# Threats vs. Boundaries... A hypothetical discussion



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

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


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

I agree with you, PBear. Part of the problem comes into play when the person stating their boundary uses it as a threat, trying to control someone's behaviour. Or, the person being told about it takes it as a threat when it wasn't.

If my husband starts using online porn again, I will divorce him. Something like this can be taken either way. One would have to be privy to all the background about us and our present circumstances to understand why it is the way it is. So the same exact thing can be either a threat or a boundary, depending on the circumstances. To further muddy the waters, if I did divorce him, the same edict would not necessarily be true in a future relationship if I ever had one.

Also, these things can change over time.


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

Lila said:


> I'm not very good at explaining this kind of stuff but here's how I see it.
> 
> A threat is an aggressive act (spoken or physical) onto someone else to force that person into action.
> 
> ...


That's an odd couple definitions that are more likely to confuse than clarify.

The dictionary uses "hostile action" to define a threat and hostile, in turn, is "unfriendly; antagonistic".

Aggression, on the other hand, includes both hostile and violence.

Typically it is only violence which is to be avoided. Setting boundaries, establishing consequences, can be unfriendly and antagonistic without being violent.


----------



## inquizitivemind (Jul 16, 2013)

I don't think of setting boundaries as threats at all, or even making statement like, "If you do this, I will do this." That is actually just demonstrating that actions have consequences. We don't threaten our children when we say, If you do this, you will be in time out. We are setting boundaries for them and giving them ultimatums.

I guess I see threats as more violent action than what boundaries are set up for. These are just ultimatums, demonstrations of the consequences of actions.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

I see a threat as an aggressive action I will do to another person if they do something.

For example, "Wife, if you don't stop screwing other men I will post every embarrassing thing publicly, divorce, and sue for sole custody of the kids" I see as a threatening statement. 

A boundary I see as an act of denial of myself if you won't behave accordingly with a standard.

For example, "Wife, I will stay with you forever as long as you don't screw other men" I see as a boundary statement. It's what you will do as long as the rules get followed.

I'm not saying one is implicitly better than the other. Each have their place depending on what is happening.

In general, I have only found success with both boundaries and threats when what is at stake is my continued involvement in her life, rather than me holding something over her.

One is what I will tolerate, one is more controlling.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening all
I don't think the important discussion is about what is a "threat" and what is a "boundary" - I think it is about what actions it is and is not acceptable to say you will take in response to your partner's behavior. 

Certainly any sort of violence, physical force, or illegal action is right out. That still leaves a a very broad range:

"If I catch you sleeping with another man again, I'll divorce you" - most people will view that as an OK "threat". 

"If I catch you talking to another man when I am not there, I'll divorce you" - would probably be viewed as abusive and controlling.

Its a very confusing grey area. What actions can you take: "divorce", "not speak to you", "tell your friends", "not have sex with you" "not give you any money", "take your clothes away", "take your car away", "not let you sleep in our bed" . 

Then what sorts of things is it OK to insist that someone do / not-do. "not have an affair" , "not watch porn" , "not masturbate" "take a shower" "cut your hair" "do the laundry" "get a job" "have sex" "engage in a particular sex act" 

I think this is actually a very deep issue on what is and isn't expected in relationships. Lots to think about...:scratchhead:


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> I don't think the important discussion is about what is a "threat" and what is a "boundary" - I think it is about what actions it is and is not acceptable to say you will take in response to your partner's behavior.
> 
> Certainly any sort of violence, physical force, or illegal action is right out. That still leaves a a very broad range:
> ...



I like to think of it terms of logical consequences of breaking someone's expected boundary. 

For instance in a popular thread right now, the logical consequences of one spouse not meeting agreed upon expectations, might be a threat to withhold financial support. It's a logical consequence that when one person doesn't pull their weight, they get less.

The key is agreed upon expectations and agreed upon consequences. Everyone has their own personal code and generally we marry people who have the same personal code. Generally! So when one spouse isn't meeting expectations there has to be a discussing agreeing to expectations AND agreeing to consequences or the relationship becomes autocratic and thus abusive.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

PBear said:


> ......................
> 
> So what's the proper way? What's the difference between a threat and stating (and enforcing) a boundary?
> 
> ...


