Struggling with 51% and 50/50 rules in the toolbox

[11JB68]

I am really struggling (always have) with these two toolbox items and SOT has mentioned them a few times recently so I am trying to dig into them a bit. Any thoughts/guidance/experience are more than welcome!
The 51% Rule - The 51% Rule says that we need to consider our own needs just a little more than those of others in order to be able to help them effectively.
The 50% Rule - The 50% Rule says that we are responsible for 50% of the things that happen in any relationship we share with a person who suffers from a personality disorder.
I'm not even sure how to put my challenges into words and I feel like it won't make sense but will try.
1) how do we consider our own needs 1% more if we are maintaining the 50/50 rule at the same time?
2) How can we do either of these when the pwPD in the relationship has such a strong personality/influence/etc and/or is using guilt, etc?
In a healthy relationship I feel like yes, each person could subscribe to these rules -but if the other person is constantly taking 80% or more, how do we get back to our own 51% or 50%?
e.g. (this is a very un-important/insignificant but concrete example) uPDh considers himself to be a 'good' person, 'good' husband, subscribes to very strict male/female roles (supposedly) etc. HOWEVER, we were out last night at an event and the option  was stop for dinner and eat, or stop and get takeout. He wants to stop and pickup takeout to bring home. My job to go in/pay/grab the pizza etc. That's fine, I don't mind. BUT he pulls into the lot - there are plenty of wide open spots near the door with good lighting. He goes way to the back of the lot, parks very close (on my side) to another vehicle and I then have to walk in heels through the not-so-well-lit lot to get the food. BECAUSE-he wanted to get out and have a cigarette and not be near other cars when doing that (we'd be home in less than 10min....he could have waited).  In my mind this is him taking 80% of his own needs (maybe even more).
And I know - I need to set boundaries. If I say, look there's a spot, he'll go past it and then say "I need to park here because..." If I say-ok you go get the Pizza since we are parked way over here, he would say "But I need to have a cigarette while you go do that". Everything will be met with a 'reason/excuse/etc' and if I push I will be told that I am being difficult/argumentative/contrary/etc. and will 'make him stressed' and then I'll need to suffer an hour or two of discussions as to why his way was right and I should just go along. So-IME easier for me to just suck it up and be annoyed.
And - if the pwPD has a skewed sense of what is 50% or 51% for themselves..... e.g. my going out with friends once a month would be seen by uPDh as my 'abandoning' him and he would be home, alone, lonely, bored, etc etc he would feel (truly feel and therefore his feelings are facts in his mind so it would be true) that he was suffering way more than 50% for me to get my extra 1% for myself.
I know this is all stuff that I probably need to work out with a good T or CODA group....

[Penny Lane]

I love that you asked this because I've spent a lot of time thinking about these tools as well. In particular the 50/50 rule can feel kind of shaming when it's meant to be the opposite - affirming and freeing.

So, when you think of the 50/50 rule, maybe it's helpful to think of it another way. You are responsible for what you do, he is responsible for what he does. So, he is driving, he's parking in a spot that doesn't work for you. You are responsible for deciding whether to say "hey can you park closer" or "can you drop me off closer before you park far away?" He is responsible for his decision to park in a place that's inconvenient for you, and for his (hypothetical) decision to throw a tantrum or sulk or start an argument or whatever if you ask him to do something differently. And so on - you're responsible for how you react to the arguing/sulking, and he's responsible for how he reacts to your reaction.

The point is that every interaction is a combination of his choices and your choices. At the same time, his choices greatly limit the possible interactions you could have. So in your example, there's no scenario where you get what you need without argument, and that's because he is using his 50% to limit your ability to get what you need.  So it's not saying "everything that happens is 50% your fault" it's more like "you have agency to respond to his choices however you want."

Of course, you do have one major choice and that is to stay in the relationship or not. So a large part of your 50% is that you're choosing to have these interactions at all. You could use your 50% to remove your presence entirely. So in that sense you do have the power to end the arguments - although it is at a very high cost, in large part because he would use his 50% to create that high cost.

You are also in control of whether you choose to placate him by not asking vs set boundaries (I will only get the food if you park close enough for me to walk in) and risk a fight - but also allow for the potential of his actions improving over time. But even as you make the choice you did - you are responsible for your choice, you are NOT responsible for him treating you badly because you did or didn't ask him to park where you wanted. You are never responsible for his lack of consideration for you - that's in his 50%.

