Boundary Violation Quotes

We need to have a talk on the subject of what's yours and what's mine.

One of the first signs that you’re beginning to develop boundaries is a sense of resentment, frustration, or anger at the subtle and not-so-subtle violations in your life. Just as radar signals the approach of a foreign missile, your anger can alert you to boundary violations in your life.

People who violate your boundaries are thieves. They steal time that doesn’t belong to them.

Take "no" as an encouragement to redouble his efforts, so it was easier to say "yes" right away.

Sexist comments, intimidation, groping, violating boundaries, and aggression are merely seen as "typical" for men. But "typical" is dangerously interchangeable with "acceptable".

It seems that a lot of men are confusing being asked not to violate other people's sexual boundaries with being forbidden to participate in basic human activities such as dancing, dating, chatting, walking around, going to work. and telling jokes.

Human beings have a fundamental need for physical and emotional space, and the desire to extinguish another life can arise when the boundaries of that space are violated.

Abuse can take many forms. It always involves a boundary violation, although every boundary violation is not necessarily abuse.

Emotions, or feelings, have a function. They tell us something. They are a signal....Anger tells us that our boundaries have been violated. Much like a nation's radar defense system, angry feelings serve as an "early warning system" telling us we're in danger of being injured or controlled.

Boundary violations are deeply experienced.

The longer we stay in a violating situation, the more traumatized we become. If we don't act on our own behalf, we will lose spirit, resourcefulness, energy, health, perspective, and resilience. We must take ourselves out of violating situations for the sake of our own wholeness.

Nonmonogamous folks are constantly engaged in their relationships: they negotiate and establish boundaries, respect them, test them, and, yes, even violate them. But the limits are not assumed or set by society; they are consciously chosen.

An idolatrous attachment can lead you to break any promise, rationalize any indiscretion, or betray any other allegiance, in order to hold on to it. It may drive you to violate all good and proper boundaries. To practice idolatry is to be a slave.

Verbal abuse is a violation, not a conflict. There is a definite difference between conflict and abuse. In a conflict each participant wants something different. In order to resolve the conflict, the two people in the relationship discuss their wants, needs, and reasons while mutually seeking a creative solution. There may or may not be a solution, but no one forces, dominates, or controls the other. Verbal abuse, on the other hand, is very different from a conflict. If we describe verbal abuse from the standpoint of boundary violation, we would describe it as an intrusion upon, or disregard of, one’s self by a person who disregards boundaries in a sometimes relentless pursuit of Power Over, superiority, and dominance by covert or overt means.

Never make exceptions for people. Your sacrifice becomes their expectation.

When you’re manipulated into believing that the abuse was your fault, it’s a boundary violation. Regardless of the reason behind the abuse, it’s never okay for someone to abuse you.

This praise highlights another problem with the idea of the "good man"—the bar is ultimately a low one, and men are heralded every day for engaging in basic acts of domestic labour like washing dishes. It is this low bar that also renders the experiences I've shared unexceptional and therefore so often unnoticed. Sexist comments, intimidation, groping, violating boundaries, and aggression are seen as merely "typical" for men. But "typical" is dangerously interchangeable with "acceptable." "Boys will be boys," after all.

To hold sovereign and exclusive ownership of one's own conscious mind, to explore freely and without boundary, is surely the most fundamental of human rights. Third party intrusion into this wholly personal territory is a grievous breach of this inalienable freedom.

But we can’t enable bad behavior in ourselves and others and call it love. We can’t tolerate destructive patterns and call it love. And we can’t pride ourselves on being loyal and longsuffering in our relationships when it’s really perpetuating violations of what God says love is.

Because we fear other people's reactions and don't know how to respond, we allow them to violate our limits and boundaries.

Anger is how you reclaim boundaries that have been violated,

Reasons People Don’t Respect Your Boundaries You don’t take yourself seriously. You don’t hold people accountable. You apologize for setting boundaries. You allow too much flexibility. You speak in uncertain terms. You haven’t verbalized your boundaries (they’re all in your head). You assume that stating your boundaries once is enough. You assume that people will figure out what you want and need based on how you act when they violate a boundary.

Dissociation -the common factor in all types of post-traumatic syndromes- is facilitated by violation of boundaries by relational omission and intrusion as represented by distinct effects and consequences of childhood neglect and abuse.

But something that never escapes me as I putter about the garden, physically and mentally: desire and curiosity inform the inevitable boundaries of the garden, and boundaries, especially when they are an outgrowth of something as profound as the garden with all its holy restrictions and admonitions, must be violated.

But both physical and emotional boundary development are harmed by distance violations, not just intrusion violations.

We violated each other’s boundaries with verbal missiles of anger disguised in the pretense of “just kidding.

When we allow a boundary to be violated, bad behavior will be validated.

I felt violated, yet I had no voice, no ability to express that. I was conditioned to believe any boundary I wanted was a betrayal of her, so I stayed silent. Cooperative.

The seduction of women - including feminists - into confusion by Dionysian boundary violation happens under a variety of circumstances. A comment element seems to be an invitation to "freedom". The feminine Dionysian male guru or therapist invites women to spiritual or sexual liberation, at the cost of loss of Self in male-dicated behavior. Male propagation of the idea that men, too are feminine - particularly through feminine behavior by males - distracts attention from the fact that femininity is a man-made construct, having essentially nothing to do with femaleness.

Saying no to people who want you to say yes, and upholding your boundaries with people who were used to having none, will at first feel terrible. Like a death. And it is a death of sorts. The death of the part of you that thinks you have to violate yourself to make it in life or be valued. You most likely will surrounded by people who are used to being accommodating or passive. At first, they feel threatened by you asserting your boundaries. This is ok. And in time they will get used to it. Just like in time you'll get used to understanding, that when people act like assholes when you say now, isn't about you. It's about them.

Those of us who have been violated or around violence or cruelty—and really those of us who have simply grown up in a racist, sexist, homophobic world—knew how far we could go, how loud we could get, how big we could become, how much space or attention we could occupy. We learned the price we had to pay for our bigness, our desire, and our ambition. We were practiced at the dance. We cherished the walls of our confines because they gave definition to our lives, boundaries. We wrongly believed this was safety, protection. We made sure someone was assigned to bring us down a notch, remind us who we really are, hold the truth of our badness.

As Kelly Rae so beautifully demonstrated, boundaries are simply our lists of what’s okay and what’s not okay. In fact, this is the working definition I use for boundaries today. It’s so straightforward and it makes sense for all ages in all situations. When we combine the courage to make clear what works for us and what doesn’t with the compassion to assume people are doing their best, our lives change. Yes, there will be people who violate our boundaries, and this will require that we continue to hold those people accountable. But when we’re living in our integrity, we’re strengthened by the self-respect that comes from the honoring of our boundaries, rather than being flattened by disappointment and resentment.

The New Testament uses five main Greek words for sin, which together portray its various aspects, both passive and active. The commonest is hamartia, which depicts sin as a missing of the target, the failure to attain a goal. Adikia is ‘unrighteousness’ or ‘iniquity’, and ponēria is evil of a vicious or degenerate kind. Both these terms seem to speak of an inward corruption or perversion of character. The more active words are parabasis (with which we may associate the similar paraptōma), a ‘trespass’ or ‘transgression’, the stepping over a known boundary, and anomia, ‘lawlessness’, the disregard or violation of a known law. In each case an objective criterion is implied, either a standard we fail to reach or a line we deliberately cross.

Treating Abuse Today 3(4) pp. 26-33 TAT: No. I don't know anymore than you know they're not. But, I'm talking about boundaries and privacy here. As a therapist working with survivors, I have been harassed by people who claim to be affiliated with the false memory movement. Parents and other family members have called or written me insisting on talking with me about my patients' cases, despite my clearly indicating I can't because of professional confidentiality. I have had other parents and family members investigate me -- look into my professional background -- hoping to find something to discredit me to the patients I was seeing at the time because they disputed their memories. This isn't the kind of sober, scientific discourse you all claim you want.

Speaking truth to bullshit and practicing civility start with knowing ourselves and knowing the behaviors and issues that both push into our own BS or get in the way of being civil. If we go back to BRAVING and our trust checklist, these situations require a keen eye on: 1. Boundaries. What’s okay in a discussion and what’s not? How do you set a boundary when you realize you’re knee-deep in BS? 2. Reliability. Bullshitting is the abandonment of reliability. It’s hard to trust or be trusted when we BS too often. 3. Accountability. How do we hold ourself and others accountable for less BS and more honest debate? Less off-loading of emotion and more civility? 4. Vault. Civility honors confidentiality. BS ignores truth and opens the door to violations of confidentiality. 5. Integrity. How do we stay in our integrity when confronted with BS, and how do we stop in the midst of our own emotional moment to say, “You know what, I’m not sure this conversation is productive” or “I need to learn more about this issue”? 6. Nonjudgment. How do we stay out of judgment toward ourselves when the right thing to do is say, “I actually don’t know much about this. Tell me what you know and why it’s important to you.” How do we not go into “winner/loser” mode and instead see an opportunity for connection when someone says to us, “I don’t know anything about that issue”? 7. Generosity. What’s the most generous assumption we can make about the people around us? What boundaries have to be in place for us to be kinder and more tolerant? I know that the practice of speaking truth to bullshit while being civil feels like a paradox, but both are profoundly important parts of true belonging.

The idea that a woman's body has boundaries that must not be violated is fairly new. We evidently haven't taken it far enough. Can we extend that idea? Or are women the pliable sex, innately dapted to being shaped, cut, and subjected to physical invasion? Does the female body deserve the same notion of integrity as the male body?

A beautiful woman taught me about establishing boundaries. Today, I hope I am that beautiful woman to you. I wish to remind you to set limitations you refuse for anyone to cross.

