I just find there's a lot of talk about working internally on one's self.
This is fine if there is no obsessiive or addictive behaviour happening your WS's part..
This is fine...no matter what. I cannot think of a situation that one would not benefit from an increased self-awareness and self-knowledge. Since we know that both parties contribute to the coming apart of a marriage, even if a wayward spouse is in an A, addicted to drugs, or mentally ill ~~~ working on oneself will only benefit the sitch overall.
"Know thyself" - goes way back, even before MWD. Greek
Me45 H46 T25 M22 S21 & 19 D13 Separated and filed 8/08 Moved home 11/08
IF IT WORKS (achieves your result of MORE LOVE) keep doing it, if it does not work ...STOP DOING IT. _________________________
The problem I have with this is, from my observation, people mistake what "working" and "not working" means. Too often, people stop taking a principled stand if their wayward spouse gets angry, for example. "Oh, she's really angry now -- she said I'd REALLY blown it now, and is threatening DIVORCE, and is really treating me like cr*p now!" for example.
So, does that mean what you did isn't "working"??? Or maybe you needed to enforce the boundary, and stand up to the boorish behavior?
Conversely, I see people staying the course on "giving them space," because it seems to create peace in the household. Well, sure -- you're letting them have their cake, and eat it too!
Whether here, or in MWD’s books (or even other related material or programs), a “boundary” and an “ultimatum” are the same. The attitude from which they come is a parental one. It is a parent who issues “consequences” to a child - and to a partner, that is treating them like a child.
There is a false choice presented between the ultimatum as “boundary” and being a doormat. These are not the only choices (thankfully). The approach to “boundaries” I see espoused here so much puts the spouse in a position of either reacting from their ego and resisting, or from their child-self and acquiescing. In other words, the “positive” outcome is that one’s spouse becomes child to your parent, whereas the “negative” one is the end of the relationship altogether. Neither enhances the relationship - one destroys it and the other puts it into a place that does not foster intimacy.
There is another approach that is more effective in setting boundaries. This has a greater chance of enhancing the relationship. It comes from a more heart-centered attitude towards one’s spouse and a place of unconditional regard for both myself as well as my spouse. It does not mean that the unacceptable is accepted however. A key difference is that instead of the parental “consequences” there are choices - my choices, which are the only ones I can make. Another key difference is that it enables any changes my spouse makes to be given as a gift. This is very important because of the kind of relationship it engenders. A child will “behave” to avoid a “consequence” (i.e. punishment) - I don't wish to be married to a an adult, not a child.
That is why working on oneself is the most effective thing that can be done. As MWD points out, changing myself means that there has to be some kind of change in the relationship. Just what that change means to my spouse is something that is out of my control.
There is another approach that is more effective in setting boundaries. This has a greater chance of enhancing the relationship. It comes from a more heart-centered attitude towards one’s spouse and a place of unconditional regard for both myself as well as my spouse.
I disagree, Arnie. All healthy relationships are conditional. Only God has "unconditional love." Boundaries are all about placing HEALTHY limits on what we will allow others to do to us. They are for our own protection.
The problem is the implicit assumption behind the question. The word "violate" for example is not an effective attitude to take in problem areas. Perhaps you are also expressing the belief that the spouse has no intention of agreeing to the boundary.
