SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I have been thinking a LOT about boundaries lately. People say they are not the same thing as ultimatums, but I am not so sure. I think they work out about the same either way.

One of my boundaries, for example, is "I will not waste my time in a marriage that is not sexually satisfying". Isn't that about the same thing as "put out or pack up?"

And the big boundary we all have here: "I will not tolerate infidelity in any form". Isn't that exactly the same thing as "If you cheat on me again, pack your shit"?

My point is, I don't think it matters what we call it, the result is still the same.

Pretty close to each other. Don’t see much difference in the end.

Same thing (at least in your examples). Don't know if you saw it, but we're having this discussion in the "Withholding sex?" thread. It's a distinction without a difference when you can turn a boundary logically into an ultimatum. "I will not accept a marriage without a full sexual relationship" is a boundary. But it's also an ultimatum, "Give me what I want in bed or I'm out of here". Same exact content delivered in different ways. You can argue that the first is more palititible, but they are delivering exactly the same information.

I'll be curious if anyone can point out a "boundary" that's not actually an ultimatum, I'm racking my brain to think of one and just about every boundary that I can think up can be easily broken down to it's core content, the ultimatum that sits underneath of it.

People perceive your personal boundaries as ultimatums all the time. They prefer "ultimatum" because it makes your personal choices about your own life now ALL about controlling them, and they prefer to play the victim.

I told my H that I was done with with the marriage. I knew why, and I had already long decided that he wasn't capable of being who I needed. I had no intention of giving him a list of acceptable or desirable behaviors and actions toward me (although I had tried that once) as it created a "See, I did it! And you're still mad!" attitude. He didn't want me to be happy; he wanted me to stop irritating him with my unhappiness. So I just stopped. And started the D process.

Amazingly he figured out how to stop being a selfish, entitled asshole all by himself (along with a good IC).

If only R was as simple as, "If you do this, I'll be happy. And if you don't do this, I am getting a D." That is a laugh. Real R requires an actual change in philosophy, not a list.

Eta: many, many BS over explain and act too little. I suppose it's easier to think your WS maybe doesn't get it than accept that they don't want to change? Stop explaining.

[This message edited by OwningItNow at 1:39 PM, November 29th (Sunday)]

"I will not tolerate infidelity in any form". Isn't that exactly the same thing as "If you cheat on me again, pack your shit"?

The first one controls me.

The second one tries to control you.

Yes, semantics. But they matter. The WS will absolutely, 100% complain that you are trying to control them. It's YOU (the BS) that needs to understand you are controlling your own life. You are the gatekeeper. Don't let an entitled WS confuse an overly generous BS whether or not they have a right--A DUTY--to be a trustworthy gatekeeper over their own lives. It's a BS's obligation to themselves.

[This message edited by OwningItNow at 1:44 PM, November 29th (Sunday)]

IMHO a boundary is like a standard that needs to be met according to your ideas of a marriage. It is an expectation.

An ultimatum is a result / outcome: “If you do ______, you can’t be married to me.”

In my mind, a boundary or expectation of behavior in a marriage might be crossed. And then the decision needs to be made as to whether or not you are willing to stay in that marriage afterwords.

An ultimatum is a statement of outcome.

It is wrong to steal or to hurt others. Boundaries.

If you steal or commit battery, you will go to jail. Outcome. What happens if you cross the boundary.

Based on the difference between the two words in my own mind, I can see a slight difference.

It’s just such a shame that ultimatums are ever necessary. Why would someone need to be told that you don’t get to cheat on your partner when you marry?

Obviously, all of us know the answer to that question.

Boundaries are rules you make for yourself, you are not tell the other person what they have to do, only what you will and won't accept.

Boundaries are rules you make for yourself, you are not tell the other person what they have to do, only what you will and won't accept.

I think that makes sense, but I also struggle to think of a situation where a boundary can't simply be restated as an ultimatum (or vice-versa). I was much more on the ultimatum side, for example, "I will not continue this marriage if you don't start treating me as well as you did the AP". Said basically that way, do it or get out. But it's also a boundary, "I won't accept 2nd best". Could be stated either way, and my wife is plenty smart enough to know "won't accept 2nd best" means, "I need to treat him as well as I did the AP if I want this marriage to continue". Perhaps some WS's can't see through it; I didn't even try, you want this marriage, you need to do this, this and this. All of which could have been stated as "My boundary is I will not be married to someone who's not doing this, this, and this".

