Relationship Boundaries: Who's more accountable?

[Lost_Wanderer]

Since other posters really insisted, this thread is to discuss who is really more responsible for maintaining the boundaries in a relationship.

Here’s the catch: I’m not making this gender-based.

Is it the one who makes the rules or do both parties have to comply even in spite of the failures of the party who created said boundaries? This can apply to rules about not kissing before marriage to not having sex and anything else in between.

As for me, I stick to just treating people the way they treat themselves. Any girl who sets up lots of boundaries should only expect those boundaries to be as strong as she believes them to be.

And by believe, I mean truly believe. Man or woman, I can’t stand people acting in denial and I know I’m not alone in that.

 

[EasterJoy]

When you start with the proposition that respecting each other’s boundaries is more the “responsibility” of one party or the other, that is starting to get blame-based. There ought to be some amount of helping each other to reach your goals for yourself. If someone expects that they shouldn’t have to help you be what you want to be at all, let that be a red flag. Friends help each other to reach their goals, even when the goals are not shared. Having said that…

Keeping your own moral boundaries is primarily your responsibility. Your sin is your own sin, and you shouldn’t expect anyone to be more interested in keeping your soul unstained than you are yourself. It is also up to you to choose your friends based on whether those friends are a near occasion of sin to you. I don’t mean some judgment about whether they are bad people or not. I mean let us say that it is your responsibility to spend only what you can afford. You have some rich friends with plenty of disposable income. You may be tempted to over-spend when you are around them. That is not their fault. You need to discipline yourself and either spend properly when you are around them or else not be around them. If you are an alcoholic, you may not be able to spend time with friends who drink. That doesn’t mean it is wrong for them to drink, if they control their own drinking. It means that you are too weak to withstand temptations that coincide with spending time with them.

Let us say that you have a friend and she says, “I don’t want to kiss before marriage,” and she tries to kiss you, and you say, “hey, you didn’t want to do this, huh?” That is a act of integrity. It is what you ought to do. If she keeps putting you on the spot to stop her from her own inclinations, though, she is failing in the integrity department. It is fair for you to call her on that.

If you have a friend who falls off the wagon when he’s around you drinking, the decent thing to do is to not let him go drinking with you. If you have a friend who constantly gets in debt and complains later when they go out with you because they try to keep up with your spending, the decent thing is to say, “hey, every time we go to the mall, you spend more than you want and then moan to me. How about we don’t go to the mall together any more? I’m not going to be your near occasion of sin.” If you have a girlfriend who sets boundaries and then leaves it up to you to keep them, consider that a red flag, too. She packs the bags, you get to carry them. That’s not right. Do you merely tell her, “Hey, you packed them, you carry them?” No, if this is her pattern of behavior, you find another travelling companion. Trust me on that one.

 

[Xantippe]

Since other posters really insisted, this thread is to discuss who is really more responsible for maintaining the boundaries in a relationship.

Here’s the catch: I’m not making this gender-based.

Is it the one who makes the rules or do both parties have to comply even in spite of the failures of the party who created said boundaries? This can apply to rules about not kissing before marriage to not having sex and anything else in between.

As for me, I stick to just treating people the way they treat themselves. Any girl who sets up lots of boundaries should only expect those boundaries to be as strong as she believes them to be.

And by believe, I mean truly believe. Man or woman, I can’t stand people acting in denial and I know I’m not alone in that.

Here are two experiences that I’ve had:

1. When I was in my late teens, I had 35/36-year-old boyfriend who was physically very pushy. I was a life-long Evangelical at the time, but worn out from the fact that my nice Christian boyfriend had not appeared. (19 is a little young to be concerned about that, but it was my fourth year of college away from home.) So when a non-Christian boyfriend appeared, I was willing to settle for Mr. Right Now (as Mr. Right seemed to be delayed). I was the “gatekeeper” in that relationship and not very good at it. Also, he was rape-y. I broke up with him quite a few times but I always went back because it was so comfortable to have a boyfriend. The relationship eventually blew up permanently (largely due to his rapeyness) and I successfully made my escape. As it turns out, 5,000+ miles is enough to do the job.
2. After a couple years of downtime, I met my future husband in graduate school. I was 22, he was 24. He was an ardent and very well-educated Catholic. I had been largely attending a Catholic church for the last two years and had been interested in Catholicism since high school. We had a very fast courtship (the good kind, not the Duggar kind!), I asked him to marry me (yes, I am forward!), and we were married by the end of the school year.

