[serious] What are your most important boundaries you've learned to enforce?
[serious] What are your most important boundaries you've learned to enforce?
Nobody tells me what I'm going to do or where I will be going and when that happens
I am open to invitations or requests or suggestions where my involvement is desired or ostensibly necesary for somone else. But I will never respond to this as a statement of fact or in the form of a threat
If you are a giving person, you have to put a limit on how much you can give. Takers have no limit.
I have to remember to look out for myself because even though I'm trying to look out for a lot of people I care about, no one is looking out for me.
In my experience it's not so much about putting a limit as it is about avoiding takers and finding other givers. But one has to be careful not to be used. :)
I feel like its still a useful exercise/practice to be able to reinforce one's limits and contingencies on a regular basis with those they are circumstance-bound to be close to or work with so they are able to do that universally and at all times
Can you share an anecdote about a recent triggering situation wherw you identified this at play?
Nobody tells me how to format my comments.
if someone tries to make me format my comments in a specific way, I'll refuse to comply and sometimes go against that format
- just to spite them.
I enjoyed the humor, but the OP did set a boundary of [serious].
So I guess what we are learning here is that setting boundaries is always going to provoke some people to break those boundaries out of spite.
Your boundaries end where my right to shitpost begins
You're a monster but honestly I respect it.
I appreciate your point, but you should really consider emphasizing the point of your comment using bold text. It would make it easier to read.
Family is the relationship, relatives are who you're related to.
You can pick your family but you can't pick your relatives.
You don't have to associate with your relatives if you don't want to. Family is a group of people who you'll want to associate with.
I grew up being told constantly, "I'm family, you have to love me," which definitely wasn't good for my mental health until I realized the above statements. My relatives are typically terrible people, and the last time I saw most of them they openly wished for my death at Thanksgiving (because a different relative outed me as bi to the whole gathering) and I haven't gone back to their gatherings since.
They'll often (years after the event above) send me invitations weeks in advance to the gatherings and then either the day before or morning of send me a message saying, "Sorry, we didn't mean to invite you. You aren't welcome here."
So I guess in a way the statement, "You have to love family," is somewhat true but in the, "a prerequisite for someone being family is love," not a being forced to love someone you're related to.
And the barrier that you mentioned OP, is definitely a good one and one I didn't even realize I whole heartedly was using for a long time.
The fundamental error in my opinion (we are all implicated in this to an extent cuz we don't come out of the box necessarily "knowing" it) is this notion of anyone being entitled and unreservedly owed anyone else's
- time
- attention
- resources
Like obviously if you make a committment to someone or there is an implied non-opt-outtable one that still has the color of your consent or legal liabillity for etc, thats different.
Simplest rule I do is
If I generally come away feeling worse and not respected after we interface, there won't be another encounter to the greatest extent I am able to openly prevent (not just avoid or evade) that
I have my own things and resources that are mine and guaranteed so nothing can be taken away or held over my head as leverage to do things contrary to my boundaries and/or authenticity
I setup my life to ensurethat I did whatever it took to secure my own housing, job, benefits, friends, hobbies, and ways of doing things and that nobody could externally hold those key elements or anything else I needed over my head and take anything away.
I refuse to rely on anybody in a way where that can be leveraged to compel me to act in ways inconsistent with what I need+want and allow that to play out repeatedly on a chronic basis and that ever allow for the possibillity where I lose access to that which I need at the caprices of another person or entity
I see your parents held things over your head too
Dont get me $tarted
Oh, so where’d you meet my parents?
Do we all KNOW each other, haha?
A fairly pragmatic one:
People are not entitled to my attention 100% of the time. I am not obligated to respond to your message right away or pick up the phone for an unscheduled call.
This was a challenging one for my relationship with my wife, as she operates differently. We've worked hard to establish reasonable expectations.
Nice, yeah, I enjoy the hell out of asynchrous communication, particularly where its heavy stuff. Nobody should be time-pressured to make a response to things without having time to digest the words and arrive at a respectful, proper response.
Just in general, people should respond when they are ready to respond, but also, its a useful exercise to be able to shoot a text (regardless of content) and forget about it and just ask the person to being you up to speed if the context fades from you.
Also, if you have enjoyable conversations (persuant to my other boundary about not repeating experiences with negative people), people will often naturally want to engage with you but it cannot be forced and any pressure you apply will likely blow up in your face
I second this! When I was in an emotionally abusive relationship this was one of the worst things. I do not have it in me to be available to you 24/7, and I guarantee it will result in the degradation of the relationship. That relationship ended 6 years ago and I still get a trauma response when someone has unreasonable expectations for a response in a non time sensitive conversation.
