BPDRecovery.com: Forums

I disagree completely. I think that in order for some people to recover, they must be shown the environment they didn't have. And that means protection. If you are unwilling to protect certain people, to pull them into the palm of your hands, you won't see results. At some point those who are violating boundaries need punishment for doing so (and that includes those who freely cross the boundaries of others, on either "side"). When in a certain mindset, it gives the other person the feeling that they are unsafe and therefore unable to trust and recover.

My point was that Denim didn't really make a boundary so much as put forth a decree. I'm not going to step in to enforce Denim's decree.

Since Jody didn't confront or even post to Denim, I don't even know that there's anything Jody's done "wrong." Certainly not "BPDR rule" wise but maybe it was an interpersonal oopsie.

Personally, if I know someone loathes me, yeah, I might make a point of staying out of their threads but on the other hand should I really have to tippy-toe around and walk on eggshells because someone else has a problem with me? Whose responsibility is it?

Admin can't really enforce consistency. We're not the consistency police. We don't sit here with a clipboard, tracking who's said what, what's expected of whom and all the rest. People need to learn to become consistent through their own efforts. If they are inconsistent, there are natural repercussions - a blow-up, a confrontation, stony silence, a storm of PM's or posts, etc. This is a peer support group and if one person notices a problem another person is having and has something useful or helpful to offer, they are welcome to approach that person with their suggestion. It's not always & completely up to S/CL's to do everything. Folks became S/CL's because they took the initiative to work individually with people, share their insights, offer suggestions, work through things with others in the community.

Safety, of course, is a concern that we take seriously. Jody posting to Minx in a thread Denim started while Denim has Jody on ignore doesn't seem like a safety breech. To me, a safety breech is "I've found your home address and I'm going to stalk you" or "I've learned your real name & I'm going to report you to the cops in your town for child abuse" (and yes, these things have been threatened here in the past) and those things are taken very seriously.

Beyond that, this is a microcosm of the real world. We don't get to pick who's in our world and who's not. I work with some really annoying, irritating, bothersome, clueless, abrasive people. I can't expect my manager to remove the person from my presence simply because she's so loud that I can't concentrate. I have to find ways to cope with the volume & hysterics so that I'm able to get my work done, timely & accurately. To that end, I bought some ear buds & listen to music when I need to concentrate while she's being loud or otherwise annoying. I've taken responsibility for my own working environment (what happens at my desk) and held myself accountable to my personal goals (getting things done.)

I don't know what Jody posted but the fact that she continues to overstep the limits when I have stated very clearly what I expect from her is an indication of a very sick mind! I am just fine with ignoring her because that is my personal preference - I have no interest in anything she posts. Posting in a thread where I have an interest in responding to others is beyond rude when she knows that it is overstepping the limits! The assumption that her words are so important that she has to post in every thread is narcissistic and egocentric. Posting in this particular thread is not acceptable because it shows quite clearly that she intends to violate the boundary. I will not ignore the behavior any longer because that is clearly not effective. I will point it out when it happens so if she chooses to continue posting this way, I will not have very nice things to say about her behavior. I regret the drama and distraction that results and yet I am not going to tolerate her refusal to keep her distance from me because her actions have gone from intolerable to repulsive. As I have stated repeatedly in the past, if Jody leaves me alone I will also leave her alone. When she breaks the agreement, I will do the same. The choice is hers and she obviously made a poor choice here in this thread.

Yea, but isn't it pretty darn obvious that to post in someone's thread who is obviously hurting, when you KNOW you have troubles with that person, is not a nice thing to do? I'm wondering when certain people who are a little less blatant about their feelings and doings are going to take responsibility for them. You obviously know that Denim has problems with jody, jody has problems with Denim. It seems like a situation where Denim needs to be protected from the actions of jody. Everyone wants to come down on Denim for being insulting. But a little less blatant, but obviously aggressive, action is not even noticed (and THAT's the problem). If someone is triggering that MANY darn people and causing them to feel unsafe, then there's something going on that needs to end. Just because it isn't obvious to everyone, does not mean that it doesn't exist in measurable quantities. I think that possibly one person's measure of what safety is is not yours, and that may mean a definite obstacle in the recovery of said person. This is not a work environment, this is a place for recovery, therefore, the environment is different. The reason I am posting my views is because I REALIZE what backed me up from recovering for awhile... yes, there is a place there where I feel angry, where I feel as if I was misunderstood and unacknowledged. And that comes down to there being difficulties with setting up the proper environment needed for people to feel safe. Denim doesn't want jody in her stuff. That's fair. So when it happens, who's going to stop her? And what are the ramifications jody will get for violating another's boundary and for making Denim feel violated, angry, and then act out by insulting? None, except for being harassed by a bunch of people who identify with jody.

