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.

Also...

As a result of the requirement for mutual cooperation in boundary failure...

It is generally true that BOTH parties fail to recognize or defend a boundary and both will allow their autonomy to be usurped AND will attempt to seize control of areas that do not belong to them.

Boundaries are something that you either understand or you do not.

If you do not it odds are good that you have been stomping around as though they do not exist...chances are also good that your partner is doing the same.

What happens when a person who does not recognize boundaries TRIES to cross the boundary of a person who does?

Nothing.

They will not be able to cross the fence. They are stuck on their own side.

And another thing...

So with that in mind it is easy to see how a claim can go either way.

A spouse may say "You are trying to control me" and be correct...you may very well be invading their territory.

On the other hand...what you may be doing is refusing to allow them to control YOU.

The only way to know for sure is to examine which side of the fence any issue falls on.

To me it is not a boundry if there isn't a consequence if you cross it.

Again you do not need an ultimatum to enforce the boundry.

It can be simple if you cross this boundry I will .....

IE if you flirt I will walk out and leave you there. Simple. I do not want to control her. I can control the respect she gives me. Her choice.

In almost every aspect of our lives we make choices like these.

By the way a boundry should be incrementally enforced IMVHO.

BrambleRose and noodle -

I wanted to thank you both for taking time to share your insights on this topic. You have both stated much more eloquently and accurately what I was trying to drive at. I appreciate it, and I hope others can learn from it as well.

FNM -


I both agree and disagree with this. I think it depends on both on the boundary in question and the history.

If you have someone who has consistently not enforced their boundaries in a relationship, things may get to the point where a very large enforcement (i.e., all out) is required.

Under ideal conditions, yes, I think there's room in boundaries for incremental enforcement. But in some cases and/or with some boundaries, there can be only one enforcement.

What do you mean by incrementally enforced..and what do you mean by should?

noodle ~ fantastic stuff.

frog ~ I remember a conversation I had with my brother who was very new to 12 step recovery and very new to understanding boundaries, and control and enabling... This conversation was years ago when I was deciding if I should take my husband back....

My brother said: "BR, if you let him come back now, he will experience no consequences for his behavior."

My reply, which still holds now, was: "Little brother, it is not my job to enforce consequences on my husband. My job is to decide what I will choose to allow or choose not to allow in my life. I need to decide what is best for ME, not what is best for him!"

And with that...my decision was made...and while on my 'pity party for BR' days I sometimes second guess my choice, a talk with my sponsor reminds me about choices, boundaries, and what I really have control over...

Well noodle I can't clarify the word should LOL.

What I mean is that for me and again that is why I put IMVHO.

The first time the boundry is crossed (and hopefully the las time) the enforcement could be telling the person they crossed your boundry. In other words you did this I don't like being treated like that.

If the boundry is crossed again maybe you say the same thing in a angry tone. Then up to and including the dreaded ultimatum.

Lets use my sitch again. The first time my FWW did that I assumed she wasn't aware and told her I didn't like or approve. The second time I said it in an angrie tone. As she continued to cross the boundry I finally got our stuff and left and it was then I told her next time I would leave.

I didn't go straight to leaving her there.

I see what you are saying but the basic point is..your boundaries and the consequences of them being crossed are about ~you~.

Leaving the situation may be a consequence.

So may puttng your fingers in your ears, puffing out your cheeks, and stomping your feet.

So may sitting in your car farting.

The biggest determiming factor in a boundary issue is the understand that YOU are the only person you control...and the only person you are responsible for.

So if you find it intolerable..you certainly CAN leave [using as one possible option only]...it gets haired up when you start thinking about HER REACTION to you leaving.

Then you are messing on her side of the fence and making reaction based choices and ~trying~ to be controlling and manipulative.

I hear people saying ENFORCE YOUR BOUNDARIES over and over. Maybe explaining what that would look like would make this WHOLE subject much more clear.

When I went into Plan B at the end of last year, I was enforcing my boundary of not being a part of a triangle. Consequences abounded, I was unable to see my H, I was unable to hold my family together, WH was unable to see me, come to his house, see his son, use his garage, see his dogs, etc. When WH breaks my Plan B, it is because 'I' am not enforcing my boundaries. I'm accepting his communication, for some reason or other.