The violation of the existence and natures of things, of oneself, or of others is evil. Disrespect encroaches upon the space of others, and alters or empties their nature. Respect is respect for the limits, the boundaries, the space of others, and thus for their natures. Morally good action designates the active respect for others, for things, and also for ourselves.

She gave me breast and vaginal exams until I was seventeen years old. These 'exams' made my body stiff with discomfort. I felt violated, yet I had no voice, no ability to express that. I was conditioned to believe any boundary I wanted was a betrayal of her, so I stayed silent. Cooperative. When I was six years old, she pushed me into a career I didn't want. I'm grateful for the financial stability that career has provided me, but not much else. I was not equipped to handle the entertainment industry and all of its competitiveness, rejection, stakes, harsh realities, fame. I needed that time, those years, to develop as a child. To form my identity. To grow. I can never get those years back. She taught me an eating disorder when I was eleven years old--an eating disorder that robbed me of my joy and any amount of free-spiritedness that I had.

When we violate our conscience by compromising our integrity, we put our reputation at risk. We also become our own advocate because we step outside the boundaries of God's good, pleasing, and perfect will. But when we obey God, we come under the umbrella of His protective authority. He is our Advocate. And it's His reputation that is at stake. If we don't give the Enemy a foothold, God won't let him touch a hair on our head.

We heard of this woman who was out of control. We heard that she was led by her feelings. That her emotions were violent. That she was impetuous. That she violated tradition and overrode convention. That certainly her life should not be an example to us. (The life of the plankton, she read in this book on the life of the earth, depends on the turbulence of the sea) We were told that she moved too hastily. Placed her life in the stream of ideas just born. For instance, had a child out of wedlock, we were told. For instance, refused to be married. For instance, walked the streets alone, where ladies never did, and we should have little regard for her, even despite the brilliance of her words. (She read that the plankton are slightly denser than water) For she had no respect for boundaries, we were told. And when her father threatened her mother, she placed her body between them. (That because of this greater heaviness, the plankton sink into deeper waters) And she went where she should not have gone, even into her sister's marriage. And because she imagined her sister to be suffering what her mother had suffered, she removed her sister from that marriage. (And that these deeper waters provide new sources of nourishment) That she moved from passion. From unconscious feeling, allowing deep and troubled emotions to control her soul. (But if the plankton sinks deeper, as it would in calm waters, she read) But we say that to her passion, she brought lucidity (it sinks out of the light, and it is only the turbulence of the sea, she read) and to her vision, she gave the substance of her life (which throws the plankton back to the light). For the way her words illuminated her life we say we have great regard. We say we have listened to her voice asking, "of what materials can that heart be composed which can melt when insulted and instead of revolting at injustice, kiss the rod?" (And she understood that without light, the plankton cannot live and from the pages of this book she also read that the animal life of the oceans, and hence our life, depends on the plankton and thus the turbulence of the sea for survival.) By her words we are brought to our own lives, and are overwhelmed by our feelings which we had held beneath the surface for so long. And from what is dark and deep within us, we say, tyranny revolts us; we will not kiss the rod.

When boundaries are violated, they can hurt tremendously because we feel used, disrespected and devalued by those who try to take from us. As a result, a violation of boundaries is often experienced as an attack or assault.

Anger delivers important information about where one of our boundaries has been crossed. When we answer the door and accept that delivery, we begin to know ourselves better. When we restore the boundary that was violated, we honor ourselves. When we know ourselves and honor ourselves, we live with integrity, peace, and power—understanding that we are the kind of woman who will be wise and brave enough to care for herself. Good stuff. And there’s more. Even better stuff comes when we go deeper. When we say, “Okay. I understand that this is my boundary.” But what is a boundary anyway? A boundary is the edge of one of our root beliefs about ourselves and the world.

You are mine. There is no limit to what I will do to protect you. No boundary that I’ll adhere to. No law or territory or action that will keep me from violating, breaking, shattering, or destroying if it means that you are safe and you are at my side.” All

I bless you with being mighty in spirit. I bless you with avoiding the influences that will cripple you and make you small. I bless you with avoiding the diseases of the spirit and soul and body that will keep you from fulfilling your birthright. I bless you with a progressive revelation of the will of God, the principles of God, the mandates of God. I bless you with a willing heart to stay within those boundaries while you relentlessly violate the boundaries of the culture around you in order to bring God to them in a new way. I

When our boundaries are intact, we know that we have separate feelings, thoughts, and realities. Our boundaries allow us to know who we are in relation to others around us. We need our boundaries to get close to others, since otherwise we would be overwhelmed. Boundaries ensure that our behavior is appropriate and keep us from offending others. When we have healthy boundaries, we also know when we are being abused. A person without boundaries will not know when someone is physically, emotionally, or intellectually violating them.

need to listen to my anger to know that I’ve had a boundary violated. I need to listen to my loneliness to know that I need to invest in deep relationships. I need to listen to my anxiety to know that I have an unresolved trauma that needs to heal. I need to listen to my depression to know that I need care for my heart’s deepest wounds. I need to listen to my fear to know that I may need to create safety. I need to listen to my stress and irritability to know that I’m out of balance and need rest or reprioritization. One common experience, however, keeps us all stuck. Instead of moving toward our pain and listening to the valuable messages it has for us, the vast majority of us move against or away from it. We ignore it, deny it, feel ashamed for feeling it, resent it, or attempt to numb, deflect, or dismiss it. We’ve been well taught to not listen to, or even feel, those yucky, hard feelings. Suck it up, buttercup. Be a man. Big girls don’t cry. Stop your whining or I’ll give you something to whine about! You can see why I believe we suffer from a very serious leprosy of the heart. And it’s killing us.

Most people, Gurion, most people do not violate boundaries, do not defy governance, and most of them come out intact, whereas very few of those who act lawlessly do. And that is why school is so much about following rules. You are here, above all else, to learn to live lawfully for the rest of your life. You are here to learn how to exist in cages without acting as if they are cages, to live like mensches despite being locked in cages. You are here to learn to survive in the world. That is the most basic purpose of our educational system, and it is a high purpose.

It is a childish notion that once established, our boundaries will never be transgressed again...We shall have to stand for ourselves repeatedly for the rest of our lives. As we practice doing this, we come to greater ease...Eventually it may float over entirely into the positive realm—becoming only another chance to demonstrated our worthiness.

Anger delivers important information about where one of our boundaries has been crossed. [...] When we restore the boundary that was violated, we honor ourselves. When we know ourselves and honor ourselves, we live with integrity, peace and power – understandingthat we are the kind of woman who will be wise and brave enough to care for herself. Good stuff.

No matter what happened, when it happened, or with whom, there’s one thing that remains the same: it’s hard to believe. Sexual trauma is an event that shatters your world, sense of safety, and implicit trust in others. Your boundaries are violated in the most intrusive way imaginable. It interrupts you of a sense of control over your body and calls into question your entire sense of who you are.

(b) Boundary Violation. This involves children witnessing parents in sexual behavior. They may walk in on it because parents don’t provide closed or locked doors. It also involves the children being allowed no privacy. They are walked in on in the bathroom. They are not taught to lock their doors or given permission to lock their doors. Parents need to model appropriate nudity, i.e., need to be clothed appropriately after a certain age. Children are sexually curious. Beginning at around age three or between ages three and six, children start noticing parents’ bodies. They are often obsessed with nudity. Mom and Dad need to be careful walking around nude with young children. If Mom is not being stimulated sexually, the nudity is not sexual misconduct. She simply is acting in a dysfunctional way. She is not setting sexual boundaries.

Questions for Self-Examination 1.  How do you define creativity? Do you consider yourself a creative person? Do you follow through on your creative ideas? 2.  How often do you direct your creative energies into negative paths of expression? Do you exaggerate or embellish “facts” to support your point of view? 3.  Are you comfortable with your sexuality? If not, are you able to work toward healing your sexual imbalances? Do you use people for sexual pleasure, or have you felt used? Are you strong enough to honor your sexual boundaries? 4.  Do you keep your word? What is your personal code of honor? of ethics? Do you negotiate your ethics depending upon your circumstances? 5.  Do you have an impression of God as a force that exerts justice in your life? 6.  Are you a controlling person? Do you engage in power plays in your relationships? Are you able to see yourself clearly in circumstances related to power and money? 7.  Does money have authority over you? Do you make compromises that violate your inner self for the sake of financial security? 8. How often do survival fears dictate your choices? 9.  Are you strong enough to master your fears concerning finances and physical survival, or do they control you and your attitudes? 10.  What goals do you have for yourself that you have yet to pursue? What stands in the way of your acting upon those goals?

As The New York Times editorial board put it in June 2017, “For Mr. Trump and his circle, what matters is not what’s right but what you can get away with. In his White House, if you’re avoiding the appearance of impropriety, you’re not pushing the boundaries hard enough. Government ethics officials say dealing with this administration is an exhausting game of whack-a-mole: go after one potential violation, and two others crop up. That’s because ethical regulations were not written with this sort of administration in mind.

In the absence of any objectifiable criteria of right or wrong, good or evil, the self and its feelings become our only moral guide. [...] There each individual is entitled to his or her own "bit of space" and is utterly free within its boundaries. [...]. But while everyone may be entitled to his or her won private space, only those who have enough money can, in fact, afford to purchase the private property required to do their own thing. As a consequence, economic inequalities neccessarily delimit our individual "rights" to self-fulfillment - or unjustly violate those rights.

