I liken this to my son throwing temper tantrums. I state that I will remove myself from the room if he throws tantrums, if he persists, I leave the room. When he is calm, I may then make the choice to return. (This happened tonight, actually) Then this discussion just sort of clicked in my head. It's much more clear, now that a child helped me understand...

An excellent example SL...

A child throwing a tantrum is both using a lot of abusive behaviors and very likely trying to cross a boundary.

Grown up people throw tantrums too...yet notice that barring mental illness they know where they can and can not get away with it.

Not too many tantrums in front of the judge...lol...or a hells angels convention either I suppose.

For example, if the (hypothetical - this is made up and is not aimed at any poster) BS would say something like: I understand you feel that changing jobs and establishing NC for life is going to be hard on you. I'm not willing to re-engage (stay married) to you unless you're willing to do that. Rather than trying to argue or 'prove' why it's so important. If the WS retorts with "You're being unreasonable." then the BS can say "I understand you feel this is unreasonable. This is what I'm willing to do." Too often, people get drawn into "verbally defending" the properness of their boundaries. The WS wants to negotiate the boundary. True boundaries are NON-NEGOTIABLE -- there's really no point arguing about them. Validate that you heard the other person speak and then just state the fact: "THIS is what I'm willing to do."

People know what to expect from people with good boundaries. They are able to accurately predict what will happen in certain situations. The more predictable you are (in a good way) the more likely people are going to treat you accordingly. If you know that every time you yell at me, I exit the conversation (regardless of whining, pleading, apologies, or whatever) then if the conversation is important enough to you, you'll figure out how not to yell. If the WS (or, I should say when) realizes that the BS is going to do whatever their stated boundary action is each and every time they get caught in a lie or contact or <whatever>, then they're going to have GOOD information to base future decisions on.

People learn.

Someone asked what enforcement looks like. It looks like confidence -- it looks like decisiveness. It happens when someone is able to step back and say "You can behave however you choose and I'm willing to acknowledge that -- I'm just going to acknowledge it from way over there where ti no longer affects me."


Just my $.02,

Mys



Love this.

Terrific!

~ Marsh

Got it. It's all about YOU. That is the Standard to which your Boundary is applied.




Got it. ALL decisions are relative to the moment and the personal choice of the individual. There are NO "absolutes" that are unchanging or unchangeable.

FH

In some ways it is all about you, and it's also all about them.

It's all about them taking responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, and for their own feelings.

It's all about you protecting yourself from the harmful things you cannot change.. Think of the Serenity Prayer here.

It is the height of disrespectful to try to "convince" someone that you are "right" and they are "wrong".
On the other hand it's not disrespectful to have a dialogue on why you believe something, as long as you respect their right to believe something else.

I see a theme of people wanting desiring boundaries in their universe...

then allowing the actions of boundary enforcement to be seen as controling or even more alarming afraid of the action of boundary enforcement...

silentlucidity riddles this...

He continues to talk to her. I state that I feel disrespected as he continues to talk with her. I am beginning to form a boundary about R outside my M. Sine this pains me, and will with ANYONE I marry, I have decided that this is a boundary--No personal R outside of M --goes both ways. If personal R occur, how to enforce this without throwing down the gauntlet?

why the term gauntlet..YOUR reality is that you will not tolerate a marriage with personal relationships outside of the marriage...

enforcing is NOT a gauntlet...
it's a fact or reality...as long as it truly is and that means that if your spouse continues to verbalize and or act the desire to have third party relationships...that means YOU are leaving...
period...


ALSO

In some respects boundaries and plan A do not go hand in hand in the sense of enforcable actions at first...

remember these things...

PLAN A is all about contact with WS and OP.
it is all about breaking up the affair....

sooo

in that respect one speaks (NOT POWERSTRUGGLE) Not beat a dead horse....but speaks their heart felt pain and hurt at the contact...

boundaries are smaller acts..

NOT babysitting so the the WS can go be with OP
NOT powerstruggling NO contact...but speaking rationally...
about the reality if it...
etc...

plan A is short sweet discussions about contact...