When he had his initial A, I allowed him to continue it by not enforcing the very same boundary, by becoming a doormat (prior to finding MB, of course). I had no discernable boundary...

So, maybe a discussion of what ENFORCEMENT looks like will clear things up, instead of just trying to state what a boundary might be; HOW would a boundary be?

frog ~


What you are describing are love busters.

Angry outbursts and selfish demands are lovebusters - not boundry enforcement.

As noodle points out - you can choose to do all of that.

But all it will result in is a loss of love deposits in your spouses bank as a result of the LBs...and perhaps give you a temporary sense of control (which is illusionary) over someone else.

If you do not understand WHAT a boundary is...you can not successfully navigate and wield.

Let's break your thoughts down SL and see what we come up with.

boundary enforcement is removal of self away from toxic/dangerous stuff
~or~
removal of toxic dangerous stuff away from self

boundary enforcement is not another discussion or an arguement

boundary enforcement is an action

Pep

Perfect Pep!

Noodle,

Exactly!!! That part is simple my enforcement is personal in a sense. I am removing myself from the sitch. Or I am expressing to her that boundry is there to protect me!!!!

Now on her side we all know well and good she will probably be very angry that I left. That is not why I did it that is a consequence of me enforcing my boundry.

Again it gets messy here right. Because now she is mad at me for enforcing my boundry. I may have crossed her boundry because she crossed mine. LOL.

Which I am sure has happened in many M.

SL I love your entire post by the way.

honest to God

I learned more about boundary enforcement from my PARENTING errors than I did from any other experience in my life

"incremental enforcement" ... means show where your weakness are

Pep

parenting errors - omg yes.

My children could care less about threats. If i had a dime for every stupid time I said: "If you do that again, I'll do XYZ". Only to have them figuratively and sometimes literally thumb their noses at me because they could translate loud and clear that what I really said was: "Yes, go ahead, keep doing that, I'm not serious!"

They only behave when they understand that swift, immediate action will result in their crossing the line.

but lest anyone misconstrue....one does not treat a spouse like a child while enforcing boundaries..

I removed myself from the triangle by entering Plan B. I consider that enforcement of my boundary to be in a M, and not in a threesome...

Now, say my H starts talking to some woman on the phone outside of business hours and I am uncomfortable with that (which happened to me). I stated that his R with this woman made me uncomfortable. 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?

I could draw a boundary around the color yellow.

I could say...I will not speak to anyone who says the word yellow or fails to agree with me that yellow is a horrid color.

Not one person in the world has to stop liking yellow.

I may be very lonely as a result of my boundary.

Parenting mistakes LOL.

But you know what PEP again you are right. God I hate saying that.

Perfect example of incremental enforcement.

My OS could be a guide book on my part.

He had school work. He doesn't do it. I don't threaten him. I take away some priveledges. As it continues, I continue to take away more and more.

Right now he thought I must have been kidding. LOL

He has no computer for 3 weeks. He goes to the library at lunch for the next 3 weeks for homework help and to do his homework. He has to have his teachers sign off he was there for help. His teachers sign off that he has written down his homework that night. We counter sign it. His teachers have my Cell number, my FWW's Cell number and our Email address' if he isn't up to speed. The principal of the school is in the loop. Any day his homework is not written down and signed by the teacher he goes to bed early and loses his PS2 for the day.

Trust me we didn't start there. LOL.

What if a BS is not ready to move onto Plan B, but has a WS who is continuing their A via a computer?

What options do they have?

It is w/in their control to cancel the internet connection, would canceling it be considered controlling or boundary setting?

~ Marsh

Lol..

I would say boundary.

Of course the other spouse may enforce THEIR boundary around the affair and connect it five minutes later.

Hi Marsh -


I think here you're getting into enabling/not enabling vs boundaries. I think it's perfectly legitimate for a BS to cancel the internet connection (especially if they are paying for it) if it is being used to enable an affair.

I wish I had done that in my case when I first found out.

'Course, I could be wrong on that - seems like it's my day to be wrong on the forums <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

OK, my H had a boundary of 'personal' space when it came to others being able to have access to his phone bills, so he changed phone services, and got a separate account. I would say he enforced that boundary well.