Sometimes when a client struggles to grasp the reality of what has happened to them, I direct them away from their intellect towards their feelings. When sexual violence occurs, you feel as if something very wrong has just happened. Your boundaries are violated. You feel dirty, used, confused, and unsteady. You feel intense blame and shame. You feel alone and isolated. It feels like you can’t tell anyone. These are all clues that something truly destructive has happened. The beginning of healing usually starts here, by letting go of the myths and misconceptions. We begin by accepting a very sad truth.

we know a good thing has become a counterfeit god when its demands on you exceed proper boundaries. Making an idol out of work may mean that you work until you ruin your health, or you break the laws in order to get ahead. Making an idol out of love may mean allowing the lover to exploit and abuse you, or it may cause terrible blindness to the pathologies in the relationship. An idolatrous attachment can lead you to break any promise, rationalize any indiscretion, or betray any other allegiance, in order to hold on to it. It may drive you to violate all good and proper boundaries. To practice idolatry is to be a slave.

As if you don’t already know all this, men who beat up on women are different than the rest of us. Okay? They’re unhinged. Out there. Without feelings. And anyone arrogant enough to violate an order of the court, when it could get him a year or more in jail, is different, too. He doesn’t get the idea of boundaries – like, where his life stops and other people’s start.' He let his hands settle back to his coffee cup. If you or I were the subject of a restraining order, we’d be twenty miles from ground zero at all times. We’re not gonna screw with the justice system once it buries its teeth in us.' He paused, sipped his coffee.

It took me almost two thousand miles in the woods to see I had to do some hard work that wasn’t simply walking—that I needed to begin respecting my own body’s boundaries. I had to draw clear lines. Ones that were sound in my mind and therefore impermeable, and would always, no matter where I walked, protect me. Moving forward, I wanted rules. First—when I felt unsafe I’d leave, immediately. The first time, not the tenth time. Not after a hundred red flags smacked in wind violently, clear as trail signs pointing the way to SNAKES. Not after I’d been bitten—the violation. If I wasn’t interested, I would reject the man blatantly.

Anger tells us that our boundaries have been violated. ... However, as with all emotions, anger doesn't understand time. Anger doesn't dissipate automatically if the danger occurred two minutes ago—or twenty years ago! It has to be worked through appropriately. Otherwise, anger simply lives inside the heart. This is why individuals with injured boundaries often are shocked by the rage they feel inside when they begin setting limits. This is generally not 'new anger'—it's 'old anger.' It's often years of nos that were never voiced, never respected, and never listened to. The protests against all the evil and violation of our souls sit inside us, waiting to tell their truths.

The question that remains unanswered and keeps coming to the fore is ‘Are the punishment schemes for child sex and sexual abuse deterrent in nature? Amidst ongoing debates in most countries about capital punishment as human rights violation to be inflicted in rarest of rare cases, and those who have abrogated capital punishment from their list of penalties, there is a need to transcend all national and international boundaries, and bring Child sexual abuse/rape within the ambit of international legislators, and law enforcement agencies, with a drive to pilot child rights of protection of his/her body much beyond the prevalent inefficacious laws, devoid of collective consensus of the people.

Nudity is a gray area. We certainly don’t think kids are harmed by growing up in households where casual nudity is the norm. But children who have never been around nude adults may be upset if nudity is suddenly introduced into their living room. Kids can be very sensitive to issues like sexual display, and flashing is clearly a violation of boundaries. Certainly, if a child expresses discomfort with being around your or your friends’ nudity, his or her desires should be respected. And we hope it goes without saying that no child should ever be required to be nude in front of others—many children go through phases of extreme modesty as they struggle to cope with their changing bodies, and that, too, deserves scrupulous respect. What

A trauma is a place where it becomes impossible to remain connected in and to the present moment. Trauma is a part of the human condition! Healing is also a part of the human condition, and we have the capacity to transform difficult experiences into a wellspring of personal and spiritual power. Trauma occurs when there is a rupture in our boundary system and our capacity to metabolize an experience is compromised. Every single human being on earth has trauma. It's an interruption of our ability to stay in the present moment, anything that lags or is not harmonized on the layers of body/mind/spirit/soul/psyche. Rachael Maddox has called it an" embodied interpersonal violation hangover." Ale Duarte called it "an open loop." Lately, many people have been telling me their stories and then telling me how they are "lucky," that "it's not that bad" compared to other people's situations. All of those statements happen in the mind, and they are largely attempts to keep ourselves from feeling the depth of our pain or sorrow. We may have white privilege, we may have class privilege, we may have had homebirth privilege—the animals of our bodies don't actually understand mental and philosophical constructs like privilege. What those constructs contribute to on an individual healing level is a lot of confusion, shame and guilt, that in spite of everything we "have," we may have still experienced helplessness, hurt, anger, or outrage or collapse, or whatever it is that our system felt. We actually cannot control those responses.

The universe seeks equilibriums; it prefers to disperse energy, disrupt organisation, and maximise chaos. Life is designed to combat these forces. We slow down reactions, concentrate matter, and organise chemicals into compartments; we sort laundry on Wednesdays. "It sometimes seems as if curbing entropy is our quixotic purpose in the universe," James Gleick wrote. We live in the loopholes of natural laws, seeking extensions, exceptions, and excuses. The laws of nature still mark the outer boundaries of permissibility – but life, in all its idiosyncratic, mad weirdness, flourishes by reading between the lines. Even the elephant cannot violate the law of thermodynamics – although its trunk, surely, must rank as one of the most peculiar means of moving matter using energy.

I felt a pervasive sense of neediness amongst these people, like I was being energetically yanked on, all day.  They were spectators instead of players in the game of life, obsessed with anyone in their vicinity who had anything resembling a normal adult life, full of activities that had nothing to do with violating people's privacy.  They were extremely territorial.  They had no regard for the rights and boundaries of others.  They had no sense of self.  They were walking black holes, no light from within, only a foreboding, grasping need, as they attached themselves to your existence, these total strangers with no real friends, no hobbies, no dreams,  and apparently, no souls or higher consciousness, as I will describe later. The stress of being a kind of prisoner whenever I was home started affecting my health.

The success of discovering a thermodynamic principle associated with the gravitational field of a black hole has led to a speculation that there might exist some thermodynamic aspect to the gravitational field of the whole Universe. The simplest assumption to make, following the black hole case, would be that it is the surface area of the boundary of the visible universe. As the Universe expands, this boundary increases and the information available to us about the Universe increases. But this does not seem promising. It would appear to tell us only that the Universe must continue expanding forever, for if it were ever to begin to recollapse the entropy would fall and violate the second law of thermodynamics. The universe can expand in all sorts of different ways and still have the increasing area. What we really want is some principle that tells us why the organization of the Universe changes in the way that it does: why it now expands so uniformally and isotropically.

A healthy person has to learn again to be “selfish.” We have to learn to be honestly selfish, that is, we have to honestly face our needs and our feelings and face what we really want from others in our relationships. The more we face our simple wants, the more we can be straightforward in our expression to the people closest to us and to ourselves. We have to give up parental, rejecting, critical, evaluative attitudes toward our simple wishes and feelings. We have to feel what we want and stop accusing ourselves of being babyish when we want things.   When we pursue our goals in an honest and direct manner, without deception, we actually are more moral and tend to have respect and empathy for other people. There is a sense of value for both ourselves and others. Following one’s own motives and inclinations, within acceptable limits (with the exception of violations of the other’s boundaries), does not lead to chaos or immoral behavior. On the other hand, the hypocritical attitudes and dishonesty inherent in turning away from our needs often leads us to be more destructive or hostile to friends and loved ones.

Speaking truth to bullshit and practicing civility start with knowing ourselves and knowing the behaviors and issues that both push into our own BS or get in the way of being civil. If we go back to BRAVING and our trust checklist, these situations require a keen eye on: 1. Boundaries. What’s okay in a discussion and what’s not? How do you set a boundary when you realize you’re knee-deep in BS? 2. Reliability. Bullshitting is the abandonment of reliability. It’s hard to trust or be trusted when we BS too often. 3. Accountability. How do we hold ourself and others accountable for less BS and more honest debate? Less off-loading of emotion and more civility? 4. Vault. Civility honors confidentiality. BS ignores truth and opens the door to violations of confidentiality. 5. Integrity. How do we stay in our integrity when confronted with BS, and how do we stop in the midst of our own emotional moment to say, “You know what, I’m not sure this conversation is productive” or “I need to learn more about this issue”? 6. Nonjudgment. How do we stay out of judgment toward ourselves when the right thing to do is say, “I actually don’t know much about this. Tell me what you know and why it’s important to you.” How do we not go into “winner/loser” mode and instead see an opportunity for connection when someone says to us, “I don’t know anything about that issue”? 7. Generosity. What’s the most generous assumption we can make about the people around us? What boundaries have to be in place for us to be kinder and more tolerant? I know that the practice of speaking truth to bullshit while being civil feels like a paradox, but both are profoundly important parts of true belonging. Carl Jung wrote, “Only the paradox comes anywhere near to comprehending the fullness of life.” We are complex beings who wake up every day and fight against being labeled and diminished with stereotypes and characterizations that don’t reflect our fullness. Yet when we don’t risk standing on our own and speaking out, when the options laid before us force us into the very categories we resist, we perpetuate our own disconnection and loneliness. When we are willing to risk venturing into the wilderness, and even becoming our own wilderness, we feel the deepest connection to our true self and to what matters the most.

