Setting boundaries in marriage

[hisbloodformysins]

hisbloodformysins,

You said you were a psych nurse, so you are probably familiar with Harriet Lerner's book, "The Dance of Anger".

If not, check it out. It may have some info that may be helpful. I wish you the best, and hope that your husband comes around and respects the boundaries you have rightfully set. You have done your part in compassionately explaining to him what you want and your reason for your requests, and the consequences of not meeting your requests...and your requests are well within reason, IMHO. He can choose to accept it or not. If he becomes angry...he owns that. Not you.
Good luck.

I've read it, a therapist recommended it to me.'

Thanks!

 

[hisbloodformysins]

I have to agree with DIANIC on this one...



However , I would add to this that I think a distinction needs to be made between all being able to stumble and some having strongholds in their thinking and in their life. It is more difficult to deal with in whomever we find these strongholds... There is no special group for this but in the case of some the devil has had more opportunity to build strongholds....This can come through age as a product of the devil having longer to strengthen a system of thought in us. but it also can come through a particular influence in our life such as upbringing , even a denomination or church , a culture , the friends we are around.....In the cases described , you are probably dealing with a stronghold or system of thought and not just one individual's ability to fall into this kind of sin of controling.

The thing is the devil is much more subtle than we often give credit for. It is beyond the scope of this thread but there are many problems we can fall into in our thinking...Just because controling behavior or a lack of respect for other people's boundaries is the focus of this thread doesn't mean that there are not other destructive lines of thought that can be a factor in these situations.

Although I agree with Dianc also, I think all people can be controlling, and in all generations some people are loving, there is like you said, a different message that gets taught to different generations... that I think can influence it to.

HB

 

[DIANAC]

Their line of thinking:
You don't agree with me = you don't like me = there must be something wrong with me = I must prove to you I am right, so that you will like me, and so I can feel better about myself.

That's it!

 

[CuriousInIL]

One of the clear unanswered questions here is how to determine if the banned behavior is truly "unhealthy behavior" especially between spouses where at least one--presumably in good faith and with a well-formed conscience--believes it is not unhealthy and the other--who may or may not be acting in good faith and with or without a well-formed conscience--believes the opposite.

that question hasn't been answered because it's not the topic of this thread, nor is it my personal question.

Well, then you have changed from your OP which, in part, asked:

1. What is a violation of personal boundaries in marriage?

2. When is ok to set up those boundaries…

5. So you agree on setting boundaries, but HOW might the appropriate way be in doing that?

These can be about anything that is near to your heart or that you want to comment on regarding christianity, marriage and boundary setting.

These are just a few broad questions. I'm very interested in hearing all your thoughts.

HB

But to answer you, nope, that doesn't matter. What matters is not what is ultimately "right" what matters is the individual needs of both parties involved. His behavor is extremely offensive to me, regardless of whether I "should" feel offended or not, I do.

I think that there is a great deal of difference between “setting a boundary” that excludes objectively unhealthy behavior and one that excludes something that you do not subjectively want but that objectively is okay.

I think lots more folks “approve” of “boundaries” such as “No groping,” “No AS,” or “Not during menstruation” etc. because, to many, those are objectively appropriate. I think most folks would tell a married person that set up “boundaries” like “No kissing,” “No hugging” or “No sex on odd-numbered days” that they were in for a heap of trouble and that such “boundaries” were inappropriate.

Right and wrong mattter here as always IMNTBHO.

 

[Rembrandtfan]

Well, then you have changed from your OP which, in part, asked:



I think that there is a great deal of difference between “setting a boundary” that excludes objectively unhealthy behavior and one that excludes something that you do not subjectively want but that objectively is okay.

I think lots more folks “approve” of “boundaries” such as “No groping,” “No AS,” or “Not during menstruation” etc. because, to many, those are objectively appropriate. I think most folks would tell a married person that set up “boundaries” like “No kissing,” “No hugging” or “No sex on odd-numbered days” that they were in for a heap of trouble and that such “boundaries” were inappropriate.

Right and wrong mattter here as always IMNTBHO.

I didn't see anything in HB's posts that said "no hugging/kissing/sex". She was simply asking him to change his approach, not to stop approaching altogether. I don't see anything inappropriate about that. Her feelings count, too.

 

[hisbloodformysins]

Well, then you have changed from your OP which, in part, asked:



I think that there is a great deal of difference between “setting a boundary” that excludes objectively unhealthy behavior and one that excludes something that you do not subjectively want but that objectively is okay.