How did that work out? Well, really great, actually. The physical and the emotional and the intellectual parts of our relationship developed beautifully together. We were very affectionate and passionate and it turned out to be relatively easy to manage a physically affectionate but chaste courtship and engagement (with lots of time alone!) when 1) we loved each other and desired each others’ good and 2) we were both doing our part. I could relax and enjoy myself in his arms because I was not the gatekeeper and I didn’t need to always be on guard–I could trust that my boyfriend/fiance cared about me and about us and he wasn’t going to try to get away with something.

As an addendum, I should add that once we were married and doing NFP, it likewise followed that I did not need to be the NFP gatekeeper.

So, to summarize, I am against relationships where one person is put in the position of a sexual gatekeeper and that in my experience it has been much more satisfying and enjoyable to be working together rather than having a quasi-adversarial relationship.

 

[Colorad007]

It is the guy, always. And if it isn’t, then it isn’t working.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If you have a girlfriend who sets boundaries and then leaves it up to you to keep them, consider that a red flag, too. She packs the bags, you get to carry them. That’s not right. Do you merely tell her, “Hey, you packed them, you carry them?” No, if this is her pattern of behavior, you find another travelling companion. Trust me on that one.

But that’s exactly the point. In fact, what if your example extended to more than just one party? Say you’re the only person being singled out to uphold a particularly rigid set of boundaries by someone else. Every other person is free to violate them. You both share the same friends who are calling the other person to stop being so biased. Why then should this picture be regarded as some hapless victim being pressured by the peers?

| know someone’s going to say, “Depends on the boundaries or the morals.” It’s just that it is as you said: There are people who only hold a few hapless individuals to certain boundaries while letting everyone else scot free for just the pettiest reasons!

Thus, one can conclude that the person creating said boundaries should be tasked with maintaining the core responsibility where everyone else’ compliance will rest upon.

 

[DarkLight]

Depends on what the boundaries are. Sometimes different things happen. Personally, I’ve had guys who kept pushing and trying to make sure I really meant what I said. Those people always ended up at arm’s length and having to deal with a stricter set of boundaries, because it’s just a pain to deal with them otherwise.

“No” is only going to become “yes” for people who are willing to respect “no”, in my book.

 

[Xantippe]

When you start with the proposition that respecting each other’s boundaries is more the “responsibility” of one party or the other, that is starting to get blame-based. There ought to be some amount of helping each other to reach your goals for yourself. If someone expects that they shouldn’t have to help you be what you want to be at all, let that be a red flag. Friends help each other to reach their goals, even when the goals are not shared. Having said that…

Keeping your own moral boundaries is primarily your responsibility. Your sin is your own sin, and you shouldn’t expect anyone to be more interested in keeping your soul unstained than you are yourself. It is also up to you to choose your friends based on whether those friends are a near occasion of sin to you. I don’t mean some judgment about whether they are bad people or not. I mean let us say that it is your responsibility to spend only what you can afford. You have some rich friends with plenty of disposable income. You may be tempted to over-spend when you are around them. That is not their fault. You need to discipline yourself and either spend properly when you are around them or else not be around them. If you are an alcoholic, you may not be able to spend time with friends who drink. That doesn’t mean it is wrong for them to drink, if they control their own drinking. It means that you are too weak to withstand temptations that coincide with spending time with them.

Let us say that you have a friend and she says, “I don’t want to kiss before marriage,” and she tries to kiss you, and you say, “hey, you didn’t want to do this, huh?” That is a act of integrity. It is what you ought to do. If she keeps putting you on the spot to stop her from her own inclinations, though, she is failing in the integrity department. It is fair for you to call her on that.

If you have a friend who falls off the wagon when he’s around you drinking, the decent thing to do is to not let him go drinking with you. If you have a friend who constantly gets in debt and complains later when they go out with you because they try to keep up with your spending, the decent thing is to say, “hey, every time we go to the mall, you spend more than you want and then moan to me. How about we don’t go to the mall together any more? I’m not going to be your near occasion of sin.” If you have a girlfriend who sets boundaries and then leaves it up to you to keep them, consider that a red flag, too. She packs the bags, you get to carry them. That’s not right. Do you merely tell her, “Hey, you packed them, you carry them?” No, if this is her pattern of behavior, you find another travelling companion. Trust me on that one.