The 51% rule - I think the 51% rule would say that you should have asked him to park closer. I understand that he again creates a cost to you to do that. But if we pretend that your needs/wants (your want to not walk in heels in a dark lot vs his desire to smoke far away) are EXACTLY equal, then you should be advocating for yourself. I would also argue that they are not the same; yours was closer to a need and his was closer to a want, which even more so would mean you should get your way.

Of course in this scenario, you can't get your way, you are relying on him. And I think the 51% rule contemplates that you can actually just DO it. So if you were driving, the 51% rule would say that you would park closer despite his protests or demands otherwise.

So I think the way they intersect each other is this. You can control your own actions and through that have 50% of the say in how your relationship goes. And what you should do with that control (according to the 51% rule) is advocate for yourself, rather than let him get his way because you feel like he needs it more, or whatever.

He is not going to follow the 51% rule, and he's never going to see the 50/50 rule either. These are things to help you, internally, feel like you have agency and decide how you want to use that agency. The toolbox does NOT offer a solution to this. He is going to continue to whine and be rude and put your needs last, no matter how you implement the toolbox. These tools are really more of a mindset than hard and fast rules. And I think it's also important to remember to take what is helpful and leave the rest; if the 50/50 rule creates pressure on you rather than relieves it, you can discard it and move on to more helpful strategies.

[SonofThunder]

Hi 11JB68,

My opinion feedback is:
———————
The 51% Rule - The 51% Rule says that we need to consider our own needs just a little more than those of others in order to be able to help them effectively.

I look at this rule as the same rule as the oxygen mask policy on any commercial aircraft.  When I fly on a commercial airplane, the flight attendant instructs me to put on my own oxygen mask first, before I help others.  If I run out of oxygen, I can't help anyone else with their mask.

The 51% rule works to protect me in ways that are related to boundaries, by guiding what actions in which i can accept and what actions i will refuse, in order to keep myself (emotionally, mentally, physically and financially) healthy, so that I can be my best possible self.  The 51% rule applies to me regardless of whether there is a PD person to deal with or not; its just good wisdom.  All the other people in my life should 51% themselves as well. 

The problem is that PD's desire their own percentages to be much higher, in order to maintain a facade of a healthy self-image, and the place in which they steal more percentage for themselves, is at the expense of a target person that is not protecting/maintaining their own 51%.

———————
The 50% Rule - The 50% Rule says that we are responsible for 50% of the things that happen in any relationship we share with a person who suffers from a personality disorder.

I actually use this rule a couple of ways: 

A:  Ultimately to keep myself in-check and in-balance regarding (and not manipulating) the adult rights of the PD's in my life.  In addition to do the same regarding my own adult rights, and to what lengths I will go (proper boundaries) to protect myself without encroaching on the rights of others. Boundaries are not manipulation, but the free adult-right choices for myself, within the context of the laws of the land in which I reside, and also of generally accepted human ethics.  I always remind myself that I have the ultimate options of no-contact with a non-spouse PD, and divorce with my spouse.

B: If I end up suffering because of the unpredictable actions and/or reactions of a PD, i should learn from the experience and plan to eliminate or greatly reduce further suffering in that manner.  But, if i continue to experience repetitive suffering by the same PD actions and/or reactions, then i am 50% to blame for having not predicted a similar action and/or reaction and protected myself from further suffering, after my initial experience.

SoT

[11JB68]

Penny and SOT thank you both for your thoughtful and helpful explanations. I definitely will come back and re read these as I work on this some more!

[JustKeepTrying]

I struggled with understanding this within the confines of my marriage.  It seemed a rule that would work for an ordinary marriage but not a disordered one.  So I viewed it as a guideline and how I was unable to keep it within those percentages.

There was no way I could keep 51%.  I was literally dead in that marriage.  No regrets for leaving.  I could not caretake myself and there was discussion of moving me to a home.  At the age of 56.  Two years later out of the marriage - I'm great and doing well.  But . . .

There was no 50/50 - if you look at it as in give and take.  But . .