In all seriousness though...

The issue isn't the computor...it's the affair.

As a BS [nonaffairee] you can't actually make their choices for them.

Unhooking the connection will not end the affair.

That is how people get lost in power struggles.

This is where ~consequences~ come into discussion...and they are nearly endless.

A likely consequence of an affairee refusing to stop either the affair or blatantly dismissing the request of their spouse is further loss of love.

The BS not ready to enforce a "no triangle" boundary will likely be more ready than they were before.

See to me that is the problem it always comes back to that. Enforcing or Controlling.

I say again if it gets to that point there are some serious respect problems.

Sometimes a controlling person has just gotten to the point where they are continually enforcing boundries.

Some IMVHO are common sense and shouldn't need to be spoken let alone enforced.

Noodle,




This is what I was saying about Plan B, it was my way of removing myself from the 2nd triangle. Talking about the consequences of that was just what it was, consequences. My 'perception' of his consequences is just assumption, really, not fact...

Frog.

How can one adult control another.

We have to remember that the other person can say "no" any old time.

I'm confused by your response here.

Enforce...

compel to behave in a certain way

Hi HB!

I see it as enabling too.

~ Marsh

Compel ~who~?

That's one of the web definitions of enforce.

The others had to do with law enforcement...

enforcing personal boundaries is SELF control

*sheesh*

You are so right on this.

How can you help a fearful BS to get to the point where they will enforce that no triangle boundary?

It is so distressing to watch a BS struggle w/ this.

~ Marsh

That's it exactly Pep...

My boundaries compel *me* to make choices and changes and decisions.

Choice, change and decision are words of consequence.

Boundaries have consequences.

A boundary, to me, does not suggest trying to compel a response, and I wonder if 'enforcing' is the proper term to use in reference to boundaries.

then pick a term to your liking

when you do THAT

you've just enforced YOUR personal boundary

you can not control, compel, enforce someone else to make choices that you like.

you can control yourself.

you can not control the result.

you can not force someone to respect you.

you can respect yourself.

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

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="" />

Noodle, okay, let's discuss this a little.


Why? What makes the distinction that one behavior is "evil" and another is "good"? What is the "Measuring stick" that is applied regardless of any one individual's perspective, inclination, or choice?



You may be misunderstanding, and if so, that is because I was not sufficiently clear, so the problem is mine. A definition of terms is always essential to a discussion.

Where does Man's ability to understand "right from wrong," to establish and distinguish between "good moral behavior" and "bad moral behavior" that applies to all of mankind, regardless of individual beliefs or desires?

I submit, as a Christian, that it came from God in that we were created to have a personal relationship with a Holy God who has no evil in Himself, and that that relationship was to be based in love and submission of one's will to God' will, to trust God before all others.

God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and when Adam and Eve ate of the tree, in placing their will above God's will, they received as one of the consequences of that choice the KNOWLEDGE of evil and the knowledge of good AS DEFINED by God.

Since that fateful day, all humans have that "moral code" passed down to them. They have the knowledge, but lack the ability in themselves to choose, much less live, perfect lives devoid of any sin.

Humans try to "get close" to the Standard by applying things like the "Golden Rule," but that is not the same thing as living from birth to death devoid of ANY sin, simply because we are born with a sin-nature that is inclined to sin, not to good.




The "full and complete picture" of the "absolute truth" is Jesus Christ. We have that picture and we can see it. But we can't have that picture for ourselves BY ourselves. It is a gift that is given to us by God.

God bless.

ForeverHers
I read your reply. It's very hard for me to relate what you're saying to any meaning because I simply don't experience a life steeped in Christianity the way you do. The stuff you bring up that is undoubtably relevant and illustrative to you (and other Christains, perhaps) is generally confusing to me.

I think my efforts to understand tend to derail more threads than advance further discussion. I think the best thing to do is for me to continue to give my secular advice on situations and continue to read your take on situations without me commenting on the questions and confusion that sometimes arises. (It's not that I don't think you're willing to answer, you've always taken a lot of time to do so. It's that I don't think it's doing anyone any good.)

I wish you all the best life has to offer,

Mys

[color:"red"]Pep[/color]...

Hello to you. Thanks for responding.