I think lots more folks “approve” of “boundaries” such as “No groping,” “No AS,” or “Not during menstruation” etc. because, to many, those are objectively appropriate. I think most folks would tell a married person that set up “boundaries” like “No kissing,” “No hugging” or “No sex on odd-numbered days” that they were in for a heap of trouble and that such “boundaries” were inappropriate.

Right and wrong mattter here as always IMNTBHO.

Sorry, I forgot what the op said. I have so many threads going i get them mixed up sometimes.
Thanks for posting.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I didn't see anything in HB's posts that said "no hugging/kissing/sex". She was simply asking him to change his approach, not to stop approaching altogether. I don't see anything inappropriate about that. Her feelings count, too.

I never said that HB said any of those things, my post was a general comment. Yes, I believe her feelings count and his feelings count and right and wrong count. I don't believe that one person's feelings are a trump over all else, especially when not related to an objectively appropriate boundary

Sorry, I forgot what the op said. I have so many threads going i get them mixed up sometimes.
Thanks for posting.

You are welcome. I remember once posting "I never said that" only to have a quote of me saying "That" appear in the next posr becuase I had forgotten what I had said.

I think this is a very interesting and important topic.

 

[hisbloodformysins]

I never said that HB said any of those things, my post was a general comment. Yes, I believe her feelings count and his feelings count and right and wrong count. I don't believe that one person's feelings are a trump over all else, especially when not related to an objectively appropriate boundary

You are welcome. I remember once posting "I never said that" only to have a quote of me saying "That" appear in the next posr becuase I had forgotten what I had said.

I think this is a very interesting and important topic.

so you think i shoud just let him grab at me even though i don't like it becuase it's what he needs?

 

[Rembrandtfan]

I never said that HB said any of those things, my post was a general comment. Yes, I believe her feelings count and his feelings count and right and wrong count. I don't believe that one person's feelings are a trump over all else, especially when not related to an objectively appropriate boundary

I apologize for misunderstanding.

 

[CuriousInIL]

so you think i shoud just let him grab at me even though i don't like it becuase it's what he needs?

I didn't say that. What I said was that right and wrong come into the equation, your feelings come into the equation, and his feelings come into the equation. Then those are balanced, discussed and hopefully agreement is reached.

My "problem" with a number of the posts on this thread, including many of yours, is that what I took from them is that each spouse can just set any "boundary" they want, without any regard to the other spouse's feelings and without regard to right and wrong. I do not believe that is the way that a married couple should act. As I said above, I think it is a balance between three things.

If you want my opinion, let me know either by a return post or PM. But, as I have been trying to confine myself to the issues raised by the broader topic of boundary setting in general, and not to the specific conduct in your particular case, I will end this post here.

 

[mkgal1]

I didn't say that. What I said was that right and wrong come into the equation, your feelings come into the equation, and his feelings come into the equation. Then those are balanced, discussed and hopefully agreement is reached.

My "problem" with a number of the posts on this thread, including many of yours, is that what I took from them is that each spouse can just set any "boundary" they want, without any regard to the other spouse's feelings and without regard to right and wrong. I do not believe that is the way that a married couple should act. As I said above, I think it is a balance between three things.

????This confuses me. It sounds like a great idea, but if it were as easy as discussing an issue and reaching a compromise, a boundary wouldn't be necessary. You could stop right at that point. That is ideal for things to be settled at that stage. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case.

It also isn't a matter of one spouse setting any boundary they choose, without regard to the other's feelings...the whole *picture* is taken into consideration with much prayer and discernment for what is BEST for everyone involved. In order to do that, the other spouse's best interest (not necessarily their feelings) AND what is right/wrong do play a big part in deciding boundaries. Just because those things are deciding factors, doesn't mean the other spouse will be in agreement, however...that is why there is a need for a boundary in the first place.

 

[Rembrandtfan]

And I think in the scenario HB describes, it's obvious that the husband is in the wrong. What he is doing is aggressive and is leaving her feeling violated. There is nothing selfish about saying "no, you will not approach me that way." Just because you don't let someone walk all over you, doesn't mean you're not considering their feelings.

 

[mkgal1]

I wonder if certain personalites struggle more with setting boundaries than others.

Have any of you read about John Trent's personalites as described as animals? There are otters, beavers, golden retrievers, and lions. I need to look up details about all of them, but I know personally, I lean more towards the golden retriever. Golden retrievers are loyal, tend to *make it their business* to make sure everyone is at peace in the home or work environment, are generally easy-going. With these traits, I wonder if my people-pleasing tendencies cause me to have a difficult time with boundaries.

What do you all think?

If you want, I will post the character traits of all the animals.

 

[kanga22]

If you want, I will post the character traits of all the animals.

Yes, please do.