Yes.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So, to summarize, I am against relationships where one person is put in the position of a sexual gatekeeper and that in my experience it has been much more satisfying and enjoyable to be working together rather than having a quasi-adversarial relationship.

There is just one slight flaw I see in this scenario. Most often it presupposes that the other party is charged with always wanting to violate.

This comes at the expense of people who are only holding up accountability because it’s still seen as quasi-adversarial. I’m not sure about you but I’ve personally encountered a fair number of people who take offense every time someone raises an inconsistency with their supposed ‘boundaries’. People mutter behind their backs. Others are confused by it. It creates a lot of tension under the table.

The gatekeeper still has a central role as being the example. It doesn’t matter if it’s the guy or the girl. Those who comply are only as good as the example acting as their rally point.

 

[Xantippe]

But that’s exactly the point. In fact, what if your example extended to more than just one party? Say you’re the only person being singled out to uphold a particularly rigid set of boundaries by someone else. Every other person is free to violate them. You both share the same friends who are calling the other person to stop being so biased. Why then should this picture be regarded as some hapless victim being pressured by the peers?

| know someone’s going to say, “Depends on the boundaries or the morals.” It’s just that it is as you said: There are people who only hold a few hapless individuals to certain boundaries while letting everyone else scot free for just the pettiest reasons!

Thus, one can conclude that the person creating said boundaries should be tasked with maintaining the core responsibility where everyone else’ compliance will rest upon.

If you’re not happy with how somebody is treating you, if you think they are unethical, hypocritical, and dishonest, why are you spending so much as an unnecessary minute with them? Why be physically intimate with them? Why feel cheated that you don’t get to be physically intimate with them?

Spend time with people that you like and respect and trust and minimize the amount of time you spend with anybody you don’t like, respect and trust.

 

[Xantippe]

There is just one slight flaw I see in this scenario. Most often it presupposes that the other party is charged with always wanting to violate.

This comes at the expense of people who are only holding up accountability because it’s still seen as quasi-adversarial. I’m not sure about you but I’ve personally encountered a fair number of people who take offense every time someone raises an inconsistency with their supposed ‘boundaries’. People mutter behind their backs. Others are confused by it. It creates a lot of tension under the table.

The gatekeeper still has a central role as being the example. It doesn’t matter if it’s the guy or the girl. Those who comply are only as good as the example acting as their rally point.

Why bother with a relationship that requires a gatekeeper, rather than both cooperating equally in holding up mutually agreed-upon standards?

(Of course, in that case, it’s necessary to find someone with whom you can share a set of standards that you both believe in.)

 

[ClearWater]

Since other posters really insisted, this thread is to discuss who is really more responsible for maintaining the boundaries in a relationship.

Here’s the catch: I’m not making this gender-based.

Is it the one who makes the rules or do both parties have to comply even in spite of the failures of the party who created said boundaries? This can apply to rules about not kissing before marriage to not having sex and anything else in between.

As for me, I stick to just treating people the way they treat themselves. Any girl who sets up lots of boundaries should only expect those boundaries to be as strong as she believes them to be.

And by believe, I mean truly believe. Man or woman, I can’t stand people acting in denial and I know I’m not alone in that.

In Mexico, we have a saying, “El hombre llega hasta donde la mujer permite”. It means that the man will go to where the woman allows, meaning that culturally, and otherwise, it has primarily been the woman’s responsibility to uphold these kinds of boundaries.

Yes, it’s really the responsibility of both to uphold moral boundaries, but traditionally, this role falls more on the woman, right or wrong. This has also been true for a VERY long time, historically, as well (thousands of years?).

I realize we want to try to reverse this, but I’d just say, “good luck with that”

Now, some nowadays think this is “machista” (macho), as a way to blame women (since it really does take 2 to tango). However, to some degree, this has been the case for quite sometime, probably worldwide, for a lot of reasons, fair or no.