The bolded is how I approach issues.

eg I have said to Mr H that xxxx behaviour goes outside my boundaries. I have no intention of controlling what he does but I will protect myself and my boundaries. He has a choice, he can do xxx if that is what he feels he wants in life, he is free to go and do it however tell me now that that is his preferred path in life, treat me with enough respect to be honest. I will not continue on with a relationship where my boundaries are crossed but also do not want to hold anyone back.
He and I are on the same page with this, have the same/ similar boundaries. We have had many open discussions about such issues.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening Anon Pink
I think you are mostly right. When people do get into a relationship where they have different ideas of what is expected, things can get very ugly. Sometimes these differences are so large that neither ever thought to ask: One may think that near daily sex is a given in a marriage, another may think that grown-ups rarely have sex. Neither thought to ask the other because each thought the answer was obvious...



Anon Pink said:


> I like to think of it terms of logical consequences of breaking someone's expected boundary.
> 
> For instance in a popular thread right now, the logical consequences of one spouse not meeting agreed upon expectations, might be a threat to withhold financial support. It's a logical consequence that when one person doesn't pull their weight, they get less.
> 
> The key is agreed upon expectations and agreed upon consequences. Everyone has their own personal code and generally we marry people who have the same personal code. Generally! So when one spouse isn't meeting expectations there has to be a discussing agreeing to expectations AND agreeing to consequences or the relationship becomes autocratic and thus abusive.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

a threat is nothing more than a declaration of intent to cause harm. used primarily to control someone else.

a consequence for crossing a boundary is just a measure taken to discourage behavior that harms yourself. 

neither can stop or cause an action in of themselves, but they can influence in much the same way. the difference is purpose.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

boundaries or threats doesn't matter because if you don't enforce it, its meaningless.


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

As'laDain said:


> a threat is nothing more than a declaration of intent to cause harm. used primarily to control someone else.
> 
> a consequence for crossing a boundary is just a measure taken to discourage behavior that harms yourself.
> 
> neither can stop or cause an action in of themselves, but they can influence in much the same way. the difference is purpose.


There is an element of truth to this, which is the intuitive understanding of most here, I think.

But there is also a tendency to use "threat" to mean bad control and "setting boundaries" to mean good control without otherwise really clarifying the difference.

If I "set a boundary" against infidelity I am certainly intending to control my husband's behavior and I certainly do mean to harm him if he crosses that boundary.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

ladymisato said:


> There is an element of truth to this, which is the intuitive understanding of most here, I think.
> 
> But there is also a tendency to use "threat" to mean bad control and "setting boundaries" to mean good control without otherwise really clarifying the difference.
> 
> *If I "set a boundary" against infidelity I am certainly intending to control my husband's behavior and I certainly do mean to harm him if he crosses that boundary*.


See, I don't think of boundaries as a threat because I don't intend to control my partner or to harm him if the boundary is crossed. My boundaries are to protect me. 

When I set a boundary regarding infidelity, it was that I would not remain in a relationship with someone who was not faithful. When that boundary was broken, I exited the relationship. 

He had the option to either be faithful or not. And I meant no harm to him by enforcing that boundary when it was crossed. I was not trying to hurt him, but to protect myself from further harm. 

The boundary was to protect _me_. The consequences were actions that _I _took to protect _me_. He was entirely in control of whether or not the relationship ended due to infidelity. There was no element of punishment for him, but rather a removal of myself from a situation that was harmful to me.


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

Rowan said:


> See, I don't think of boundaries as a threat because I don't intend to control my partner or to harm him if the boundary is crossed. My boundaries are to protect me.
> 
> When I set a boundary regarding infidelity, it was that I would not remain in a relationship with someone who was not faithful. When that boundary was broken, I exited the relationship.
> 
> ...


If I set a boundary and threaten bodily harm to someone if they rape me, that's also a threat. I think these concepts are more ambiguous and overlapping than imply.

Now I think you are making a good point still: the point is to protect yourself and you are calling that setting boundaries. But few people issue threats just to be mean or controlling for no purpose. Your setting up something of a straw man.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> The key is agreed upon expectations and agreed upon consequences. Everyone has their own personal code and generally we marry people who have the same personal code. Generally! So when one spouse isn't meeting expectations there has to be a discussing agreeing to expectations AND agreeing to consequences or the relationship becomes autocratic and thus abusive.


You worded this eloquently. First thought that came to my mind was boundaries going hand-in-hand with expectations and understanding.

