Sharing something a friend told me

I’m still pondering this.

Take “no unsolicited advice” for instance.

When someone says “I don’t act on your unsolicited advice” then they are setting a boundary for their own actions, which is what we should all do, control ourselves.

But when they say “You must not offer advice” they are setting a boundary for the other person to adhere to - so they are attempting to control another persons actions.

It changes then from a boundary of your own - I don’t accept that advice- to a boundary that you enforce on someone else. You cannot give that advice.

If you have the right to forbid others actions that you do not like, do they have an equal right to forbid your actions that they do not like!

Or is it more about seeking dominance over another? Why is it not enough to refuse the advice ie control your own action?

I think “setting my boundaries” is a carelessly tossed phrase, that often actually doesn’t men much more than I want things the way I like🤔

Ok I think I understand where the confusion around boundaries stems from.

Using Lathyrus3's "boundary" of "You must not offer advice" as an example of a controlling boundary. When really "You must not offer advice" is a demand.

A boundary would be:

"If you offer advice again in the future, than I will end the conversation/no longer contact you/etc."

Notice how a real boundary doesn't actually control anyone else's actions, only your own (reaction to their action).

And if anyone dares to argue that that example is still controlling (since it influences the behavior of the other party with a threat), what is the alternative?

The offended party is forced to listen to opinions they do not want to or care to hear until the offender dies? That would be infinitely more controlling.

BeepBoop "If you offer advice again in the future, than I will end the conversation/no longer contact you" [or answer your missives]

This is correct to me. Thank you for the proper words.

"Or is it more about seeking dominance over another? Why is it not enough to refuse the advice ie control your own action?"

Missed this part. It's not enough to refuse advice, because we aren't robots. Even when we know something is objective reality, we may still be influenced by our parent's opinions (especially if those parents instilled fear, obligation, and guilt into their child). Not to mention, it's just simply draining having to hear something you don't want to ad infinitum. Especially if it's about a topic you care deeply about, maybe personal life-style choices perhaps.

Strong fences make good neighbours.

Yes, I’m only pondering it philosophically I suppose, not having anything personal embedded into my pondering. That’s why I’ve avoided talking about parents and children because peoples personal experiences do influence how they regard the whole “boundary” thing.

I think probably “If you keep offering advice I will end the conversation” is somewhere along the lines of “Trespassers will be prosecuted” to put it in another boundary context.
That is, your action will have this consequence.

In the end I still can’t help thinking that rigid boundaries of forbidding and conversely determined ignoring of another’s wishes are just the two flip sides of intolerance and a determination to have your own way. (Your is meant generally not personally )

Incidentally, although I’m partial to a pithy saying, I still don’t really get what Smarter was saying with her ‘nailed it” remark.

I think "setting my boundaries" is a carelessly tossed phrase I agree Lathyrus.

Why so much fuss about advice, unsolicited or otherwise? If you don't want to take the advice then don't. To say that if advice is given in the future I will no longer contact you is IMO an extreme and ridiculous reaction but if the relationship means so little that you'll discard it so readily then maybe it's not worth it for all concerned.

It is true, boundaries are unconditional love, they are respecting each others differences. Violating others boundaries is what places a condition on love, that condition being "I will not stop doing the thing that hurts you or makes you uncomfortable and you must maintain this relationship".

From all of which I think it's probably what I call "expecting good manners and consideration" - which is fair enough.

I tend to find that modern concept of "boundaries" as meaning "I'm just looking for an excuse to say your perfectly standard behaviour is a problem/you are a problem. Go on - give me that excuse". Rather than thinking "Well we're all human. So as long as someone has a roughly similar set of morals/expectations there's no big deal problem worth blowing them out for".

After all telling someone who admits they "used to" be a thief (in his own words) that I knew pretty recently "The boundary is you had better not turn out to still be a thief - or you will be past history on the spot" is totally unnecessary. I was gracious enough to assume he'd repented of his sins and was now a normal person instead of a thief - and so I said nothing - until it turned out he had lied and he is still a thief. At that point - no need for a "You crossed my boundaries" speech and I just cut him off instantly and totally and left him to figure out that thieves are not people in my opinion and so he's history now.

I think it should be rather clear that a person setting a boy fart with another has reached a point where if they do not set it, the relationship is in jeopardy. For many, that jeopardy is enough to stop and think "I am causing harm with this behaviour and I should stop doing it". For others, they have placed themselves as more important than respecting someone else's different needs.

Well, I really cannot get the hang of technology and it changes my words. Ha.

I suppose it is a rather good analogy. Ha.