Do not touch me
Looking back I might not have been subject to too much affection growing up so I have heavy boundaries when it comes to non family and non partners. I realize men are a lot more open and touchy feely in my neck of the woods but I don't want any part of it. Bro culture is not for me.
No one gets to try to tell me how I should feel about something.
No one gets to try to shame/guilt me about what I believe.
No one gets to take my self-advocacy, as I am my only advocate.
Sure, I'll bite.
Do not attempt to tell me "what I'm thinking"
I'm not going to pretend that my way of thinking is "unique" because I can't speak for how others think, but I expect that same courtesy to apply to me as well. For example, whenever someone says "You seem to think..." it upsets me quite a bit. What I say out loud (or "write" I suppose) doesn't include the context of how I got to that point.
I very much am happy for people to tell me when I'm wrong on something, because if I'm wrong I would like to know (more-so if they can actually prove it... just saying "You're wrong" and not saying how leads to nothing, but that is a whole other rant). However, one thing that that no one can assert to know more than I do is how I think, what I'm thinking, or the methods that I used to arrive to something I've said/done. You can possibly predict it depending on how long you've known me for, but to try to claim you know exactly what, is very egregious in my eyes.
I have a pretty high tolerance before my temper is set off (or as I like to say "A very long fuse, but an even higher yield when that fuse runs out"), but there is a small list of exceptions to that - one being hypocrisy, and the other being this.
Gaslighting is deadly and I violently shut it down whenever I perceive or sense it. It is emotional rape, pure and simple, and the REDDEST of flags 🚩🥀
Its been interesting engaging with people I know now that everyone is aware we don't mix factual and feelings-based conversations.
Much nicer when we know what's debatable or negotiable and what is off-limits.
"Oh you misunderstood".
No, I didn't misunderstand, I disagree, those are two very different things.
Easy way to avoid this is ask someone to summarize or if you can summarize the objective main points respectfully and then it becomes a joint-fact-finding mission if its all truly good-faith.
Like,
if I'm hearing you correctly, it sounds like someone conflated their lack of clarity/understanding of ______ for you instead misunderstanding ________, which you can/will respectfully demonstrate is not the case because
- X
- Y
- Z
The summarizing is helpful tho because you might want to pin down the actual points of confusion or disagreement like lawyers do in a Joint Statement of Facts so you can know where the discrepancies lay.
That its surrounding misunderstanding is relatively simple to address because you can easily clarify that on the spot (in the factual realm) by summarizing the relevant facts or narratives and they can jump in any time to pin down where they think is a point of contention or that they want to expand on.
On some level it can be resolved that simply but there's likely something more fundamentally at issue that is not directly visible or comprehensible if the analysis remains fixated on facts/figures/narratives. I feel like if there's a nice way engage on why whatever is important to them or how it reflects them in their estimation, you can sometimes get them to take your hand and lead you to the treasure.
I got something similar-ish... low tolerance towards assumptions about things that one cannot reliably know. It includes assuming what I'm thinking, but also more objective matters.
If I generally come away feeling worse and not respected after we interface, there almost certainly won't be another encounter to the greatest extent I am able to openly and assertively prevent (not passive-agressively avoid or evade) further interaction.
I am not afraid to do justice to both of us and to have justice openly seen to be done, regardless of the implications for either of us.
I think I need the boundary you stated in the post. I really struggle when it feels like I’m not in control of my time/energy. When someone else takes away my self agency. I hate that feeing and makes me resentful towards whatever external factor is causing it.
I know the reason why this is a sensitive issue for me, and no longer am in those circumstances. But it comes up in other contexts, and I don’t know how a boundary would work there. Eg, work requiring me to “sacrifice” personal time. I get paid for the hours I work, but it deeply bothers me to have to give up my morning routine so I that I start work early to meet someone else’s deadline. It’s not unreasonable to have to occasionally work a little more, so setting a hard boundary isn’t appropriate, but where is the line for my personal comfort? Same with personal relationships, it’s not unreasonable to give in sometimes, but where to draw the line?
What does your employment agreement/contract/job description outline as the minimums (think of them as your shared hard boundaries with the employer).