Denim, you cannot put limits on Jody's behaviour. Only she can do that. We each only have control over our own actions. Your "limits" are always going to be ineffective and you will always get riled up like this if you continue trying to impose limits on other people.

You say you're just fine with ignoring her but yet you still post to her. You've said it's because "she started it" (don't even get me started on the juvenile nature of that argument) but you cannot control her action. You can only control your own actions. Saying you're okay with ignoring her (taking the action of ignoring her) but then addressing her directly is your own form of contradictory behaviour - just as it has been for Jody who's said "I'll never go near you again."

Where you said "it shows quite clearly that she intends to violate the boundary" is faulty at its core. You have not yet stated a boundary! You've tried to impose limits on her behaviour through a decree, dictate or demand over her behaviour but you have not yet impose a boundary. Furthermore, just because a boundary is stated does not mean that someone will never, ever violate the boundary. That's exactly why consequences to boundary violation are so important and MUST be clearly communicated along with the boundary. "I find ___ unacceptable. If you choose to do ____, the action I will take will be ___." That's a boundary with consequences. The consequences allow for the boundary to be violated. It's almost expected that the boundary will be violated. The boundary is not the immediate cessation of all violations, Denim. It just isn't.

Allow me to give an example. You said "I will point it out when it happens so if she chooses to continue posting this way, I will not have very nice things to say about her behavior."

I will now give a boundary of my own, along with consequences. I do not enjoy the drama because I find that it detracts from the purpose of the board and disrupts the concentration of many members of the community. If you choose to say "not very nice things" about Jody's (or anyone else's) behaviour, I will consider that flaming and issue a 24-hour temporary ban. I want BPDR to be as drama-free as possible. I will take steps to ensure that drama is kept to a minimum for the sake of the community.

Jody's behaviour is none of your business. If she chooses to post in your threads, what can YOU do to work around that intrusion? If you have her on ignore, you can choose to NOT click on the "Display this post" link and not read her words. If you choose to read her posts and get in her face about what you deem to be inappropriate behaviour (as you have every right to do), you are by default accepting the consequences I've laid out: a 24-hour time-out.

I have had people on ignore for months at a stretch. It's been quite easy for me to completely ignore their posts, even in my threads. If I accidentally read something (usually scrolling through history while typing a reply), I would force myself to go out of my way to avoid referencing anything they said or otherwise acknowledging they had posted. To even refer obliquely to their presence would have been a violation of my own boundary ... "If you post, I will ignore you." Ignoring means ignoring, it doesn't mean permanent escape from one's presence.

I hope that you can reach a place where you're able to give up, let go and only focus on yourself. Where you're able to tune out people who act in ways you find repulsive. Where you're able to focus on ways to protect yourself through your own actions rather than relying on the expectation that other people will conform to your expectations of them.

Aqua, as I've pointed out a few times, Denim has not made any boundaries. She has issued edicts and then gets upset that she's not able to control Jody's behaviour. The boundary/consequence equation (as I said above) allows for and even assumes that the boundaries will be violated. As such, it is up to the person setting the boundary that the consequence they communicate at the time the boundary is set is something they are able to enforce. "I find ___ unacceptable. If you choose to do ____, the action I will take will be ___." In that way, Denim is able to impose her own sanctions or consequences to Jody when unacceptable behaviour is presented and there is no need for S/CL intervention.

What I've been saying is that Denim has not stated a boundary with a consequence other than "If Jody comes near me, then I will cause drama in an effort to get her to comply with my expectations for her behaviour." In turn, I have said "I find drama unacceptable. If you choose to cause drama, the action I will take will be a short time-out because I don't want BPDR exposed to drama." (In any other situation, it would be "if you do this thing I find unacceptable, I will leave the room." Obviously BPDR can't leave the room so the natural consequence is the short time-out.)

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether that's true or not because that's not your stuff.

Actually, what I quoted may be relevant as far as, are you expectations of others reasonable? It is reasonable to expect anyone and everyone who doesn't have "a very sick mind" to always keep in the front of their mind everything you've asked of them, and to always choose to do what you ask?

However, if someone who posts to you, or posts to someone else in your thread, does indeed have a very sick mind, that's not your stuff. That's their stuff. At this message board, like the real world, you don't get protection from running into other people's mental health issues. You also don't get protection from dealing with your own.

