You are talking about natural consequences here, in one case, and in the other is is a your child. The "consequences" that come up with "boundaries" are not natural ones, they are choices made by the one setting the boundary.
Originally Posted By: Coach
Stop trying to pigeonhole boundaries or consequences as negative things. They are healthy and loving for all parties.
Somewhere you saw it expressed that either one is a "negative" thing? I have pointed out things I have found to be effective and things I have found to be less effective.
Boundaries are good for relationships (and pleaser point out where I have stated otherwise, since that would not reflect what I believe). Consequences (the ones that are typically associated with setting boundaries) are generally effective only as a last resort, in my experience. It is not only possible to set boundaries without having to go into the consequences, I have found it to be more effective. If someone is completely resistant to other efforts, then consequences become necessary.
Originally Posted By: Frank V
Since when is consequence talk "parental?"
Dont' we fire employees who dont perform the expectations of their employment?
Since they are our employees, we are in a "parental" relationship with them, in the sense that there is not an equal distribution of authority.
Originally Posted By: Frank V
Don't we arrest, try, and incarcerate proven criminals?
Unless a police officer, judge, or prison guard "we" don't do any of those things. There is an unequal balance of authority there, i.e. "parental." And even for those individuals, they are simply doing their job and not setting personal boundaries.
Last I checked, this site was about dealing with our spouse. My W is not my child, nor is she my employee (and even if she were, I would relate to her one way at work and another way at home). I am not police officer, judge, or prison guard to her. If I relate to her as one, it might be a kinky fantasy (which would be another board altogether) but is not one that engenders a healthy relationship - or even healthy boundaries, imo.
MWD makes it very clear a boundary without a consequence attached to it is a "hollow threat".
Why does everyone keep talking about boundaries and try to omit the consequence component...
Boundaries are comprised of two things :
a. A limit b. A consequence for someone transgressing that limit
That's it.. That's boundary... BOTH components
If you try to set boundaries up early on and leave out the consequence and wait until the transgressions get ridiculously excessive before you start to add a consequence then you are just issuing hollow threats...
Hollow threats are not constructive... According to the text.
I can understand issuing a "warning" for something minor... Policemen after all sometimes let a speeder or whatever off with a warning when a ticket could have been issued... But the warning doesn't keep getting passed off over and over.. AND its for a very minor infraction...
Hollow threats are constructive, and that's what a boundary that's missing the consequence is... according to the text...
MWD makes it very clear a boundary without a consequence attached to it is a "hollow threat".
Why does everyone keep talking about boundaries and try to omit the consequence component...
Actually, it's not "everybody" - I'm the only one it seems.
Originally Posted By: Frank V
Boundaries are comprised of two things :
a. A limit b. A consequence for someone transgressing that limit
That's it.. That's boundary... BOTH components
So you're convinced that it is not possible to set an effective boundary without the consequence part.
Originally Posted By: Frank V
If you try to set boundaries up early on and leave out the consequence and wait until the transgressions get ridiculously excessive before you start to add a consequence then you are just issuing hollow threats...
My point is that this is not necessarily what happens. It's understandable to believe that it must - and perhaps for most the "consequence" may be important. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with consequences - just that for me it has been far more effective when boundaries are set without them.
In my experience, throwing in the consequence early on makes it heavier than needed, and less effective overall.
Interestingly, I just received a call from someone I helped set a boundary with someone they just started dating. (You & probably Coach might be horrified by the thought of anyone taking my advice on these matters.)
So you're convinced that it is not possible to set an effective boundary without the consequence part.
I am saying using the word boundary necessitates a consequence or a better term should be used.. like "warning" or something... MWD uses the phrase "hollow threat".. But even in her case she's suggesting including a consequence, but one you may not likely follow through on...
So this boundary without the consequence thing isn't even as reliable as a "hollow threat"
I am saying I don't suggest using the term boundary if there's no consequence... It's pointless...
Effective boundary?
An ineffective boundary is one you can't enforce.. by definition.. If its bypassed then its not effective... If ther'es nothing to stop you from doing it, you will do it...
