Noodle,

I hope you are kidding right?
A person can say no but some people are not strong enough to do that.

David Koresh(sp), Charles Manson, and others had some control over other Adults they could have said no. In most cases when people speak of these people they talk about the Control they had over others.

I can control my FWW's spending by not depositing our money into a joint bank account and giving her ten dollars a week.

I can control what she watches when I am not home by not having cable.

I can disconnect our home phone because I control the finances.

My FWW doesn't have much family support so they couldn't or wouldn't help her.

I wouldn't but I am sure some people do.

Not to mention the people that control their spouses with threats of violence.

Ah, grasshopper learning..

[b]Knowledge is power.

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

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

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

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

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

b]

Frog,

You can do all of those things, but you don't actually CONTROL any of it.

Your wife can get a credit card without you knowing, she can spend what she wants, she can go to a friends house to watch TV, she can sign up for her own cell phone...

People who follow Jim Jones, David Koresh, they have choice in it. They choose to do it with their own knowledge base.

Just like I choose not to be in a M of three. Really, my choice, not H's; he would have preferred the threesome. I, however, don't do three...

Some people make a choice to hand over their power to another person. That in itself is a choice.


Again, these people willingly chose to hand over their personal power to someone else. Koresh et al had control only because these people decided, of their own free will and control to give up their power to these psychopaths.


And you or 'other people' could only do that as long as she chooses to let you.

That control is imaginary.

Boundaries are about self-love, self protection, self control, self respect....boundaries are about how you care for yourself, and have nothing to do about controlling others.

Think of it this way:

I can not control the weather. I don't like to get wet and I don't like getting cold.

When it rains or snows, I do not stand outside threatening the sky with ultimatums about what I'll do if it doesn't produce the warm sunny day that I want.

Instead, I protect myself - defend my boundary - I get a raincoat, or stay indoors.

Noodle,

Of course she could do any of those things.

I think you are we are arguing an issue with two exteme's. Do I beleive most people can be controlled, in a sense.

I think SL said it the best, people chose to give up their control.

At any point someone can slowly give up control to the point, In that persons mind they don't have control nor can they say no to the person in control, in their mind. In reality they could.

Not to mention people who are phsically abused by their S. Starts out small then escalates where a person is in fear of their life. Do their spouses not control them through fear?

Yes you are right there are shelters and jails etc. But last time I checked it happens all over.

People choose to not enforce boundaries every day Frog.

Usually..it does start out small.

Over time the boundaries have been moved and dismissed to such an extend that the person has lost all sense of direction.

They don't recognise abuse because it doesn't stand out in stark contrast...there is nothing to compare it with.

This is frequently the case with WSs.

Grasping boundaries removes the possibility for resentment...no one compels me to do anything...I choose and live with the outcomes of my choices.

It is dumbfounding...honestly to realize you have been pouring your effort into the wrong vessel.

Like realizing you just ran tweny miles in the wrong direction.

You are tired but you didn't get where you wanted to go.

Interestingly enough, I had a boundary YEARS ago, prior to being with my H, that if anyone cheated on me I would turn my back and leave.

Clearly I moved that boundary, once I was faced with the action...or did I, I am, in a way, turning my back and leaving. My WH is not leaving me, I am leaving him...

edited to add...

I was wrong in stating that I moved that boundary, clearly that boundary still existed, I do believe that I elaborated on what conditions I would need to enforce.

Not only that but there is a posibility this leads to an A. The moving of boundreis and dismissal really means there are no boundries.

I read here I think that boundaries are the way you teach people how you want to be treated.

What you do when someone crosses that is up to you as an individual.

Hey before my FWW's A I thought I had the boundry if that happened I would get a D.

Pushed that one back.

I see.

Suppose one of these people who had lost all sense of direction wanted to run 20 (or 30 or 4000) miles in the RIGHT direction...where would they begin?

By learning about boundaries of course! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Taking the object oriented approach to this, bondaries are fences. Nothing more. Yes?

The next object would be the enforcement of the boundary.

in some cases, the enforcement might reflect the fence, like if my boundary is I will not eat fish, then when fish is presented to me, I don't eat. Maybe I get up and leave. But still no fish.

In yet another case, the enforcement might show that the boundary was not so static. Present me with fish, of which I said I won't eat, and then I try it anyway. So maybe I used the boundary as a form of deterrent, which seems to imply that I have no true interest in enforcing it. Also, isn't a deterrent a control?

and what of consequences?

I gather that punishment, as most people I know understand it, is not appropriate boundary enforcement, yes? Like taking away your husband's laptop because he lied to you?

maybe I understand some things... maybe I don't But I thought that breaking it down into objects could help me define the pieces and get them working together.

