Something that I've learned over the last year or so is the importance of boundaries. When a new BS arrives here with their spouse active in an affair, one of the many tools the veterans advise is boundaries. I thought that maybe an on-going discussion about what boundaries are and are not could be of benefit to many of the newly arrived, and maybe even a few of the older ones that are still dealing with affairs.

The word boundary seems to have a negative association in a lot of people's minds. Especially for a new BS, they appear trapped by the fear that if they actually take a stand for themselves and their marriage, they'll drive their WS even farther away. After all, isn't it said many times on these forums that you can't control other people, only yourself? Isn't a boundary a way to try to control someone?

It's not. It may, on the surface, seem like it, but it's really not.

By nature, humans are manipulative. We learn it from an early age, and it's almost a subconscious behavior on most people's part. I think entitlement drives manipulation. We feel entitled to something, for whatever reason, and we do what we can to get that something. We then justify our manipulation based on whatever entitlement we're feeling.

To me, the difference between a boundary and manipulation (or control) is subtle, but important.

If, for example, I tell my wife "If you continue in the affair, I will divorce you.", is that a boundary, or manipulation on my part?

Or is it an ultimatum?

Obviously, how you state something plays a key role in how the recipient will perceive it. Saying "Me or OP" will be taken as an ultimatum. You're attempting to force your spouse to make a decision - in fact, you are limiting their choices to only two options.

If you said "If you continue your relationship with OP, I will no longer be with you." is a boundary. You are letting your spouse know what behavior you need and want from them, without restricting their options or threatening them. You leave the choice to them. You make it clear that in order to be with you in marriage, they cannot have another person on the side.

Another example might help. Say your spouse likes to go out and party every Friday night, without you. You don't know where they go, what they do, and they come home shortly before the sun rises.

You could say something like "If you're going to continue to go out on Friday nights, then I'm going to do <this>." If this is something that preys upon your spouse's fears or weakness, that is manipulation. You are attempting to tell your spouse how to live their life. You're doing your best to get what you want at (potentially) your spouse's expense.

How would you make this a boundary?

Perhaps you could say "I'm not comfortable with you going out every Friday night and me not knowing with whom or where, and you coming home at all hours. If you insist on doing this, I will choose to <some action that is about you or your marriage, not your spouse>".

Ok..maybe not the best example. I'm still learning about boundaries myself.

In a nutshell, to me at least, it is about control. However, boundaries are moving the focus of control to where you actually have it - yourself. Manipulation is about controlling others, which is bound to fail at some point.

Anybody want to share their thoughts on this?

By nature, humans are manipulative. We learn it from an early age, and it's almost a subconscious behavior on most people's part. I think entitlement drives manipulation. We feel entitled to something, for whatever reason, and we do what we can to get that something. We then justify our manipulation based on whatever entitlement we're feeling.

healingbird...I am not convinced in the experts study and labeling of human developement that adults humans are manipulative...

while I agree that manipulation plays a role in toddler and adolescent behavior it is my experience and my understanding that this is developemental stage shifted out of as one ages....

I wouldn't think that being married to a spouse spurn by manipulation to get their way would make a good spouse or marriage...certainly not a thriving one....

Also I am not sure that mature adults function on entitlement......

there is great satisfaction wrought from honorable labor no matter what the labor is....

I also am not convinced that control is or should be part of a marriage...

atleast I don't believe that is or was God's design for Mans marrital bliss...

ARK

Your examples are all examples of control and manipulation (selfish demands).

[color:"purple"]Selfish demands require (and expect) the other person to change.
Setting boundaries require that you change.[/color]

If you continue in the affair, I will divorce you. = control and manipulation. (requires/demands that the WS stop/change)

I choose not to participate in a relationship of three. = boundary. (Boundary setter must take the action here)


This is an ultimatum requiring the other person to change.

Boundary setting is not about gaining control.