 

[mkgal1]

Okay...there are a lot, but I will do a brief overview:

Traits of the Lion:

Decisive, purposeful, and great at conquering nearly any challenge. Lions are born leaders, like to accomplish things with immediate results, a lion's time-frame is NOW, Lions want Reader's Digest-length communication, often feel challenged by questions, and are not afraid of pressure of confrontation.

Traits of the Beaver:

Beavers keep a close watch on their emotions, actually read manuals and instruction books, like to make careful decisions, like using their critical skills to solve problems, live by the motto "Let's do it right", often turn anger inward, and tend to focus on the past.

Traits of the Otter:

Otters just want to have fun, are great at motivating others to action, tend to avoid the fine print, focus on the future, tend to avoid confrontation at all costs, are tremendous networkers, and are very susceptible to peer pressure.

Traits of the Golden Retriever:

Golden retrievers are loyal, have a strong need for close relationships, have a deep need to please others, have hearts full of compassion, define the word adaptable, often react to sudden changes (need to be *prepared* for change), and hold stubbornly to what they feel is right.

--Cited from "The Two Sides of Love" by Gary Smalley and John Trent PhD

 

[CuriousInIL]

It also isn't a matter of one spouse setting any boundary they choose, without regard to the other's feelings...the whole *picture* is taken into consideration with much prayer and discernment for what is BEST for everyone involved. In order to do that, the other spouse's best interest (not necessarily their feelings) AND what is right/wrong do play a big part in deciding boundaries. Just because those things are deciding factors, doesn't mean the other spouse will be in agreement, however...that is why there is a need for a boundary in the first place.

If that is what is being done then I am in agreement that is appropriate. But, some of the earlier posts said that neither right and wrong nor the other spouses feelings (best interests might be a better term) was taking into account--only the feelings of the boundary setting spouse, and that IMO is wrong wrong wrong.

And I think in the scenario HB describes, it's obvious that the husband is in the wrong.

I do not think it is so obvious especially because only have one side of the story.

 

[mkgal1]

I think the post you are referring to, HB was trying to explain that it is more about the individual needs than it being a case of right/wrong (hopefully I am not talking out of turn). I didn't take that to mean that right and wrong don't matter, but rather in this case some didn't see a problem with what was going on. That is fine, they wouldn't have to set the same boundaries if they were in the situation--it just wouldn't be an issue. But, people shouldn't tell HB she is wrong for feeling violated--she has every right to feel the way she does. God did not intend sex to be cheapened that way. Does that make sense?


Yes, when deciding why we *feel violated* we always must start with the idea that it could be purely selfish. If that is the case...we need to work through that. We can't blame others for our selfishness (oh no, I hear the can of worms opening here).


I don't think it matters that we haven't heard HB's hubby's side. This is a common problem and I agree with how HB is handling it. Again...she isn't rejecting her husband. She has been clear how she wants him to be gentle...compassionate...that's all. He will benefit from the changes she is wishing for as well.

Did I make things muddier? I hope not.

 

[hisbloodformysins]

????This confuses me. It sounds like a great idea, but if it were as easy as discussing an issue and reaching a compromise, a boundary wouldn't be necessary. You could stop right at that point. That is ideal for things to be settled at that stage. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case.

It also isn't a matter of one spouse setting any boundary they choose, without regard to the other's feelings...the whole *picture* is taken into consideration with much prayer and discernment for what is BEST for everyone involved. In order to do that, the other spouse's best interest (not necessarily their feelings) AND what is right/wrong do play a big part in deciding boundaries. Just because those things are deciding factors, doesn't mean the other spouse will be in agreement, however...that is why there is a need for a boundary in the first place.

Yes, ideallly we would be able to discuss it and come to a compromise, but that is not how it is in my marriage...

She hit the nail on the head.

 

[hisbloodformysins]

And I think in the scenario HB describes, it's obvious that the husband is in the wrong. What he is doing is aggressive and is leaving her feeling violated. There is nothing selfish about saying "no, you will not approach me that way." Just because you don't let someone walk all over you, doesn't mean you're not considering their feelings.

 

[hisbloodformysins]

I wonder if certain personalites struggle more with setting boundaries than others.

Have any of you read about John Trent's personalites as described as animals? There are otters, beavers, golden retrievers, and lions. I need to look up details about all of them, but I know personally, I lean more towards the golden retriever. Golden retrievers are loyal, tend to *make it their business* to make sure everyone is at peace in the home or work environment, are generally easy-going. With these traits, I wonder if my people-pleasing tendencies cause me to have a difficult time with boundaries.

What do you all think?

If you want, I will post the character traits of all the animals.

Yes, i'm interested in hearing abouy them.... I think we are both billy goats