V is for Vanilla 23

[Vanilla]

Avanti, yes that's true but with an abuser spouse, saying "I do not agree" is boundary enforcement.

That changes when your R is with a different type.

With anyone who bullies to say that one hears and then boundary enforce is the very best response. No validation of an abuser is going to help unless qualified. The idea is to close down the opening to rant or abuse. In most sitches the idea is to open up the connection not close it down. This isn't the case with an abuser.

Prevalidation is out of the question, it creates an opening for an abuser to abuse. Just to explain, prevalidation is a small observation or testing of the certainty of a view prior to validation. It can be an opening question or statement "tell me"; " I don't understand" or " I am processing this, I would like to know*. With an abuser, really their answer will just invalidate or abuse you.

For instance, my WH starts with "you never buy the food I like". With a WAW you might say "what food would you like?" And then you get a list of foods that aren't in the shopping (prevalidation), so you say "thank you for clarifying, I see your point, We include these on the list in future. If I give you our on line shopping list will you review?".

With an abuser you get "so stupid, if you loved me you'd know what I like". Then the rant is off and running. Plus whatever you put on the list to please them, the rule changes. Hence the A P P L E juice rant discussed on my thread. V you buy the 'wrong' bacon.

Prevalidation opens abuse.

It is important to prevalidate in most sitches, sadly not abusive or irrational ones.

V