Boundary setting is about making choices about your own behavior and your own life without expectations of outcome by other people. This doesn't mean that you can not make a respectful request, it simply means that your taker is not allowed to make demands, instead of negotiating an outcome that works for you both.


For example, in my home recently, I had a problem with something my husband was doing on a regular basis that was very destructive to our family.

I said: H, when you do XYZ, it kills my love for you and depletes your love bank balance with me. This makes it very hard for me to be loving to you.

He nodded his head.

We went to bed.

The next morning, the hurtful behavior vanished.

Now obviously this does not work with an addiction (affairs, booze, sex or otherwise). If the harmful behavior continueus you have to make a choice about what you will do to protect yourself or not protect yourself, whatever that is. The bottom line is, at no time can you make a demand that requires a change of the other person.

hb, as you allude to here, boundaries are an area that is VERY difficult for a newly betrayed spouse to define and more importantly to implement.

I have struggled with the boundary concept since I began to emerge from my "Oh god, I am losing my wife, do I really want to push her further" stage.

It has been impressed upon me, with desired effect, that not establishing boundaries enables the WS to either use you as the doormat or establish the status quo as acceptable. Neither is a version of a M I care for.

Yet, as the BS and the one "wanting" my M, it is scarey to tread into this area. The fear of making a "single fatal mistake" allows all control of the M to stay in the hands or pass to the WS.

I have come to view boundaries as one of two early tools in the BS toolbox, the other being Plan A.

Speaking from experiance, there is a certain empowering feeling that comes with your boundaries, that of self control and steering your own "ship". This at a time when many BS, myself included, feel like their world is total out of their control.

When I first married my W, I can tell you we both had boundaries that we accepted as part of our lives in M. The act of the A, I believe, rocks the foundation of self esteem for a BS, to such a degree, that boundaries may be the first part of one's self that goes.

Hi Ark -

I will admit that I may be viewing things through my own filter, which is quite cynical at this point in my life.

My belief in adult manipulation comes from viewing some of my actions over the last yer. By that, I mean attempting to get the results I wanted in our marriage by trying to control my wife's actions, usually not even realizing that was what I was doing until someone pointed it out to me.

Certainly entitlement doesn't fuel everything an adult does. Or at least, it shouldn't. But when we slip into manipulation, I do think that entitlement could be at least part of the impetus. I may have stretched it a bit there in my generalization.


I agree. It wasn't my intent to say that control was part of a marriage. I was attempting to show, from my point of view, that boundaries are a form of control, but the focus of the control is on yourself, not others.

Does that make more sense?

Hi BrambleRose -


Thanks. That says it much better than I did.

Obviously I've still got a ways to go when distinguishing between control and boundaries.


I will have to keep this in mind. It helps me to distinguish between a boundary and a manipulation (SD, control, etc.)

Guess it's back to school for me, huh? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

they are both manipulation. The only difference is, one is an attempt at manipulation through a threat of action. it comes across as more of a "demand". The other is a statement of intent, but it still has an implied demand. Well, ok, the "boundary" isnt a demand. It's a "you make your choice, and you know which one I would prefer" kind of thing. But it's still manipulation; both can be boiled down to, "i will do X, unless you stop doing Y".


This is based on a definition of manipulation as, "Attempting to evoke a desired response in someone else through your own words or actions"

clearly, in both examples, there is a "desired response".
And the "enforcing a boundary, by leaving", is an action taken with a desired response in mind.
It's mostly just a change of wording.

That being said... some people have made the decision to divorce or not divorce, based on "just wording" of something. So for some people it's worth making this kind of distinction.

But if you try either of these, with someone who is dead-set against anything with even a hint of control of manipulation... it doesnt make a difference whether you call it a "boundary" or not; it amounts to the same thing.

techie -


My initial attempt to explain my understanding of boundaries vs manipulation was flawed. I think BrambleRose said it way better than I could have.

However, enforcing a boundary by leaving is not a control (IMO) - unless that's really the reason (trying to get the WS to give up their A) you've stated the boundary, in which case it's not really a boundary, is it?