This is a very common thing among male groups of friends. There is a person who's always taking heat from everyone else for various reasons. Not that I'm defending this behavior though, fuck no, I hate it when guys are like this; it's barbaric and stupid. Unfortunately I think it's like an unconscious thing that just comes natural to guys when we're in groups. We take the piss out of each other all the time, prodding until we know the limits of each other and crossing the lines once in a while to test the boundaries. Some guys who're overly-nice or don't fully understand this dynamic get completely shit on by it. If you keep excusing small actions by others that violate your boundaries, they'll just keep pushing and pushing, giving less and less respect until they know how far they're allowed to go. Having people knowing your limits and making sure to not cross them equates to respect, which is what we're after. This doesn't mean you should to tell them all to fuck off now; that wouldn't work anymore because you've allowed them this far into your territory. It'd seem like an overreaction from you, which makes sense, right? "We were just joking around yesterday about the same things, he seemed cool with it, but now he's all pissed for some reason, this guys a whack..." The key thing to note if you want to avoid this in the future is to either find "nicer" friends, or to let people know when they cross a boundary. This may sound huge and dramatic, but it's honestly a really simple thing. "Haha great job idiot you messed up" ----> "Fuck you man haha" Simple as that; he/they poked at you and by throwing it back at him, you let him know you're not just going to take it. If they do something that crosses your boundary, you respond appropriately; a big cross, like outright disrespecting you, means a big reaction, like telling the guy off. Does this mean you can't be nice anymore? Nope, not at all. You can still be a nice guy; most interactions with others don't involve all this boundary bullshit - and that's when the niceness in your personality can shine through. Beyond that, it's also a personal image/confidence thing. If you truly respect yourself, how would you let anyone get away with the things they say/do to you? What if this was your little sister? Would you let others treat her the same way? If not, then why would you let them treat you this way?

The Naked Truth When the gift-giving meaning of the body is obscured, distorted, or misrepresented, art becomes a lie. This is what happens in pornography. The body—which was created to be a free gift from one person to another—is depersonalized and reduced to an object for lust. This concern for human dignity goes against the grain of “naturalism” in art. The so-called naturalists demand the right to reproduce “everything that is human.” What others call pornography, they defend as a realistic depiction of humanity. But in the end, it is precisely this—the whole truth about man—that is lost when privacy is violated and the body is reduced to an object for lust. In order to speak of true realism in art, the full truth about man as created in the image of God must be considered. In this respect, the principles governing interpersonal relations still apply within the realm of art. The naked human body has a “language.” It expresses the spirit. When given in trust and love, the body is the basis of a communion of persons. Because the naked human body has such importance, it must be depicted with great care to preserve its meaning in art. Only within certain boundaries can the truth about the body be preserved. In film, photography, and mass media, there is a dangerous tendency to separate the body from the person. Reproduced on paper or on screen, the naked body can cease to communicate the person. It often becomes, instead, an anonymous object. Because the glory and beauty of the human body is at stake, we cannot remain indifferent to culture. We do not oppose pornography out of a narrow, puritanical idea of morality. Nor do we oppose it out of a Manichaean fear or hatred of the body, as is often asserted. The exact opposite is true. We oppose pornography out of respect for the dignity of the body.

Until recently, three unspoken principles have guided the arena of genetic diagnosis and intervention. First, diagnostic tests have largely been restricted to gene variants that are singularly powerful determinants of illness—i.e., highly penetrant mutations, where the likelihood of developing the disease is close to 100 percent (Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease). Second, the diseases caused by these mutations have generally involved extraordinary suffering or fundamental incompatibilities with “normal” life. Third, justifiable interventions—the decision to abort a child with Down syndrome, say, or intervene surgically on a woman with a BRCA1 mutation—have been defined through social and medical consensus, and all interventions have been governed by complete freedom of choice. The three sides of the triangle can be envisioned as moral lines that most cultures have been unwilling to transgress. The abortion of an embryo carrying a gene with, say, only a ten percent chance of developing cancer in the future violates the injunction against intervening on low-penetrance mutations. Similarly, a state-mandated medical procedure on a genetically ill person without the subject’s consent (or parental consent in the case of a fetus) crosses the boundaries of freedom and noncoercion. Yet it can hardly escape our attention that these parameters are inherently susceptible to the logic of self-reinforcement. We determine the definition of “extraordinary suffering.” We demarcate the boundaries of “normalcy” versus “abnormalcy.” We make the medical choices to intervene. We determine the nature of “justifiable interventions.” Humans endowed with certain genomes are responsible for defining the criteria to define, intervene on, or even eliminate other humans endowed with other genomes. “Choice,” in short, seems like an illusion devised by genes to propagate the selection of similar genes.

with this line of reasoning. If it makes you feel better, you are free to go on calling Communism an ideology rather than a religion. It makes no difference. We can divide creeds into god-centred religions and godless ideologies that claim to be based on natural laws. But then, to be consistent, we would need to catalogue at least some Buddhist, Daoist and Stoic sects as ideologies rather than religions. Conversely, we should note that belief in gods persists within many modern ideologies, and that some of them, most notably liberalism, make little sense without this belief. It would be impossible to survey here the history of all the new modern creeds, especially because there are no clear boundaries between them. They are no less syncretic than monotheism and popular Buddhism. Just as a Buddhist could worship Hindu deities, and just as a monotheist could believe in the existence of Satan, so the typical American nowadays is simultaneously a nationalist (she believes in the existence of an American nation with a special role to play in history), a free-market capitalist (she believes that open competition and the pursuit of self-interest are the best ways to create a prosperous society), and a liberal humanist (she believes that humans have been endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights). Nationalism will be discussed in Chapter 18. Capitalism – the most successful of the modern religions – gets a whole chapter, Chapter 16, which expounds its principal beliefs and rituals. In the remaining pages of this chapter I will address the humanist religions. Theist religions focus on the worship of gods. Humanist religions worship humanity, or more correctly, Homo sapiens. Humanism is a belief that Homo sapiens has a unique and sacred nature, which is fundamentally different from the nature of all other animals and of all other phenomena. Humanists believe that the unique nature of Homo sapiens is the most important thing in the world, and it determines the meaning of everything that happens in the universe. The supreme good is the good of Homo sapiens. The rest of the world and all other beings exist solely for the benefit of this species. All humanists worship humanity, but they do not agree on its definition. Humanism has split into three rival sects that fight over the exact definition of ‘humanity’, just as rival Christian sects fought over the exact definition of God. Today, the most important humanist sect is liberal humanism, which believes that ‘humanity’ is a quality of individual humans, and that the liberty of individuals is therefore sacrosanct. According to liberals, the sacred nature of humanity resides within each and every individual Homo sapiens. The inner core of individual humans gives meaning to the world, and is the source for all ethical and political authority. If we encounter an ethical or political dilemma, we should look inside and listen to our inner voice – the voice of humanity. The chief commandments of liberal humanism are meant to protect the liberty of this inner voice against intrusion or harm. These commandments are collectively known as ‘human rights’. This, for example, is why liberals object to torture and the death penalty. In early modern Europe, murderers were thought to violate and destabilise the cosmic order. To bring the cosmos back to balance, it was necessary to torture and publicly execute the criminal, so that everyone could see the order re-established. Attending gruesome executions was a favourite pastime for Londoners and Parisians in the era of Shakespeare and Molière. In today’s Europe, murder is seen as a violation of the sacred nature of humanity. In order to restore order, present-day Europeans do not torture and execute criminals. Instead, they punish a murderer in what they see as the most ‘humane

Anger delivers important information about where one of our boundaries has been crossed. When we answer the door and accept that delivery, we begin to know ourselves better. When we restore the boundary that was violated, we honor ourselves. When we know ourselves and honor ourselves, we live with integrity, peace, and power—understanding that we are the kind of woman who will be wise and brave enough to care for herself. Good stuff.

To explain the origins of physical order, Ludwig connected phenomena occurring at different spatial scales, mainly atoms and gases.1 Although it makes sense today, in Ludwig’s time working across spatial scales was a practice that violated an implicit contract among scientists. Many of Ludwig’s colleagues saw science as a hierarchy of Russian nesting dolls, with new structures emerging at each level. In this hierarchy, transgressing boundaries was thought unnecessary. Economics did not need psychology, just as psychology did not need biology. Biology did not need chemistry, and chemistry did not need physics. Explaining gases in terms of atoms, although not as preposterous as explaining human behavior in terms of biology, was seen as a betrayal of this implicit deal.

Violating the boundaries between life and art to make their material their own was a dangerous way for these filmmakers to work. It was successful for a while, enriching both the life and the art, but as the two became more extravagant and interchangeable, New Hollywood directors lost the detachment of artists, and their lives and art sank into quicksand, joined in a fatal embrace.

As vāta and pitta are stabilized, the mind’s gunas, or qualities, must also be addressed. Known as the mahagunas, they are sattva, rajas and tāmas, developed in the ancient Indian system of philosophy called Sankhya. The lethargic or tāmasic guna is a necessary energy for the mind, as it needs to periodically disengage and rest. In excess, however, it promotes laziness, lethargy and depression. Rajas or the dynamic guna, promotes activity, curiosity and a do-er mentality, but it also promotes arrogance, egotistical narcissism and bullying. Sattva is the quality of harmony, balance and oneness with the environment. For more than half of our day, we should live with the quality of sattva dominating in our mind. However, too much sattva will prevent us from keeping boundaries from others and may lead to violations of our space by people who have not developed mentally and emotionally to be sattvic. Activities that cleanse the body of the tāmas, such as exercise, team sports and hiking in nature, are encouraged to dilute negative energies by infusing positive energies into the body through all inlets: food, sound, conversations, visual objects, smells, the sun and the environment that penetrates through our skin. As a person takes in the environment, it may change his/ her mental composition, as we know emotions can change neurotransmitters, which alter hormone levels and the immune system.

Touching reaffirms safety and security. That you were deprived for so long was incredibly painful, James. You no longer believe in many things…and it is quite normal that you would only allow those whom you perhaps…trust with that privilege. I understand why you have dismissed Monsieur Gillespie and I want you to know the rage you possibly felt, the disgust…is also normal, because he violated your boundaries.

A note from Jim on goodbyes: There's a big difference between waiting for a breaking point and establishing a breaking point. A goodbye shouldn't sneak up on us because if we set boundaries with consequences, breaking points are established ahead of time. As boundary violations occur there will be changes in the relationship so that you can protect yourself from hurtful patterns and behaviors that you are no longer willing to tolerate.

