“You’re so sensitive, Sonya. I was just joking.”
“I’m willing to protect my natural way of doing things. This is who I am. I have a limit here. I want you to respect it.”
“You’re blowing it out of proportion. What’s the big deal?”
“I can see that you don’t understand what I’m talking about. But whether you understand it or not, I won’t listen to such remarks again. I’ll leave the room rather than put up with it any longer.”
“You are so controlling.”
“That’s it. I’m out of here.”
“What about supper?”
“I intend to enjoy it somewhere else.”
Lang reacted with one defense after another and didn’t take responsibility for his boundary violations. But Sonya kept herself on track anyway. Eventually Lang created a negative consequence for himself.
When you set a boundary, stay with it. Some people change only when they run into a consequence. Let those natural consequences occur. Don’t protect another person from the consequences of their disregard. Doing so can interfere with their own learning.
Chapter 25
FOOD BOUNDARIES
Trisha Donahey was at a professional conference for school-teachers. She had been in food addiction recovery for some years and had become an expert on her own body. She knew to the milligram her tolerances for various foods.
At the break, she bought a 7-Up and went out to the veranda for air. Another teacher came up to her. It took a moment for her to recognize an acquaintance with whom she’d shared many recovery meetings a decade earlier.
Almost immediately the teacher began talking about her own recovery program. She had joined a very strict offshoot of Overeaters Anonymous. She spoke of it with fervor, and Trisha responded with genuine gladness that the program worked so well for her.
This teacher kept doing something, however, that made Trisha increasingly uncomfortable. The whole time she talked, she stared at Trisha’s 7-Up, and there was a hint of superiority in her tone and attitude, as if she were somehow more righteous because she wasn’t drinking a soda.
I’ve been researching food addiction for nearly twenty years. It’s a complicated and difficult addiction about which most people have only a cursory understanding. If you are addicted to alcohol, any form of alcohol will trigger a series of addictive reactions, which will lead inevitably to dependence on the bottle. Similarly, crack cocaine is rapidly addictive to everyone who takes it into their bodies.
In contrast, food addiction dances around, wearing veils. To a person vulnerable to food addiction, sugar is likely to be addictive, but it isn’t always. For years twelve-step advisers referred to popcorn as the perfect snack food, but it turns out to be addictive for many people. Proteins were previously thought to be completely safe, but now we know that for some people, certain proteins trigger enhanced appetite. A woman can be addicted to a particular food at the age of twenty and not have a problem with it at forty, or after having a baby, or after the onset of menopause. Although she is still a food addict, the particular foods that trigger a reaction can shift.
So why this chapter on food boundaries? Why highlight food addiction when there are so many other addictions?
No other addiction is so confusing and so misunderstood as food addiction. We can assume with easy accuracy that it would be unwise to offer an alcoholic a glass of wine, but we can’t make similar assumptions about someone recovering from food addiction. An outsider can’t know what is the best food choice for a recovering food addict.
We wouldn’t encourage a recovering gambler to attend the church bingo game, but we’d push a compulsive overeater to join us at a buffet. People confuse eating disorder recovery with dieting, whereas they are very different processes.
Also, a remarkable percentage of people seem to think it’s okay to comment about another person’s food choices. We would rarely say, “You look atrocious in that shirt,” but some people routinely make judgments about what another person is eating.
Food plays many roles in our lives. It is sustenance, yes, but much more than that. If we really want to spend time with someone, we share a meal. Food is often the central event of many occasions and holidays. Certain foods have religious significance; others are forbidden. We give food as a symbol of love. No wonder there are so many different boundaries we may need around food.
Food addicts aren’t the only folks who suffer from self-appointed food police. People can be notorious for making family members’ eating their business. Some folks will push food. Others will make judgments about whatever food another person chooses. And for a really mind-blowing experience, there are those who will criticize a person’s weight while pushing second helpings at them.
Let’s take a look at what this food busybodiness is about. Picture this.
A mother and her middle-aged daughter, Karenna, are taking a break from shopping and having lunch. The daughter orders a tuna sandwich, fries, and a cola. Mom orders half a sandwich and a green salad. When the meals come, Mom looks disapprovingly at her daughter’s plate and says, “You aren’t going to eat that, are you? French fries will make you fatter.”
Which of the following reactions from Karenna is most likely?
1. “Oh, my gosh, I had no idea. Thanks, Mom, for warning me,” and with that she jumps up, grabs her plate, and flings it across the room as if it were poison.
2. “I know. I know,” she says with a defeated tone. She pushes her plate away, still hungry, but feeling too vulnerable to sup in the presence of her mother. Later, alone in her car, she goes through a drive-thru and orders enough for two construction workers.
3. She says nothing, but boils with anger, watching her mother pick at the salad and leave half of the half sandwich. Two hours later, she eats two candy bars and snaps at her husband.
4. She says, “Mother, my body is my business. If you comment again on my food choices, I won’t have lunch with you for a long time.”