If a BS choosed to leave a marriage where the WS is in an active affair, how is that not a boundary? If I left my marriage, it would be for one reason only - to remove myself from the chaos of my wife's choices and actions. What she did at that point would be pretty much irrelevant to me.

In that case, as I said, it's a boundary.

I suppose I could still be seeing it wrong. Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong on something. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

This boundary thing is way screwed up for me. Am I wrong for wanting my wayward spouse to change. Boundary, control, manipulation....I don't care what you call it. I do want him to change. How can you communicate that without making a selfish demand?

sunsetter1...I agree totally that boundaries are very difficult for the person that has just found out. The time when you need to be the most clear about what to do next is the very time you cannot see past the raging emotions.

Everyone who comes into your life is going to influence you.

The wayward spouse has been influenced by the infidelity conspirator.

The true spouse has to exert what influence we have in order to restore health to the marriage. It's the same, in my mind, as having to exert pressure to stop bleeding. Of course there is a motive in both cases, and that motive is Godly and Good when the end is to restore health.

The infidelity conspirator is in effect exerting their influence to choke the life out of the marriage, the same way a murderer might exert pressure to someone's windpipe to choke the life out of them, which is neither Godly nor Good.

"If you continue to carry on your infidelity, you will kill our marriage. You must stop the infidelity if you don't want to kill the marriage."

I'm in a hurry so this may seem very simplistic, but I definitely see a difference that goes beyond semantics.

growinghope -


I refer you to what BrambleRose wrote:


Emphasis mine. You communicate the change you want by making a respectful request. See if he will negotiate with you on it. And realize that it is up to him to change himself. He will or he won't.

Look at BrambleRose's example with her husband above. There was something he was doing. She told him the effect it had on her. And left it at that. She allowed him the right to make his own decisions.

Does this make more sense now?

I had a reply to techie typed out but then I timed out. *sigh*

Let's see if I can remember it all.

Motivation is everything. If you chose a plan of action with the expectation that someone else will change; in otherwords, if you choose to act in a way that attempts to guarantee a desired outcome...not only is it control and manipulation, but the only guaranteed outcome will be FRUSTRATION and DISAPPOINTMENT on the part of the controller.

[color:"purple"]Controlling behavior says: You must change to please me.
Boundary setting says: I will protect, love and respect me.
[/color]

Let me use Plan A and Plan B as an example.

If I Plan A and Plan B as a controller - neither will be effective - and any stinkin WS can smell the manipulation a mile away. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

A good Plan A is not manipulation.

A good Plan A is a negotiation!

A good Plan A happens when a BS is willing to acknowledge and take responsiblity for his or her own part in the downfall of the marriage. A good Plan A requires the willingness of a BS to take a careful moral-inventory of self (instead of the WS's moral-inventory!). Plan A should be used by the BS to open negotiations by demonstrating to the WS a willingness to make amends and change - truely honestly change - those things that harmed the WS and therefore the marriage prior to the affair.

Plan A does not include statements like: See, I've changed, now you must stop cheating! or even worse...I've changed, now come home or I'll Plan B you!

Plan B is the boundary. A BS does NOT tell the WS that there is a timelimit to Plan A. (There is NO statement of intent to plan B!) There comes a point that the BS must take steps to protect him or herself and the marriage. The Plan B letter lets the WS know that Plan B is NOT a punishment, and that it is simply a boundary that will drop when there is no longer need to protect oneself.

The letter is delivered, and there is NO DISCUSSION, NOT THREATS, no negotation...simply self-protective action taken by the BS.

The guaranteed outcome will be eventual peace for the BS who no longer lives with active harm taking place.

A possible side affect is that the WS will remember the Plan A and desire to change to come home. But that is left entirely up to the WS, without cohersion behavior of the BS, who is no longer part of the picture.

Recovery is NOT a guarantee nor is it the prime objective of Plan B.