Any community that did not hold its members accountable for specific beliefs and practices would have no corporate identity and would not really be a community at all.13 We cannot consider a group exclusive simply because it has standards for its members. Is there then no way to judge whether a community is open and caring rather than narrow and oppressive? Yes, there is. Here is a far better set of tests: which community has beliefs that lead its members to treat people in other communities with love and respect – to serve them and meet their needs? Which community’s beliefs lead it to demonise and attack those who violate their boundaries rather than treating them with kindness, humility and winsomeness? We should criticise Christians when they are condemning and ungracious to unbelievers.14 But we should not criticise churches when they maintain standards for membership in accord with their beliefs. Every community must do the same.

However, when you are tired and want to make meaning of your world, you can also open yourself to searching for that connection to something bigger. The act of doing that connects you to yourself and to hope. Sometimes I experience a sequence of frustrations. I can’t put my finger on it, but there appears to be a common underlying pattern to them. For instance, I might be allowing my boundaries to be violated in the same way by the same person each time. Or I might be triggered by someone’s behavior that seems out of proportion to the situation. At that time, I might not be aware of what’s going on and simply feel angry or frustrated. I can’t name the emotions that are coming up that are underlying my anger and irritation, and I can’t see what’s going on. But if I start to reflect, I start to become aware that through these patterns and these emotions, the Universe is trying to bring something to my attention. That is the moment I become aware and need to go within. I need to understand the pieces of me that I am trying to weave back together into coherence. I keep asking myself the questions, “What do I need to see? What do I need to learn? What do I need to understand? What is my resistance to?” The answers to these questions may not show up right away, but the more open I am to receiving answers, the more I am able to receive guidance from the Universe. When I experienced this series of frustrations, I realized that I was not being forthright about the extra help I needed to manage the demands that were being placed on my time. Knowing that everything is part of my journey allows me to stay hopeful and optimistic, and the answers are the catalyst for a deeper connection with myself, allowing me to trust and accept life. From that space, it’s easier to accept others.

Government surveillance is a violation of our intrinsic right to privacy, a breach that extends beyond legal boundaries into the emotional terrain of fear and mistrust. The toll on individuals subjected to constant monitoring is profound, casting a shadow over the very notion of personal freedom. Trust, a cornerstone of any democratic society, crumbles in the face of surveillance overreach, fostering an environment where citizens feel hesitant to express themselves openly. Historical examples, such as the COINTELPRO program, illuminate the dark potential of unchecked government surveillance, highlighting the imperative to acknowledge its unlawfulness and safeguard the emotional well-being and trust that are essential for a thriving society.

It seems that a lot of men are confusing being asked not to violate other people’s sexual boundaries with being forbidden to participate in basic human activities such as dancing, dating, chatting, walking around, going to work, and telling jokes.

Otto captured this sacred sixth sense, at once subject and object, in a famous Latin sound bite: the sacred is the mysterium tremendum et fascinans, that is, the mystical (mysterium) as both fucking scary (tremendum) and utterly fascinating (fascinans).80 (page 9) With the sacred viewed within this gripping, emotionally charged sense, it is hardly surprising that these topics are too disturbing to be studied either by religious scholarship or by science. The presence of real siddhis, real psychic effects lurking in the dark boundaries between mind and matter, are so frightening and disorienting that defense mechanisms immediately snap into place to protect our psyches from these disturbing thoughts. We become blind to personal psychic episodes and to the supportive scientific evidence, we conveniently forget mind-shattering synchronicities, and if the intensity of the mysterium tremendum becomes too hot, we angrily deny any interest in the topic while backing away and vigorously making the sign of the cross. Within science this sort of behavior is understandable; science doesn’t like what it can’t explain because it makes scientists feel stupid. But the same resistance is also endemic in comparative religion scholarship, which is supposed to be the discipline that studies the sacred. As Kripal says, scholars of religion “simply ignore … or brush their data aside as ‘primitive,’ ‘mistaken,’ and so on. Now the dismissing word in vogue is ‘anecdotal’ ” (pp. 17–18).80 One reason for this odd state of affairs is that real psi and real siddhis powerfully refute Descartes’s dualism, the very idea that led to the split between science, which deals with matter, and the humanities, which deal with mind. This distinction has carved up the world so successfully that when phenomena appear that harshly illuminate the artificial nature of the split, the resulting glare, says Kripal, “can only violate and offend our present order of knowledge and possibility” (page 24).80 From this analysis, Kripal arrives at his central argument: Psychic phenomena may be thought of as symbols that indicate “the irruption [a bursting in] of meaning in the physical world via the radical collapse of the subject-object structure itself. They are not simply physical events. They are also meaning events” (page 25).80 In other words, where objective and subjective meet, the fabric of reality itself blurs. This is a place that is not quite physical, and not quite mental, but a limbo that somehow contains and creates both.

People who use guilt trips are trying to get their needs met, but their needs may violate the requirements you have for yourself.

In going along with the Panic, it can be argued that they broke the Nuremberg Code and the basic public health laws that are based on that code. The politicians and their advisors could therefore be arraigned as criminals and taken to face an independent court to be tried for their crimes against humanity. Many court cases started by human rights lawyers are now underway in Western countries following exactly this reasoning.299 Criminal convictions for the politicians who violated the Nuremberg Code during the Great Panic would serve as a warning to future politicians who find themselves in similar circumstances, where in the face of overwhelming demands from their populations they could become criminals. It would give them an incentive to more vigorously combat the wave of fear in their populations, and to act within the boundaries of the law.

The Controller: Aggressively or manipulatively violates boundaries of others

They will view the child as a way to meet their own feelings and needs. The caregiver is unable to view the child as a separate self.  As a result, there is a violation of the child’s boundaries. The child’s thoughts and feelings are disrespected.

They will view the child as a way to meet their own feelings and needs. The caregiver is unable to view the child as a separate self.  As a result, there is a violation of the child’s boundaries. The child’s thoughts and feelings are disrespected. As a result, the child is not given a chance to develop a healthy sense of self. Instead, the child learns they must meet the caregiver’s needs to gain love and approval. Furthermore, they learn to focus on the caregiver’s expectations and responses. The result is that the child develops a sense of shame and codependency. As the child develops, they may lose touch with their thoughts, feelings, and needs.

A technique that you can use to communicate boundary violations at work is known as DESC. It stands for Describe, Express, Specify, and Consequence.

Abuse usually begins insidiously and worsens as a relationship progresses. Abusers gradually wear down their victim’s boundaries, and as a result the victim tolerates violations they never would have before.

takes courage to admit when you’ve disrespected someone’s boundaries, but to create and sustain mature and satisfying relationships you need to be able to acknowledge your mistakes, apologize, and change your behavior. I hope you’re now more aware of how you violate other people’s boundaries, understand that you’re not the only one who struggles with

Practicing boundaries helps us know when to turn a thought into a belief and when it would not serve to do so. This is much easier to master as adults because our prefrontal cortex isn’t fully developed until we are twenty-five to thirty years old. Children do not know that they get to have boundaries, because parents act as their protection and serve as translators for which experiences are and are not okay. When children’s boundaries are violated by caregivers, they internalize mixed messages about what is okay to say and do to another human, and how to treat themselves. When we aren’t sure how to treat and react to one another, relationships throughout our lives are difficult and painful. We may accept poor treatment because we are focused on others and forget about ourselves.

Examples of Intellectual Boundary Violations Calling someone names for their beliefs or opinions Yelling during disagreements Ridiculing someone for their views and thoughts Dismissing someone because of disagreements Demeaning a child’s mother/father in front of a child Telling children about problems they aren’t emotionally capable of handling

when someone belittles your emotions or invalidates your feelings, they are violating your emotional boundaries.

Another part of upholding the boundary you’ve set is deciding what you’ll do if it’s violated. If you do nothing, you aren’t honoring your boundary.

You can’t permit any violations to slide. Allowing slips will give the impression that you aren’t serious about your expectations.

How to Communicate If You’re a Secure Attachment When: You Want to Enforce a Boundary That Was Violated “I am not sure if it was intentional, but I want to be very clear that the boundary I set has been violated again. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I need you to know that this is a hard boundary for me. I will do my part to remind you and see my needs through in this area, but if this remains a habit I am definitely going to have to protect myself in this area by [insert what you’ll have to do as a consequence, not as a punishment. For example, ‘I will have to take some space in our relationship,’ ‘I will have to see you less often,’ ‘I will only be able to communicate via phone until I see that an awareness of the boundary is demonstrated in person’].” Obviously, this should depend on the nature of the boundary. If the boundary violated is something that makes you feel unsafe, there should be no further conversation except to leave the relationship. You Are Being Stonewalled “I can feel that you are shutting me out. I want to respect the space and time you may need to process right now. At the same time, if you stay in a mode of stonewalling me forever, we aren’t going to get the opportunity to get to the root of the problem and work through it together. It is my intention to try to understand you and hear what you have to say (as long as you can speak respectfully) so that I can meet your needs. I would love it if you could hear me out too. Please think about this and let me know a time when you might be ready to openly communicate about this. I promise to be respectful with my words and I ask that you do the same.” Someone Is Being Critical “You may not mean for it to happen this way, but your words are really hurting me. I’m interpreting the way you are communicating to mean that I am not good enough. If you are open to sharing more vulnerably and clearly about what you need from me, that would be greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, I do not want to hold space any longer for this type of communication, as I feel it is counterproductive.” Someone Is Being Passive-Aggressive “I am not sure if it was your intention, but that comment felt very passive-aggressive. If there is something specific you’d like to speak about directly that is bothering you, please know that you can do so and I am happy to hold space for that. What I will not hold space for, however, are passive-aggressive remarks that can be hurtful and counterproductive.” You Need to Be Heard by a Loved One “This conversation matters a lot to me, and I want to have it when you’re fully present. Are you okay to finish up what you’re doing and then turn and face me so that we can go through this together? It will take about [insert number of minutes]. If that doesn’t work right now, can you please let me know when it will?” These scripts aren’t meant to be used verbatim, but they illustrate some helpful tools for communication.

