I faced the fear of doing it on my own instead of hiding behind "standing" and an MLC label, which IMO gets tossed around here like rice at a wedding.
THAT is what I'm tryin to say
Thanks Serenity.
This "standing" or whatever you call it thing isn't in Divorce Remedy. It's not mentioned in that text or the DivorceBusting text at all.
The DB text does not advocate "standing." The DB text advocates you confronting and addressing addictive or obsessive behaviour and eventually placing a boundary or ultimatum upon that behaviour.
"Standing" is not in line with the text... that's all I'm sayin...
Back to the subject of this thread? What is and is not DBing?
"Standing" is NOT dbing... according to the text.. it ain't.
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.
According to the DR text boundary and ultimatum are synonymous..
pp 230 uses the terms interchangeably in the same paragraph.
You were asked earlier if a boundary is not followed what would your response be... Follow through YES or NO...
And you have yet to answer...
And now you indicate that boundary and ultimatum "to you" are different.
No definition or distinction made...
But that point is moot. The question of this thread is "what is and what isn't divorce-busting"... not what is or isn't Arniebusting.
What "to you" these two terms mean isn't the point. The point is in the text they are synonymous. And the text advocates follow through. And further indicates that if you don't.. you are making a "hollow threat."
So, by not responding you are advocating either making hollow threats, or not setting boundaries at all.
The only alternative is to set a boundary and follow through.. which you clearly are avoiding even comitting to on a forum...
It's ok to say you don't advocate setting real boundaries or ultimatums... That's fine..
It just ain't in line with the text is all...
There's a lot of advice floating around the internet and even on this forum that isn't in line with the text... It's welcome here in my book.
I'm just sayin' that making hollow threats/unenforced boundaries are not in line with the text...
That was my initial problem.. That passing off advice as what is divorce busting without it being consistent with the text isn't being fully honest...
It's cool with me if you want to advocate "standing".. just don't try telling me its divorce busting... I have the book right in front of me.. Standing ain't divorce busting.
If you don't advocate follow through of boundaries its fine... It just ain't divorce-busting...
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.
So that would be a "yes," counselor.
I apologize, I missed your point above.
However, NO ONE here said to start addressing your spouse's destructive behavior using an ultimatum or boundary... Neither does the text.
So, you are refuting a claim that no one here has offered up...
I read through the thread and no one has said to start with an ultimatum... Just that one needs to be done eventually if you want to make progress with an addict or obsessive person...
I have made it clear that I see a difference between a boundary and an ultimatum. Evidently, DB (and yourself) see them as the same. Therefore, on the topic of "what is and what is not DB" evidently what I am advocating would not (strictly speaking) be DB. I do believe that what I am talking about, however, is in the same spirit of DB.
I am not advocating "standing" at all. It may be difficult to understand that an ultimatum and "standing" are not the only alternatives. Based on the response here, it seems to have struck a nerve - and also revealed that I have not explained what I'm talking about sufficiently well. That's something I'll just have to keep working on.
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.
So that would be a "yes," counselor.
OK, it looks like you are saying a boundary is a warning or "hollow threat".. and eventually it will carry weight and become an ultimatum instead...
Same point as I made before.
Hollow threats are fine, but the text says not to make hollow threats...
If I'm missing the difference between "boundary" and "ultimatum" in the dictionary of arnie here let me know... But the DR text uses the terms interchangeably...
OK, it looks like you are saying a boundary is a warning or "hollow threat".. and eventually it will carry weight and become an ultimatum instead...
Nope, not at all. That's the problem with language that includes "threats" and "violation" and the like. Threats are not relationship builders. What I am talking about (evidently not very eloquently or effectively) is neither of the two extremes. Ideally it happens long before it gets to threats and ultimatums (not to mention affairs). Indeed, it seems to me that a lack of effective communication is a big part of what leads couples to difficulty. And a key element of that is learning to express limits long before something becomes a big deal.
Originally Posted By: Frank V
the DR text uses the terms interchangeably...
I agree that DR uses the terms interchangeably, and that is precisely where I see things differently. Hence what I'm saying, strictly speaking, being "not DB."
