Putting IFS-Informed Boundaries 2.0 Into Action, Part 1

Clarifying "fish or cut bait" commitment dynamics and "gray zone" relationship ambiguity

In the last installation of The Boundaries Handbook, we reviewed the “how” of Boundaries 2.0 here. But what does this look like practically? Let’s explore two awkward, fraught examples. First, we’ll explore the dynamic where one party is ready to commit, get engaged, get married, have babies, [fill in the blank] and the other is just future faking, seemingly with no end. Is there an IFS-informed way to have the “fish or cut bait” relationship talk?

Then we’ll explore how to gain clarity around the ambiguous gray zone relationships, the ones where boundaries are fuzzy and you can’t tell what someone’s intentions are. Can an IFS-friendly conversation clarifying the fuzzy intentions? Let’s dive in.

Fish Or Cut Bait

Let’s say Anita has been dating Mark for six years in a long distance relationship, and she thinks she’s been patient long enough, waiting for him to be ready to move the relationship to the next level. She wants Mark to move to where she lives so they can buy a house together and cohabitate. She has hinted at this time and time again, but he changes the subject whenever she does, and she typically doesn’t press the issue because she hates conflict and is afraid of upsetting him. Her friends have been suggesting she lay down a “fish or cut bait” Boundaries 1.0 ultimatum:

“Move in with me, or I’m leaving you.” A more NVC-friendly version of that boundary might be “When I see that we’ve been together for six years but haven’t moved in together or gotten engaged, I feel sad and disappointed because my need for security, commitment, and the assurance that we will get married and move in together within a reasonable time frame is not getting met. Would you be willing to help me solve this dilemma by moving in with me and getting engaged?”

As you can imagine, although Anita’s girlfriends might think she’s entitled to offer up an angry “shit or get off the pot” ultimatum, an IFS-informed boundary would be more likely to result in a positive outcome or at least open up a healthy negotiation. Of course, Anita has every right to get her needs met and to initiate a conversation like this with Mark. It’s up to her to decide what’s okay and what’s not okay for her, and if she’s hit her limit, pressuring Mark to make a choice is one way to get his attention and address the issue.

The problem is that if people feel pressured into making a choice they might not be ready to make, the attempt to get a need met might backfire. People tend to feel the pressured manipulation inherent in one-sided ultimatums. While some will comply with the ultimatum, depending on the ways their boundaries were wounded, the ultimatum is just as likely to trigger rebellious parts in the one being pressured. Rather than tolerating the manipulation of a “fish or cut bait” ultimatum, Mark might take back his power by “one upping” her and saying “Fine. Buh bye. I’m out.” And now there’s a painful breakup instead of a happy wedding.

But imagine if Anita had worked with her parts inside to find a way to speak to Mark on behalf of what her “fish or cut bait” parts might be thinking and feeling. She’d know it wouldn’t be healthy to threaten Mark’s attachment with her by scaring his attached parts, giving him such a black and white ultimatum. Instead, she might decide to try a Boundaries 2.0 approach. She invites him to come to enter into a Boundaries 2.0 practice with her so they can sort out what to do next relationally, without one party dominating and the other either rebelling or submitting.