Enforcing boundaries starts with a decision about what you're going to do about it. Boundary enforcement is not about getting the other person to participate, it's about making decisions about what you plan to do and executing those steps.

For example:

I decide that I'm not willing to be yelled at. If someone starts yelling, I remove myself from the situation. The other person is perfectly welcome to continue yelling after I am gone -- or stop -- or whatever.

Or, I decide I'm no longer going to discuss something. The other person can continue to talk about it (I might get up and walk away if it becomes tiresome) but I'm not going to try to get the other person to stop talking. S/he can continue to discuss the issue, without my participation, for as long as s/he wants.

Boundaries aren't about rehabilitating others -- but they do have an effect on how you're treated. As Dr. Phil likes to say: People do what works. Having a monologue when you really want a conversation doesn't work for most people. Having an argument by yourself is no fun, either.

I think that people who really get boundaries can state them pretty matter of factly as:

This is what I'm going to do in <this> situation.

Then, they leave the other person's reaction up to them. The other person isn't required to DO anything. They might decide that they WANT to, if whatever you stop doing is important enough for them. Or, not. If the other person gets mad or feels sorry or feels abused/abandoned, it's really not my problem. I've made a decision about what I'm going to do. The other person has to figure out what s/he's going to do.

Plan B is designed to be boundary enforcement. It states what the person is going to do (remove themselves), why (loosing love, too painful) and what the WS can do about it if they don't really like that option. Then, a good Plan B, means withdrawing to a respectful distance and refusing to engage any more.

In essence, it's saying: I acknowledge that you have the ability to choose an affair/continue to damage the marriage. I care enough about myself to choose not to be part of that toxic environment. Here's some information. Do what you think you have to do.

A good Plan B, leaves the choices entirely up to the WS. It tends to work best when the BS isn't chomping at the bit for some sign of rehabilitation -- but rather, when the BS stays neutral to whatever "problems" the WS finds with the return conditions.

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

ok... so I have that part right


so a boundary enforcement is what? something about me I gather, but how do you keep it from being about someone else? How do you enforce something without it LOOKING like a punishment?


so then if you state a boundary and then you bend on it, be honest with yourself and call it what it really is? A preference?



so is a deterrent a control? what right do you have to get something done? in making this all about the me of the situation, I guess you have to accept that you might nave to leave a marriage in order to enforce a boundary




is the consequence simply I am hungry because I didn't eat the fish? or is it something else?

I gather that punishment, as mst people I know understand it, is not appropriate boundary enforcement, yes?


yes... punishment is your desire to make the other person pay. How do you stop someone from doing it to you? Let me guess. A boundary. It seems really simple to say boundary but if you are not getting what you want, I guess you are left with not getting what you want.

You stop watching the other person for some sign of a reaction.

You stop making your choices based on how you think you can get the other person to make a different choice and, instead, make choices based on how you can best cope with the situation.

For example:

If my boundary is that I won't wash socks unless they are in the hamper then I simply state that. "I am not willing to launder socks unless they are in the hamper." Enforcement means simply ignoring all socks that don't make it into the hamper. If the other person runs out of socks -- you express sympathy "It sucks to be out of socks." and leave them to solve their own problems. You don't start washing socks because you're afraid the other person will wear dirty socks twice (or three times or until they fall off their feet).

You learn to LET GO of the outcomes for other people. Pretty soon, people catch on that it's not all about them.


You are always free to change your mind. Why not say you've reconsidered and decided something different? I don't know why people seem to be so leery of acknowleding that they had a decision in the past that they no longer like. People change -- decisions change.


I think boundaries work best because they manage people's expectaitons about your behavior. We learn a lot about each other by living with each other. I bet you know the first 5 things your wife does every morning when she wakes up or every evening before she goes to bed. Part of the 'comfortableness' of having family around is knowing everyone's little quirks. You know so-and-so tends to forget to put the lid tighly on the coffee jar so you pick it up by the bottom. You know so-and-so forgets his gloves so you stuff them in his pocket.

Think abou this: If you've ever lost someone you've loved -- what do you talk about most when remembering? You talk about those funny little quirks that you never quite understood but now really miss since that person's not around anymore.

Guess what? You have quirks, too.

People will learn what to expect from you and their behavior adapts. It's just what happens.


Punishment is about making the other person's behavior the focus of your efforts rather than figuring out how to nurture and protect yourself. If the successful enforcement of your boundary (protection ) only happens when the other person changes -- then you're missing the point.

Mys