Anger shows us where our boundaries are being violated both by ourselves and others.

Our behaviors are responses to the bullshit we have to deal with day in and day out. Our brains respond not just to big, life altering traumatic events but also to day to day toxic relationships and interactions…the small ways people push our buttons, violate our boundaries, and disrespect our need for safety. It’s a hot mess combination of the two. And THEN feeling fucked up becomes a vicious cycle. We feel weird and crazy for feeling weird and crazy. We feel like we are weak. Or broken. Or fundamentally flawed. And that is the most helpless feeling in the world. Fundamentally flawed means un-fixable. So why bother trying?

She liked to think of herself as an inquisitive person. But she also valued politeness, and that was a tricky combination, getting trickier all the time. How did one express curiosity about others without violating boundaries?

Sexuality is not just traversed by antagonisms, it is in itself the name of an antagonism, of a non-relationship. There is a basic discontent/unease in sexuality, and the passage from traditional patriarchal order to today’s multiple gender identities is ultimately just a passage from one to another mode of obfuscating this discontent. Traditional patriarchy elevates sexual difference into a stable natural order and attempts to obliterate its antagonistic nature by dismissing tensions as deviations from the natural order: in itself. Sexual difference is the creative tension between the two poles, masculine and feminine, which supplement each other and form a harmonious Whole; when one of the poles oversteps the boundaries of its proper role (say, when a woman behaves like an aggressive man), catastrophe occurs. Gender theory locates antagonism and violence in sexual difference as such and endeavors to create a space of identities outside this difference. What multiple gender identities exclude is not sexual difference as a stable hierarchical order but the antagonism, unease, impossibility, that define this difference. Traditional heterosexual binary order admits the potential aggressiveness and tension that pertains to sexual difference, and it tries to contain it through the ideological notion of a harmonious relationship between the two sexes. Sexual antagonism is here repressed, but it remains as a potential threat. In the space of multiple gender identities, what is repressed returns with a vengeance, all sexual perversions, all violations of heterosexual normativity, are not only permitted but even solicited. However, the paradox is that repression gets much stronger in this return of the repressed: what is much more repressed than before (in traditional heterosexuality) is the immanent antagonism of sexuality.

Human beings have a fundamental need for physical and emotional space, and the desire to extinguish another life can arise when the boundaries of that space are violated. But

Where there are no boundaries, there is no violation.

In the broadest sense, there are at least two ways to use the danger of norms for comedic effect. The first is to feint across the norm boundary, but then retreat back to safety without actually violating it. The second way is to step across the boundary, violating the norm, and then to realize, like a child jumping into snow for the first time, “It’s safe over here! Wheee!” Here, for example, is a joke that flirts with, but doesn’t actually consummate, a norm violation: MARY: What do you call a black man flying a plane? JOHN: Uh . . . I don’t know… . MARY: A pilot. What did you think, you racist?! The humor here plays off the norm against racism. After Mary’s setup, John starts to squirm uncomfortably, afraid his friend is about to tell an offensive joke. But when Mary delivers the punchline, it’s sweet, safe relief. She wasn’t telling a racist joke after all. She was just playing! And a hearty chuckle ensues.42

Imagine a world where love was the rule, where love was the boundary, where it was unthinkable to violate this principle: love your neighbor as yourself.

Social orientation can be used to your advantage to make a great first impression; however, it can also backfire when we violate the boundaries of someone else’s personal space. Awareness of space, orientation, and proximity is a powerful tool for your relationship toolbox.

In 1966, American anthropologist Edward T. Hall specified four distinct distance zones to describe the perception of physical space around us. Understanding these zones and honoring their invisible boundaries will give you a sixth sense about another person’s “space” as well as your own. Intimate Zone (less than 2’) —This zone represents our personal space and is reserved for the most trusted and loved people in our lives. Touching, hugging, standing side by side, and engaging in private conversations is common and encouraged. When an interloper violates this personal space, great discomfort and awkwardness can be created. What to do? Take a step back or sideways. Personal Zone (2’-4’) —This is the distance for interaction with good friends, family, social gatherings, or parties. It's an easy and relaxed space for talking, shaking hands, gesturing, laughing and making faces. Social Zone (4’-12') —This zone seems to be an appropriate distance for casual friends, colleagues, and acquaintances to interact. It is the comfortable distance we maintain while interacting or addressing large groups of people. Public Zone (over 12’) —This is the distance we keep from strangers or persons with little acquaintance. It provides the greatest distance between people. This is a safe space that still allows us to experience community and belonging with new people.

Sexual abuse is the most obvious, and perhaps the most devastating, attack on body image. The body is never wholly one's own again. In fact, the victim's own body is used as a weapon against her. It is controlled by others and can be made to respond—the ultimate betrayal—against it's owner's will. Its boundaries are violated and intruded upon, creating a lingering confusion between inner and outer. The out-of-body experience of dissociation, initially a form of self-protection that may become a chronic response to fear and anxiety reminiscent of the trauma, adds to the body's sense of impermanence and unreality. An abused child may come to feel totally divorced from her physical self.

Sexual abuse is the ultimate boundary violation. The rape of a child is an intrusive, violent act that disrupts the integrity of the body and creates a very real and frightening sense of fragmentation and disintegration. The body comes to feel as unreal as a phantom, the physical and psychic boundaries as porous as a veil. "The one thing that is really ours and that we have boundaries on is our body," says SAFE's Wendy Lader. "When we talk about sexual abuse that is debilitating, we don't mean a woman who was raped when she was twenty years old. We're talking about a child abused by someone who is known, someone who is a caretaker. That results in very conflicted feelings about who you are, who an other is, what's okay, what's not okay.

Our ability to protect ourselves is related to the strength of our boundaries. If we haven’t developed clear emotional boundaries, we are vulnerable to physical violation.

Laura, Georgia, and Donna received no safe physical affection as children. They were also neglected emotionally. Georgia’s mother was angry and physically abusive; her father and Donna’s mother were away from home and engrossed in work. Physical intrusion or incest is not intimacy. An incestor is hardly emotionally available to the victim. Thus one can be emotionally abandoned while being violated intrusively.

Perhaps your parent is still violating your boundaries—by asking inappropriate questions, by showing up uninvited, by triangulating with your partner, spouse, or children. You have the right to set the same limits with a thoughtless or intrusive parent that you’d set with a friend or a stranger. You can refuse to answer a question. You can insist that your parent come to your house only when invited and refuse to let him in if he hasn’t been invited. You can confront your spouse and your parent about triangulation.

A person whose boundaries are too flexible may not even be able to choose a partner or spouse. She may feel she has to respond to whomever needs her and thus marry someone simply because he asked, not because she considered her own preference. Too flexible boundaries can be a source of irritation in a marriage. A wife may become irritated with her husband’s disorder. He may forget to get tickets because his agenda shifted when he saw the shoe-shine machine. Rubbery boundaries can hurt a marriage. She may let men get too close at parties, permit touching or affection that violates her vow of fidelity. He may lose trust in her because she’s so responsive to others.

Children, of course, can only be aware of their limits if they are allowed to have them. So a parent is responsible for not violating a child’s boundaries even though he or she has the power to get away with it.

If, as children, we had to deny our true thoughts or feelings to be safe, as adults we are likely to continue to deny what’s true for us. Telling the truth feels very unsafe, a threat to survival. What a dilemma. Denying ourselves feels safer, but it obscures our sense of who we are. The safe route, however, violates an emotional boundary. What’s the way out of the dilemma? If boundary development was severely harmed when you were a child, therapy may be the most efficient route. When we don’t work ourselves free of the issues that got started when we were children, we are destined to relive them again and again. “Children who suffer trauma to core self and identity …,” writes Jane Middleton-Moz, “work toward resolution of that trauma and completion of development in adult life through repetition of the struggle with authority figures, in intimate relationships, through their own children or in therapy.”3

Increase your self-awareness. Identify childhood violations and the offenders, feel about them, and get care for that damage. Examine the state of your boundaries in your present relationships and clean them up.

Treating Abuse Today 3(4) pp. 26-33 While Pamela Freyd was speaking to us on the record about her organization, another development was in the making in the Freyd family. Since Pamela and her husband, Peter Freyd, started the Foundation and its massive public relations effort in which they present as a "falsely accused" couple, their daughter, Jennifer Freyd, Ph.D., remained publicly silent regarding her parents' claims and the activities of the FMS Foundation. She only wished to preserve her privacy. But, as the Foundation's publicity efforts gained a national foothold, Dr. Jennifer Freyd decided that her continued anonymity amounted to complicity. She began to feel that her silence was beginning to have unwitting effects. She saw that she was giving the appearance of agreeing with her parents' public claims and decided she had to speak out. Jennifer Freyd, Ph.D., is a tenured Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon. Along with George K. Ganaway, M.D. (a member of the FMS Foundation Scientific Advisory Board), Lawrence R. Klein, Ph.D., and Stephen H. Landman, Ph.D., she was an invited presenter for The Center for Mental Health at Foote Hospital's Continuing Education Conference: Controversies Around Recovered Memories of Incest and Ritualistic Abuse, held on August 7, 1993 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Dr. Jennifer Freyd's presentation, "Theoretical and Personal Perspectives on the Delayed Memory Debate," included professional remarks on the conference topic, along with a personal section in which she, for the first time, publicly gave her side of the Freyd family story. In her statement, she alleges a pattern of boundary and privacy violations by her parents, some of which have occurred under the auspices of the Foundation; a pattern of inappropriate and unwanted sexualization by her father and denial by her mother, and a pattern of intimidation and manipulation by her parents since the inception of the Foundation. She also recounts that several members of the original FMS Foundation Scientific Advisory Board had dual professional relationships with the Freyd family.

