Cross vs Violate: some definitions about boundaries
Regarding boundaries: respecting them, crossing them, and violating them.
The practice of establishing and holding boundaries is a looong discussion to address at another time (and I've done a 2-part plus epilogue podcast episode about them in another place). The summary is: we all have many, many boundaries at all times. They vary between being permeable to being rigid, and are hopefully mostly responsive and appropriate to life and circumstances.
Most of us, with some important realms, have trouble with them and getting them at the useful settings and the useful responsiveness.
The important thing about setting and upholding boundaries is that it comes from within. The individual person, the group's leadership, the event parameters, the social media platform....
But then respecting boundaries comes from everyone else: other people who interact with that individual, the people in the group, the people participating in (or viewing) the event, the users of the social media platform....
So in counseling (and some other fields) we talk about two forms of not respecting boundaries, and it's important to distinguish them.
Crossing a boundary.
Violating a boundary.
I'm sure there are academic or pop-psych definitions of these but I'm going to give it my impression. I'm going to borrow names from another great writing I read recently: Jordan and Quinn and Sam
Crossing a boundary is often inadvertent (accidental or too much enthusiasm or was "forced" by external circumstances or didn't look for a boundary)
For example:
Jordan has a boundary (as most people do) about being touched on culturally-sexualized body parts when in public by peoples unknown. Jordan and Quinn do not know each other. They are in a grocery store, and while Quinn was reaching towards a middle shelf, Jordan was reaching towards a lower one, and Quinn accidentally brushed the back of a hand against Jordan's chest and specifically against a nipple. They both notice this happen.
freeze frame
Violating a boundary is intentional. The boundary is known or could be reasonably understood, and is pushed past.
For example:
Quinn has a boundary (as most people do) about being touched on culturally-sexualized body parts when in public by peoples unknown. Quinn and Sam do not know each other. They are in a grocery store, and as Quinn reaches to a lower shelf, Sam grabs one of Quinn's ass cheeks with finger tips very close to the anus. They both notice this happen.
freeze frame
In both of these cases, there are easy-to-assume boundaries:
They are in a publicly accessible place where culturally-sexualized behavior doesn't take place without societal or legal consequence; the venue itself has stated or presumable boundaries (rules, laws) about the behavior that is permissible inside
lack of prior relationship between the people involved
activity context: grocery shopping is not expected to be a place to negotiate sexualized physical contact
(this one is complex in that showing skin is not evidence of a lack of a boundary but...) clothing is typically designed to cover areas that we don't want people to access without negotiation or prior relationship
attention and engagement: were the various people even aware of each other a few moments before the interaction?
Anyway, I could go on with examples.
There's also variable individual boundaries. E.G. sometimes people who have nursed children have lowered (or heightened!) boundaries about touch on their chests since they get touched so often and it might not impact them as intensely.
The thing is, a boundary crossing has indeed breached a boundary.
The boundary violation has definitely breached a boundary.
The thing that turns a boundary crossing or violation into violence and assault is not only the breach, but what happens next.
In a crossing, if the person who crossed the boundary (Quinn in the first example) pulls back, acknowledges the boundary, indicates regret/remorse and apology, and demonstrates they will respect the boundary henceforth, the touch may still be a triggering event or it may be a humorous anecdote. It depends on that person who experienced the boundary crossing. But a crossing is easier to repair, especially if the boundary is then recognized.
"Oh, gosh! I'm so sorry! I didn't intend that! Are you alright?! I'm so sorry! Here, you go first! I'll give you some space and wait until you're done."
In a crossing, if the person externalizes blame, says that it's the touched person's fault for putting body parts in the way of their hand, or insists there was no boundary and they did nothing wrong, etc. etc. etc., the clear lack of respect of the boundary crossing has become a boundary violation.
"Ugh, get out of my way! What? Why are you making that face? You're the one not paying attention. Just wait for me to get what I need. Jeez."
In the boundary violation, it would have to take quite a lot of genuine reasons this was an accident/mistake (mistaken identity for someone that the groper has a previous relationship with nevertheless ignores all the larger group boundaries e.g. grocery store implies bystanders who also haven't consented) to even get to the point where respect of a boundary could be re-established in that moment.
So many assumable boundaries were crossed in that action (location, situation, relationship, clothing, physical proximity, etc.) that it is much more likely to be felt as violence and assault, and it will take a proportionately weighty act of contrition, apology, and repair to smooth.
"Oh!!! I am so sorry! From the back you look like my partner and we're on a date, and I thought I checked that there weren't cameras or other customers in this aisle! I'm so sorry! Wow, that was so inappropriate! Are you okay? You must be so shocked, I'm so sorry! Who would expect to get grabbed like that!? Is there anything I can do to make up for it? Umm, do you want some candy or a drink or anything? I'll leave it at the register and leave you alone right now! I'm so sorry! Right, right, leaving you alone now!"
Even with a genuine apology and repair or extenuating circumstances, it was a violation.
I'm sure people reading the example could do so either with awkward and embarrassed patterns of speech or also smarmy, insincere, manipulative patterns of speech. Figuring out which might also require further observing of their behavior. (Are they still watching the person they touched from another aisle? Do they go on to do the same maneuver with another person who isn't "their partner"?)
And, there are rarely extenuating circumstances for an action that pushed past so many obvious boundaries.
Add in things like gender presentation, race and ethnicity, relative cultural dominance (whose side will either the Management, or The State's Monopoly on Violence, take if called in?) that make the crossing or violation even more intense.
Anyway, I feel like with revelations about fantasy authors, fascist-pandering and predator-protecting social media sites, it's good to get some useful words to describe things that happen.
Behind Closed Doors: Emotional Abuse in Intimate Partnerships
by Support New York
“Something that may be abusive in one relationship may not in another. One way to sort out what’s happening is to look at the impact of the actions. Even when a person who causes harm is unaware of the negative impact of their action, they can often see the benefits. Maybe they didn’t realize they were being vague and manipulative in discussions about monogamy, polyamory, and jealousy, but they can see how much freedom they have to be with others compared to their partner. Maybe they see their arguing style as normal, but notice they always get their way in an argument. Maybe they don’t feel like they belittle their partner but they would be embarrassed for anyone to over-‐ hear they communicate to them.
Keep in mind that it’s often harder to see a problem when you’re benefiting from it, so it’s vitally important to notice what you are getting out of your relationships.
Ask yourself: How one sided are those benefits, and how does that effect my partner? Do I accept feedback from my partner(s) when they voice their con-‐cerns?”
One way to categorize the difference between an abusive act and an acciden-‐tal boundary crossing is to accept feedback from your partner about a harm you may have committed. A person can demonstrate their intention for a healthy, non-‐abusive relationship by compassionately listening and doing what they can to make amends. It’s really common to be defensive when you’re told you’ve done something wrong, but focusing on the hurt that was caused leads to better communication and emotional care for everyone. Avoiding account-‐ability, blaming others (particularly the person calling them out) and keeping the focus on their own feelings and needs is a typical response of the emo-‐tionally abusive person
as someone who has had my boundaries knowingly crossed, theres one thing I want so badly for people interacting with me to know.
your boundaries are valid
your boundaries arent "silly"
your boundaries are important to me
if theres one thing I want my mutuals and friends to know, it's that I don't care how "trivial" your boundaries are. you arent selfish, you arent sensitive. I *want* to know your boundaries, the last thing I want is to hurt someone I care about.
