I mistook your points (as I didn't really understand them) as agreeing with stcdtox that firm boundaries weren't called for, and that a more passive approach was better.
It's completely understandable that would be the perception - and I certainly haven't helped by being able to express more clearly. (BTW, if a book or reference is needed to see an approach as valid, then check out Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg)
My point is that being gentle and heart-centered is not only being proactive, in my experience it is far more effective at setting boundaries than what I have seen advocated here.
Originally Posted By: Starsky309
I believe, in a "Hey, whatever you do is up to you. "
I wouldn't even give that - since my limits are defined in terms of the desired outcome without telling my W what to do or how to do it, I have every expectation that there be a desire to help achieve that. I do not expect that if I tell her what to do it will (naturally) be met with resistance; by stating the desired outcome - and completely avoiding the pronoun "you" there tends to be little defensiveness or resistance. This turns a "problem" from something that is between us to something that we are both facing together to solve. (I'm probably being "poetic" again).
I think part of the difficulty with the examples is that by the time a couple is dealing with an A, the time for "boundaries" is long past and what is needed are in fact walls. There doesn't appear to be a clear distinction between the two in DB.
