Therapy language: Boundaries & Agreements v Expectations & Demands

Many would assume this is a no brainer, but:

Boundaries and agreements are different than expectations and demands.

I wouldn’t really have anything to say about this, but now that it’s hip to use therapy lingo to talk about our relationship issues… it’s become a problem when specific terms are confidently misused. (this was discussed this in the Trauma Bonding post I made previously.) Sometimes people invoke therapy language in controlling or deceptive ways, but sometimes it goes far enough to constitute enabling abuse by or against other individuals.

For example after those leaked Jonah Hill texts, people realized that the man was misusing the term boundaries. But where a lot of people were mad at him for his expectations and demands they missed the forest for the trees.

Mr. Hill has the right not to be ok with anyone’s behavior… But he doesn’t have the right to control it. He has the ability to make agreements with other people, but they don’t have to honor those agreements. And it’s his responsibility to find appropriate consequences for the breaking of trust if an agreement is in place.

Wearing bikinis and having male friends has less to do with his boundaries and more to do with his expectations of his partner’s behavior. Those are not his boundaries, they are the demands he wants to make about how she dresses and acts. If you don’t want your hot surfer girlfriend to talk to men, that’s a you problem. That’s about the insecurity within yourself. If you both made agreements not to flirt with people or seduce them, and she does so anyway, that’s when it’s a “her problem.” That’s about failing to honor the trust that makes your bond secure and healthy.

He has every right to have boundaries. Boundaries can be about our behavior:

“I don’t drink”

or 

“If you start yelling, I won’t engage until you’ve regulated yourself. Of course you can be angry with me, but I won’t tolerate that kind of aggression.”

As well, boundaries can be about what kinds of things we allow into our lives:

“I want to have a satisfying, sexually exclusive relationship with my partner.” 

It’s about what you want and how you plan to engage with others. When you add others to the mix, you can create an agreement with them: “We agree to be sexually exclusive with each other, and to be open about how to make sure that each of us is fulfilled. If it seems like that’s not possible, we agree that we will find a mature way to de-escalate our physical relationship and figure out how we fit into each other’s lives.”

Boundaries and agreements allow us to create the relationship architecture that is correct for us with people who are willing participants. We can see who views a boundary as an obstacle to intimacy or their needs being met. We can see who views a boundary as a guide to loving us well. Agreements allow us to see how well we and others honor our word and how it feels when things don’t work out. Sometimes we find out we don’t want what the agreement offers, or that we don’t want to do our part. That’s ok. We just need to be willing to be mature about the changes that life requires since the agreement isn’t working out. Sometimes we discover that in certain contexts of dynamics, certain agreements are easy to keep and we thrive within the bounds of them. We can work together to solve the problems of our agreements so that they serve us well.

Expectations and demands on the other hand are ways we subconsciously absolve ourselves of responsibility. They can frequently create oppressive and repressive patterns in our relationships. If you have expectations and don’t discuss what they are or where tehy came from, you’re setting yourself up for conflict when those expectations don’t match the other party’s. If you have demands and you don’t make sure that other person can fulfill them or wants to, we set ourselves up for conflict when our desired outcomes are not achieved. Expectations and demands set us up to punish ourselves and others when we find ourselves disappointed or frustrated because much of life can’t really be controlled. If we expect people to behave in certain ways and they don’t, we give ourselves permission to project meaning onto their behavior. We make them responsible for conflicts we set them up to trigger when we opt for expectations and demands as the way we interface with actualizing our relationship fantasies, goals, and ideals.
—

Key Points:

1. Boundaries and Agreements vs. Expectations and Demands:

   • Boundaries are personal limits or guidelines regarding one's own behavior or what one allows into their life. They are about self-respect and self-care.

   • Agreements are mutually agreed-upon rules or guidelines that both parties in a relationship consent to. They help create the framework for the relationship.

   • Expectations are often implicit and can lead to conflict when they aren't communicated. They can create disappointment when they are unmet.

   • Demands are more forceful and may not take into account the other person's consent or willingness, potentially leading to control and conflict.

2. Responsibility and Control:

   • Setting boundaries and making agreements are proactive ways of taking responsibility for one's own needs and desires in a relationship.

   • Expectations and demands can lead to a sense of control over the other person, which may not be healthy or respectful.

