difference between boundaries and being passive aggressive

[j.banquo]

I'm trying to come to terms with what to establish for myself as consequences for boundary violations.

For example, if someone is yelling at me, insulting me, whatever, and the consequence is that I leave the room and don't talk to them for a while, how is that different from stonewalling or the silent treatment?

Does the difference come from the initial harmful behavior on the other person's part?

I can easily picture my mother behaving in ways that would cause me to want to cease speaking to her but still cook her basic meals, but I wouldn't want to treat anyone like that.

[SonofThunder]

Does the difference come from the initial harmful behavior on the other person's part?

Yes. 

I prefer to look at it from my side of the equation. I will illustrate using a different example. 

Lets say I'm walking home and a criminal comes out from around a corner with a visible weapon, threatening to use the weapon if I don't comply.  But, I legally carry a similar type of weapon, but mine is just a different brand name. 

Knowing that I may suffer grave harm, and not willing to comply, I use my weapon in self protection and only enough use to neutralize the threat against me. That is a boundary. 100% self protection on my part. 

Even though both humans had the exact same weapon type and both weapons perform in the same manner.  The fact that mine is used in self-defense and the criminal's was used in an offensive (vs defense) attack on me, makes all the difference in the law. 

Now, there is a fine line between a boundary and punishment.  A boundary is self protection, and if the offensive person suffers because I have to self-protect from their behavior, that's their problem. If I purposefully go beyond self-protection and into punishment, then that is too far. 

Same in my example.  If I neutralize the threat against me in self protection, but then take some sort of retribution action against my attacker, I may find myself on the wrong side of the law; not for the self protection portion of my action in the terrible ordeal, but for my punishment action. 

Motive is everything. 

SoT

[bloomie]

j.banquo - I really like this question because it shows the caring heart with which you consider how your responses to another person will potentially impact them.

What you describe in choosing to leave the room in response to someone yelling abusively at you is a time out.

This from Out of the FOG article that explains the difference between a time out and Silent Treatment.

The silent treatment is a common way of displaying contempt for another individual while avoiding confrontation about that contempt or without giving the target of the contempt an opportunity to resolve the issue or dispute. The goal is typically to invoke FOG - fear, obligation or guilt - in the mind of the target individual.

Note that just being quiet or declining to have a conversation is not the same thing as the SIlent Treatment. Many times, exiting a conversation is a healthy and constructive thing to do as part of a conflict resolution strategy, to exit a circular conversation, to escape verbal abuse or just to compose yourself.

check out this link to see a chart that outlines the difference: https://outofthefog.website/top-100-trait-blog/2015/11/4/the-silent-treatment

Another helpful article about time out says this:

Most commonly, a time-out is a good way to stop a destructive argument and cool down the emotional temperature for a while so you can think more clearly. When arguments happen, our emotional intelligence tends to take the reigns away from our cognitive intelligence - our thoughts become dominated by feelings rather than facts.

When dealing with an adult who suffers from a personality disorder, taking a time-out is not the same thing as sending a young child to a "time-out" in their bedroom for misbehaving. Taking a time-out is not something you do to someone else - it is something you do for yourself.

Article here: https://outofthefog.website/what-to-do-2/2015/12/3/take-a-time-out

Ending a conversation that has become emotionally charged just seems like good common sense. At a calmer time, I have let an emotionally labile, reactive person in my life know that I don't allow myself to be verbally abused and will quietly leave the conversation any time their words or behaviors are abusive. I let them know one time. I don't repeat this or remind them.  And then I do what I said I was going to do every single time.

Honestly, limiting this behavior toward you is the best possible chance the relationship has to stay at least somewhat connected. Allowing the discomfort at the thought of another person being unhappy or angry or hurt when I remove myself from the room to dictate how I allow another person to treat me has been very unhealthy for me and I have had to commit myself to rational, healthy, self protection and firm limits on abusive behaviors toward me in this way.

I hope this is helpful and clears some fog for you around this question.

[TurnThePage]

SonofThunder


I like the way you explained it...

[SeaBreeze]

For me, a time-out is to protect myself, not punish or control the other person, with a reasonable amount of time set aside to cool down.  Whereas silent treatment from the PD is meant to punish or control their partner, and can last days or even weeks while keeping you off guard because you don't know when they'll randomly start speaking to you again. As one website put it that I wish I had bookmarked, when the PD refuses to speak to you, they steal YOUR voice.

In my case, stbx was *somewhat* predictable in that he would usually ignore me for 3 days (to the point where I honestly wonder if he marked his calendar or set an alarm?!) But a few times it lasted weeks, the longest being 2 months. The worst part is he'd usually break ST by coming back to our bedroom and wanting intimacy. And then we never spoke of what triggered the ST to start with, as I learned early in the marriage that bringing up whatever we last "discussed" would just trigger his rage then ST all over again.

So ST was very much part of his push-pull, DnD, rage then silence then love bombing cycle. And ST was meant to punish me for, guess what, asserting my boundaries. Whereas for me, a time-out was simply that: a time-out to cool off and sort things, and/or protect myself from abuse or harm.

[Marianne]

I feel the difference is in:

- The harm they do.
- Your intention.
- The way you communicate it.

In my mum's illness, she'd do things like scream at me that I was a horrible daughter. For an hour. I sometimes interrupted her. And told her I needed a walk, because I felt triggered, and did not want to respond badly. She'd still be hurt and panicky. But she did harm. I saw no alternative. My intention was to protect her (and me) from me getting angry in return. And I communicated that I did it, why I did it, and that I'd come back after my walk.

I do not think that is abuse. It is a boundary.

If she didn't harm me it was different. If I had ill intent - revenge - it was different. If I ran off with no communication, it was different.

You can just sense whether someone is hurting you or being healthy in boundaries.