As a very small example of an expectation (not so much boundary - now I'm getting confused), my husband and I agreed that I'd start walking the dogs every morning instead of him. Currently my time is more flexible and he's just started a new job. What if I didn't get up early to walk them? I know the consequence would be busier mornings for him, that he wouldn't feel supported by me, and I'd be neglecting the responsibility of the dogs. 

A boundary is an expectation - to protect the marriage. It protects the marriage by way of respecting each others expectations. Sometimes there can still be room for understanding and compromise.


----------



## BaxJanson (Apr 4, 2013)

I center my definitions around control. A threat is centered in the other person, and made with the intent of limiting the other's options. A boundary is centered in yourself, and made with the intent of clarifying outcomes. There's also an element of truth to it, in that a boundary is just a threat unless you carry it out.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Assuming you're not dealing with a paranoid enabling martyr for whom any discussion of anything is perceived as a threat. Some people are like that - it's a control issue.


----------



## firebelly1 (Jul 9, 2013)

The scenario that I think of around this is frequency of sex. Is it a threat or a boundary to say "I need to have sex more often and if I don't have it with you, I'm either going to do it with someone else while we're still married or leave the marriage in order to do it with someone else." 

It can certainly feel threatening to the person hearing that. But it might also be just a statement of boundaries. I'm not willing to go through life only having sex once a month or week or day or whatever it is. 

The tone and manner in which you make this statement can have everything to do with whether it's a threat or boundary statement. "Give me sex now or I will leave you" is a threat. 

"I really love you, want to be married to you and stay married to you and I'm not willing to live a life where I only have sex once a month" can feel threatening but is a boundary statement in my mind.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening firebelly1
I would use the combination of rules of behavior:

1) People have the right to not engage in any sexual behavior that they don't want.

2). People have the right to leave any relationship where they are not happy with their sex life.

If people are concerned about money or children beyond what is covered by their local laws, they should get a pre-nuptial agreement. 




firebelly1 said:


> The scenario that I think of around this is frequency of sex. Is it a threat or a boundary to say "I need to have sex more often and if I don't have it with you, I'm either going to do it with someone else while we're still married or leave the marriage in order to do it with someone else."
> 
> It can certainly feel threatening to the person hearing that. But it might also be just a statement of boundaries. I'm not willing to go through life only having sex once a month or week or day or whatever it is.
> 
> ...


----------



## firebelly1 (Jul 9, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening firebelly1
> I would use the combination of rules of behavior:
> 
> 1) People have the right to not engage in any sexual behavior that they don't want.
> ...


I don't disagree. But we feel like person (1) has reasonable rights but person (2) is shallow, right? A person has to be crappy to leave a marriage over sex - isn't that what we really think? Isn't that why those of us who are suffering from not enough of it DON'T insist on it? Because we think it's wrong to end a marriage over something like that. 

But...that isn't what this thread is about.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

PBear said:


> Just some thoughts that have been bubbling in my head as I ponder threats vs. boundaries... Thoughts?
> 
> C


Before reading other answers: 

I've thought about this quite a bit over the years. As the independent woman I once was, I often heard that I was issuing an ultimatum over something that I perceived as enforcing my own boundaries. "If you don't stop cheating on me, I'll leave." 

I have concluded that what is good for me might be threatening to someone else who is on the receiving end of the stated consequences. There are some things that are both good AND bad - things that don't necessarily fall into just one category. 

However, I've also come to recognize that often, conflict arises more over "tone" than substance. My tone was frequently so firm and unyielding that I was seen as dictating. For a while I went to the opposite extreme and tried so hard to get along with others that I was not criticized nearly as much, BUT was taken advantage of more often. 

I ultimately concluded that it's all mental masturbation, because we'll always have enemies and friends no matter what. Nobody is hated or loved by everyone, and even those who hate or love us aren't completely genuine.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

I wouldn't be married to someone with whom I had to "enforce" a boundary or even think about using threats.

That doesn't sound like marriage to me, at all.


----------



## Q tip (Apr 15, 2014)

Okie, got it...

If you don't do any marriage threatening behavior related to boundaries or anything else I define for you, I won't destroy the marriage with a divorce based on ill-defined logic as a threat or promise of actions in consequence not intended to be threatening at the time promised...

Lol


----------