PLAN B is the act of boundaries

for the path in plan A has clearly and lovingly been exposed....

if you waste plan A time powerstruggling grandiose ideas (in the junky mind of an active WS).it will hurt your plan A

become great bonding fodder for the WS and OP
play in to their hands....


people mistake when true recovery begins....
often round here..

ARK^^

Noodle, you said the following comments that are bold type. Following each statement is something to think about relative to the statement. Just my 2 cents worth. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Knowledge is power.

Knowledge by itself is NOT power. How and why that knowledge is applied is what is important.


A BS who is unwilling to become knowledgeable and skilled is one who is unwilling to defend themselves.

So "faith, hope, and love" in things unknown, or known only partially, has no bearing and can be of no use to someone under attack.


People who fail to defend themselves get slaughtered...they are at the mery of the merciless.

As a lamb led to the slaughter... Not my will but thine be done....


A BS who becomes knowledgeable and skilled becomes prepared for the battle and does not NEED other people to *get* them anywhere.

ahhh...."self-sufficiency." And we don't need Christ either. WE are "in control" of everything and WE are all that matters.


A BS who does not become prepared in this way will toss in the waves of emotional decisionmaking.

Perhaps. But the real question is "what knowledge?" What makes the "knowledge" you are acquiring the RIGHT knowledge? What makes that knowledge available to, and applicable to, everyone and what makes it a "universal truth" and merely a "justification" for doing whatever the INDIVIDUAL wants to do for themself?

You CAN eliminate "emotional indecisiveness" and STILL be proceeding down the wrong path.


Even if you got them to that place it would be your new job to keep them there.

Only if YOU are the LORD who HAS the power to make whatever you want come into being and to take away the other person's "Free Will" or the power to change the "heart" of the individual so that their "Free Will" is freed from the bondage to sin and evil.

It has to do with who IS Sovereign, not with wants and desires, and the motivation for humans to choose which Standards and Boundaries are the "right ones," regardless of "personal preference."

10Swords - Yes it is. It is all about you and all about them and your relationship with, and standing before, the Lord Almighty.




It is and it isn't. We are all responsible to God and God is the JUDGE of the actions. Feelings are the emotional reactions that we live with regardless of the cause of those feelings.




The Serenity Prayer is good, but again, the focus of that serenity is a recognition of WHO IS in control of all things and our relationship, or lack of one, with that person.




I would respectfully disagree. It would be disrespectful to FORCE someone to believe what you believe, even if what you believe IS the truth. It would be the height of "disrespect" to possess the truth and NOT to "argue" respectfully for that truth when someone contends for something that is "their right to believe" but that remains a false belief, nonetheless.

"It is 'okay' to touch that high tension wire" may be a sincere belief, but would you simply NOT "argue" the truth about electricity and the consequences of choosing to ignore that truth? They CAN choose to ignore you or reject the truth you are trying to present, but your "responsibility" is to STATE the truth and "argue" for why it is true. IF they choose to reject that truth, you are NOT going to "force it down their throats" because each of us has to come to accepting truth on our own.

You CAN "temporarily" "force" someone to abide by the truth, but as soon as you leave or turn your back on them, they will revert to their own nature and they will "test" that truth by grabbing onto the power line "just to prove you wrong."

You confuse "convincing" with "forcing." If that were true, there would be no such thing as a "convincing argument" and all discussion would be simply "relative." That stance eliminates TRUTH from the equation.

There IS, and can be, disrespectful argument (discussion) and there can be respectful argument (discussion), but the goal of all discussion is ultimately to make a choice of some kind. WHY is important. But people are free to "sincerely believe" whatever they want to believe, despite all the "why's" and despite the reality of absolute "truth" regardless of what they believe.



Attempting to "convince" someone through discussion, or "argument" if you will,

Thanks Ark,

after reading much of the above thread again and again, I'm beginning to see what boundaries I have formed during Plan B. I see them as my energy shield. They are the things that help me to remain centered and happy, just me.

As I said, I apply this to my child. He speaks disrespectfully to me, I state that I will not accept that from him, he continues, he goes to time out and I separate myself from the behavior (time out are HIS consequences, me separating myself is my boundary enforcement). When I receive an apology, we can begin to talk again. I then discuss what the REAL problem is, when he is calm and able to communicate.