It’s the way we evolved, that women were expected to “toe the line” more, also because they were the main ones receiving the consequences…pregnancy, damage to reputation, etc.

So, in reality, this mainly falls to women, but wouldn’t it be nice if men could help women out more?

In olden times, it was actually viewed as not only an issue of the couple but of the family. So, they even actually had chaperones to assure things only went so far. Now, we, in modern times, can look down upon these methods, but all things considered, I actually think separating the sexes…not having everything coed…having chaperones really cut down a lot on sexually-transmitted disease and also teen pregnancy.

So, in olden times, the community, and society at large, helped promote boundaries…by separating the sexes in different places, so it wouldn’t be quite as tempting. Movies were censored, so that teens and young adults weren’t quite bombarded as much by all the pressure to have sex.

In schools, they weren’t giving out condoms and saying, “go ahead”.

On TV, chastity, and celibacy was promoted, in the past, but it’s not any longer.

Really, we all have a responsibility to uphold morality. Parents need to teach morality. Society has a responsibility to uphold it, as well, and lastly, ideally, both in the couple should be accountable. In reality, the woman is generally held more accountable, however, even in modern times, though less so than in past times.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Depends on what the boundaries are. Sometimes different things happen. Personally, I’ve had guys who kept pushing and trying to make sure I really meant what I said. Those people always ended up at arm’s length and having to deal with a stricter set of boundaries, because it’s just a pain to deal with them otherwise.

“No” is only going to become “yes” for people who are willing to respect “no”, in my book.

I think you need to take a look at the other side of the coin. I’ve seen a very social price being paid by those who insist on not explaining themselves the longer they are in a group. For me and my friends, we only end up liking someone less the more they keep secrets. A lack of transparency can protect you but it can also cut you off from people who genuinely just want to understand you.

I know this because I’ve personally participated in moments where my friends confront a person about such behavior. What started to look like a request for personal space turned out to be a severe lack of trust and we don’t take kindly to that either.

I too once tried to keep plenty of people at arm’s length because I didn’t trust them. You can bet I paid the same price before turning around.

 

[ClearWater]

One of my sisters if 15 years older than me. She said in her time, the media helped reinforce values with programs like, “Leave it to Beaver”, and many others, that taught values.

Now, the media teaches anything goes, that premarital sex is not only acceptable but expected.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Why feel cheated that you don’t get to be physically intimate with them?

Spend time with people that you like and respect and trust and minimize the amount of time you spend with anybody you don’t like, respect and trust.

Because it’s not as black-and-white. People are often intertwined with people they really like, like a little, don’t like at all, and other times downright despise. I myself am friends with a lot of people who hate each other but not me. Same goes for entire social circles!

From my experience, it shouldn’t be boiled down something that simple.

Why bother with a relationship that requires a gatekeeper, rather than both cooperating equally in holding up mutually agreed-upon standards?

It’s the structure of the cooperation. It doesn’t just apply to relationships. Look at business leadership. Nobody follows a manager who forces his/her subordinates to comply when they themselves don’t. Why should a couple, an even smaller ‘department’ as it were, be structured so differently?

 

[Xantippe]

I think you need to take a look at the other side of the coin. I’ve seen a very social price being paid by those who insist on not explaining themselves the longer they are in a group. For me and my friends, we only end up liking someone less the more they keep secrets. A lack of transparency can protect you but it can also cut you off from people who genuinely just want to understand you.

**As we say in the US, “No is a complete sentence.”

If somebody offers me a cookie, I can just say “no, thank you” even if I just had five cookies. I don’t need to explain that I’m on a diet, I’m diabetic, I’m allergic to nuts, I hate chocolate, I don’t like store cookies, whatever. “No, thank you,” is very simple and quite polite.

When we say no with explanations, it just gives people a toehold to argue with us unnecessarily and waste time. In the end, the reasons are unimportant. It is not up for discussion. **

I know this because I’ve personally participated in moments where my friends confront a person about such behavior. What started to look like a request for personal space turned out to be a severe lack of trust and we don’t take kindly to that either.

**

Here’s a suggestion: Don’t ask questions that you won’t like the answers to.

First you didn’t like it when people didn’t offer an excuse.

Then you didn’t like it when they were pressed and offered an excuse.

