Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries

[surreality]

@arkandel I'm getting that read on a very small number of posts, oddly enough.

For the most part, it looks like a lot of 'I like you just fine, but I don't want to <thing> with you.'

Only a few seem to be a matter of 'I don't have any issue with <thing> when anybody but you does it.' This happens, certainly; I've been the target of it and I know I've done the same, though I got considerably better at my avoidance game over time to prevent friction in either case. (It now takes real sustained effort to break through the avoidance wall, but some people still do.)

This one isn't a hard answer in the vast majority of RP circumstances. It just isn't. Unless circumstances require it, stay out of each other's faces. You hate them? Don't join scenes they're in unless you need to be there.

Especially do not join scenes they are in to shit all over whatever they are doing; this is exceptionally poor behavior and people absolutely do it. Don't nitpick their poses with others as though they aren't even there. Don't initiate regular public discussions in shared spaces about how stupid they are (again, often like they aren't even there). It's really not hard to be better than these behaviors.

If somebody can't avoid regularly behaving this way, they're the crap actor even if Joe/Jane Whoever is 'omg so annoying' to them (or even them and others). If Joe/Jane Whoever keeps showing up in your scenes and behaving this way, say something -- to them, or to staff. Ask them to stay away from you unless it's somehow necessary, or ask staff to intervene if you can't do this.

[Ninjakitten]

@groth said in Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries:

Yet at the same time even very mundane things like giving someone a hug requires some degree of power posing

Asking is a totally reasonable way to do it, and I do that kind of 'if X tried to lift Y up, would Y go for it?' a fair bit, but often if I don't want to take the question OOC, I'll construct the pose so that nothing in it depends on how the thing's reacted to -- which often means it's the last thing in the pose, but not always -- and phrase it as an attempt, rather than a result. It's not perfect, since having a hug dodged (for example) is kind of awkward ICly, but then again, if my character would have gone in for the hug and Fred would have refused or casually ducked it, then it's an awkward the characters earned.

Obviously that doesn't help if someone's objection to the attempted action is OOC, but for the more minor things I've found it works pretty well.

[Arkandel]

@surreality said in Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries:

For the most part, it looks like a lot of 'I like you just fine, but I don't want to <thing> with you.'

The way I mean it is this.

Me: "Hey Surreality, we're currently having fun hanging out/playing PCs in a coterie. Let me run a story in which I kill your alt and eat her."

You: "We do have fun, but I'm not into being canibalized!"

Me: "I'd like you more if you were!"

That's the gist of it, in my opinion of course. I.e. it's not about pushing your boundaries slightly (which you already covered) or seeing if you'd try something you don't often do just in case you end up having a good time if only because you're doing it with me, your buddy. No, it's about trying to push you into doing something you already 100% know you don't want to do at all, no matter the company.

It's not about who you're doing it with but who you are, and my best argument - my only one, really - can be summed down to this: "But I'd like you more if you were someone else".

All the other stuff, the quid pro quo, the 'look at it this way', the attempts to reframe it into "it's just IC" or trying to make it sound like it's all about you being a good sport or a better player or... whatever... it's all obfuscating that one request. Sure, I like you now, but I could like you more if you were into things you're not into. C'mon. It'll be fun (for me).

[mietze]

I think interpersonal relationships are rarely fair or equitable across all humans. So yeah, I mean there are absolutely going to be times when someone drives you up a tree that you would not be bothered were it someone, anyone else. That is neither your fault or the other person's. You just dont care for them very much. That's fine, and human. What is not fine is taking that dislike of someone and not being able to own the fact that you just dont like them or that they rub you the wrong way, and turn it into a bigger deal than it is because you dont want to be seen as "being like that" and elevating your natural or initial dislike into something actionable or that you encourage other people to join in on to save you discomfort or feeling bad about it (or for that small minority of people in the hobby, because it excites you that you've found your next target for exclusionary behavior/games).

[surreality]

@arkandel I think it's a lot simpler than that. It's not about the 'a different person'. It's 'would do whatever I want'.

Yeah, that is a different person than the person who would be willing to say no, so I see what you're getting at there, but it's not so much about changing the person on a fundamental level, but about getting that person to do what they want with zero regard to what that person wants.

[Ganymede]

@arkandel said in Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries:

It's not about who you're doing it with but who you are, and my best argument - my only one, really - can be summed down to this: "But I'd like you more if you were someone else".

I think you're twisting the logic and words here to come to that conclusion.

No, it's about trying to push you into doing something you already 100% know you don't want to do at all, no matter the company. \

You really are the asshole if you are pushing your friend to do something that they have told you they don't want to do. Like, a really awful asshole too. Look at it this way:

You: Hey, Surreality, you want to go out on a date? We seem to have a good time together.

Surreality: We do have fun, but I'm not really into a dating relationship with you.

