It's come up in a couple of recent threads, that one shouldn't be "threatening" their spouse to change their behaviour. While I agree in principle, I also believe that one shouldn't have to tolerate negative behaviour. So where's the line?
So I looked up the definition of "threat". And Websters says:
A statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do
Or:
An expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
I agree with this... Threatening harm to your partner if they don't behave in a certain way would be unacceptable. Saying "I'll smash your iPad if you don't shut up", for example...
So what's the proper way? What's the difference between a threat and stating (and enforcing) a boundary?
To me, the difference is that a boundary is intended to state that a particular behaviour is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. While the consequence of not abiding to a boundary may be negative (and may even be painful) to the other spouse, that's not the intention of the boundary. The boundary is intended to protect the person declaring it.
In a relationship, the ultimate consequence is likely a divorce (hopefully after many other things have been tried). And yes, that consequence is painful to everyone involved (both spouses, children, often immediate family). But if that's done to protect oneself from further harm, it's not a threat. It's not controlling. It can even be done without animosity.
Just some thoughts that have been bubbling in my head as I ponder threats vs. boundaries... Thoughts?
C
So I looked up the definition of "threat". And Websters says:
A statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do
Or:
An expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
I agree with this... Threatening harm to your partner if they don't behave in a certain way would be unacceptable. Saying "I'll smash your iPad if you don't shut up", for example...
So what's the proper way? What's the difference between a threat and stating (and enforcing) a boundary?
To me, the difference is that a boundary is intended to state that a particular behaviour is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. While the consequence of not abiding to a boundary may be negative (and may even be painful) to the other spouse, that's not the intention of the boundary. The boundary is intended to protect the person declaring it.
In a relationship, the ultimate consequence is likely a divorce (hopefully after many other things have been tried). And yes, that consequence is painful to everyone involved (both spouses, children, often immediate family). But if that's done to protect oneself from further harm, it's not a threat. It's not controlling. It can even be done without animosity.
Just some thoughts that have been bubbling in my head as I ponder threats vs. boundaries... Thoughts?
C
Put the internet to work for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment