Cold differentiation, fusion and stuff.

[Burgbud]

(Kett) But I think what you are saying (in part) is, why should I conform to anyone else's predigested definitions of "abuse"? If I can take it and it *truly* doesn't diminish me, who is to say what I "should" tolerate? I can see the merit. But the above caveats make that stance a bit of a minefield, perhaps.

Right, but I'm not trying to say, "hey, if it isn't abuse *to me*, then I'll keep taking it." I'm trying to say that if you're at the point of not needing to know if bad behavior rises to somebody's definition of "abuse," then you can just make your decision on how to handle the situation based on what you want to do. You can just say, "I don't like what you're doing and I don't like it to the point where I'm not going to be around it any more." Whether not being around it means for the next five minutes or next hour or next day or the rest of your life is also totally up to you.

You don't have to call it abuse or tell the other person they're an abuser. You just deal with matters at face value. If you believe the other person's abusive behavior stems from abusive behavior they received from their parent's, maybe you cut them some slack. Maybe you suggest counseling or whatever else, as long as you understand that you *can't change that person*, and that they have to decide to change themselves. Whatever you decide, as long as you're being authentic, it's okay. (An example of not being authentic is if a guy's wife throws some bad behavior at him and he decides that he's not going to be around that bad behavior any more for the rest of his life because he really wanted to run off with his secretary anyway.)

The point I was trying to make in all that is that what I originally said was less, "Since that isn't abuse to me, I'll stay here and take it," and more, "It doesn't matter to me whether that behavior is 'abusive' or not; I don't like it and I'm not going to be around it."