If you want to suggest issuing some sort of "warning" before verbalizing a solid boundary (with both a and b components included) then I can understand that...
I don't believe in bringing the hammer down immediately either... You come across as rather draconian when you do that...
It really depends on what's going on...
If I catch my wife flirting with some guy at a party I am just going to ask her not to do that.. I am not going to go into a full boundary mode at the first sign of trouble...
But i will say something to get her attention.
If it happens again, then yes I would sit her down and make her fully aware that if she continues to flirt with other men then I will be taking actions of my own... Not mean, not snarky, but plainly...
In my experience, throwing in the consequence early on makes it heavier than needed, and less effective overall.
Now you're saying early on... before it was only as a last resort.
The debate now appears to be what kind of transgression or how many transgressions have to take place before a full boundary (with both components) are verbalized?
I think its important when dating to not be ridiculous.. If you are on a first date and someone takes out a cigarette and you don't want to be around smoking simply asking them not to do that while you are there is understandable...
I wouldn't even call that a boundary, its just stating a preference at that point...
If the person does it anyways, after the preference is stated then I think its time to speak up...
Once the person knows the rules and they break them anyways then its time to kick into gear...
And no, i don't find it worrisome that you offer people advice.. I DO find it worrisome that your position keeps changing...
In my experience, throwing in the consequence early on makes it heavier than needed, and less effective overall.
Now you're saying early on... before it was only as a last resort.
I should have been more clear. What was being expressed was that the reason I advocate not introducing them except as a last resort is because I have found that to be more effective (and hence introducing them before then as less effective).
Originally Posted By: Frank V
The debate now appears to be what kind of transgression or how many transgressions have to take place before a full boundary (with both components) are verbalized?
Not at all. Perhaps you are under the impression that I am suggesting one set the limit in exactly the same way, except without the consequence included. That would not work, and would likely produce the effect that is being suggested.
Repeating the same limit after one has previously been agreed to amounts to nagging. Rather, the issue becomes something else if that were to occur - namely the keeping of agreements.
Originally Posted By: Frank V
I think its important when dating to not be ridiculous.. If you are on a first date and someone takes out a cigarette and you don't want to be around smoking simply asking them not to do that while you are there is understandable...
I wouldn't even call that a boundary, its just stating a preference at that point...
I see it differently. It is more than a preference - indeed, it is laying the groundwork for teaching the other person how you wish to be treated. This is precisely where people get into difficulties in relationships.
Originally Posted By: Frank V
If the person does it anyways, after the preference is stated then I think its time to speak up...
If it is stated as a "preference" instead of a boundary, then it generally doesn't get to that point. And if it does, then it is not about smoking but about the fact that it was agreed to not smoke (presumably) and the agreement was broken.
Originally Posted By: Frank V
And no, i don't find it worrisome that you offer people advice.. I DO find it worrisome that your position keeps changing...
I am confused about which position has changed. Perhaps you would be willing to explain.
The problem is that sometimes (especially in relationships) a criticism of the person gets mixed in with addressing the behavior.
You are the only one is this convo who thinks this. We talk consistently about boundaries being about behavior - not personal or attacking. The more destructive and harmful the behavior the more direct the boundary (you continue that behavior here is the consequence). So therefore in your logic it's not criticism. I don't see any of us advocating your definition of criticism - blaming or shaming.
I make my living with my choice of words (i'm better verbal than written) so am careful that I am clear and descriptive. Your definitions of words that have more clear and recognizable meanings are confusing to me (conscious,unconscious, validating, criticism, boundaries etc). It makes your message hard to understand and absorb.
Coach---Do you think a lot of your communication is in your non-verbal delivery?
sg Love is PATIENT, love is KIND, LOVE never fails / DB since 2001
Regarding boundaries....our goal is MORE LOVE in the relationship right?
If we're coming off as authoritative, parental, etc.....well, we might win the battle but lose the war. What good is it if our partner meets our boundary but doesn't love us? OR loves us much less?
How can we get our needs met (our boundaries)....while still growing love?
sg Love is PATIENT, love is KIND, LOVE never fails / DB since 2001