Oops... "you expectations" should be "your expectations".

The problem I had is that if I issue a boundary, "if you do ____, then I will do _____," does not work in keeping the person from overstepping their bounds (and therefore, making me feel like shit), anyways. Sure, I can say, if you do ______, I will put you on ignore, or not answer you. That doesn't stop the person from overstepping their bounds. It's kindof like telling a rapist, if you rape me, then I will not talk to you again. That doesn't stop them from raping you, because it's not a punishment to them. Calling the police does. And there's no police here to call. Therefore, any threats I perceived left me feeling unsafe. I think that's the problem. If someone oversteps my bounds, I want to punish them. I do not want to not speak to them, or put them on ignore, because that doesn't stop them from crossing my boundaries. I think eventually they deserve to be punished for overstepping/ignoring someone's boundaries. That's when people begin to administer their own set of punishments, because there is no police to do it for them. The problem is, it seems like there is one set that is ok, and another that is not. If you try to do back a bit of what jody does to you, you suddenly have a league of people on your case who seem to not understand or see the same thing you do.... for one reason or another, possibly because their boundaries aren't as tight as yours are, and they aren't seeing how you feel about certain actions done to you. Their perception of what is safe is different from yours.

For example, when people got very upset with others continually pm'ing them when they asked them not to.... the only thing I found to stop them from doing so was to tell them I was going to turn them in to you. I did not answer them back in any way shape or form. But if I set a boundary, "I am going to ignore your pm's", and honest to God did it, they kept doing it anyways. That Does cause feelings of being in an unsafe place, and it took me years to get past it. That's with me actually Living in a very safe environment.

Aqua, the point is...in this example you are not speaking of boundaries. You are talking about rights, and maybe even touched on Entitlement. You have the right to protect youself, your body, by any means necessary. That is not the same thing as boundaries. Grey.....

But using force to stop words? Is that really necessary? I mean, Really? Police? Do you really feel like it is the same as rape? I've been raped, twice, and it is NOT THE SAME THING, at least in my eyes. (I'm not capsing b/c I'm mad, I'm not, I just think these words need emphasis) I can igore someone--doesn't it take away their power knowing that their words fall on deaf ears? That you could care less what that person says? You even talked about how IBF helped you see that you had the 'power' within yourself to be above giving someone else that kind of control over you in this thread. YOU decide how YOU react to any given stimuli, be it an antagonist, someone you percieve to violate a boundary, whatever--YOU DECIDE HOW YOU REACT. Period. You don't have to get mad, that is entirely up to you. You don't have to let anyone or anything 'trigger', again, it is YOU that decides. The point is we all have to OWN our feelings, individually. No one 'makes' me mad or hurt or triggered, I DECIDE to allow myself to indulge in those THOUGHTS which in my case lead to the feelings of anger and emotional pain. But I decide. Sometime I endulge, but mostly, I don't. By the same token, no one MAKES me happy, I choose to be happy.

Right now I see you giving up your power to someone who isn't even remotely involved in this conversation in the hopes of 'saving' someone who would be best served learning to save themselves. Why, on a recovery board, would it be beneficial to the person having issues for someone (police of some sort) to swoop down and 'protect' them from situations they are going to have to learn to deal with in RL?

It is not up to you or anyone on this board to 'punish' another. I take real exception to your idea that people who can't or won't define and enforce their own bounderies need protection of any kind. We are here for recovery, plain and simple. I'm truly sorry that your idea of recovery involves punishing others for their idea of recovery, but mine doesn't and I won't step back and let that happen. Actions, actions, actions. If you don't like something, protect yourself from it by using ASH's version of boundaries.

Harm, I really wish you would've noticed that I was speaking in retrospect before you posted to me. And that I used rape as an example, but you assumed that I thought what was going on here was as bad as rape.

My purpose was to show the limitations of placing boundaries here to stop others from crossing them. That's it. Sure, my feelings and emotions were different when I came here, I had just come out of an extreme environment. I was triggered very easily. And the options I had for placing boundaries here was upsetting to me for a long time. I didn't feel protected.

That's why some people check themselves into hospitals, because they need to be placed in an environment where they are protected for awhile.

As do I, I really did not see the 'did' in the first sentance. I apologize for thinking that you were speaking in the present. I do still thing my point would have been the same, however.