I'm feeling that right now with my sitch. In Plan B, with a letter from WH stating his want to reconcile. My boundary of No third parties in my M will be stated (I don't know when yet, need to talk to Harleys). I have others, but will need to discuss those slowly...

Ark,

You said...



You then used the example of third party relationships.

I'm trying to learn a practical application of these skills and I have some questions.

If I am getting this correctly, a boundary, simply put, is determining "this is what is not acceptable/okay with me"...yes?

I cannot control you. I can only control me (am I following so far?).

If you choose to practice this behavior (the one that is NOT okay with me), I cannot make you stop, therefore I will (fill in the blank) in order to protect myself from this behavior.

The part I am having trouble with is "therefore I will (fill in the blank)".

What are appropriate actions to take in the name of boundary enforcement that don't cause further damage to the marriage?

If your spouse engages in:

Selfish Demands
Disrespectful Judgments
Angry Outbursts
Annoying Habits
Independent Behavior
Dishonesty

What are appropriate boundary enforcements to protect yourself from these actions?

Selfish Demands seem simple enough. I can choose not to honor his request so long as it is made in the form of a demand and tell him that I will not respond until he makes a thoughtful request. Doing this could also remove any enabling on my part of the behavior. The rest is up to him.

Angry Outbursts also seem simple. I can remove myself from the situation until he can communicate without attacking. If I respond to an Angry Outburst, I can also see how that would be enabling it to continue.

Annoying Habits - Say for example, my spouse has a propensity towards not cleaning up after himself around the house. If I am the one that wants the house picked up, I can either ask him to pick it up (a thoughtful request), I can choose to pick it up myself or I can live with the mess.
It seems as though picking it up for him would be enabling, so I am at a loss for an acceptable answer here.

Which brings me to the others that I also have no answer for...

Dishonesty, Independent Behavior and Disrespectful Judgments.

Dishonesty is the most difficult of these for me to identify appropriate boundary enforcement.

If my spouse is dishonesty with me, I will (fill in the blank).

Is it unjust to enforce a boundary if you SUSPECT your spouse is lying to you? What if you are pretty sure, because they gave contradictory answers to the same question?

How in the world can you protect yourself from this, other than completely removing yourself from the marriage?

Once you have made a thoughtful request of your spouse to eliminate this behavior, what is an acceptable amount of time to allow your spouse time to change this behavior?

These are some places that I get stuck.

This is a great discussion. It would help me a lot if we could apply these concepts to a hypothetical situation.

For example, say you are married and no previous history of adultery for either spouse. One night at a dinner party your spouse begins to openly flirt with an attractive person. This bothers you a lot because it hurts your feelings, embarrasses you in front of the other guests, etc. It's the first time you've seen this type of behavior. You want to set a boundary that flirting is not ok with you. (By the way, I'm not in this situation at all, but I was in the past.)

I could use some concrete examples or suggestions on how to state the boundary. Is there a POJA element to consider..

Now let's say that you have communicated your boundary and then your spouse flirts again at the next dinner party. So you have to enforce the boundary. What would enforcement look like -- suggestions here, please -- I realie everyone is different.

Now assume that the flirting continues despite enforcement. Then what...

Suggested language or words would really help me grasp this concept. Thank you!

I think you have a bee in your bonnet FH.

Looking through your recent posts...it seems you have something particular on your mind.

I noticed this morning in your reply to mys...I thought...hmmm...I don't disagree with what he's saying but I think it's a bit of a stretch as a response to THIS post and then lo and behold I have my very own reply in the same vein.

Is there something you just want to say about self sufficiency and the original nonMB specific meaning of waywardness, rebellion, ...anything?

This is somewhat out of context. The question I was answering was: "how do you deal with a spouse that feels s/he is being punishment" or, "How do you avoid the impression that what you're doing is punishing the other person.

Punishment is about the other person -- boundaries are about you.

It doesn't mean everything in the relationship or in the world is about you -- but your boundaries are certainly about you: what you choose to invite into your life, what you're willing to do, what you're not willing to do, possibly what you believe, etc.


