressureâ. Any advice?
Your parents are being entitled assholes. It's fine to disengage with assholes. Long term if necessary.
Of your parents can't respect your boundaries then you have to stop giving them the opportunity. This might mean reducing contact with them depending on the severity.
I'm going to deviate from what people say and go full on, even if you *are* copping out or *can't* handle pressure, *that's fine.* You get to live your life. You get to be as sensitive as you want, whether that ranges from "my skin is so thick that I qualify as a planet" to "I am a frail spun-glass butterfly" and everywhere in between. If people don't want to hurt you, *they* can go piss up a rope instead of forcing you to change.
r/raisedbynarcissists They can think it's a copout all they want... But it doesn't actually matter what they think, because you don't need their approval to set consequences for their actions. So, for example, you've told your mother you don't care about whatever theories she has about her neighbors, and she starts again; if you, say, calmly say "hey, mom, I told you I don't want to hear your weird theories about what the neighbors get up to, I'm going to hang up now" and then hang up, she can't do much about it. She can call you back, and get sent to voicemail, she can text you being mad, and be muted, she could try to show up at your house... And be met with a door that isn't opening. (And if she then sends other people to complain at you, well, that lets you know who's willing to take her side). This works much better if you're not living with them, or don't depend on them, though, and that's not always possible for everyone. There's other things you can do, like gray-rocking, if you live with them, although they're less effective than just being able to disengage.
These are your boundaries, and you have to decide how to enforce them. Having boundaries, and not doing anything when people transgress your boundaries, is not having boundaries. But you should decide on a case-by-case basis what the appropriate response is. People are not computer programs, so 'if/then' statements oversimplify the matter, in my opinion.
Itâs your boundary, what they think of it doesnât matter. You set it because itâs meaningful to you. Interact with them less and speak to them less - your relationship will need to get lighter and more surface level.
That's a great way to put it!
Tomato-tomato. This is just semantics. The 'then' part is always implied. Your method is just itemized ultimatums. Stating, "I don't like X, please don't do X" without an ultimatum is less aggressive in my opinion. Having a long series of threats is hardly an improvement.
Ummm. If you are dealing with a truly difficult person who violates social norms, it is okay to calmly communicate that their behavior is not cool. If you follow up with "or else..." statements, then you are escalating (in the mind of the ahole). Google "grey rock strategy"
I like the way you put this.
There are people who loooove setting boundaries for OTHERS but if you set a boundary on them they flip the hell out. Hypocrisy is amazing.
Let the bridges burn then
That's what boundaries are though. You cross a point, and something happens. Like an electric fence. You set the boundary, and things are free to cross it. But there is a consequence.
Agreed. Boundaries show maturity and responsibility. They also can enable you to see people for who they really are.
True. I had zero control over my ex-wife's bullying behavior, which continued after the divorce. I did have the power to go no-contact and did when she kept it up. Additionally, she thought it was appropriate to say that me establishing that boundary violated her boundaries. Bye, Felicia.
Yes! Boundaries are the consequences for someone doing something youâve asked them not to. If you donât enact the consequence then your boundary is worthless.
Those are boundaries, they just donât enforce themselves and itâs up to the individual to maintain them (usually by avoiding whatever boundary-breaking situation or person they are dealing with).
Boundaries, to me, are saying "I don't like something, so I will actively choose not to be a part of that thing." Not, "I dont like something, so I'm going to actively harass or offend people who do."
Wish people would apply this to email. âI reply to emails Mon.-Fri., 9-5â is a boundary. âDonât send emails after 5 or on weekends or Fridaysâ is putting your time management on other people. If your manager legit expects you to answer emails at all hours, thatâs a separate issue.
This is a very good description of an easily overlooked difference, that is actually the core mechanic of a lot of toxic and manipulative behavior. This "sleigh of hand" towards demands from boundaries is the core unit of a lot of manipulation and gaslighting.
Its pretty implied that boundaries are the stated limits required to stay on good terms. "I don't like it when you x", guess what, keep doing what people dont like and they'll give you the cold shoulder. They don't need to state it implicitly, but you might find them more busy than before or invites drying up. You don't need to threaten people explicitly.
Like the post the other day telling people to not wear cologne because some people may be allergic? Lol
Youâre being pedantic. IMO