3. Communication and Understanding:

   • Clear communication is essential in establishing boundaries and making agreements. It helps both parties understand each other's needs and limits.

   • Unspoken expectations can lead to misunderstandings and frustration.

4. Flexibility and Adaptability:

   • Boundaries and agreements are flexible and can evolve as the relationship grows and changes.

   • Expectations and demands can be rigid and may not allow for the natural shifts that occur in relationships over time.

5. Conflict Resolution:

   • When boundaries or agreements are violated, it can lead to discussions about trust and consequences.

   • Violated expectations and demands often lead to blame and conflict.

Thanks for reading and I hope this helped you. If we want to have more conscious relationships with the people we love, its important that we consume mindful content, but also share it, and if we are able, create it. If you’re looking for a jumping off point for creating more fulfilling dynamics with your friends, family, and community:

Sending you many blessings and all the love.

We Are Not The Same.

But we are.

Each of us has similarities and differences to the people we engage with.

Duh.

And we want to have the right kinds of similarities and the right kinds of differences.

Duh again.

But how did you figure out what the *right* similarities and differences were?

I want you to think about what importance you place on your similarities and differences when selecting anyone for anything.

Any relationship you can think of.

If you’re adept at selection, it’s not just about similarities and differences. It’s about the functionality of those similarities and differences.

Each observable thing in the universe has traits. And those traits are somewhat dependent on an observer’s capacity to engage with them or not.

Is this trait positive, neutral, negative? Is it supplementary, complementary? Compatible, incompatible? Collaborative, competitive?

When you think about two people and someone says, “opposites attract” what is actually in opposition? We are not magnets. Is one strategic while the other shoots from the hip? Is one aggressive while the other is passive? Is one honest and the other a liar?

These things aren’t really absolutes. In different contexts and environments, someone’s extreme is some society’s norm. Maybe there’s no word for a thing that you do in your language, and five to describe it in another one. There may be a feeling you have that does not translate.

So let’s give it context:

If someone is talkative, they may do well with someone else who likes to listen. Different.

But they also may get bored if they feel that person seems to have nothing to say, and find themself in search of a repeated meeting of the minds. Same.

Which is better?

If someone is goal oriented, they may need someone around who challenges them and keeps them sharp. Same, competitive. But they may do just as well if not better with someone who is extremely supportive of their goals, but doesn’t directly participate in their projects. Different, supplementary + compatible. Maybe they need an assistant or mentor whose direct engagement adds dynamism to the process that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. Same, complementary + collaborative. Even still they may find that they truly need people who are disinterested in what they do. From this they draw fresh perspectives and get time away from their consuming interests. They have someone who makes them excited to step away and find balance. Different, complementary. The answer to which is better is found in the fulfillment of the engaged individuals and the consequences of the connection.

Sometimes we have negative compatibility. Like people who enable our self-destructive tendencies. If someone has an addictive personality and a drug dealer bestie, there might be consequences. If someone has low emotional intelligence but finds people who compensate for the damage they do with their lack of self awareness, when those people aren’t around to clean up for them, there will probably be consequences. In these ways, people are dissimilar, yet they function in ways that supplement or complement some aspect of the other’s existence. Negative compatibilities are some of the ways we get stuck in phases where we ought to be growing. How we lose our potential for actualization to entitlements. Entitlements breed ingratitude. Anger, resentment, disappointments. When we look back, and we have had time to heal, our gratitude is typically focused on the fact that it’s over, and the fact that we learned our lesson. Well, hopefully.

Sometimes we have negative similarities. We butt heads because we’re both aggressive. We let things fester because we are both passive. Frequently, we’re naturally repelled by these people until we mature. Some of us have to revisit this space when we see our flaws in our children. We don’t have as big of a problem with seeing negative similarities if we make peace with our own flaws. When we take the time to grow, we trust others to grow. If we don’t grow, we might feel punished when we see others succeeding, especially via means we see or have seen ourselves being punished for. We might fear that they’ll have to learn the same lessons we did, or feel vindicated when they do. We might suffer when we see them thriving via means that others have used to wound us, and that we have promised we would never embody. Judging and rejecting a part of ourselves because we project the pain that we suffered onto others that might witness us engaged in these behaviors or thought patterns. Or we shame ourselves for the pain we did and do cause in these ways. And we justify not forgiving them by not forgiving ourselves either. Or with hypocrisy.