Not ALL decisions - but decisions about your boundaries are. For example: if someone decides that they won't stay with a spouse if there's adultery -- then finds out there's adultery and decides to stay and try and work it out, then I feel that decision change is entirely appropriate for that person to make. Or, in the example that was referenced, if a person decides he wants to eat fish -- then that really is a personal choice.

*shrugs*

In a way this boils down to "should" and "are." There "should" be boundaries that are fixed, unchanging, and unchangable -- such as the personal boundary not to cheat on your spouse. Unfortunately, as we discover on this board every day, that boundary is not ACTUALLY fixed, unchanging, and unchangeable because many people DO rewrite that boundary and cheat. If it truly was fixed, unchanging, and unchangeable then when people promised "keep only unto each other until death do us part" then that would be it - we wouldn't be here talking about it.

Instead we learn that we can't just promise and forget it. We have to vigourously defend our boundaries and keep vigilant watch over ourselves and, sometimes, our spouses to ensure that the boundaries are solid and kept in tact.

Not all boundaries should be changed. But, some boundaries can be changed with no real repercussions (such as deciding to eat fish or deciding to clean socks, anyway). It just depends on what you're talking about. Not everything is a Big Deal(tm) -- but some things are.

As an aside, ForeverHers, I did read your reply on the other thread. I've started a reply a few times but can't quite put into words what I mean to say. I'll keep working at it. Please be patient with me.

Mys

frozen1229 - these are all areas that we all have to encounter and "deal with."

For most things, even the things you listed, the Boundary is whatever you establish as something that you will not allow to be done TO you by someone else.

The ACTION, the RESPONSE, the CONSEQUENCE of a violation of those boundaries is up to you. It is, if you will, what YOU will do in response to a "violation." You may have some Boundaries that are in common with other people and you may have some Boundaries that only a few others, perhaps even no one, else has. This has a lot to do with your evaluation of what is "important" to you.

Let's start with the "Boundary" of marriage. That Boundary can be intimately linked to your STANDARD, which is what your yourself will not "allow" yourself to do to someone else.

The "Marriage Boundary" that we are speaking of here is Absolute and Exclusive Fidelity to the Spouse...i.e., "forsaking ALL others and keeping myself only unto you." That is a personal STANDARD, not a Boundary. But the Boundary is that you also expect the other person's Standard to be true BECAUSE your Boundary FOR the marriage, for "giving up" your "singlehood right to have anyone you might have an interest in to be allowed into your life," IS that NO ONE else is allowed to be a "marital partner" in the "ONE FLESH" marriage that is created when you marry someone.

If a spouse violates that Boundary, then you have the right to "consequences." YOU establish those consequences and they can be "immediate divorce with no appeal," "attempting to 'save' your marriage and reestablish the covenant provision of exclusivity," "accepting of an 'open marriage' and throwing out your previous Boundary," etc.

When you ask the question; "What are appropriate boundary enforcements to protect yourself from these actions?" you are asking someone to make a value judgment based upon what they believe to be "absolute truths."

The framework for such decisions in that instance moves from "feelings, wants, desires" (solely self interest) to and external, objective, set of standards that apply to everyone whether any one individual believes they exist or not.

If that is the case, where does that "universal standard" come from and who has the "supreme authority" to establish those standards simply because they, not us, are Sovereign?

In the "big issues" it's seemingly simple enough to "draw a line in the sand" and say "you are either on one side of the line or the other. I am on 'this side,' now you choose your side and we can either stand together on the same side, regardless of what side anyone else chooses, OR we can be on opposite sides that CANNOT meet because they are in fundamental opposition to each other.

But you didn't stop there. You also asked about the issues that don't have a "line in the sand." You asked about those areas where there CAN be differences and you can still "live with" a differing viewpoint.

"How in the world can you protect yourself from this, other than completely removing yourself from the marriage?"

This where the concept of sacrificial love comes in and where your STANDARDS "dictate" the Boundaries and potential responses to a violation. The Biblical "explanation" of this is very simple and is operative all time, but especially so within a marriage.

"Love covers over a multitude of sins."