I am 50% responsible for the marriage.  I am responsible for my actions.  I could have grey rock/medium chill or whatever else in the toolbox and I tried.  I couldn't do it - too hard/too much trauma and no peace for me to breathe or think.

These are hard rules and I give you a great deal of credit for asking and questioning.  That only leads to greater understanding.

[xredshoesx]

great discussion.

for me i had to learn to put ME first instead of trying to fix everyone else's problems.  my current work in this area was mostly about learning to say NO at my job and to learn to leave work at work - making boundaries that won't let people take advantage of me - that's how i work the 51% rule in my healing.

the 50/50 concept for me is helping me be mindful that i have FULL control of how i respond to any situation- i can choose to engage or not, i can choose to be salty or not, i can choose to let people rent space in my head or not.  when i stopped reacting to all the things uPD/ PD or just plain foolishness i gave them less ammunition to fire back if it makes any sense.  since i can choose how to respond i am 50% responsible for the outcome.

[11JB68]

Thank you so for delving into this with me! This is one e thing I love about this forum... Always something to learn and folks to learn from!

[DetachedAndEngaged]

I've always thought the 50/50 rule would be better termed "We are responsible for our own behavior." I think that's what it is trying to get at.

50/50 rubs me the wrong way, because with PDs the PD is frequently responsible for the vast majority of the stress in the relationship.

My uNPD father learned from his counseling training that "every relationship is a two-way street" and used this whenever I would bring up the hurtful things he did growing up. He always twisted it that I was at least 50% responsible for whatever happened regardless of the circumstances.

The less contact with PDs I have, the lower the percentage of my life that is displeasurable and unhealthy.

[Poison Ivy]

I agree with DetachedandEngaged: "We are responsible for our own behavior."

For me, the 51% rule meant, "I must learn to accept that I will contribute 90-100%, and if I'm not comfortable being married to a person who only contributes 10%, I am responsibile for deciding what to do about that."

[notrightinthehead]

Looking back at my relationship, I contributed to the abuse by not speaking my mind, by trying to avoid conflict, by giving in when he was yelling at me, by shaking my head internally yet complying with his absurd rules, by doing what he wanted even if I thought differently, by being in constant emotional uproar, either because I was so angry and had to suppress it to avoid a fight, or because I was hurt, offended, insulted... that I could not think clearly.
You get the idea. That was my 50%. I was so frightened of what would happen if I left that I stayed. My 50%.

From everything I read in your posts, you do far more for him than you do for yourself, even if you do it grudgingly. You even earn more than him if I am not mistaken. How does that go with his male role? You have your reasons why you tolerate and accept this state of affairs. That's your 50%.

[square]

I agree the 50% rule can get confusing. I too would prefer if it were renamed to something clearer. Because we are NOT in 50-50 relationships, and the concept of being 50% responsible is used against us.

We are 100% responsible - for ourselves and nobody else (well, minor children, you get the idea).

It's not just the PD, but society at large that twists the 50-50 idea. I spent a long time sincerely believing that WE (H and me) were volatile. I also believed that WE were slibs around the house, and I simply could not figure out why suddenly it was so hard to keep house. I realize that last part isn't quite on topic but I had bought into the idea that WE were both equal in everything we did and didn't do.

Thinking from a Christian standpoint, it reminds me of probably the most common trap we fall in - focusing on the speck in our neighbor's eye and ignoring the plank in our own. It's the human condition, but some people actively weaponize it. They read the Bible to find evidence of sins in others and to feel smig about themselves. But we were supposed to work on ourselves, not shake our heads at others. Help others, but not point the finger.

Not pointing the finger of course doesn't mean we have to fall prey to them, just that these laws were supposed to be for US to work on ourselves.

So maybe it should be the 100% rule. It's freeing because we don't have to struggle at a losing proposition - controlling others. We just control ourselves, which can be difficult but it's within our control. And we let others do the same.

[Poison Ivy]

 

[11JB68]

Not right, yes I do make more.
Recently he commented that it's emasculating.
Yet this is his choice. He had a career and opportunity for advancement.
It was always too hard, too much commuting, too stressful, bosses were idiots, why should HE have to work for STUPID people when he's so smart.

[notrightinthehead]

That's what I mean. Look at the facts. Not his words. Cling to the facts. You are the one keeping this family together. You alone.