The question Arnie is not "are you advocating no bottom line". The question is what do you advocate an abandoned/betrayed/left behind spouse doing when a boundary is rejected, bypassed, transgressed, disrespected, ignored... Or in some way disregarded.
What do you advocate the spouse to do when the ultimatum is challenged outright?
According to the text the answer is "follow through".
You avoid the question by simply saying "there is a lot of territory to cover before getting to that point. Saying that isn't an answer. The question isn't how much territory there is to cover before an ultimatum is laid down.
The question is... do you or do you not advocate following through on a boundary/ultimatum once set?
Yes... or No?
Sigh. Okay, I'll try again.
To me, an "ultimatum" is not the same as a boundary. Two different things.
I'm saying that it is most effective to start with a boundary instead of an ultimatum. The process of getting to an ultimatum (if it indeed comes to that) is important. So what you are describing is something different than what I am describing.
However, if things were to come down to an ultimatum (which is what would happen when a "bottom line is reached) then it would be disrespecting myself not to "follow through" - which I take to mean that if I say "I will do X if Y continues" then it would be holding neither one of us in regard if Y did not follow X if it continued. I would be disrespecting myself and teaching that my word didn't mean anything.
My point is that is not an effective place to start - and by the time it gets to ultimata, what is expressed is not a boundary at all.