I did not NOT like what you said at all. I appreciate any feedback that offers me solutions because I am just plain stuck and have been for quite some time.

I am not looking to hear what I want to hear. I am looking for something I can use because I am completely dissatisfied with my situation and I have zero idea what I can do/stop doing to make it better, short of leaving the marriage.

As far as that option goes, I am afraid that by staying, I am simply trying to make what is an unacceptable situation acceptable and will continue to fail.

I am afraid that by choosing to leave, I will be seeing things as black/white and missing options and changes I could make within myself. What if I leave and it is a mistake? What if the there is some way that I could change/respond that could turn this ship around?

That said,



I know that I made this mistake. I know that I put myself in this position. What I don't know is what I can do about it today.



I am confused by your statement. I am not seeing what you see.

"What is an emotional need? It is a craving that, when satisfied, leaves you with a feeling of happiness and contentment, and, when unsatisfied, leaves you with a feeling of unhappiness and frustration."

I looked at all the other EN's. I don't see any that I would prefer over Honesty and Openness.

apologies if I'm OT a bit from where this thread was headed, but I think I learn best with concrete examples and real-life scenarios

Anyone willing to give suggested language for communicating and enforcing boundaries? (I gave an example above of flirting)

(I wish I had the communication skills of schoolbus!)

thanks

NTS,

I think you are actually OT with the intended direction of this thread.

Your flirting was a real life scenario for me in my M. It happened before the A, I believe it was a big factor in the A, and it continued after the A.

Her flirting was no longer acceptable to me.

So I stated to her that her flirting is not acceptable to me. It is disrespectful to me as a person for my W to act taht way.

The first time she crossed the boundry, I made her aware of it and asked her to not do it again. I pointed out it seems to happen at certain times and I would like her to be aware of it.

The next time it happened I did essentially the same thing in a more agitated tone.

It progressed to me just telling her it is time to leave and go home.

Finally I let her know that if she decided to do that again I would leave her wherever we were. She would be responsible for getting home on her own. I will not come back and get her.

So there it is for me. I stated my boundary. I decided how I would enforce it to protect my boundary. It worked for me.

Each situation can be different. Each boundary is different.

neverthesame


"Flirting is not OK with you." is not a boundary. It's simply information.

A boundary consists of 2 main parts: 1.) a reference to what you're addressing (Flirting is not ok, it hurts my feelings.) and 2.) What you plan to do about it.

If you haven't come up with or communicated the "What you plan to do about it." portion then all you've done is given your spouse information about you -- like: "I like the color blue."

Before you communicate the boundary, you figure out what you think is reasonable and proper to protect yourself. What, exactly, do you mean by "not OK?" Do you mean that you'll be angry? Do you mean that you'll stop meeting your partner's EN's until you calm down? Do you mean you'll leave the party? Do you mean you won't agree to go to any more parties? Do you mean you'll file for divorce?


If the flirting continues, you execute your boundary. Your spouse can flirt. You do what you decided to do to protect yourself.

Maybe your boundary is that you won't worry about being rude in public if he flirts.

So you make direct statements during the 'flirtation' like: "I think that was an inappropriate thing to say and I don't believe either of you should have this conversation." or "Does your H know you're saying this to another man?" to make things uncomfortable the people around.

There doesn't need to be a lot of conversation around good boundaries. What really makes them effective is the action you take rather than the words you toss around.

If you say:

"Honey, it really hurts my feelings when I see you touching/telling dirty jokes/making innuendos/<whatever> other women at parties. I'm not willing to be hurt like this so next time it happens, I'm going to be really rude/leave without you/stop going/<whatever you've decided to do>."

Then, when it happens, don't talk about it. DO IT.

Mys

Wow. Lots of good ideas and discussion going on here.

Something that seems to stand out (for me), is that boundaries are an expression of both an activity/action you are not willing to tolerate, and the reason why.

For example, "I will not abide a third party in our marriage. It drains my love for you and impedes my ability to be intimate* with you." could be a boundary. (* By intimacy, I mean emotional as well as physical.)

Stating that lets the other person know not just the what of the situation, but the why.

Whatever action I choose to take in response to a violation of my boundary needs to be centered on me, correct? Without an ulterior motive of trying to get the other person to do what I want/prefer them to do?