I have made it clear that I see a difference between a boundary and an ultimatum. Evidently, DB (and yourself) see them as the same. Therefore, on the topic of "what is and what is not DB" evidently what I am advocating would not (strictly speaking) be DB. I do believe that what I am talking about, however, is in the same spirit of DB.
Spirit? Seriously? We are invoking spirit as a defense to a challenge of inconsistency?
Sorry your honor, yes, murder is against the law and he did murder someone in cold blood, but not in spirit...
Seriously?
Originally Posted By: ArnieBGood
I am not advocating "standing" at all. It may be difficult to understand that an ultimatum and "standing" are not the only alternatives. Based on the response here, it seems to have struck a nerve - and also revealed that I have not explained what I'm talking about sufficiently well. That's something I'll just have to keep working on.
I am open minded to hear the path between setting an enforced boundary and "standing" (not directly addressing the spouse's behavior towards correction).
Unfortunately whatever that is.. it ain't divorce-busting.
It may be great, it may be written down in a text someplace, but it ain't divorce-busting.
Most people paraphrase the divorce busting approach here.. I don't see hardly any quotes or page numbers referencing the actual source of their advice so we know its coming from divorcee-busting.
I can give you whatever advice I want and say its divorce-busting, but if you can't reference it in the text.. It ain't divorce-busting now is it?
It's fine in my book if it ain't. There is a bibliography in the Divorce Remedy text itself - so we can see where MWD came up with her ideas too...
That's great stuff.. but this thread is about what is and is not dbing.
if it ain't coming from the text, then its something else... and not divorce-busting.
It's your advice or something you read somewhere... which is fine... And it may even overlap to a degree... but saying it overlaps and saying it is divorce-busting ain't the same thing.
And saying something is dbing "in spirit" but "not strictly speaking" is just being evasive.
If it aint' in the text, if you are getting the advice from someplace else, be it a text, a lecture, a video or your own imagination it ain't divorce-busting.
If you want to say it overlaps.. then reference where in the text of both references where the overlap occurs or don't say its divorce-busting.
That's all I'm sayin... This thread started out paraphrasing what is and is not divorcebusting and I find that post to be quite misleading... and my follow up posts are there to demonstrate how this is misleading.
If you want to advocate something outside of DBing I say go for it... Just don't tell me its divorce-busting... Tell me what it is instead... Arniebusting or whatever... Just tell me where the idea came from instead of telling me it came from the text..
if someone tells me it came from the text and I can't find it.. I will call you on it...
I agree that DR uses the terms interchangeably, and that is precisely where I see things differently. Hence what I'm saying, strictly speaking, being "not DB."
If we can do away with the "strictly speaking" evasiveness then I'm with you.
But my problem is that telling someone that they need to deal with a problem before it gets serious enough to have to set boundaries don't help people who are already at that point...
If your spouse is already hooked on heroin or two-timing you then I would say its past the point of negotiation... And the text suggests the same thing and advocates setting and enforcing a boundary with consequences.
I don't doubt there's lots of important ground to cover that should be done before it gets to that point.. but for those who are facing an addiction or obsession in their home this does not help...
There are a lot of things spouses can do to avoid having an addiction or obsession threaten their home.. But if you are already there the text says to address that to shake up the wayward's lifestyle... The text does not suggest working on yourself.. which is what is being passed out as dbing at the beginning of this thread.
But more to my point, wedding vows are boundaries in themselves... The problem is they aren't enforced... not in this world at least.
If you violate vows made before God then that's something you take up with the man upstairs.. But this won't protect the spouse who has to deal with an addict in their home.
Dealing with addiction and obsessive behavior that damages the home (is there any other kind?) then the text advocates setting and enforcing boundaries... It does not say to work on yourself...
We can certainly accept your claim that work should be done long before it gets to that point.. But the text says once it is at that point you need to put the big girl panties on and take your alcoholic/two-timing/heroin snorting spouse to the ultimatum stage.
Should you have to do this? I would hope things don't get that ugly... But once an addiction or obsession hits the text is pretty clear.