The fourth reaction, of course, is an example of setting a good food boundary. Reactions two and three come close to how many of us would respond. When we are criticized for eating, we could be angry at the intrusion, or feel resentful, bad about ourselves, defeated, misunderstood, or victimized.
Is Karenna’s mother likely to make her see the light and change her behavior? Hardly, and that makes me question the motives of people who continue to comment on someone’s eating habits when they don’t get reaction number one the first time.
If policing another’s food were successful, I could see the value of it, but it almost always produces more eating, not less. In reality, Karenna’s eating is a control issue for her mother. She is really seeking to control her daughter, and gets as much emotional mileage out of Karenna’s perceived failure as she would from instant acquiescence.
YOUR BODY IS YOUR BUSINESS
What’s an eater to do? If you run into a food Nazi, set a boundary at the first incident. In the unlikely event that it is an innocent boundary error from someone who really doesn’t know any better, the sooner you educate that person, the sooner the rest of us will be safe. If a desire to control others is being disguised in sheep’s clothing, it will soon emerge, and you can deal with it directly.
“Mother, I’ve asked you before, and I’m telling you now. Don’t comment on what I eat. My choices are my business. The next time you make such a remark, I’m taking my food and moving to another table, and that will be the last time we have lunch together for a month.”
“I’m only trying to help, Karenna. I don’t know why you’re making such a fuss.”
“Tell me what you’re hearing me say.”
“That you get all upset if your poor mother simply tries to help you improve yourself.”
“Try again. That wasn’t it.”
“That you’ll stop one of the things I most enjoy, having lunch with you when we go shopping.”
“And what action on your part will lead to me choosing to do that?”
“If I comment on what you order.”
“Correct. Thank you for listening. Now, what department do you want to hit after lunch?”
Notice that Karenna never engaged with her mother’s attempts to derail her; as a result, she kept her power. If she had fallen for any of her mother’s traps, she’d have lost her footing. But she set a clear, strong boundary and kept to it, insisting on being heard.
Her mother couldn’t give her the whole enchilada. Even when she grudgingly relayed what she knew very well was Karenna’s request, she still had to put in a little “poor victimized me” comment. Karenna did well by continuing to press for overt confirmation of her boundary.
FOOD PUSHERS
What should you do if, at Thanksgiving, Aunt Mabel keeps pushing you to eat her candied sweet potatoes? You can simply set a boundary.
“Aunt Mabel, I just can’t eat any more sweet potatoes. Thanks, though.”
If your clear boundary is not respected, your next limit has to be more firmly set.
“Aunt Mabel, please stop asking. They are hard to resist, but any more wouldn’t be good for me.”
Or: “Aunt Mabel, listen to me. I choose not to have more sweet potatoes. Stop asking.”
If you care deeply about Aunt Mabel, you might be willing to do more for her. Think about what the sweet potatoes—and your eating more of them—means to her.
• Is cooking the one way she shows love?
• Is Thanksgiving her happiest day, the day she steps out of a lonely life into the energy of the family?
• Is she just trying to give something to you because she loves you so much?
• Are her candied sweet potatoes her greatest life achievement, winning her accolades at the county fair and putting her on the map?
The following responses acknowledge Mabel’s true intent without your having to stuff yourself with food you don’t want.
• “Aunt Mabel, I love you so much. And I know you love me, but I can’t eat another bite of your sweet potatoes.”
• “Aunt Mabel, it’s so fun to be here with you. I love Thanksgiving because we get to be together, but I can’t eat any more sweet potatoes.”
• “Aunt Mabel, you’re so generous. You are always giving me something and trying to make me happy. Thank you for loving me so much. Believe me, I’m very happy being here with you and eating your great cooking, but I’m full.”
• “These are the best sweet potatoes in the universe. I’m going to write NASA and suggest they send your sweet potatoes to Mars as our best offering to any other life-forms. But I can’t eat another bite, thank you.”
When you perceive the person’s true intent, and are willing to acknowledge it, the symbol—food—becomes less important.
“Aunt Mabel, I love you to pieces, but if I eat more of those, I’m going to have to turn down your pie, and that would be the greatest Thanksgiving tragedy since the Indians taught Englishmen to smoke.”
Aunt Mabel says, “Oh pshaw,” waves a dish towel at you, and sits down with wet eyes. Message received and returned; relationship strengthened.
ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS FOOD BOUNDARIES
What is sustenance to some can be sacred (or sacrilegious) to others. It is always inappropriate to challenge, insult, demean, or pressure someone who is eating a particular food (or a particular way) for religious or ancestral reasons.
Saul was faithful to the Jewish dietary laws of kashrut. For him they were part of an important spiritual connection. But other guys in his department at work saw him as extreme, and, though they never said anything anti-Semitic, sometimes they teased him about keeping kosher with too much attitude.