On the other hand, when we witness negative differences, the ones that we don’t like, and that don’t help us, I’ve found one of the deepest signs of maturity is a capacity to extend ourselves compassionately for the possibility of another person’s growth. Not because we’re anyone’s savior and we’re attached to the idea of fixing or saving someone. But because within ourselves we have found the freedom to act against our own individual interest because it is possible for fulfillment to come in service of the collective. Sure, there are some of us who feel we genuinely want to be good people and end up hurting ourselves and others in the pursuit of nobility and martyrdom. But truly finding the capacity for care, altruism, and love primarily because you want to take that kind of action is beautiful. And doing it because you want those values to be expressed as its own reward, rather than for a reward, is to reflect the capacity to transcend mere survival. To thrive and to be a thing of awe that defies the expectations of those whose focus is self-centered because that’s the truth of the phase that they are in.

And only through accepting each other as we are and embracing each other’s truth can we embrace our own. It takes trusting your own truth to be able to trust another’s, and to truly be touched by it. And even as stark a contrast as altruistic hope and faithless desolation are, sometimes, those opposites are exactly what the other needs.

From some perspectives, our differences aren’t nearly as numerous as our similarities. And for some, certain differences or similarities are all that matter. But realistically, similarities and differences are so relative that they don’t matter nearly as much as the fulfillment an experience brings. And again, core to that is gratitude.

You must be able to trust your own perceptions, awareness, and intuition to be able to operate in this world confidently. Even if you are wrong. Because you also have to trust and develop your ability to learn and grow in relationship to your mistakes. You must be able to learn that what is a mistake in one context may not be a mistake in another. And what works perfectly in one aspect of life may not have a useful place in another, except perhaps to teach you about the errors of your choice of application.

There's an experience of process and an experience of outcome. What matters is that you can find people to engage with where you have a positive experience of process and a positive experience of outcome. In some cases, regardless of the realities of processes and outcomes.

We are not the same. But we are.

We just have to figure out how and when that matters.

This one I would like to dedicate to Mikey and Nella. Nella because she asks wonderful questions and in doing so, demonstrates a genuine desire to love others in a profound way that gives me hope. Mikey, because in some ways he is competence incarnate, and one of my oldest friends. And if it were not for him, there are certain things I would never bother to express, or really honor the value of.

Like Action Like Thought

Another blog about trust. Eyy.

Today I want to dedicate my writing to Komal. I love you dearly friend. And when people learn to witness you correctly, we will all be better for it. This is also dedicated to Mikey. For you, there’s a part two.

-

Humans typically have much more in common than not in many ways. In healthy humans we have similar needs for staying alive. We typically have the same circuitry to allow emotional experience. We all must find our way in this world. As far as we know all of us live on the planet or in nearby space stations.

It’s a simple mistake.

We meet someone volunteering at the free farm stand and we assume that because we love giving back to our community, so do they. They must have a similar desire to engage generously with their time. And as we chat we discover that they love the same artists as we do, we start associating them with having a similar emotional or political sensibility. How can you love Serj Tankian and not care about his politics? But as we meet them for lunch one day and see how disgusted they are by the unhoused man on the corner… we notice something feels a little off. We go back to the farmstand and they’re not there. After a few questions we find out their presence had been court mandated. And it was “better than picking up someone else’s trash on the freeway.”

People frequently mistake “like action” with “like thought.”

And I find it feels like it’s not discussed enough, if ever, in the circles I move in. I find for many people, it is preferable to take like actions while never discussing their real opinions and perspectives in their personal and communal relationships. The unspoken rule seems to be “what should be done is what is socially agreed upon and what is suspected not to be agreed upon ought to be consciously or unconsciously avoided.” 

On the other hand it is incredibly common to watch conflict arise when opinions and perspectives are understood to be similar, but different courses of action are found preferable. As if the rejection of one’s actions are tantamount to a rejection of the individual. Of their reason or rightness or righteousness.

Even amongst intellectuals, there is safety in group think.

