Effective DBing/ Feedback and Coaching

[Frank V]

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).

OK, so this isn't something you have read anywhere its just a single data sample from yourself... OK

Well, I think I can say with confidence that most of the posters on this forum are in last resort territory given that many of them are dealing with infidelity or separation by the time they arrive here..

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.

I would rather not be under any impression. I would rather you just write plainly with as few words as possible and state your position... I don't know about everyone else but I am getting frustrated making guesses trying to pin you down.

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.

The question I put out there is what has to happen in your opinion before a full boundary with both limit and its consequences is verbalized?

That's it... I am not asking for definitions of nagging or keeping of agreements...

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.

OK, that just looks like sixteen words used to simply say "prefer".

I don't know about you Arnie, but all this talk about communicating and you can't seem to put things simply... Keeping it simple really should be up there on the communication chart... but I am afraid I don't see it here...

Using 16 words to say "preference" isn't going to make communication go much smoother I'm afraid... It's just going to frustrate your partner...

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.

Broken? Isn't that the ame thing as transgressed or violated?

I really think unless your spouse is a grammar teacher all this dancing around with wordplay isn't going to amount to much... You are just as apt to annoy your spouse rephrasing things and re-defining terms doing what you are doing here...

I am confused about which position has changed. Perhaps you would be willing to explain.

You dance around way too much Arnie... If you can't keep the dialog simple and practical I'm afraid I don't have confidence that this approach will work safely in a marriage... Particularly when its at a serious level of boundary violation... Messing around with terms and definitions when someone is violating your home doesn't solve problems in my opinion. And that's the trend I am seeing above... Sorry, but at this point I am convinced this "more effective" approach you are talking about ... isnt'.

If it was, I would understand you by now, and I dont'... I don't think anyone else does either...

Sorry, not convinced.. And a wayward spouse would not give you even half the time I have to state your case before they run off to their affair partner...