I totally agree with your second paragraph CariadAgain which is why I wonder how much of an affect this, which is IMO obsession with boundaries, plays a part in estrangement.

Estrangement is the ultimate boundary is it not?

Yes it is Luminance.

This has gone this has gone completely over my head! What on earth is it all about??

And what is all that about boy farts??
Has everyone gone bonkers on here today?

Many posts here demonstrate willful ignorance and entitlement in my opinion. A few posters have said they don’t understand boundaries and/or insist they are unnecessary. The internet is a wonderful thing, I think any poster could spend 10-15 minutes googling the role of boundaries in relationships and do a little reading. In reference to estrangement and the role boundaries may play in the dynamic, it could be useful to those struggling with being estranged to have a basic understanding of boundaries since they often seem to be a point of contention.

The example of unsolicited advice to me demonstrates an entitlement to having one’s thoughts and feelings catered to at the expense of other’s comfort. Why so much fuss about unsolicited advice? Why indeed, is there so much fuss about keeping one’s thought to yourself when asked? Just because you (and by “you” I don’t mean any poster in particular, but those who think they are entitled to offer advice and opinions regardless of how the other feels about it) don’t see the harm or annoyance in hearing unasked for advice doesn’t mean it can’t be harmful or annoying.

I think some people, likely those lacking in emotional maturity, take other people’s boundaries personally, especially if those boundaries require they change their behavior in any way. They may feel that being asked to change their behavior means they are bad and are doing bad things, and thus following the boundary would be an admission of guilt. This seems especially often when an adult child gives boundaries to a parent who still expects obedience (though they may say “respect” or “love” when they mean obedience.) Giving advice isn’t bad or wrong in and of itself, it becomes wrong when the request to stop is ignored. No one has the right to say or do whatever they want to another person. “You will not give advice to me about my children” is not controlling. “You will not give advice ever” is controlling. The boundary isn’t about how the other person functions in their own life or with other people, but how they function in the relationship with the other person. Very simple to comprehend, frankly.

Shinamae

Sorry, it’s gone completely over my head 😵‍💫

Yes, and mine 🤯

I think my phone has gone bonkers today and I am working late shifts and unable to sleep.

Lathyrus3

I’m still pondering this.

Take “no unsolicited advice” for instance.

When someone says “I don’t act on your unsolicited advice” then they are setting a boundary for their own actions, which is what we should all do, control ourselves.

But when they say “You must not offer advice” they are setting a boundary for the other person to adhere to - so they are attempting to control another persons actions.

It changes then from a boundary of your own - I don’t accept that advice- to a boundary that you enforce on someone else. You cannot give that advice.

If you have the right to forbid others actions that you do not like, do they have an equal right to forbid your actions that they do not like!

Or is it more about seeking dominance over another? Why is it not enough to refuse the advice ie control your own action?

I think “setting my boundaries” is a carelessly tossed phrase, that often actually doesn’t men much more than I want things the way I like🤔

You have amazingly put this in a What you have said is surprisingly perfect!!! Exactly what I was trying to say, but somehow I couldn't quite come up with a proper words. Thank you!

I should add, a proper boundary wouldn't be phrased as "You will not give me advice about my children." But rather something like, "If you give me advice about my children I will leave, or, ask you to leave my home, etc."

BeepBoop

And if anyone dares to argue that that example is still controlling (since it influences the behavior of the other party with a threat), what is the alternative?

The offended party is forced to listen to opinions they do not want to or care to hear until the offender dies? That would be infinitely more controlling.

Still ruminating.🙄

Actually I think if the boundary comes with a condition for the other person to meet, it is still seeking dominance in the relationship.

So “I wont listen to your advice” and then removing yourself is a boundary- a situation you will not tolerate for yourself and an action that you take for yourself. And that is good.

It is then up to the other person to decide what action they will take and they retain their autonomy.

But once you apply a condition that the other person must adhere to you are using the boundary as a controlling mechanism n order to make the other person behave as you wish.

Somehow a line has been crossed from “that is not for me” to “that is not for you”.

Like I say I’m still ruminating.

Allsorts

It seems you are troubled by partial estrangement. Think of the outcome you want and why, then act on it. Once estranged for many there is no going back.
In my case my d estranged almost everyone before me nd I should have acted, deep down I knew whatever I said would not alter her doing what she wanted. I was clinging on. She didn't want her life up to then to determine the future. She has a new one now. It's hard to face you are not loved anymore. she has one life and wanted to live it her way.

How easily love is tossed away. I am sorry for you. Partially estranged doesn't mean I have love. I know deep down it could be a few good reasons why it isn't total estrangment, but having love for me isn't one of them. Actions, words are very telling. So I feel your pain.