It is simply a way for the BS to survive and personally recover with self-dignity and self-respect.

It just so happens to be true, that "We teach others how to treat us"...and so if the BS does not learn to draw that self-respecting, self-protective boundary...the WS will never do so either....

Motivation is everything.

Bramble,

Next time hit the back button. Copy your text. Then hit back again. Open the post and then paste.

Wella no lost post

Boundary - something that indicates bounds or limits; a limiting or bounding line.

Ultimatum - a final, uncompromising demand or set of terms issued by a party to a dispute, the rejection of which may lead to a severance of relations or to the use of force.

Control - to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

There you go. Clear cut definitions. Should make it clear. LOL.

I think there is a difference in the severity of the action that would determine the appropriate reaction to a boundry crossing.

A boundry is just a set of rules as to how you as a person will accept to be treated by others. Each person you interact with may have different boundries.

Now once a boundry is crossed that is when you decide how to react.

That may be an ultimatum. Do that again and I will.

For me I had a boundry I didn't like my FWW flirting especially after the A.

She flirted I got mad. No enforcement. Finally I gave her an ultimatum as an enforcement tool. If that happens in front of me again I will just leave wherever we are at. I will not come back to get you. I will go home.

So was that manipulation to get what I wanted? Maybe. Should she have been doing it in the first place. Heck no.

So to me it depends on what are your boundaries are. Everyone has theirs.

I have a boundry I will not tolerate being hit by my spouse. If she hits me I will have her arested. Then I will divorce her.

If she thinks I am manipulating her so be it.

frog ~ you can certainly choose to use ultimatums when a boundary is crossed.

While short term - ultimatums may have a desired outcome - long term, resentment is built up - a slow poison that destroys relationships.

If your goal/desire/wish is to have a healthy, happy, relationship where both parties are respected as equals, an ultimatum, no matter how you rationalize or justify it, will not result in such an outcome.

People who are controlled eventually rebel.

BR,

I agree. I was just pointing out my percieved difference.

I think the way the explain it in an employment agreement works well.

They state the boundry then say if you cross that boundry there will be action that can be up to or including termination.

I agree an ultimatum is not a good idea. The reason I believe that is a little different. I believe if you constantly have to use ultimatums someone is crossing your most serious boundries which means there is a complete lack of respect.

For me I felt the only thing to do was an ultimatum becuase he heard nothing else and sure enough that sparked a reaction. But, now he wants the marriage and I do not. My point is that control causes resentment in both parties. The controled may resent being under control, but the controlling party feels like the things are done for all the wrong reasons...because they are.

I agree that it is all about motive. I felt this all a need for survival. I could not take it anymore. Did not want to take it anymore. It was in my mind the only way for me to be OK and to break the cycle we were in.

OK wait...If stating the boudary and then then state the action if you cross it is not an ultimatum than I did not use an ultimatum. My words were If you withdrawl and act like this marriage means nothing to you than I will have to leave. I am thinking I should have said something like...It hurts me deeply when you withdrawl and I see no action to partake in our marriage. If I see that behavior from you I will have to choose to leave.

You are right about the total lack of respect. This is one of three major statements I made like this and now I am realizing the problems run much deeper for us than I thought.

I think at it's very core a boundary is nothing more than a fence.

It is a fence that marks the difference between mine and not mine.

What people do to defend those fences or establish fences beyond what belongs to them is where the issue of control and manipulation comes to play.

Further..

Failure to recognize boundaries of defend them is usually a ~mutual~ cooperative effort.

For every controlling partner...there needs to be an accomplice who chooses not to defend what is their own repsonsiblity.

What belongs to me is mine and I can do whatever I like with it.

I can run it through the shredder..flip it on it's head...set it on fire.

Your feelings about what I do with my own property belong to you and are neither my responsibility nor my problem.

Understanding this means that manipulation and control are impossible...I CAN not enforce my will on someone elses property without their consent.