He kept to his inner compass and didn’t let their comments in. He refused to engage in arguments about what he ate, and he would shake his head whenever they asked him mildly disrespectful questions about keeping kosher.
One day, they decided to pull a prank on him. When he was out of the room, they snuck a piece of ham into his sandwich.
At lunch, they watched him covertly to see what would happen. He tasted the forbidden meat instantly and spit it out.
From then on, he carried a lunch box with a little padlock. He considered his relationship with his co-workers forever broken.
Those men were lucky in that Saul was so filled with faith that he didn’t seek retribution or feel hate for them. But he never trusted them again, and the extra help he had previously extended to them was withdrawn.
Chapter 26
INTERNET BOUNDARIES
I was working on-line with a client recently when an “instant message” suddenly arrived. The writer had apparently added my professional screen name to her buddy list (through which she could tell when I was on-line). I did not know who she was, so I asked. She ducked the question.
This immediately split us into different levels of vulnerability. My identity was known to her, but she was withholding her identity from me. I was not willing to engage in a conversation on that basis.
The Internet is a vast playground for many people. You can assume any persona you want, as if putting on a costume, and enter chat rooms and on-line games with no one the wiser. It can be fun to enter dimensions that would be closed to you in real life due to age, gender, mobility, or appearance.
When all the people in a chat room are anonymous, they are on equal footing. But when a stranger crashes a private chat room where friends are meeting, it feels as threatening as a burglar entering the house.
There has probably never been so boundaryless an environment as the Internet, and many of us have tasted its freedom. I can now research medical studies without leaving my home. I can work with clients anywhere in the world. A client can write me at midnight—when a crisis is happening—instead of waiting a week for an appointment.
We have created a world that is all mind, all thought. We travel instantly, without need of a body, to any pursuit that draws us.
But not everyone using the Internet is playing. Many of us use the bulk of our Internet time working. So if you send an instant message to someone, use the same courtesies as if you were calling on the phone. For example, “Hi, I’m Suni. Are you working? Are you free to talk?”
FORWARD FRENZY
Forwarded messages can be a blessing or a curse. When we first galloped on-line, forwarding was great fun. We passed jokes at the speed of light all over the globe. Now, so many forwards can arrive in a day that it’s impossible to read them all.
You are not, of course, obligated to read them. You can treat them as junk mail and ditch them. Or you can set a boundary based on who sends them. (I have a tight group of friends whose forwards I read, not only because their jokes are usually both funny and tasteful, but also because I want to keep current on the culture of our community. Another friend is always on top of social issues. I read her forwards because it’s like having a personal newsletter of important political events. Most other forwards I scan lightly.)
Tell correspondents if you would prefer not to receive forwards. Or tell them the type of forwarded messages you want them to send. “Send jokes, no sexual ones please.” Or “Political info only. No jokes.”
If someone does not respect your limit, you now know something important about the person, and can protect yourself accordingly.
A FORWARDED MESSAGE IS NOT COMMUNICATION
A person I hadn’t heard from in years recently reached me over the Internet. She said she’d like to renew our friendship via the Net. I was open to that and said so.
Then I received a string of forwards from her, no more personal information or any material on which to regrow a relationship. I suppose for some people a forwarded message seems like contact—and it is, in the mildest sense. However, a forwarded message is not personal. It isn’t real communication from one human being to another.
In Internet relationships, it’s easy to measure and maintain parity. If a person says they really want to stay in touch with you, and you hear from them twice a year, they are
showing you that they want to do regular updates but don’t want to get very involved.
If you are writing a friend weekly and they are responding every four months, you are involved to a different degree. You can mention it and discuss it, or you can settle back to the level of the other person’s willingness.
One hard thing about all relationships is that the person with the least involvement is the one who sets the level of intimacy. If you want an intimate relationship with someone and that person wants a casual one with you, the relationship will be casual. You can invite, model, and request, but the bottom line is, if the other person wants less involvement, that’s all they will offer you, no matter what you do. In fact, disregarding their boundary will cause them to back away even further.
A person’s true level of interest becomes obvious on the Internet, because their behavior is all you see. I’ve compared people’s behavior on-line with their behavior in the flesh, and have found that they are consistent in both milieus, but more obvious on-line.
In person we can cloak a lack of availability in flowery words and impressive gestures, but on-line, either a person responds or doesn’t, acknowledges or doesn’t, is capable of engaging in true conversation or isn’t.
INTERNET BOUNDARIES
• Decide your limits about engaging with people who remain anonymous. In general, proceed slowly and with caution.
• Communicate your preferences regarding forwarded messages.
• Pay attention to a lack of parity in the people you communicate with. If you are getting more contact than you prefer, you can say so. If another person’s involvement is much less than yours, you can e-mail that person about it, or pull back so that you aren’t investing a lot of energy in them.
• Take charge of your own level of risk, both with known friends and (especially) unknown people.
Where to Draw the Line_How to Set Healthy Boundaries Every Day Page 21