I'd like to see if we can think of a boundary that cannot be easily restated as an ultimatum. If not, I'd say they are the effectively the same thing, similar to writing in passive vs active voice, same exact message conveyed, just using different words or moving the same words around in the sentence. Grammatically interesting, but no effect at all on the message delivered.

And ultimatum explicitly connotes a consequence. A boundary can simply be a statement. A boundary might be, I will not tolerate any additional contact with the AP. An ultimatum might be, if you contact the AP again here is the consequence you will face. It's not just semantics. Boundaries are what you will and won't accept, ultimatums identify what is unacceptable and the consequence.

Unfortunately, many are quick to threaten ultimatums, but don't have the strength of their convictions to enforce them. When that happens, they become hollow threats and embolden wayward resistance.

And the big boundary we all have here: "I will not tolerate infidelity in any form". Isn't that exactly the same thing as "If you cheat on me again, pack your shit"?

To me this is the same thing, a boundary, just said differently. It’s not trying to change a person. They can still cheat. You’re just laying out what you’ll put up with and telling them what will happen if they do cheat. IMHO, neither is wrong when it comes to infidelity. If a wayward tells you the second phrase means you’re trying to control them, then well, that should tell you a lot about where their head is at.

Boundaries don't care if the other party does or doesn't do something. Of course the boundary setter has to be willing to follow through with the consequence if their boundary is breached. Ultimatums are about controlling the other person.

Think about a hot stove. I don't want to get burned when I'm around the stove, so I make sure to use a hotpot holder and keep an eye on the temperature. I am cautious around it. Now imagine if I just tell the stove not to burn me. The first part (using caution, using tools to prevent injury) represents boundaries. Of course I can still get burned, but if that happens I adjust my tools and techniques to prevent it happening again. The second part represents an ultimatum. And I can say "don't burn me" all day long, but if I'm not exercising my boundaries I have no control over whether (or how badly) I get injured, even though an injury from either will be relatively the same.

It's a fine distinction for sure. And cheaters often can't see the difference because they are victims. They will see logical consequence as punishment more often than not.

People perceive your personal boundaries as ultimatums all the time

This. Or plow right through them. Or that you are just punishing them or complaining. Often they see them as threats (perhaps even idle ones). Or they twist them into some sort of perversion of "You can't tell me what to do." Which is absolutely true.

A boundary never tells someone what to do. It respects everyone's personal choice in how to behave. A boundary says I will not accept ____ in my life. You are free to ______ , but not with me as a part of your life.

I've had the most difficult time in keeping good boundaries with people who actually want me to give them a playbook - to tell them the exact steps of behavior or how to get there. "What am I supposed to do?" "How do I do xy and z to get out the dog house?" *That* feels like getting into the control arena.

The thing it took me forever to learn was 1. How to clearly express my boundaries (it can be a little scary when you first do it) and 2. To be firm with them (also terrifying because you have to totally let go of the outcome and follow through with it standing there all on your own).

Often I've had the reaction of complete shock when I carried through with boundaries. Like it was a bluff or something I guess. (See idle threat).

"I will not continue this marriage if you don't start treating me as well as you did the AP". Said basically that way, do it or get out. But it's also a boundary, "I won't accept 2nd best".

RIO - I wouldn't read this as a boundary or an ultimatum if you were to say it to me. First - you would have to explain what "as well as" and "2nd best" are. And if you don't receive whatever those things are, then *you* need to be the one to get out.

A boundary says I will not accept ____ in my life. You are free to ______ , but not with me as a part of your life.

Which can easily be restated, in general to:

If you continue to do _____, I will D you.

Which is clearly an ultimatum. Do X (or don't do X) and I'll leave. Does adding "your free to do it" change the nature of the message? I don't think it does, it's just saying "Do it/don't do it and I'll divorce you" in a friendlier way.

RIO - I wouldn't read this as a boundary or an ultimatum if you were to say it to me. First - you would have to explain what "as well as" and "2nd best" are. And if you don't receive whatever those things are, then *you* need to be the one to get out.

Of course, it's always incumbent on the BS to get out if their boundaries/ultimatums aren't met. And I understand that you might not read it that way, but it clearly meets the criteria for an ultimatum.

noun

Do this or else I leave.

Boundaries don't care if the other party does or doesn't do something. Of course the boundary setter has to be willing to follow through with the consequence if their boundary is breached. Ultimatums are about controlling the other person.

If there are "consequences" then it's clearly an ultimatum. Ultimatums don't care if the other party does it or not either, do it, I'll do this, don't do it; I'll do something else. Perhaps we could say that an ultimatum explicitly spells out the "or else" part; IE, "Stop talking to the AP or I will D you". However, that's not a requirement to deliver an ultimatum, in fact, some of the most powerful don't "spell out" the "or else" part, they let the receiver figure it out for themselves. Which is often more effective because they will often imagine worse than what your "or else" will be. I use this all the time at work, "I need you to do this" without the "or else" part because, well, they know what will happen if they don't.

RIO - so how did your source define boundaries?

It doesn't really matter (especially with this whole infidelity thing) if you think they are the same thing - and that one is just nicer than the other.

For me, I set boundaries all the time - I don't see myself giving ultimatiums. But maybe the definition I have in my head is all jacked up.

I was just thinking about a boundary that I wouldn't consider an ultimatum.

I loved my grandfather to pieces. But I disagreed with his views on many many things. And as I got older - found out lots of things he did that were outright hurtful to others. So I set a boundary for myself. I was respectful, cordial, thoughtful and polite. But that was it. I wasn't going to extend to him the best and most vulnerable connected bits of me. That was a boundary - we can be this close, but that's it. I set that boundary for me - I never asked him to change who he was or how he behaved in any way.

I have a boundary with my mother. If she slams my job, which she used to frequently do, I immediately tell her I have to go. She has no idea that this is my boundary because it's mine. She probably has no clue. Not an ultimatum. Not in any way a threat or a negotiation. Just how it is with me.

[This message edited by OwningItNow at 7:51 PM, November 29th (Sunday)]

Now, 'if you break NC, pack your shit and leave' is problematic. The speaker really is trying to force the hearer to act one way or another.

I have no problem with, 'If you break NC, I'l D you.' That and many other boundaries can also be stated as ultimata (sorry, I studied a lot of Latin, and I loved the language, even though I've forgotten almost all I knew).

So what?

If my W broke NC after d-day, I was gone, though I would have done my best to keep the apartment and have her move. I don't care how she heard it, just so long as she heard it.

She had a free choice. I wasn't going to do violence to her if she broke NC. I wasn't going to shout at her or abuse her emotionally. I was just going to do something within my rights.

IMO, one distinction that's been missed so far is that an action can be primarily for one person, say, the BS, or primarily against another, say, the WS.

It's possible that we treat actions for a person as a boundary and actions against a person as an ultimatum.

But where infidelity is involved, I don't much care whether my boundary is heard as a boundary or an ultimatum. That's not my problem. My problem is deciding on the right boundaries for me.

"many, many BS over explain and act too little. I suppose it's easier to think your WS maybe doesn't get it than accept that they don't want to change? Stop explaining."

So very true from my experience. Well said!!!!

It is not the same. One is controlling yourself- the other is trying to control someone else. It's a fundamental shift in attitude.

If your security only exists because you make rules for your partner, then you have no security. You have to be an independent person and know what works for you and what does not.

The outcomes may be the same but one is healthy and one is not.

Forgive me if this has been said already, but I see the distinction as this...ultimatums are that which is projected upon the wayward, whereas boundaries are simply what the betrayed can accept and live with.

Are they similar? Yes, but the difference is first or third person.

A boundary states what you will and will not tolerate. The individual with whom you erect a boundary has a choice--they can cross the boundary or respect it. With a boundary, you realize you cannot prevent someone else's choices, but you can give them a picture of what the consequences of those choices might look like.

An ultimatum states what you will do IF an individual does something. It's a threat, a means of control. You're trying to prevent the person from doing that "something" via a threat.

Ultimatums don't work because they're focused on trying to control another person's behavior. A boundary works because you realize that the person has free will, BUT YOU DO AS WELL. Therefore, they are free to do as they like, but you don't have to stick around, support them, be their partner, etc., if you don't care for that sort of action.

It's all about focus. You can try to control someone or you can cede control to yourself.

Cat