So would it be reasonable to say that when defining your boundaries, that you should also understand the why behind your boundary? I.e., why is this a boundary? What is the effect it has on me if it is crossed, and is it an effect I want or need to protect myself from?

Lets look at the flip side of living with a boundary...

Mr. Ark has a boundary..that exists that we never have to discuss...and in theory he probably has only mentioned it once or twice in the fifteen years of marriage...

but I know it's there...\

here's a boundary that I live "under" in my marriage...

when we first got married...we both smoked....he quit...
I kept going...

I LOVED TO SMOKE>...
I was really good at it..
I could work the shift in the car.......drink coffee and smoke all at the same time.....

when I became pregnant I quit cold turkey....

the truth is I would still love to smoke now and then...(atleast I think I would)



Mr. Ark has said a few times...

I could never go back to living with someone who smokes..
I wouldn't be able to stand it....
he didn't argue with me
he didn't tell me I couldn't smoke...

and I know he is telling the truth...

If I were start smoking I truly believe that he would establish seperate households...

he doesn't care if anyone else smokes...
he's not on a anti-smoking campaign...
he just has decided that for him he will not ever live with someone that smokes....

there for the reason why I don't smoke anymore.....cause I miss it.(sometimes)..even with all the evidence out there...

I don't smoke because I truly believe that he would leave..
and I don't find this controlling
I don't find him making me do anything...

I just adore him enough...that I am not going to smoke...
and that is my main motivation for not do so..

because I want to stay married to him...more than I want to be seperated from him...

so it is actually very easy to NOT engage in the action that he can not tolerate...

there's no need for him and I to discuss this...

I could go on and on and on about my "right to smoke" blah blah blah...
and he'd listen and agree with everything I said...

then he'd move out...
and or take the kids the with him...

that's his boundary..
fair warned is fair game...

ARK

love the "flip side"

this is really one way to "get it" is to see yourself come up against your spouse's boundary

Pep

Good point.

I think it is an if then statement in a sense. If you do this then I will do that.

BTW in order for it to really be a boundry you have to do that.

Please reference Peps analogy about kids.

I am on the 15th level of the if then statement but he always gets the Then part.

I am at the point with him and boundries I am getting afraid there is not going to be a then left. LOL.

I might have to lend him out for manual labor cause that's all I have left.

So if it keeps going that way in our home and you live in the So Cal area let me know.

Son if you keep not doing your homework then you will be doing manual labor for the rest of your life so I am going to show you how that will be. Hey pep you need any yardwork done. LOL.

I don't think this can be a boundary. You're basically telling a kid that you'll impose consequences if he doesn't do what you tell him you think he should. Boundaries are about defining oneself. If you decide that you will not do your childs homework - then you won't, and he'll have to suffer the consequences of not doing it if he decides not to. You're not protecting him from the consequences of his actions (or lack of action) by doing something that you decide is not in your character.

[color:"red"] Froz [/color]



the "what if" mind game causes undue anxiety to ones self

what I was taught is

when you say "what if" and then you STOP there it raises anxiety...

finish the sentence what if (blah blah blah) ... then I would ..... task needing to be done

Pep

I think DISCIPLINE differs from personal boundaries.

There must be expectation for a child to do their homework, or they would never do it. I know if I didn't get off of my butt and go back to the lab and do some benchwork, I wouldn't get paid, and prolly lose my job. That's a consequence of my decision to not work.

NOW, if my boss fires me due to lack of work, that is the organizations boundary being enforced...no work, you get fired.

Possibly a moment of clarity for me.

A boundary is a fence that establishes what is ok and not ok for me. What I will allow in and what I will not. Also it simply establishes what is mine and what is not.

I realized something it provides.

It removes fear.

When I say “I will not participate in X” I am stating my boundary and as long as I truly mean it, then I have removed my fear of what will happen if the boundary is crossed. No consequence. It is not my job nor my property to provide consequence. It is my job to control ME, so if I state a boundary and it is crossed, I have the tool in place to enforce my boundary.

I can not control others so I should not fear what they may or may not do. If they do it, that is life, and I have my boundary to protect me. I may not like what has happened, but I have my boundary and that is that.

