To clarify this post a bit: I’m responding to the bloop (skeet, whatever) above more than the situation in question. Setting boundaries is controlling, but necessary to mitigate or prevent controlling behavior from others. If the boundary prevents behavior more controlling than the boundary itself, - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

cogtri.bsky.social • 13 days ago

To clarify this post a bit: I’m responding to the bloop (skeet, whatever) above more than the situation in question. Setting boundaries is controlling, but necessary to mitigate or prevent controlling behavior from others. If the boundary prevents behavior more controlling than the boundary itself,

Comments

cogtri.bsky.social•13 days ago

it’s healthy and justified. If it prevents harm - whether intentional or unintentional - without inflicting a greater harm, it’s healthy and justified. In the situation described in the screenshots, the woman posting is right to set a boundary around her ability to dress as she wishes, while her

cogtri.bsky.social•13 days ago

boyfriend’s proposed “boundary” would mean giving him authority over her dress purely to make himself feel more secure; her boundary causes less harm than his, and so is the justified one.

cogtri.bsky.social•13 days ago

To go a bit more in-depth: the way I see it, there are three possible outcomes. 1: He shuts up about this (her controlling his behavior). 2: She caves (him controlling her behavior). 3: They break up (whichever one spearheads that controlling the other’s behavior). I’m rooting for 3 but 1 is also OK

cogtri.bsky.social•13 days ago

A healthy boundary is “this hurts me, don’t do it.” A boundary that doesn’t attempt to restrict another person’s behavior does nothing. So the question for whether a boundary is valid is always “does the boundary cause more harm than it prevents?” and unless the answer is “100% yes” it’s valid.

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply