Singles

The personal development community, like any other community, is prone to intellectual fads, which sometimes resurface from time to time under different labels. In the 1980’s, the term “boundaries” was not known as it is today, but basically the same concept was described as “assertiveness.” The niftier the label, the more conversation it seems to generate. Today, many see “boundaries” as essential to a healthy relationship and even virtuous. An old cliché teaches that “high fences make good neighbors.” Fair enough. But do you want a neighbor or an intimate partner?

The term “Boundaries” was popularized in a 1992 book of the same name by Dr. Henry Cloud. Dr. Cloud thinks of a “boundary” as a “property line” defining what is yours and what is someone else’s. A boundary defines who is in control of a particular thing (including your life), and who is responsible for that thing. Thus, another person is not allowed to enter your life without your permission.  Dr. Cloud’s idea of defending your “boundaries” is to stop other people from controlling you. But I’m afraid the term is used much more broadly than that in our culture. I remember a few years ago, a friend said during a disagreement with me over a political issue, “you are really crossing boundaries with me!” But Dr. Cloud wrote, “True intimacy is only build [sic] around the freedom to disagree.” Why? Because you cannot truly know someone if that person is afraid or otherwise unwilling to tell you what they really think.

As Alexander Pope said, “a little learning is a dangerous thing.” The term “boundaries” has become the “go to” prescription for many life coaches and even some therapists. Rather than being a way to keep control of our own lives, the term “boundaries” is often misapplied as a method to make rules for, manipulate, and control other people. But that is a subject for another day. For now, we will just define boundaries as telling another person how you will protect yourself if that person engages in behavior that bothers you. (Many believe anything that bothers them is a boundary violation, even if it is something entirely inside another person’s boundaries—the way my friend said my political views were crossing her boundaries.) An example of a real boundary might be saying to a partner, “If you start shouting at me, I will leave the house for at least two hours.” Fair enough. That might be a necessary boundary. But keep reading.

Everyone in the therapeutic or mental health counseling community knows the work of the groundbreaking researcher Dr. John Gottman and his wife, therapist Julie Gottman. Like every couple, the Gottmans have sometimes needed to see a therapist themselves. I recently saw a talk by John Gottman where he described how their therapist was so in awe of him that she was taking his side on every issue, saying things like “John, you can say ‘no’ to Julie. You can set boundaries.” On the way out of that session, John said, “Is that what I sound like?” Julie said, “yes, sometimes.” John said, “I don’t want to sound like that! I don’t want a relationship based on boundaries!”

My basic objection to the current national conversation about “boundaries” in marriage is that it makes one person the hero and the other the villain. I am not saying Dr. Cloud intended that. But if I feel the need to “set boundaries” for my spouse or dating partner, it is implied that the person is unsafe or inappropriate toward me in some way and, as the more mature person, I am required to take measures to protect myself. So, “setting boundaries” can be empowering and satisfying for the person setting them. But do you honestly know any adult that enjoys or appreciates having “boundaries” set for them by a partner without their consent? The idea of “setting boundaries” is condescending and automatically puts the partner in a one-down position, creating distance rather than intimacy.

Let me be clear: in SOME cases, you must set boundaries because your spouse is abusive, and you have to stand up for yourself and make clear that you will not allow yourself to be abused. (A good example is the one given above about promising to leave the house for a few hours if a partner starts yelling at you.)

Boundaries have a role in some relationships but should not be the “go to” approach for dealing with disagreements common to marriage. For example, two parents have different ways of interacting with the children–perhaps one is more strict and the other more lenient. Convinced of his or her rightness and superior wisdom, one parent starts setting boundaries about how the other parent must interact with the children and implementing a punishment (not a boundary) for the parent based on a disagreement based on parenting style or opinion. Unless the behavior compromises a child’s safety (and be honest about this), it is not time for setting a boundary.

What is the alternative to boundary-setting? When possible, I recommend “agreements” rather than “boundaries.” Boundaries are based on a power grab where a one-sided solution is imposed by one partner on the other to prevent abuse. But they come at a price. They inherently prioritize personal space and sense of self over intimacy, and safety over vulnerability. They are often just a sophisticated disguise to allow you to selfishly insist on having your own way.

“Agreements” are negotiated solutions which treat the two people involved as equals. The negotiation is not just an exercise in trading and compromise (though sometimes that may be involved); but a brainstorming session where the two people are seeking to understand each other at a deep level and come up with a guiding principle they can both sign on to, and a concrete rule they agree to comply with. The underlying motto for this process is, “I am not willing to win at your expense.” Good negotiation is solution focused rather than looking backward and blaming each other. If you are capable of negotiating as equals, there is no need to unilaterally impose boundaries.

Can we do this friends? As you look for your person, can you intentionally seek someone you can work together with instead of someone you have to protect yourself from? Can you practice this principle in your dating relationships? So many people just break up when they encounter disagreements and consider every disagreement a “red flag,” and end up marrying someone they have managed to avoid a fight with for several months. When the inevitable first disagreement comes up, you set a boundary that allows you to have your own way without consulting the other person, and the deterioration of intimacy begins. Friends, we can do SO much better than this. Please practice real intimacy in dating by testing whether you and your partner have the ability to engage in healthy negotiation and agreement.

One final thought: As some of you know, in my day job, I am a litigation attorney. A study published in the Journal of Legal Studies in 1995 showed that compliance with negotiated settlements is approximately 80%. Compliance with court orders following an adversarial process is approximately 60%. Why the difference? We inherently desire to act rather than to be acted upon (2 Nephi 2:26). When I make an agreement, that means something. I know that I agreed to it of my own volition–even if it was simply the least distasteful alternative. In a negotiated agreement, I exercise my agency. If the judge imposes the solution on me against my will, and I am being forced to comply under the threat of being held in contempt and going to jail, I am naturally going to resent it and be more likely to resist if I can.

The statistics I presented reflect the difference in compliance between two adversaries–rather than people who love each other and want to keep their relationship. But the same principle applies. Are you more likely to comply with a rule you agreed to or one that has been imposed on you without your consent? When it is possible, negotiation and agreement are far preferable to imposing a “boundary” without the agreement of your partner.

Special Content

We help those who have experienced divorce, especially within our faith, to actively recover and reclaim their lives. Enjoy our Life Design After Divorce FREE WEBINAR.

About the Author

Jeff Teichert, and his wife Cathy Butler Teichert, are the founders of “Love in Later Years,” which ministers to Latter-day Saint single adults seeking peace, healing, and more joyful relationships. They are co-authors of the Amazon bestseller Intentional Courtship: A Mid-Singles Guide to Peace, Progress and Pairing Up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Jeff and Cathy each spent nearly a decade in the mid-singles community and they use that experience to provide counsel and hope to mid-singles and later married couples through written articles, podcasts, and videos. Jeff and Cathy are both Advanced Certified Life Coaches and have university degrees in Family & Human Development. They are the parents of a blended family that includes four handsome sons, one lovely daughter-in-law, and two sweet little granddaughters.

Purchase Jeff & Cathy’s book Intentional Courtship:

https://amzn.to/3GXW5h1

Connect with Jeff & Cathy:

Website: http://www.loveinlateryears.com/
Podcast: https://anchor.fm/loveinlateryears
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/loveinlateryears
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/LoveInLaterYears
Instagram: http://instagram.com/loveinlateryears/
Email: 

lo**************@gm***.com