If you do
A. B. C.
You get
X. Y. Z.
Anything outside of that is discretionary on both sides so I'd say those are more wants-territory. Not that they aren't important, but that's where negotiation comes into play.
I know this is super reductive but its sort of inescapable, isn't it? Like if they really need you to do extra all the time, that needs to be taken into consideration, allowing it to be enumerated (specifically outlined and limited) and formalized (enforcable)...
If its making you unwell in any way or in any aspect of your being, you probably need to address it to make sure your positive (I need this resource) and negative (I need to not have this issue) needs are honored.
We haven't really touched on the personal needs yet but I think the professional/business side might serve as a lever to help you get what you need at work and to the greatest extent its legally enforcable and you can use that template (transposed of course) for the personal side. There's likely overlap and those might be helpful to identify and use as a case study + self-experiment
My most enforced boundary is likely "if I clearly told you «no», do not insist". Insisting further won't just piss me off, but also decrease the likelihood that you'll get what you're asking for.
You can do whatever you want.
So too can they.
The balance point lies somewhere in the middle.
Yeah. I came to say I don't think in terms of boundries. I have them but I generally don't know where they are till the lines crossed. One thing that is a pet peeve of mine though are individuals who probe for the lines. Someone strays into the gray zone to often and they are gone.
We ALL are that way. :-D
The way I'm trying out currently about it is (done in order to have the foundation covered)
-
Establish needs (I still need a more formalized way of doing this besides just granularly asking about a directly relevant aspect)
-
Can these needs be met by the other? This has to apply both ways
- yes: good, proceed carefully
- no: reciprocally communicate and understand that and part ways
-
What are our relevant wants or wishes, like defined and transparent? No tricks or goalpost-moving (evolution is ok but tricker because then the wants-terms are changing and other redefinitions need to be pondered in turn)
-
Can we both have our wants met at this time
- yes: great, continue conversation and involvement but check in on the wobblers
- no: only relevant if needs are able to be met, then negotiation will have to happen. Wants can be endlessly categorized or placed in many variable schemas (i use that word non-technically) so a good-faith dialogue on how to negotiate things out has to occur.
To me, the key is always good-faith. Even if I disagree with stuff, as long as we both know its serious and there's not room for games here, and there's ways of sussing that out. Easiest is to ask for something simple or a small concession that is important to you and if they can't manage you having the audacity to request something of them, its a tell that they're not ready or fundamentally incompatible.
Either way, nothing of value will be lost, harsh as it sounds. Cancers are your flesh and blood too but you owe them zero duty of care or consideration beyond excision and removal from your life
To me, the key is always good-faith.
Abso-frigging-lutely. Even the dumbest person, or maybe someone with a bad memory, but who is trying can eventually be trained, or else constrained, whereas a malicious actor can do everything "right", until they get what they wanted all along and then cause the highest magnitude of harm.
I like how you are approaching it intentionally, which demonstrates awareness and intent to make things better for yourself, and also others as you plan ahead for what is most important.
-
- do not touch me;
- I either do something I want to do or I don’t;
Its kinda funny, my first one is super personal and what I arrived at but this thread kinda resembles or the responses remind me of an interview with Alannis Morisette where she has like 4 rules.
Gaslighting is deadly and I vigorously/instantly shut it down whenever I perceive or sense it. It is emotional rape, pure and simple, and the REDDEST of flags 🚩🥀
Its been interesting engaging with people I know now that everyone is aware we don't mix factual and feelings-based conversations.
Much nicer when we know what's debatable or negotiable and what is off-limits.
I do not let customers curse at me on the phone. I’m not a prude, fucking curse words don’t offend me, but I shouldn’t have to listen to it when someone is complaining or ranting. I speak to customers about difficult situations and have to give them answers they don’t always want to hear, and I offer to share all of the knowledge I have and I offer all of the empathy I have. If they are pissed, I empathize and remember they are a real person with real feelings. If they are sad, I tell them I’m sorry that they in this position. But if they use a curse word, I politely tell them if they are going to curse I’m going to end the call. Doesn’t matter how mild or offensive the word is…it’s not about the word.
Lately, when they start towards personal attacks even without cursing I pivot the conversation in a similar manner. “Well, I don’t know how you have a job if you just sit there and ______ all day.” When you get to that point it’s become evident they don’t want help or explaining or even your sympathy, sometimes they just want to feel better by being hurtful to you personally. If we’ve already discussed all of the facts, I’ll simply say well this is no longer a productive conversation and state the action I’ll be taking after ending the call (sending a letter or whatever) and move toward ending it.