And what is not openly justified with a rational explanation, but intuition, whether a positive hunch or distrust, can be treated as foolish and chaotic. Even if if the hunch is a prediction based on evidence:

In 1994 Joycelyn Elders, surgeon general, was stripped of her position, disgraced and pilloried about her personal opinions on health and wellness, because she had outspoken, progressive(at the time) beliefs that were too radical. How dare she suggest masturbation was natural and might be a part of sex education, believing that it could lead to less teen pregnancy, economic empowerment for women, and slow the spread of STDs? Americans were not ready for that level of sex positivity. And we still suffer today because of it. As recently as 2020 I have watched a number of a confidant’s friendships end over their caution about the covid vaccine, even though the person in question was neither against vaccines nor ignoring covid regulations. Their faith in their fellow Americans was shaken by the zealous scientism of people hoping that their trust in modern technology would bring them back to a pre-covid world. And when it didn’t, blaming “those people” who “just couldn’t listen to reason” and “do what they were told” was treated as the problem. Acting as if the issue wasn’t much more complex and the reality was that vaccine or not, unless people were of the same mind, and willing to work together, zero covid wasn’t going to happen anyway. But even as partisan rhetoric, and conspiracy abounded in the US, communally the population of New Zealand in 2020 actually managed to be covid free for a time, while Americans were dying in droves and calling the disease a hoax. What happened in New Zealand was a reflection of what humanity is capable of when like action and like thought combine. Unity instead of division.

And even then, it’s still more complex.

Sometimes, when someone does what we do, it can be irritating. Especially when we assume that they’re not thinking for themselves or that they're trying to profit from our hard work. Perhaps it comes from hypocrisy or self hatred, which is a topic for another day. But when we assume imitation is because they like, admire, or agree with us, imitation becomes the highest form of flattery.

Imitation is primal. It’s how babies learn. And cooperation is cohesion. To be like, creates kinship. Kinship creates legacy, for better or for worse.

Similarly, when someone doesn’t do what we do… When they refuse our guidance or reject our ways, it can feel like an attack on our reasoning, identity, or even our validity. We can over identify with our actions and thoughts, surely. But we can also become dependent on agreement, requiring acceptance or validation, lest we face distress. But when we are secure in ourselves, the differences can be something to marvel at and in many cases benefit from.

Our relationship to these presumptions is that they shortcut needing to vet every individual directly. But this leads to its own problems. We don't just confuse like action for like thought. We mistake community with agreement.

I said earlier that a seemingly unspoken rule of social harmony is, “What should be done is what is socially agreed upon and what is suspected not to be agreed upon ought to be consciously or unconsciously avoided.”

And I have a theory as to why this happens.

Many of us have an unconscious competence in the space of submission and agreeability. Whether it came from an authoritarian guardian or the institutions to which we are beholden and subject, it can easily be internalized that hiding or ignoring differences potentially benefits the common good. If we don’t need to know each other’s politics to get our shelter built, it doesn’t really make sense to give ourselves reasons to distrust each other or to not cooperate. If we all love the same person, it does not make sense to focus on our differences and ruin the experience of togetherness on their birthday. It’s imprudent to talk about religion and politics not because people don’t want to know what others believe or care about their truths… but because when the conversation begins, questions of one’s identity are involved. The authorities to which they may submit their thinking to are called into question, and it is possible that even a casual interaction will end with an inadvertent, or intentional attack on the identity of a person. Sure people are people, and not their religion or political party(over-identify as they may) but the state of online discourse and news media couldn’t be what they are if it couldn’t FEEL that way. 

If a christian living in Ohio can feel persecuted because christianity is outlawed in foreign countries, an inability to sympathize or empathize can derail an otherwise productive interaction. Sure, a christian may be of a protected class, where you are, from your perspective. But that’s not their perspective, no matter how out of touch it is with your own perception of reality. Beneath their existential dread is the same humanity any person concerned for themselves and people like them is likely to express. Rejecting that they are persecuted because others who they identify with have been persecuted, is your choice. But if you make that the crux of your argument, you’re engaged in whataboutism. Regardless of your feelings about christianity, if you replace that identity in with some other demographic, it becomes pretty clear. People who identify with a demographic can feel that the capacity to deny the reality of their potential persecution somewhere in the world is indicative of a lack of concern with their safety and wellbeing. Replace christians with lgbtq, ukranians, jews, palestinians, uighurs, armenians, trans people.

