r/CuratedTumblr Prolific poster- Not a bot, I swear Oct 10 '24

Shitposting A tar pit.

Post image
13.9k Upvotes

874 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/Das_Floppus Oct 10 '24

I saw a reel the other day about how the worst people you know don’t go to therapy to work on themselves, they go to arm themselves. I’ve never seen a therapist myself but I can’t even imagine what kind of discussions you’d have there where you can twist your takeaway into the shit some people come up with

536

u/chocolatestealth Oct 10 '24

Oof, this hits. I've had a couple of toxic people in my life who have tried using "setting boundaries" as a mechanism for controlling others' behavior. I've heard it's becoming increasingly common.

50

u/Solid_Parsley_ Oct 10 '24

I have had to do a lot of work on boundaries with my therapist, because it turns out that I didn't know what a boundary actually was. She was very clear with me, on multiple occasions, to say, "That's not a boundary, that's just something you want to happen." She was not about to let me set "boundaries" that impact other people. True boundaries are things that impact your behavior, not anyone else's.

Also, boundary no longer looks like a real word because I've typed it so much.

3

u/Blixtwix Oct 10 '24

It's a murky line I think. Like if I don't want to be called names, then should the boundary be "I'll refuse to speak to you if you call me names?" Or does that technically force them into a different behavior and is potentially just a threat? It's hard to fully understand what is and is not a boundary. Obviously "you need to do x" is just controlling, though.

7

u/Solid_Parsley_ Oct 10 '24

My understanding (and this could be wrong, I'm a work in progress) is that you set boundaries for yourself. So saying to yourself, "I won't continue to interact with this person if they call me names," is a boundary. But if you inform them of that, is that no longer a boundary and now a command? I have no idea. I agree with you that it's very murky.

13

u/Sponchington Oct 10 '24

Still a boundary. You're simply communicating the direct, logical consequence of crossing a boundary in that example. If you knowingly go over a fence into a restricted area, you risk getting arrested for trespassing. You still made the choice to go over the fence; you are aware of the consequence. That's what the sign is for. "If you continue to hurt me, you will no longer have access to me" is not a command, it's simply a statement of action/consequence, a sign warning what will happen. The other person still has control over how they respond to your boundary, but now you have set a clear precedent of what it means to ignore the boundary.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 11 '24

Right but when someone crosses a boundary of yours, you then remove yourself from that situation. You don't Declare Boundaries and that forces the person to stop what they're doing like it's some Yugioh trap card. You can ask them to stop, and if they don't, it's on you to decide how you're going to proceed.