I try to be very patient if they are having feelings and frustrations that are valid. Very patient. But I’m not a punching bag. I don’t get paid for that. Goodbye.
If its my turn to ask a question, and the other actively chooses to not answer that question, have had plenty of time and opportunity to do so, and they don't articulate why they are unable to answer, I respectfully decline to continue engaging on the topic and with that person. There's either something intentional or unintentional happening, both of which indicates its not safe.
If they have a good-faith concern relevant to the matter and they put it at the end (after they have answered that which was solicited) I am often more than happy and open to engage and continue in that vein of discussion
Once another person and I have resolved or gained closure on a matter, or at least attempted as much, I refuse to rehear or rehash the case for any purpose whatsoever except for positive and enjoyable purposes like nostalgia or gentle + affectionate teasing (where consent is mutually preestablished)
We're both able to hopefully learn from it to be more successful, but I will not allow it to be thrown in my face and I will do my utmost to comport with that myself, while maintaining grace for each other to constructively remind each other about it should it arise again in a different context
Final sale! No refunds or store credit :)
That sounds like a good rule to have.
I don't really have any hard, clearly-defined boundaries myself, but recently I've learned to prioritise my internal decision-making process when I'm under external pressures.
I used to go along with what everyone else suggested, because I didn't want the stress of having to argue or fight back against an idea I didn't agree with. I had been conditioned to avoid conflict because it was usually too much of a hassle to resolve when it could've easily been a calm, balanced conversation instead. So I'd just throw my hands up and say "Ah, whatever you think is best." And then be surprised or resentful when the ugly results inevitably showed themselves.
Now, I try to cross-check what someone else says is a good idea against my own judgements, rather than skipping that step entirely. It's like keeping a background application from crashing by giving it a higher priority over resource use so it won't get crushed by everything else.
This all sounds very vague, and that's because it is, but it's just the attitude I've been trying to maintain so that my inner voice doesn't get drowned out for being too quiet.
I do not respond or enagage with shouting and implied threats of violence or loss of resources or any guilt/shame-based appeals
This one is super easy one. I don't listen to anyone rant and rave (I consider it fantasizing) about why my doom and downfall is imminent and often the inevitable "Sir Story" about how Imma come up to them with hat in hand and tears in eyes to beg for their help or forgiveness.
Not surprisingly, these gloom+doom predictions have never played out cuz they're always manipulative fantasy bullshit but its important to me that I make a point about not being receptive or permissive towards it
Its helpful for me to let them know I'll touch base at the tail-end of the timeframe they speculated on (the longer the better heh) and we can see how things played out relative to their fantasy scenario (only if I choose to try again at the end)
Is this basically the people acting out the lyrics of Johnny Cash's Cry! Cry! Cry!?
It seems like a reasonable stance, but I'm just confused by how often you could possibly have people forecasting your downfall. I mean, unless you're secretly a leader of a country currently engaged in war crimes or something.
I just mean when you have an intense relationship (that could be workable) with family or someone else who's used to getting what they want selfishly and no questions asked, they may try carrots or they may try to spook you into complying out of fear and codependance or whatever.
What does "Sir story" mean?
What do you mean about fantasizing and downfall?
What do you mean by leave and lock up when they're done?
--
A lot of these threads confuse me... But I'm easily confused so...
I'm also horrible with friendships and relationships.
My post probably won't make sense and seem like a jumbled mess of different thoughts.
What I consider "real" people are really unique and that's what makes them "real" imo. It's hard to be different and that causes a lot of emotion due to having different perceptions and views. I try to put the uniqueness above differences with people because the world's a wild place. I see soulful uniqueness as something that binds a foundation. ...like ideally...differences shouldn't mean anything because when we get to our essence we are all bound by soulfulness? Same for interests. People can be different but connect through artful outlets and still maintain peace by not acting on their differences or bringing them to attention. But the way the world works fucks all that up too (money and stuff).
Communication and how things are communicated make a difference in the responses people give. The problem is emotion gets in the way and that's when people react or find the need for boundaries.
I've cut people out of my life before, sometimes even for basic shit. I've caused fights and made up right after and ended up with a stronger relationship. I understand when people want boundaries although I'm learning in some situations those boundaries can be held back or unattainable by lack of money and neurodivergence. I respect people's need/want for distance but that is different than being able to pick up and go.