The lines we draw about who deserves empathy create tribal lines of us and them, which derail our capacity for unity. There is one human race. (Even if there wasn’t, our mistreatment of life reflects poorly on our capacity to wield power, and illuminates our own potential for callous and abusive behavior. It does not reflect the potential or quality of the exploited beings.)  This practice of submitting to our tribes decrease of which people and things are deserving of platforms and aid is an example of the divisive nature of our shortcutting and submissiveness and agreeability. Activists, changemakers, and revolutionaries must answer to higher or deeper authorities than group think.

These positive and negative attributes that we give people based on our understandings of self and our like actions affect us at every level. I’m sure sociology has a sophisticated term for the positive prejudice of assuming likeness.

How Can I Trust You?

49 “She is good to people who are good. She is also good to people who aren’t good. This is true goodness. She trusts people who are trustworthy. She trusts people who aren’t trustworthy. This is true trust.”

Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

How can I trust you?

Trust is a funny thing.

Trust is inextricably linked to personal truths.

Some of us don’t recognize that truths are personal. Even if we believe we know the "objective" truth with deep conviction, the reality is that this truth is a personal interpretation of a personal perspective on a concept or phenomenon.

And that perspective might change.

If you think you’re a relatively consistent person and that your views on things likely won’t change, consider this:

Have you ever met someone who used to be a devout believer but is now full of doubts? (Gnostic Theist - Pure Agnostic) Or who started as an atheist and then became a devout believer? (Gnostic Atheist - Gnostic Theist)

If we were to ask them at either point why they believe what they believe, they would have a distinctly different answer than they would have at the other point in their journey. You might even be that person if you ever believed in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Somehow, more or different information changed their sense of what may have been an absolute truth and fundamental to their understanding of the structure of reality.

They are arguably the same person, but from moment to moment, their truth shifts.

They may not be tomorrow the person that made you that promise today. And perhaps their vow to harm you will go unfulfilled... Or the promise to help you. And you may or may not carry the effects of this broken promise with you. Whether it gave you grace or grief.

Instead of fooling myself into believing that I am not capable of anything another human is capable of, in terms of actions or belief, I made peace very early in life with the fact that I simply have not encountered the circumstances that would lead to me taking an action or adopting a belief. I discover what would make violence and dishonesty tempting. I make peace with the reality that the kind of patterns I cultivate are responsible for what I do or don’t do. I’m not a murderer or martyr today, but do I know what I would kill or die for?

When I tell myself what my convictions are, do I live into them? Appreciating the chance life has given me to honor the values I claim I wish to uphold. Or do I wither in the face of challenge, much less difficulty or inconvenience?

If I allow myself to perpetually make my choices based on convenience, who will I become when the immoral action is convenient? If I do not practice discipline, where will it come from when I need it?

If I am unwilling to answer these kinds of questions, what am I really telling myself? Is it that I don’t want or cannot handle the responsibility of self-actualization? That I don’t actually want to feel culpable, if I get caught up in the role of the abuser or oppressor? That I don’t want to take responsibility for my agency in avoiding/overcoming/accepting helplessness or victimhood? That I am somehow better than others, when I find myself in the circumstance of being the hero... not because I faced my weaknesses or ignorance, but because I am a noble soul destined for greatness?

If I reflect on who I’ve been, what does it say about who I’m taking responsibility for becoming?

So in light of that:

What does it mean to trust?

Where does my faith come from when I trust? The strength of my convictions? Hope? Fear? Whose integrity galvanizes mine? Corrodes it?

If you “trust” someone, have you considered what you’re actually saying about your relationship to them, your own perspectives, and reality?

• You might actually be expressing that you believe they are afraid of the consequences of breaking trust with you. (a punitive incentive)

• You might actually be expressing that you believe they want to honor whatever leads them to build trust with you. (an equanimous/reciprocal experience)

• You might also be actually expressing that you are fully accepting of whatever actions they take, regardless of if they are going to break trust with you, because you “trust the process.” (transcendent trust in reality itself)

People can flow through these experiences of trust and trustworthiness. Experiencing different versions in different aspects of relationships or even just different circumstances at different times of day. Are we cultivating transcendent trust, or do we stumble into it when high on divinity or drugs? Of course this is general and non-comprehensive, as anything that I write will be.

No model is ever the thing itself.

I started by asking how can I trust you? But I suppose we’ve arrived somewhere else:

How do I trust myself? Is my trust a shackle, a gift, or even divinity honored?

When I am afraid to trust, what am I really afraid of?