There are many things that we simply choose to "not hold against someone," to "overlook," to not "dwell on," simply because we choose to love DESPITE an infrigement of our Boundary that is an offshoot of our own Standard (i.e. NOT to engage in Dishonesty, Independent Behavior and Disrespectful Judgments ourselves.)

Christ did NOT come into the world to judge it, but to save it. Judgment is reserved for another time when there WILL BE an "accounting" when He returns the second time. In the meantime, He patiently endures our "waywardness" in many area, teaching and showing by His example HOW we should live, who's standards should apply, and what boundaries are eternally significant and which are not. The answer to your concluding question is intimately tied in with this truth. "Once you have made a thoughtful request of your spouse to eliminate this behavior, what is an acceptable amount of time to allow your spouse time to change this behavior?" Perhaps it is "until death do us part." Perhaps it is "dependent upon the strength of the faithful spouse's relationship with, and identification with," Christ.

God KNOWS how difficult the situation of adultery is and that is why, of all the "Boundary violations" God allows a faithful spouse to divorce an unfaithful spouse, but NOT because the spouse "no longer pleases me" or "lies to me."

The Covenant with God in marriage is broken by the unfaithful spouse. God hates divorce because because God remains faithful to ALL of His covenants, but He also KNOWS when someone is willing to submit their will to His will, as can only happen when someone IS a born again believer. God will also protect the believing faithful spouse in such a situation of unrepentant adultery AND in the case where the faith of the faithful spouse is "too weak" to walk in the strength and trust IN GOD, rather than in "self." The Boundary that God established in marriage is ONE man and ONE woman, exclusively. The "consequence" of that Boundary violation God gives to HIS CHILD, the faithful spouse, to forgive a repentant spouse(a command, not a choice) AND to either continue living with that person or to divorce and live apart(a choice).


God bless.

Noodle - Not particularly. But consider this, because I've "been down this road before" in many previous discussions.

Does Evil exist?

Who gave us our "Morals?"

Is there such a thing as "Absolute Morals" or are all Morals "Relative" to whatever the individual wants to "pick and choose" for their own purposes.

Does "absolute truth" exist or are ALL things merely "relative" and subject to change?

[color:"red"]Froz[/color]... you are not going to like what I write. However, I think it is germane ... it is, I admit, rather abrupt. Here goes:


"I will marry him."

Which informs your spouse where your boundary is set regarding honesty.

And, I am not implying there is anything wrong with you.

I am very aware that HONESTY is my top emotional need, my personal number one.

In order to understand boundaries, one must grasp/understand/accept what their own needs are.

Until anyone understands themselves, the boundary issue is very fluid.

I don't believe HONESTY is your number one EN. Do you know what is?

Pep

FH,

Obviously I can only speak for myself...

I believe evil exists.

I'm less certain about morals...I may be misunderstanding you here.

I do think absolute truth exists but I also think it is impossible or at least very unlikely that I will ever grasp it or understand it fully. I doubt I will see the full and complete picture in my limited existence.

myschae - You can't and you don't "avoid the impression." People interpret everything from their perspective, not from yours.

Here is the "ultimate" example, if you will:

"The wages of sin is death."

The Boundary is established, the consequence of violation is stated, and the "violator" can "feel" any "impression" or response that they want to.

"The day that you eat from the tree that I have forbidden you to eat from is the day that you shall SURELY die."

But then, "God didn't REALLY mean what He said and His Boundary "doesn't apply to me."

The TRUTH was that Adam and Eve WOULD die, would lose eternal life without physical death preceding eternity. The truth was also, that they would not drop dead instantly in their tracks, but that spiritually they did die instantly.

Unrepentant Wayward Spouses, likewise, will not be divorced immediately. It may take as short a period of time as how long it takes to get a divorce on the next opening on the court docket or it may never happen. They may have a spouse who is willing to endure their "waywardness" for a time, but as with all things, time in the physical world is finite. There WILL come a day when "time runs out." The choice was made, and the consequences will follow. ONLY repentance can alter the potential consequence and only the unmerited grace of the forgiver can "reunite" the wayward and the faithful, and "rescue life together" instead of life apart.





Take all the time you need. We all have "more to do" than just post on MB. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />