Asklemmy

If you are a giving person, you have to put a limit on how much you can give. Takers have no limit.

I have to remember to look out for myself because even though I'm trying to look out for a lot of people I care about, no one is looking out for me.

Family is the relationship, relatives are who you're related to.

You can pick your family but you can't pick your relatives.

You don't have to associate with your relatives if you don't want to. Family is a group of people who you'll want to associate with.

I grew up being told constantly, "I'm family, you have to love me," which definitely wasn't good for my mental health until I realized the above statements. My relatives are typically terrible people, and the last time I saw most of them they openly wished for my death at Thanksgiving (because a different relative outed me as bi to the whole gathering) and I haven't gone back to their gatherings since.

They'll often (years after the event above) send me invitations weeks in advance to the gatherings and then either the day before or morning of send me a message saying, "Sorry, we didn't mean to invite you. You aren't welcome here."

So I guess in a way the statement, "You have to love family," is somewhat true but in the, "a prerequisite for someone being family is love," not a being forced to love someone you're related to.

And the barrier that you mentioned OP, is definitely a good one and one I didn't even realize I whole heartedly was using for a long time.

Nobody tells me how to format my comments.

if someone tries to make me format my comments in a specific way, I'll refuse to comply and sometimes go against that format

• just to spite them.

I have my own things and resources that are mine and guaranteed so nothing can be taken away or held over my head as leverage to do things contrary to my boundaries and/or authenticity

I setup my life to ensurethat I did whatever it took to secure my own housing, job, benefits, friends, hobbies, and ways of doing things and that nobody could externally hold those key elements or anything else I needed over my head and take anything away.

I refuse to rely on anybody in a way where that can be leveraged to compel me to act in ways inconsistent with what I need+want and allow that to play out repeatedly on a chronic basis and that ever allow for the possibillity where I lose access to that which I need at the caprices of another person or entity

A fairly pragmatic one:

People are not entitled to my attention 100% of the time. I am not obligated to respond to your message right away or pick up the phone for an unscheduled call.

This was a challenging one for my relationship with my wife, as she operates differently. We've worked hard to establish reasonable expectations.

Do not touch me

Looking back I might not have been subject to too much affection growing up so I have heavy boundaries when it comes to non family and non partners. I realize men are a lot more open and touchy feely in my neck of the woods but I don't want any part of it. Bro culture is not for me.

No one gets to try to tell me how I should feel about something.

No one gets to try to shame/guilt me about what I believe.

No one gets to take my self-advocacy, as I am my only advocate.

Sure, I'll bite.

Do not attempt to tell me "what I'm thinking"

I'm not going to pretend that my way of thinking is "unique" because I can't speak for how others think, but I expect that same courtesy to apply to me as well. For example, whenever someone says "You seem to think..." it upsets me quite a bit. What I say out loud (or "write" I suppose) doesn't include the context of how I got to that point.

I very much am happy for people to tell me when I'm wrong on something, because if I'm wrong I would like to know (more-so if they can actually prove it... just saying "You're wrong" and not saying how leads to nothing, but that is a whole other rant). However, one thing that that no one can assert to know more than I do is how I think, what I'm thinking, or the methods that I used to arrive to something I've said/done. You can possibly predict it depending on how long you've known me for, but to try to claim you know exactly what, is very egregious in my eyes.

I have a pretty high tolerance before my temper is set off (or as I like to say "A very long fuse, but an even higher yield when that fuse runs out"), but there is a small list of exceptions to that - one being hypocrisy, and the other being this.

I think I need the boundary you stated in the post. I really struggle when it feels like I’m not in control of my time/energy. When someone else takes away my self agency. I hate that feeing and makes me resentful towards whatever external factor is causing it.