Take a relevant situation here.

I had an A. froz certainly did not like it but she has chosen to marry me anyway and here we are. So what is an appropriate boundary? I think it would be “I will not stay married to you if you have an affair again” Plainly stated. Now, she has nothing to fear because she doesn’t have to sit in “what am I going to do” land. She knows. She is leaving me. Now, she may certainly not like having to leave me. But often times everyone has to do things they don’t like in order to protect themselves from the ‘evil’ actions of others. That said, there is no reason to fear because a PLAN is stated and only must be followed in the case of boundary infringement.

So IF she states that as her boundary AND I want to NOT have her enforce it, then I will NOT have an affair. Pretty simple.

Now, if she is afraid that I might have an affair, then possibly her boundary is not something she really means to enforce and therefore is not really a boundary at all.

Imposing a consequence on someone is about them. Enforcing a boundary is about me. Possibly I have a boundary about yelling. I will not be yelled at. If I am yelled at, because I don’t like being yelled at, then I will simply walk out of the room and remove myself from the situation. When the yelling is over, I would be willing to re-engage in talking but not until then. Does that seem like a good boundary and plausible enforcement?

I am not articulating this very well… maybe noodle can help me, but I ‘feel’ like the right answer is a boundary removes fear. If I state a boundary and it gets crossed, I don’t fear, because I KNOW what I am going to do about it. But, I would have to remain mindful of ‘revenge’ like behavior and making the person ‘earn’ the right to talk to me again. Making them.. is about them and not something I can do. I can control me all the time, if I so choose. So if they push a boundary, no need to fear. I know what I am going to do and that something is about protecting me. Not about making them pay.

Maybe I have something here?

[color:"red"]Pep [/color],

Will you help me?

sure
when you figure out your top 3 ENs ... let me know

I can't help you if you don't know enough about yourself

here is a true story about my boundary setting

WH was full of remorse after D day, and willing to have NC immediately ... my boundary (as advised by therapist) .. . was stated thus:

"In order to live together, I will require you to attend AA meetings."

H responded: "I've stopped drinking."

Pep: "Let me know when you've decided to attend AA meetings, Until then, we will not live together."

he made his choice to go to AA & stay there
either way was acceptable to me
one was prefered
but both were acceptable

Pep

Honesty and Openness
Conversation
Affection

I have chosen relationships in the past with men who did not meet these, my 3 top emotional needs. They are the things that, when met, make me feel the most cared for and loved.

If you decide to continue our conversation, how would you feel about talking somewhere else?

Honesty and Openness
Conversation
Affection

I have chosen relationships in the past with men who did not meet these, my 3 top emotional needs. They are the things that, when met, make me feel the most cared for and loved.

[b]Would you see a doctor who was dishonest with you?

If the answer is "NO"

why would you date/marry someone you knew was dishonest? What's in it for you?

there MUST be another higher priority need in order for you to ignore obvious dishonesty

figure that one out

carry it over to my EN thread....

Pep

This is where I messed up big!! I did not know about boundaries when I married and I made it my job to "teach" my husband what to do. And resented him for it greatly, but I had rationalized this behavior. I thought he was worth the effort...good guy...just growing...how judgemental in the first place and now I have found out he has a sex addiction and he never really wanted to go out and learn on his own. I was another good reason not to.

Now I have put up fort knox fences and I do not want to do anything that would be giving him information or help of any kind. I feel used up and I refuse to be anything that resembles the actions of a mother. No accountability no nothing. It is all on his plate. I have to add though that I did not just drop it there like a bomb. There was a gradual process.

Patriot - you got it, perfectly.

*BUMP*

*BUMP* for Velvet

BUMP for Wheels_Spinning (and everyone else)

Bump

BUMP for Jealousy

BUMP for myself. ^____^

I think that my question suits this topic very well. Forgive me if I don't have time to read so many pages but I read the first few.

My question is:
How can I recognize manipulation tactics at work and what can I do to stop them in their tracks or prevent them?

Oops, that's a 2 part question... o^_^o

I ask because I KNOW that I am manipulated in my marriage. With my distance from it during the A when I had my own apartment I could see it much clearer. Now that I'm back in the relationship it's harder to notice when it happens. I need to learn about those boundaries I've heard mentioned (What are those, lol?) but I don't know how. I can see them much clearer after an argument or discussion or when I use to replay events to my girl-friend.