Which do you want, the polite “no” or a truthful (but perhaps uncomfortable) answer?
**

I too once tried to keep plenty of people at arm’s length because I didn’t trust them. You can bet I paid the same price before turning around.

 

[Xantippe]

It’s the structure of the cooperation. It doesn’t just apply to relationships. Look at business leadership. Nobody follows a manager who forces his/her subordinates to comply when they themselves don’t. Why should a couple, an even smaller ‘department’ as it were, be structured so differently?

Then don’t.

Don’t be in a relationship with a person that you can’t come up with a mutually agreed-upon set of boundaries with that you will both stick to and help the other stick to.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

As we say in the US, “No is a complete sentence.”

I don’t live in the U.S. so I think you should realize how a behavior like yours, repeated over time, makes you look highly unsociable over here.

Then again, maybe that’s why we’re being outsourced to train telemarketers.

Which do you want, the polite “no” or a truthful (but perhaps uncomfortable) answer?

How about just an answer? Must you always presume an answer is going to come off as uncomfortable?

I used to assume such things too actually. All I got were peeps going, “Phsh!” or worse, they thought I was making such a huge deal.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Then don’t.

Don’t be in a relationship with a person that you can’t come up with a mutually agreed-upon set of boundaries with that you will both stick to and help the other stick to.

You’re not addressing the point. The point is that cooperation requires a structure. I ask again: What good are rules you make when you’re not following them and, worse, requiring everyone else to do the job!

I mean, you do realize that when creating rules, you are exercising the authority that’s supposed to enforce people’s compliance? Person A makes all the laws and dictates what to do. But then, who dictates Person A? :ehh:

 

[DarkLight]

I think you need to take a look at the other side of the coin. I’ve seen a very social price being paid by those who insist on not explaining themselves the longer they are in a group. For me and my friends, we only end up liking someone less the more they keep secrets. A lack of transparency can protect you but it can also cut you off from people who genuinely just want to understand you.

I know this because I’ve personally participated in moments where my friends confront a person about such behavior. What started to look like a request for personal space turned out to be a severe lack of trust and we don’t take kindly to that either.

I too once tried to keep plenty of people at arm’s length because I didn’t trust them. You can bet I paid the same price before turning around.

It depends. If someone’s a friend, and I feel like there’s something they should know, I’ll tell them. A person who I have no idea how they’ll react, or know that it’ll be bad? Not so much. To put it your way, why would I trust someone with the truth when I know they’re going to blow up at me or throw accusations?

What I don’t want to be in is another conversation about how women are just soooo sensitive and what’s the big deal anyways? There are a lot of men out there who simply refuse to acknowledge bad behavior on the part of their male friends. Or even who don’t see it - a lot of guys may not even notice that one of their friends always has his eyes too far down when talking to women and speaks very rudely to them, and I’ve seen situations where very real boundary-crossing behavior is dismissed as “that’s just how he is”.

I’ve also seen guys who would ask why you “allow” certain behavior when it’s just not a good situation. Many women, my younger self included, are too used to being nice. You say no and a guy keeps going anyways you don’t really know what to do, especially if he’s a supposed friend. It’s not ok, you don’t want it to happen, but there’s just nothing in your brain that says what to do now.

 

[Xantippe]

How about just an answer? Must you always presume an answer is going to come off as uncomfortable?

**
I’m assuming an uncomfortable but truthful conversation. (For instance: “I don’t want to drink with you guys because I don’t know you very well” or “I don’t want you driving me home because I don’t know you very well.”)

You were complaining both that

1. people were saying no with no explanation

and

1. they were giving explanations that you didn’t like.

So, which do you prefer? Do you want just the no, or do you want to hear the logic behind the no that you won’t enjoy hearing?**

I used to assume such things too actually. All I got were peeps going, “Phsh!” or worse, they thought I was making such a huge deal.

One more thing–you were complaining about people’s explanations showing a lack of trust, as if that were a bad thing.

In my experience, trustworthy people very rarely demand trust. They demonstrate trustworthiness over time and people trust them. Nothing makes me more worried about somebody’s trustworthiness than hearing them say, “Don’t you trust me?” or “You can trust me!” especially when they are new acquaintances. People who can be trusted don’t usually talk like that.