Ashtart was no upstart strategist. She knew that it was not enough to breed clans of giants. She had to propagate a religious belief system that would drive them to hate their Creator. Her goal was to violate all boundaries of distinction between things, because distinction and separation was the natural order of Elohim’s creation. She had the kings pass laws abolishing all distinctions as oppressive and illegal. There was to be no rich and poor, for all were equal; no male and female for all were human; no human and animal for we were all one chain of being; no moral right and wrong, for all was freedom.

The greatest gift that boundaries offer is the distinguishing line between where another person stops and you start. It is at the firm separation between yourself and the other that your instincts alert you to when something sacred in your personal/emotional space has been inappropriately violated. Setting a boundary to protect that sacred space helps you avoid further hurt and/or misunderstanding at this line.

Not surprisingly, Native Peoples contested and continue to challenge these developments. Treaties signed in the 1850s guaranteed tribes the right to fish “at all usual and accustomed places,” and in a Washington State fishing case in 1905 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that treaties were “not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them.”131 In other words, the court argued the government could not infringe on native fishing rights. Clearly, dam construction violated treaty rights and required compensation.

Respond, Don’t React When you react to something that someone says or does, you may have a problem with boundaries. If someone is able to cause havoc by doing or saying something, she is in control of you at that point, and your boundaries are lost. When you respond, you remain in control, with options and choices. If you feel yourself reacting, step away and regain control of yourself so family members can’t force you to do or say something you do not want to do or say and something that violates your separateness. When you have kept your boundaries, choose the best option. The difference between responding and reacting is choice. When you are reacting, they are in control. When you respond, you are.

by 1947 nearly 47,000 worked in the region.78 They harvested onions, peas, sweet corn, sugar beets, cucumbers, hops and other crops, and, in direct violation of the agreement, found themselves pressed into jobs in canneries and food processing plants. The U.S. Forest Service even employed braceros as fire fighters, where at least one died on the job.79 In spite of their considerable contributions to the war effort, braceros faced a mixed response in Northwest communities. Residents praised braceros as a “God-send to farmers,” yet they routinely faced overt discrimination. 80 Bars and other public accommodations denied entry with signs reading “No Mexicans, White Trade Only” and “No Japs or Mexicans Allowed.

As more women are empowered, as girls are empowered early enough to have wide choices, a wave of boundaries spreads throughout the culture, and we come naturally to be intolerant of discrimination. We only have to look at the improvements for women since the 1970s to see the truth of this. North American women entering the new century are much more likely to perceive and object to gender violations such as patronizing treatment or cracks about female logic than women of the 1950s who would have joined in and laughed off such insults.

For adult survivors of abuse and neglect, the three primary areas related to human rights are emotional needs, feelings, and boundaries. I refer to these three areas as the "3 stolen rights". If you were abused or neglected as a child, your rights were violated by a parent or caregiver in all three of these areas.

boundary violations (contacting someone else’s body and aggressive behavior)

Abusive statements are lies about you which are told to you. They violate your boundaries. The abuser in effect invades your mind, makes up a “story” about your motives, and then tells it to you. No human being has the right to do that to another.

ANGER: Anger tells a leader that something is not, or is no longer, of service. Or, that something is not aligned, and must be changed or destroyed so that something more beneficial can replace it. This emotion tells a leader that a boundary needs to be set or an existing one is being violated. Without access to anger, leaders are dangerous because they don’t have a clear “NO.” They don’t have a “sword” for cutting and destroying when both are called for.

Whenever you identify a boundaries you’d like to set, remember that there are two steps to the process: communication and action. Verbally communicating your needs is step one. People cannot accurately assume your boundaries based on your body language or unspoken expectations. When you explicitly state what you expect, there is little room for others to misinterpret what works for you. Assertive statements are the most effective way to do this. The process doesn’t end with communication. You must uphold what you communicate through your behaviour. Betting on the other person to read your mind is a recipe for an unhealthy relationship. Action is required. For instance, let’s say you’ve told your friend, “It’s important to me that you honor plans that we set up. If you need to change our plans, please me a text a few hours before.” Because you’ve verbally communicated your boundary, when it’s violated, you need to reinforce it with action. In this case, you would let your friend know that you can’t accommodate the changed plans because they didn’t give you enough notice. You might say gently, “I want to hang out with you, but my schedule won’t allow for the adjustment. Let’s set up a time to get together next week.” It’s hard, I know. But honouring your boundaries through action is the only way most people will understand you’re serious, which will help people in your life become serious about your boundaries, too.

This might be news to you, but not everyone should have the same access to you. You are responsible to manage different levels of intimacy, responsibility, influence, and trust with people in your life. Likewise, you are responsible to honor the different levels of access and influence others allow you to have in their lives. These levels are absolutely righteous, healthy, normal, and good. It is supposed to be like this! It has to be like this. When we expect that we should all have equal access to one another, we are setting ourselves up to violate and be violated.

Toxic people are often accused of having “no filter,” and sometimes we even validate this pattern and call them “brutally honest,” but, ultimately, a boundary is being violated.

Perhaps the most frightening thing about narcissism’s bite is that it often comes without leaving a physical wound. The trauma inflicted can look like humiliation, hypercriticism, silence, exclusion, affairs, flirtation, jealousy, extreme mood swings, crude jokes, constant jealousy, bargaining for love, guilt, shame, control of finances, sexual manipulation, blame shifting, isolating one from friends and family, threats, boundary violations, and much more.

Parents with narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder tend to cross physical boundaries. Without a feedback mechanism to understand which touch is appropriate, which body language is comfortable for others, which types of affection are welcome, they tend to invade the space of others, to leave others feeling physically uncomfortable in their presence. We are not taught our own right to determine which touches are welcome, which forms of affection are welcome. Our personal space is violated by such parents who do not recognize our need or desire for space, because they see us only as extensions of themselves.

Bounded contexts are business workflows, and often the entities that need to cooperate in a transaction show architects a good service boundary. Because transactions cause issues in distributed architectures, if architects can design their system to avoid them, they generate better designs. ........ Building transactions across service boundaries violates the core decoupling principle of the microservices architecture (and also creates the worst kind of dynamic connascence, connascence of value). The best advice for architects who want to do transactions across services is: don’t! Fix the granularity components instead. Often, architects who build microservices architectures who then find a need to wire them together with transactions have gone too granular in their design. Transaction boundaries is one of the common indicators of service granularity.

The actor’s craft demands walking through the flames of your fear. It’s getting naked so the world might see itself in you. It’s violating your own boundaries.

Those who violate the rights of others do so with the abuse/misuse of definitions (boundaries). To define is to bound. Holding onto known-definitions, the violator of individuation bludgeons others with their "boundaries / definitions." The anti-social hold onto what they know, using their definitions (boundaries) to resist the unknown and to stop others from moving into the unknown. The psychopathic among us cling fervently to their need to bound others and bound themselves. Boundaries implies bondage. The unknown implies moving into what is boundless, infinite. Those who fail to advance, fall back into the familiar, the bounded, in bondage with the known, the familiar, the habitual, the habit, habitat. One's true nature is boundless and infinite.

Like physicians we have a duty to 'do no harm' (..). I argue that we can only do this through recognition of our own weaknesses and a willingness to understand how we might be tempted into positions of false omnipotence, moral superiority and boundary violations. (..) Like Guggenbuhl-Craig, I believe there is a 'bogeyman' within every therapist, longing for control (1971, p. 55).

circumstances in which you should have been lovingly touched, held, or nurtured, but were not. Neglect also constitutes a violation. Once you find the source violation, it is important to forgive yourself for “allowing” the energetic injury to occur and recur. Under stress, we unconsciously do anything necessary to survive. The initial strategy seldom works long term, but we hold onto the pattern because it seemed to help, at least once. Forgiving ourselves for reacting in a way that hurts us, or perhaps others, isn’t about accepting blame. It’s about understanding our motive for establishing an energetic pattern. Once we forgive ourselves, the pattern dissipates. Then, when we’re ready to also forgive the others involved, our job is done. The pattern usually disappears or can be treated.

Most of us resent it when another person tells us how we feel—whether or not they are correct, it is a violation of our boundaries when another person presumes to tell us what our inner truth is. Try asking a respectful question. “How are you feeling right now? I’m wondering if you’re sad.

I often hear adults telling children to give them a hug, which I find curious. We ask children to do things that violate their boundaries every day. We entitle ourselves to their personal space without consideration for who they are, and how they like to experience closeness. Embracing or laying a hand on a child’s shoulder can be more about us than about them, rather than how they need or want to be handled.  To sensory-affected and children with spectrum disorders, touch can feel alarming. Consider asking a child if you can give them a hug and be open to the answer being no. An embrace is a gift we give someone else. Not all children or adults like to be hugged or fondled, particularly by strangers. We don’t need to take it personally; what we need to do is honor what others want. Giving kids a choice in the matter will be carried through adolescence and into adulthood and help them do what it takes to protect their bodies by setting boundaries. Set the standard for yourself and for children that it is okay to create one’s own signature gesture of love or greeting, and an entirely new chain of respect can begin.

My counselor, Jim Cress, says, “I am enabling someone when I work harder on their issues than they are working. I am enabling someone when I allow them to violate my boundaries without any consequences. I enable a person when I cosign their unhealthy behavior by defending them, explaining for them, looking the other way, covering for them, lying for them, or keeping secrets for them. I enable a person by blaming other people or situations for their unhealthy or irresponsible behavior.” Remember, forgiveness shouldn’t be an open door for people to take advantage of us. Forgiveness releases our need for retaliation, not our need for boundaries.