I know the reason why this is a sensitive issue for me, and no longer am in those circumstances. But it comes up in other contexts, and I don’t know how a boundary would work there. Eg, work requiring me to “sacrifice” personal time. I get paid for the hours I work, but it deeply bothers me to have to give up my morning routine so I that I start work early to meet someone else’s deadline. It’s not unreasonable to have to occasionally work a little more, so setting a hard boundary isn’t appropriate, but where is the line for my personal comfort? Same with personal relationships, it’s not unreasonable to give in sometimes, but where to draw the line?

If I generally come away feeling worse and not respected after we interface, there almost certainly won't be another encounter to the greatest extent I am able to openly and assertively prevent (not passive-agressively avoid or evade) further interaction.

I am not afraid to do justice to both of us and to have justice openly seen to be done, regardless of the implications for either of us.

My most enforced boundary is likely "if I clearly told you «no», do not insist". Insisting further won't just piss me off, but also decrease the likelihood that you'll get what you're asking for.

With youtube, it's "Don't force TF2 and other nazi shit into my feed" Needless to say they push that boundary alot.

You can do whatever you want.

So too can they.

The balance point lies somewhere in the middle.

I do not let customers curse at me on the phone. I’m not a prude, fucking curse words don’t offend me, but I shouldn’t have to listen to it when someone is complaining or ranting. I speak to customers about difficult situations and have to give them answers they don’t always want to hear, and I offer to share all of the knowledge I have and I offer all of the empathy I have. If they are pissed, I empathize and remember they are a real person with real feelings. If they are sad, I tell them I’m sorry that they in this position. But if they use a curse word, I politely tell them if they are going to curse I’m going to end the call. Doesn’t matter how mild or offensive the word is…it’s not about the word.

Lately, when they start towards personal attacks even without cursing I pivot the conversation in a similar manner. “Well, I don’t know how you have a job if you just sit there and ______ all day.” When you get to that point it’s become evident they don’t want help or explaining or even your sympathy, sometimes they just want to feel better by being hurtful to you personally. If we’ve already discussed all of the facts, I’ll simply say well this is no longer a productive conversation and state the action I’ll be taking after ending the call (sending a letter or whatever) and move toward ending it.

I try to be very patient if they are having feelings and frustrations that are valid. Very patient. But I’m not a punching bag. I don’t get paid for that. Goodbye.

Gaslighting is deadly and I vigorously/instantly shut it down whenever I perceive or sense it. It is emotional rape, pure and simple, and the REDDEST of flags 🚩🥀

Its been interesting engaging with people I know now that everyone is aware we don't mix factual and feelings-based conversations.

Much nicer when we know what's debatable or negotiable and what is off-limits.

• do not touch me;
• I either do something I want to do or I don’t;

If its my turn to ask a question, and the other actively chooses to not answer that question, have had plenty of time and opportunity to do so, and they don't articulate why they are unable to answer, I respectfully decline to continue engaging on the topic and with that person. There's either something intentional or unintentional happening, both of which indicates its not safe.

If they have a good-faith concern relevant to the matter and they put it at the end (after they have answered that which was solicited) I am often more than happy and open to engage and continue in that vein of discussion

That sounds like a good rule to have.

I don't really have any hard, clearly-defined boundaries myself, but recently I've learned to prioritise my internal decision-making process when I'm under external pressures.

I used to go along with what everyone else suggested, because I didn't want the stress of having to argue or fight back against an idea I didn't agree with. I had been conditioned to avoid conflict because it was usually too much of a hassle to resolve when it could've easily been a calm, balanced conversation instead. So I'd just throw my hands up and say "Ah, whatever you think is best." And then be surprised or resentful when the ugly results inevitably showed themselves.

Now, I try to cross-check what someone else says is a good idea against my own judgements, rather than skipping that step entirely. It's like keeping a background application from crashing by giving it a higher priority over resource use so it won't get crushed by everything else.

This all sounds very vague, and that's because it is, but it's just the attitude I've been trying to maintain so that my inner voice doesn't get drowned out for being too quiet.