My H has dropped an ultimatum on me now. I have a time limit to get myself/us into appropriate parental role models or I will no longer have ANY option of having children with H.

This one was kind of an easy one to spot. /sarcasm

It feels like he's using my own wants against me. I have ambitions of being thinner and more active and healthy, more attractive, a better employee at work, a better friend, sister, daughter, etc... Some of those I accomplished during my solo 6-7 month living arrangements, the thinner, healthier, more attractive, better employee part. (For some reason I managed to make it to work on time MUCH more often.) It could be due to the 50% increase in my antidepressant dosage when I informed my doctor of my impending circumstances at the beginning of the A, it could be that I've never been on my own and was finally living on my own terms for no one but myself...

In any case that person is no longer here. I've gained back all the weight I lost, am [----] <-this close to being fired for tardies, I have no ambition or drive. My doctor and I are playing with medication cocktails (I knew my current dosage was dropping in effectiveness and I waited WAY too long before asking for help).

Anyway I think that my H is manipulative and knows how to get what he wants out of people. Most times that's not a bad thing, he's a great sales manager and his employees love him (bad choice of words there), but he uses his tricks on me too and I don't see it until after the fact. How do I learn to put my foot down, but gentle so as to not cause more waves but calm the waters instead?

Phee...nix

Love seeing one of my favorite old threads bumped up.


You asked a lot of questions in there and I see by your signature that you (and your spouse) are quite young. I would like to point out that the poster Noodle, on this very thread was in her mid to late twenties when she posted here as a betrayed wife. Thus, my recommendation would be to read closely what she said on this thread, then click her name and click "view posts" to see some of the other over 3000 posts she's made on this forum and from there...you'll have a pretty good idea how to think in many situations by asking yourself...

"What would Noodle do or say?"

In addition, getting the book "Boundaries" by Cloud and Townsend (you can probably get a used copy on Amazon super cheap or your local library should have it).

Good luck,

Mr. Wondering

I am glad Mr. W mentioned Boundaries. I think it aligns with MB very well.

You know, I come at this from a slightly different angle, and maybe it will help you with your H. I am having to rethink my own boundaries as far as other people in my life besides DH. But I am very guilty at times of going beyond just having/enforcing MY boundaries and into trying to twist or manipulate someone else into what I want them to do or stop doing. I hate to admit that. For example, my mom likes to be all up in my life....way up in it. For me to not respond, redirect the conversation, draw the "I do not wish to discuss this" line is a boundary. For me to try to control her response or guilt her into feeling bad for making me feel bad is not.

It does sound like your DH is manipulating with the kid stuff.....but he will probably not see that. So trying to change his response or feel differently probably won't work. And if you are like me, I have a weakness for wanting people to FEEL differently, especially if I care about them or really respect their opinions. I am learning that I can enforce the boundary of not responding to certain things.....but I can't control whether or not they are said or what the person who says them thinks of me.

And if the person Mr. W is referring to has shared what you are going through, learning from their learning makes a lot of sense. Have you read Fall In Love, Stay In Love? It has more really good stuff in it (to me) than any of the other books, except maybe SAA.

Thanks I'll will definetly (sp?) look up those books and those threads. I appreciate the advice. ^___^

Okay, Noodle is awesome, thanks for the advice about reading those posts. I'm glad that in some places I wasn't around when these were originally posted because I could have gotten myself a bit irritated at some points.

I went ahead and ordered the MB workbook and I need to find the boundary one you suggested. My managers at work are finally realizing that the multiple times I have asked for help in my position were not for my health and are now seeing fit to coach me, after 10 months of ignoring me. (So I feel more confident that my career will improve, if I'm not fired for how poorly I've been doing up until now.) My moods are improving and I have more energy and drive so I'm optimistic about reaching my goals for myself. H is still moody and I'm trying to not let that bring me down when he refuses to talk about it and just mopes. I pick up others emotions it seems, especially when it's someone I care about.

bump

Bumping to find again

Great...now I won't be able to find it where I put it.

lol


This is my most referenced/linked thread.