Do not constantly walk through life in defense mode. When your boundaries are violated, respond. Do not react.

People who have misused their spiritual power have disrespected or beaten down your boundaries. They have shamed you out of your “no,” clouded your will and intruded into your life with religious agendas. They have violated your spirituality by playing “Holy Spirit.” Having an opinion has come to equal lack of submissiveness. Having a right to not be abused is selfish.

The problem is not that your boundaries were crossed and violated, the problem is that you talked. If you would not have made such a big deal, everything would still be fine.” If a person accepts that message, they will stop talking. The real problem, however, is that if a Christian who feels violated stops talking, then the perpetrator will never be held accountable for his behavior. And the victim will have to “freeze up” the pain and anger of being spiritually abused.

From a psychological perspective, our relationship to the forbidden sheds a light on the darker and less straightforward aspects of our humanity. Transgression is at the heart of human nature. Moreover, as many of us remember from our childhood, there is a thrill in hiding, sneaking, being bad, being afraid of being discovered, and getting away with it. As adults, we can find this a powerful aphrodisiac. The risk of being caught doing something naughty or dirty, the breaking of taboos, the pushing of boundaries—all of these are titillating experiences. As sexologist Jack Morin observes, most of us retain an urge from childhood to demonstrate our superiority over the rules. “Perhaps,” he suggests, “this is why encounters and fantasies with a flavor of violation so often leave the violators with a sense of self-validation or even pride.”5

God has no interest in violating our boundaries so that he can relate to us. He understands that this would cause injuries of trust. It is our responsibility to open up to him in need and repentance.

Boundaries are often a huge issue for those of us who suffer from emotion regulation issues. We may have never learned clear boundaries. We may have had our boundaries violated time and time again. From this perspective, it’s easy to get comfortable in the victim role, because we so legitimately found ourselves there so many times in our lives.

When you set and observe personal limits, you are also benefiting the person in your life with BPD. In fact, when you let the BP violate your boundaries, or do not set any for him or her, you may be making the situation worse.

Unfortunately, many adults grew up with damaged, trampled, or nonexistent boundaries. In many cases, parents routinely violated their children’s boundaries and rights or forced them into inappropriate roles. Different kinds of boundary violations cause different kinds of problems for children when they become adults:

Every culture has both positive and negative aspects. When we celebrate our heritage, traditions, or cultural practices, we should choose to embrace and uplift the good, while letting go of harmful practices. Some harmful behaviors, such as racism, violating others’ boundaries, theft, abuse, sexual violence, murder, enslavement, torture, genocide, and dishonesty , should never be celebrated or justified in the name of culture. These are actions that must be condemned, addressed, and eliminated. True cultural pride comes from promoting values that uplift humanity and foster respect, dignity, and justice for all.

Humans are connected to the biosphere by sex. The deconstruction of sex in language and law, its separation from intimacy via fetish and porn, the manipulation of young people's sex characteristics, seem to pave the way for further encroachment into our biology and our more complete melding with technology. Synthetic sexes work as a grooming process for the public to accept more violations of our physical boundaries while also providing young, healthy, resilient bodies to experiment on.

You don’t see a problem with a man who probably hasn’t ever been violated getting to decide what counts as a violation? You don’t see the problem with even measuring a violation in the first place?’ I shake my head, like he’s being stupid, because he is. ‘It’s the violation that’s the violence, don’t you see? It’s knowing your boundaries mean bugger-all that’s the trauma – that anyone can touch you, that how you feel about it doesn’t count. That’s the trauma. That’s the violence. Anything else that happens on top of that is additional.’ I’m

to decide what’s damaging and what isn’t?’ I ask. ‘You don’t see a problem with a man who probably hasn’t ever been violated getting to decide what counts as a violation? You don’t see the problem with even measuring a violation in the first place?’ I shake my head, like he’s being stupid, because he is. ‘It’s the violation that’s the violence, don’t you see? It’s knowing your boundaries mean bugger-all that’s the trauma – that anyone can touch you, that how you feel about it doesn’t count. That’s the trauma. That’s the violence. Anything else that happens on top of that is additional.’ I’m darting my finger at him. The table looks utterly horrified. Neil’s doing his best not to snarl. ‘It’s not a spectrum,’ I continue. ‘It’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed. Ever. In any way. It’s all violence and it’s all traumatic. And, for someone who clearly has no experience of it, why do you feel like you’re the one who gets to decide?

It’s better to violate a boundary than to leave a gap.

We have a right to set boundaries and to insist on appropriate treatment. We can separate another’s issues from our issues, and let the person experience the consequences of his or her own behavior, including guilt. We can trust ourselves to know when our boundaries are being violated.

Much of the time, the things we feel guilty about are not our issues. Another person behaves inappropriately or in some way violates our boundaries.

Narcissistically disordered people by definition project their own shame onto others; routinely blame others for their problems; and violate emotional, psychological, and physical boundaries.

Nice guys don’t violate your space or sensibilities by pressuring you or crossing your boundaries.

Black America has watched this pattern of outrage management about Black suffering for years. We’ve seen police plant weapons on their victims, as they did in the case of Walter Scott (cover up). Media outlets tell us drugs were in someone’s system when the police murdered them, as they did with George Floyd (devalue). White people constantly try to reframe police brutality as a problem of “a few bad apples” instead of a systemic problem (reinterpret). When the grand jury refused to indict Darren Wilson for the killing of Michael Brown, that became the end of the story for eager racism deniers, though the report also showed racial bias in the conduct of the Ferguson police department (use official channels). And there isn’t room for a full list of the times protesters of these injustices were met in the streets with flash-bang grenades and tanks (intimidate). Oppressors have perfected these tactics so well, they stop revolutions before they start, on a daily basis, without us ever noticing. Rank-and-file white people also try to stamp out Black rage wherever it emerges. They tell us Black anger is destructive and can’t be trusted. The truth is just the opposite. Black rage is trustworthy because it carries an analysis of present injustices. On a physiological level, anger is the body’s way of telling us that a boundary has been violated. It’s the natural emotional response humans have to being wronged, especially if that wrong is recurring and denied by the harmdoers. Therefore, Black rage is a healthy sign that we as a people recognize the crimes that have been, and continue to be, committed against us. Our anger is based in our personal experiences of anti-Black hostility in the white world and backed by our knowledge of our history.

As members of human society, perhaps the most difficult task we face daily is that of touching one another–whether the touch is physical, moral, emotional, or imaginary. Contact is crisis. As the anthropologists say, 'Every touch is a modified blow.' The difficulty presented by any instance of contact is that of violating a fixed boundary, transgressing a closed category where one does not belong.

about 1,200 Chinese immigrants had settled in the Mississippi Delta by 1870.13 According to white Mississippians, these immigrants were neither white nor black; instead, white Mississippians considered the Chinese to possess a “roughly Negro” or “near-Negro” status.14 Though not exactly a “third race,” Chinese coolies challenged the dualism of the South, as Jim Crow laws made no provisions for the “partly colored” or the “almost white.”15 In 1924 Rosedale, Mississippi, for instance, the local white school excluded Martha Lum, a nine-year-old Chinese American, from attending.16 While the Mississippi Circuit Court initially ruled in favor of Lum, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the decision, claiming that the Chinese were “not white . . . they must fall under the heading ‘colored races.’”17 Upon appeal, the US Supreme Court sustained the state’s ruling in Gong Lum v. Rice (1927). Since Lum was a member of the “Mongolian or yellow race” and Mississippi’s policy was intended to “preserve the white schools for members of the Caucasian race,” Lum was “not entitled to attend the white public school.”18 The court did invite Lum to attend the local “colored” school—meaning that a student who was not “white” could be “colored” by default—and established the precedent that barring Chinese children from attending white schools did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.19 While convention placed the Delta Chinese within a “tri-part” racial structure—neither white nor necessarily “Negro”—because segregation did not make space for gradations, Jim Crow legislation relegated the Chinese in the South to the legal status of nonwhite.20 Of course, the Chinese and Italians in Mississippi occupied distinct racial trajectories—southerners would ultimately categorize Chinese in the South as nonwhite, whereas groups like Italians eventually gained access to white identification. Still, since Jim Crow segregation was officially codified without in-between spaces within the binary caste system of segregation law, such racial ambiguity confused boundaries, redefined both whiteness and blackness, and ultimately meant that those constructed as nonwhite

People often create fake, catfish, or anonymous accounts to go online and say harmful things. Sometimes they do this to express their true feelings, but often it's just clickbait to provoke others, gain attention, or chase clout. They become comfortable behind the screen until they eventually cross legal boundaries. When they're caught by authorities, they start shouting that the government or president is a dictator, claiming their freedom of speech is being violated. They argue that they're being arrested for social media activity while serious crimes go unpunished. But when you look at their posts, they contain racism, hate speech, incitement to violence, defamation, treasonous remarks, incriminating content, misinformation, cyberbullying, and unethical behavior. Anonymity does not give you the right to break the law. You're not as hidden as you think. One day, your actions will catch up with you

Anger is the inner child taking its power back. Anger is protection, self-defense, the awakening that you are a divine being of worth and value worthy of fighting for. Anger can be a signal that you have been violated and deserve justice. Do not be ashamed about your anger. Honor it. Love it. Validate it. Use it constructively as fuel to dream bigger, enforce boundaries, issue healthy consequences to toxic people, love yourself harder, and fuel you to accomplish your goals. Anger is the voice that says, “You deserve the very best." Use your righteous anger to create revolution and productive change in times of injustice — use it to drive your motivation and resilience in times of turmoil.