You: I'd like you more if you were.

You're putting Surreality in a position of jeopardy here because she risks losing the fun of playing with you by denying you. It's not precisely the same as a Weinstein, and you're definitely not pulling a Kavanaugh, but pulling a Duckie is still a shit move. In some perspectives, it's a worse move.

Of all people, friends are the ones who should care the most about how they are making you feel. Blood of the covenant > Water of the womb.

[Arkandel]

@ganymede said in Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries:

It's not precisely the same as a Weinstein, and you're definitely not pulling a Kavanaugh, but pulling a Duckie is still a shit move. In some perspectives, it's a worse move.

You didn't just lose me, I don't even know where I am any more.

[Too Old For This]

@arkandel (Harvey) Weinstein, (Brett) Kavanaugh.. and I believe Duckie is in reference to Representative Brent Farenthold? All sexual harassment cases.

[Ganymede]

@arkandel

Ganymede's Guide to Hip Lexicon:

A Weinstein: Classic quid pro quo. "Sleep with me or I'll ruin your career." / "Sleep with me and I'll make you a star."

A Kavanaugh: Classic entitlement tactic. "I got you drunk! I went to the best schools! I like beer! I worked my butt off! You have to fuck me now!"*

A Duckie: Classic friend-guilt tactic. "You want a lover that's your best friend? I'm your best friend. You should date me."

Duckie is Jon Cryer's character in Sixteen Candles.

All are assholes, but Duckie is probably the worst.

[Too Old For This]

@ganymede See, and I didn't even think about the John Hughes Creepy Cavalcade.

[Ganymede]

@too-old-for-this said in Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries:

See, and I didn't even think about the John Hughes Creepy Cavalcade.

And your handle is "Too Old For This"?

If you're too old, I'm positively antique.

[Arkandel]

< wanders around aimlessly, walks into walls >

[Too Old For This]

@ganymede I'm old, but I still try to stay current on happenings! The ducky pajamas thing was strange enough to stick in my mind. >.> But if you like we can get into a conversation about how each of John Hughes' movies is just him bitching about how no girls liked him in high school and how he's trying to make them all feel bad for turning him down way back when.

[Ganymede]

@too-old-for-this

Ah, yes, John "Incel" Hughes.

[Too Old For This]

@ganymede What's truly sad is that these movies are still considered great movies today.

Sixteen Candles: "But I'm your best friend and know you best, you should be dating ME! I've been obsessed with you since forever, clearly I deserve to be your boyfriend!"
Breakfast Club: "I'm literally going to neg you into liking me because you have super low self-esteem left over from your parents' divorce and consequent family problems. Also, see, the freaky chick can get the jock! She just has to transform herself into a beautiful girl through makeup and hairstyling!"
Ferris Bueller's Day Off: "Another movie where I'm going to neg the girl into going along with my insane and often illegal plans because otherwise this girl would never look twice at me!"
Weird Science: "I am unattractive personality-wise, girls don't like me, so I will create one that will do my bidding and teach me basic manners I should have learned through socializing with my peers while still making everyone around me insanely jealous!"

[Ganymede]

@too-old-for-this

They are great movies, though. They are zeitgeist. They are as classic as On the Waterfront or Citizen Kane, but, like those movies, should be viewed through a contextual lens.

They don't hold up well as examples of how to act now, but anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be drubbed in the head.

[Too Old For This]

@ganymede IF viewed through a contextual lens, then yes. I would agree. But I have long since given up on the rom-com genre for ever portraying a healthy way to go about pursuing a love interest. Oddly, Legally Blonde has one of the better ways of dealing with it, even if it does come with its own host of issues.

[Ganymede]

@too-old-for-this said in Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries:

But I have long since given up on the rom-com genre for ever portraying a healthy way to go about pursuing a love interest.

I think Warm Bodies was great, but --

[Too Old For This]

@ganymede Warm Bodies was excellent in multiple ways, though yeah, it does generally fall under the 'romantic comedy' heading... I'll cede the point!

[Pyrephox]

"Modeling a healthy relationship" is not the point of dramatic, romantic, or comedic fiction, anymore than people ride roller coasters to learn how to drive. Healthy relationships are pretty boring unless you're inside of one, and they don't generally make good, gripping stories that give people emotional catharsis.

It's fine to not like certain dynamics in your fiction (I definitely have big problems with the ever-popular "manchild and mommywife" sitcom dynamic, which is why I don't watch sitcoms), but it's really not the job of fiction to meet any sort of moral or instructional standards, and particularly not the job of iddy fiction like most romances and rom-coms, most of which are based on the idea of "what if these two incredibly different/unsuitable people actually end up being suited for one another after all", something that rarely ever happens in real life and is appealing PRECISELY because it rarely ever happens in real life.