Your recent posts in this thread lead me to conclude that you are still seeing boundries in a different way than I believe they work. Maybe I am wrong, and I fully accept and acknowledge that possibility, but boundaries are not for you to control another's behaviour, they are put in place to control your own. I still don't see how, even if the 'options you had for placing boundaries here was upsetting', leads to a different definiton of boundaries including others enforcing someone's 'boundaries'. I don't consider that to be a real boundary, it is a method of exerting contol over an outside stimuli without dealing with the internal reaction (in my mind).

I didn't assume, you used it as your example comparing behaviours. If you don't equate the senerios, or don't want me to think you do, find a better example.

Boundaries are not put into place in order to stop another person from doing anything at all. Boundaries are put into place in order to protect yourself from another's behavior (which you cannot control).

Are you certain you are not being triggered now, by Demin and Jody's interaction to something that you yourself may have experienced at one time?

I feel like we are hijacking Denim's thread, would you like to take this to CC or PM? I am more than willing to drop it or carry it over, but I don't think we should continue in another's thread. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. I do think this is worth looking at.

Harm,

I really don't think we are going to come to any resolution. You and I have different views right now, and I accept that. I appreciate the offer.

Okay Aqua.

If you decide you want to revisit this, I'm here, ya know.

This thread is no longer significant to me so I don't care what happens in it at this point - you all can say what you will to whoever you want. I am no longer finding any personal benefit in the discussion. I don't want to be a part of this drama nor do I want to use BPDR to work on my own issues when I have no way of enforcing boundaries with someone I wanted nothing to do with in the first place. I know how to create walls very effectively so that is what I will do now.

Denim,

I'm sorry I didn't get back to this thread until now - I've been away.

I do hear what you are saying, and can understand you have found it effective to punish yourself.

But, just because it's worked in the past, or it relieves an energy/urge you feel inside - that doesn't mean it's healthy or part of real recovery. I remeber another poster a while back that used to not eat to punish herself, and other ways she viewed herself as masochistic.

Like others have said, punishment does imply a violation, a judgement and an action to hurt the violator as a deterrant to what they "should" have known not to do. There's a lot of "shoulds" in all this.

And, as an aside, as I read your writing, I read a lot of shoulds .... you wrote earlier - I don't know how I should feel (referring to you don't necessarily think your automatic feelings are really normal). Go back through and look at all the shoulds you've written for yourself, as you try to explain your position. It's a lot, and I would think that would increase your sense of pressure or anxiety. Do you have anxiety?



Because you don't know how doesn't mean you can't consider options. What other options are there? I get the feeling you are actually looking for emotional release in the action of "punishment" . Have you considered other ways to get release - other things you could do physically to get energy out? What have you tried?

Sometimes part of recovery, imo, is looking at the places we are stuck, and being willing to get through the discomfort of forming new ways to be. I am glad you raised this. It does seem the issue can go in zillions of different directions. The whole issue with Jody seems distracting to the original focus of the thread. I hope you stay focused on this, when you get back, and find some ways to try new things.

Molly

It comes down to this: you run around here trying to make friends with people. Those people do not give a flying eff when you get stepped on, in fact, they take up for the person doing the stepping on. Then, when you finally understand how to do something about it, you get MORE taking up for the person, from the people you were trying to please. And then it comes down to then being told you have no empathy, which is honestly effing hilarious coming from your point of view. Where in the flying eff was the empathy when I was getting screwed by such and such people for so many years?

Empathy around here is given to the people the others identify with. There is no fairness involved, especially in the minds of a couple of CL's. In fact, there are statements they are making RIGHT NOW that show their apparent acceptance of a division! So don't EVER point the finger at ME for having no empathy, until you learn how to distribute it with fairness!

Aqua if you have issue with any CLs please let us know. If it's me you're referring to I'd like to hear about it so we can discuss it. (BTW - I'm about to post on STB that I'm going away until Tuesday so I won't be able to reply to anything until then - but I will be backand I will engage if you so desire).

Sarah, Honestly, at this time, I think it would be best for me to step out of the situation and do a review. I don't see anything I could say that would make things work right now.

I think my post concerning how I felt about my experiences here was mainly meant for Ash, and I hope she gets the gist of what I was saying. I know I'm not the best writer or explainer. I think my post was pro-management a bit more than is done now, for people in certain situations. After all, not everyone had a big, burly guy rescue them while they were able to go through what I have, and it has been difficult for me. I believe if I were still with my ex, I wouldn't be able to do it without being hospitalized.

Aqua, which post specifically did you intend for me please?