Relationship Boundaries: Who's more accountable?

[St_Francis]

The example I listed above with my mother is actually a type of that. She’ll claim boundaries that mean (1) it’s no ok to ask her to not say certain things to me, and (2) it’s not ok for me to be upset or respond negatively if she says those things. Or she’ll try to say things like she gets to determine what sort of physical contact she has with me and any attempt to tell her no is a violation of her boundaries. Or she’ll have inconsistent rules for how it’s ok to speak to her that seem to change whenever she doesn’t like what’s being said.

It is an attempt at control. She’s claiming boundaries and using them to try to act how she pleases with me, while making me out to be the bad guy for not smiling and putting up with it. And I’m working on responding the way you respond to people like that - limited contact and keep it superficial.

That’s what I was trying to say earlier - it matters a lot whether someone’s boundaries are something appropriate for them, something within their own sphere, so to speak. So my mother can make boundaries about how she wants to be spoken to, or touched. She cannot make boundaries about how she gets to touch me or speak to me. I don’t respect those sorts of boundaries because they’re not hers to make. It’s not a violation of her boundaries if I walk away because she’s being rude to me, no matter how much she might say it is.

I see what you are saying. Your mother doesn’t understand that everyone gets to set boundaries about similar things; she thinks she can set boundaries about how you talk to her *and *about how she talks to you.

So, is that the sort of thing Lost Wanderer is talking about?

 

[Xantippe]

Maybe your problem is that you think you have some right to hear a justification.
**
Yes.**

Other people have a right to set their own boundaries without owing anyone else a defense. You ought to expect yourself to abide by those boundaries, because you respect the person who made them as having the human dignity to say “yes” or “no” about their own life decisions.

Yep!

The only “punishment” you can deal out is to quit trusting that what they say will be backed up in action, and to give and withhold the consent that is yours to decide accordingly.

Right!

 

[Xantippe]

If he pressures them, they might try, because it is the expectation now that people ought to have a rational basis for their decisions. In truth, however, intuition can be a better guide in some instances.

**I’d say, in many instances. We don’t need to be hyper-rational choosing which shirt to wear, what to eat for lunch, who to sit next to, or deciding which movie to watch. In a lot of cases, we can just choose whatever sounds good. **

This is particularly true when dealing with manipulative people. You can’t “out rationalize” them. You have to be willing to trust you gut instinct, and just say, “You know, I could be wrong, but this just does not feel right.”

**That’s quite right about manipulative people.

Parents very rapidly discover that eventually, we get to the end of reason, and it’s time to say, “That’s the rule at our house. When you grow up and support yourself and have a house of your own, you can make the rules there.” **

 

[Xantippe]

See this is what’s confusing people. You talk about people tyrannizing your life. But then your examples are of people not letting you touch them - a thing that to most of us would be at worst an annoyance when coming from someone who’s not a romantic partner. Most of the time it wouldn’t be worth more than a shrug.

I’m guessing there’s something more going on that isn’t coming through in this thread. But none of us know what that is from what you’ve said.

Exactly.

Who one allows physical contact with oneself is something that a person ought to have carte blanche over.

 

[dedo]

People have the right to set there own boundaries, and to change them.

If the OP has issues with the boundaries of others, then he has a couple options:

1. He can not interact with the person. This has been discussed.
2. He can communicate with the person directly or through a mutual friend and just ask the person for clarification.
3. He can be patient and let the person work out his / her own issues.
4. He can examine himself to see if he is raising any “red flags”. I see a couple in this thread including: not being specific about the situation he is concerned about, expressing a willingness not to respect the boundaries of others etc.

A couple things may be effecting the boundaries of others. The person could have had a bad experience recently. The person could be married, or in a relationship where they need do attend to family or work responsibilities etc. There is another thread where the person was upset because she lost a friendship with a priest. People like that do not have the freedom to form relationships that single people have.

One thing that seems to lower a lot of boundaries is to be working on a common project in an organized fashion where there are other people around (“chaperones”) etc. Thus, there are several amazing people who I would love to work with. However, unless and until that happens, getting to know these people is difficult.

 

[dedo]

People have the right to set their own boundaries, and to change them when they want to.

If there is a concern about a boundary, or if the boundary is not understood, then there are a couple options:

1. You can leave the person alone. This has been discussed.
2. You can ask the person about the boundary, or get a mutual friend to ask for you.
3. You can be patient and wait. The boundary may have nothing to do with you.
4. You can look at yourself to see if you have raised any “red flags”. In the case of the OP, there are a couple red flags including: not being clear about the situation, and expressing a willingness to violate the boundaries of others in some circumstances. Either of these would cause me to strengthen a boundary with the OP. Someone recommended an interesting book about “red flags” for violent behavior (not related to the OP but good for self defense) on this thread and I ordered a copy – thx.

That does not mean I would be “judging” the OP, or otherwise assuming something is amiss.

It just means when there is uncertainty, I tend to be cautious until I know more about the person.

Also, the boundaries of many people are not up to them. If someone is married, in a relationship, or a priest etc. Then his significant other / priest colleagues will have a major if not controlling influence on who his /her friends can be. So in general, to be friends with some people, you may have to befriend the couple, or “the group”.

There is one thing however that seems to dramatically lower boundaries across the board, and that is to interact under the umbrella of a legitimate organized activity where there are other people (chaperones) around. Why this is true is an enigma. However, if two people of different social groups (married and single or single and priest) so much as smile at each other outside of an organized activity, someone might spread some innuendo. You can read this sort of innuendo on many CAF threads.

However, in an organized activity, almost anything is acceptable, and the group could meet at Disneyland if they wanted to, and no one would care.

So, one way to lower a lot of boundaries is to just join an organized activity, or create one.

 

[Vico]

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.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. …

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"89
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P80.HTMAccomplice
…

The teaching with regard to this subject-matter is very plain, and may be stated in this wise: Formal cooperation is never lawful, since it presupposes a manifestly sinful attitude on the part of the will of the accomplice. Material complicity is held to be justified when it is brought about by an action which is in itself either morally good or at any rate indifferent, and when there is a sufficient reason for permitting on the part of another the sin which is a consequence of the action. The reason for this assertion is patent; for the action of the accomplice is assumed to be unexceptionable, his intention is already bespoken to be proper, and he cannot be burdened with the sin of the principal agent, since there is supposed to be a commensurately weighty reason for not preventing it. Practically, however, it is often difficult to apply these principles …

Delany, J. (1907). Accomplice. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/01100a.htm