Perception is huge. Everyone reacts badly at times. But that doesn't mean everything they do is meant to cause harm or ill intent. I used to work in a pretty dramatic work environment with a lot of he said she said stuff going on. My boss would always tell people to put reality over perception. Basically mindfulness... This is a great tool in life. Its something a person needs to practice and build over time, basically for their entire life. But there's an issue here as well since we essentially live in chaos. Cultures, religion, and lifestyles are all different and humans are basically programmed to manifest the world as they perceive it. This is essentially what mindfulness tries to overcome. Survival instinct is similar. How does a person shut off their survival instinct when there's a threat or in some cases suicide. It's instinct to not be able to take yourself out. This is why suicidal people often practice until they are able to overcome it. When a person has a misperception of reality and believe there's a threat that essentially isn't there then the only way to not react is to practice mindfulness?
It's all so sensitive because it all really is chaos. Say you unintentionally piss off someone that knows war. How can a person stop a product of war from reacting? PTSD is wild. This is where a person ideally should take a step back and see a larger picture. Look at their perceptions and reality etc. so... You have the warhead and the pisshead haha. The warheads protecting themselves from a threat. But now the pisshead is reacting to reaction of the warhead. How do the two make peace? They might even have similar life views and ideology but the animal instinct is still automatically and biologically in play. It's a chain reaction and for people with understanding of life, who most likely know better in a theoretic sense, they both become victims of biology and instinct. ...regardless if the issue started out as a mistake. ...now I guess this is where boundaries come in. The two people are now stuck in a position where maybe they all see healing needs to take place. How can people heal when they are stuck in the shit though? How can they provide each other with distance and boundaries in a modern world that basically has everyone by the balls? What if these people are unique and see the world as it really is, the whole spectrum of humanity, and live in circumstances different that regular society? Maybe they know they need boundaries and distance but keeping an eye out is also part of their survival instinct. How does this situation change? Overseeing causes more misperception of actions, probably moreso than there is intent of harm. How do people overcome this?
I don't even know where I'm going with this post anymore...
I often think of chaos and yin and yang. Visualize the yin yang. ☯️ You have the white and you have the solid. You have a small bit of solid in the white and a bit of white in the solid. The disagreement is the is that small bit in the opposite color. Now look at it. You might think that's some disharmony... That speck is fucking things up? But then you see the other side and it's the same deal. Now attention is zoomed in on that small misplaced spot. Wouldn't it be better if one side was solid and one side was white? Right? That makes sense theoretically? So focus is now all on that speck. That speck needs to be moved to bring back harmony and that's the focus now. You fight that, you put in work to make that change right? You keep trying. You get close. Keep trying... Next thing you know you've spent a few years trying to move that speck because it's causing disharmony. Now you don't even remember the other parts exist. It's just you and that speck... Now let's talk God/Chaos. God is the universe and it's energies, everything in existence. You see things decay into chaos and regrow back to order... And you need to touch it... You don't need to change anything for this to happen. That's trust in faith right? That's what religions are based on? Okay.... So now back to the yin yang.
If a person is fighting to remove that speck isn't that an example of lack of faith? If a person has faith in God then God put that speck there. Are there lessons that speck has? Is there something to learn from it. You fought to remove it for so long... But what about having faith that it's there on purpose and put their by God.
Now zoom out. ☯️ Look again at the 4 parts. Solid, white, solid speck, white speck. The whole thing... It's always going to be constant. The ying yang as a whole is God/Everything. By zooming in on one side or the other, or one speck or the other, a person gives up their faith and give up God. It's natural thing that happens. The idea is to practice mindfulness so you can zoom out if you find yourself getting sucked in. So you can zoom out reconnect with the universe/God. It's the yin yang as a whole that matters. It's the people as a whole that matters. Its the world as a whole that matters.
...but yeah idk.... Just some thoughts.... Sorry if I come off as condescending. Also I didn't re read this some even if people grasp the ideas it probably still won't make sense, lol.
Boundary
Description of boundary, please consider this example so its easy to visually index the boundaries and help find where to jump in or look at for everyone
Sure. Just so long as you remember that everybody is free to just not participate in this thread if they aren't in the mood to follow a particular formatting.
I respect that. I genuinely appreciate your engagement here in the way you have 😊 I do recognize the irony/paradox here but it can work
I'll keep it around anyway and everyone's free to marinate and chime in whenever they are able. Its a really important topic, as I'm learning more and more each day.