Threadjack from "Missionary Moving Violations" thread...

...an important issue...(at least it is to me):


elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you ever invite me to your home, I won't
> look in your medicine cabinet, so don't bother
> spring-loading a big glass of marbles... But I
> will look in drawers and at the books on your
> bookshelves, assuming there are any.

Isn't this a boundary problem, and an issue of morals/ethics/respect???

I have no problem with books on shelves...they are "on shelves," and not behind some kind of barrier (shelf doors, in drawers, in file cabinets, behind opaque curtains, etc.), so they are, with the permission of the owner, in the "public" domain (at least, the "public" that is allowed into that particular home).

But drawers (unless, perhaps, they are transparent) are an ENTIRELY different issue...they are MEANT to be PRIVATE... UNLESS there are specific agreements otherwise between the relevant people.

In a typical relationship, there are a series of events which occur which grant "privilege," of one kind or another, to a person who began as "exterior," and is becoming "interior," to those particular three-dimensional areas of daily life (drawers, file cabinets, bedroom and office closets, etc.).

Unusual/emergency situations aside, it was YEARS into my relationship(s) before I felt that I had general permission to go into drawers, for example...and I still feel queasy when I do it, even when I DO have permission, because I am extremely sensitive to and respectful of the privacy of the people I have relationships with.

And there are STILL areas which I would never dream of transgressing without specific permission (for example: I would add back cash I had borrowed to my partner's wallet without any hesitation...but I would NEVER go THROUGH that wallet!!!).

I think this is one of the least considered areas of potential Mo/exmo/nevermo conflict...

When is "privilege" about a specific area of privacy assumed to be morally and ethically acceptable by one person (but, from the other person's perspective, has never been granted)???

And when do privacy boundary issue "violations" (at least, in one person's opinion) just equate to disrespect???

EDITED TO ADD: I am going to make a new thread out of this, but I'm not sure how to do it, so it may take me a bit to figure out. ;) ;) ;)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 02:08PM by tevai.

Casual guests have no right to open drawers or cabinet doors without asking permission.

A close relative or friend who is a houseguest might want to help with cooking or might need to find a towel or bandage and I wouldn't mind if they make themselves at home a bit.

Everyone else needs to stay out of closets, drawers, medicine cabinets and rooms with closed doors.

I agree with Cheryl. I wouldn't poke through someone's drawers or cabinets as a casual guest in their home. I might in a very limited way if I were a houseguest but I would probably check with them first. I won't look at bookshelves unless a host leaves me to my own devices.

I remember giving a house tour to some guests once and watching jaws drop when they saw my office/library. I have an extensive book collection that covers most of one wall -- but I had no idea that is unusual! My dream home would have one large room dedicated to being a library. I saw one such room in a NYC decorator show house once, and I fell in love with it.

It might be okay in a limited way such as being in the home alone (as a guest or pet/ baby sitter) and needing a utensil from the kitchen, aspirin or something of the sort.Going through a kitchen drawer in search of a knife is not the same as going through a file cabinet or underwear drawer.It depends on circumstance and how well you know the person.

these days, but I make sure NOTHING is in a place someone would ever find it because I have had boundaries crossed before. I used to have a lot of family who would come and stay a lot. Most of them were repectful, but there is always one.

Even in my relationship with my long-time boyfriend, I stay out of his "business" and he stays out of mine. I don't ever look at his phone or his e-mail, etc., and I stay out of his closets, drawers, etc., even though I clean most of his home. Even if he told me I could, I wouldn't.

What I found funny was when my over the top TBM uncle (married into the family and I have NEVER liked him) came to visit after not seeing him for 19 years, he was looking at the books in my bookcase in the frontroom. I could tell by his reaction that he was shocked that I didn't have mormon books. They had no idea I had left the church at that time. He later ordered me back to church and I called he and my aunt on it. My aunt and I get along now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 04:30PM by cl2.

If you are having a house party. Secure private and personal items. They will get looked at on purpose or by accident and in some cases disappear.

And yet the biggest, drawer, chest, medicine cabinet etc. is right here at RFM.

The valuable information you entrust here can impact a divorce or custody case, business contracts, relations with relatives, your very livelihood and pension (should you be a well-place LDS church employee, church contractor, media personality, respected artist, politician or other high-visibility person in the community).

Even changing screen names in order to be able to "safely" expose critical opinions and important information may not help such high-risk people should RFM not respect the truly frightening risks they are taking.

Failures of privacy can chase your best friends away from you forever -- and influence their friends as well!

That is the Internet and I love it.

Edit: don't even get me started on Facebooking. Satan/Elohim invented that and I've enjoyed its anonymity lowering standards a lot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 06:27PM by Elder Berry.

Even my TBM daughter is very aware I post here and what I talk about. At least I'm not IN YOUR FACE about my feelings like what my mormon friends and family post on fb.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 06:28PM by cl2.

. . . (metaphorically speaking).

To assist us all in recovering from Moronism, everyone should be given the go-ahead here to demand to know everyone's new name.secret temple name.

In fact, I think that everyone's new name temple name should be required for registration on this board and, moreover, that everyone's new name/secret temple name should be publicly revealed in a sticky that is placed at the top of both RfM's forum and main pages.

This will help us all get over the silly "sacred-and-secret" mantra that Mormons are brainwashed with.

Think of it as being part of our recovery process. :)

(P.S.--I was also thinking that our new name/secret temple names should be our required board handles, but then I realized that wouldn't work since, as many of us already know, Mormons often get the same new name/secret secret name," as a group, when they go through the temple for their own endowment. Mine, for instance, was "Ezekiel." How many other "Ezekiels" or "Elizabeths" or "Freds" or "Ethels" are there who also got the same new name/secret temple name as other Mormons? We'd never be able to tell each other apart. Damn).



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 07:32PM by steve benson.

tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Threadjack from "Missionary Moving Violations"
> thread...
>
> ...an important issue...(at least it is to me):
>
>
> elderolddog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you ever invite me to your home, I won't
> > look in your medicine cabinet, so don't bother
> > spring-loading a big glass of marbles... But I
> > will look in drawers and at the books on your
> > bookshelves, assuming there are any.
>
> Isn't this a boundary problem, and an issue of
> morals/ethics/respect???
>
> I have no problem with books on shelves...they are
> "on shelves," and not behind some kind of barrier
> (shelf doors, in drawers, in file cabinets, behind
> opaque curtains, etc.), so they are, with the
> permission of the owner, in the "public" domain
> (at least, the "public" that is allowed into that
> particular home).
>
> But drawers (unless, perhaps, they are
> transparent) are an ENTIRELY different
> issue...they are MEANT to be PRIVATE... UNLESS
> there are specific agreements otherwise between
> the relevant people.
>
> In a typical relationship, there are a series of
> events which occur which grant "privilege," of one
> kind or another, to a person who began as
> "exterior," and is becoming "interior," to those
> particular three-dimensional areas of daily life
> (drawers, file cabinets, bedroom and office
> closets, etc.).
>
> Unusual/emergency situations aside, it was YEARS
> into my relationship(s) before I felt that I had
> general permission to go into drawers, for
> example...and I still feel queasy when I do it,
> even when I DO have permission, because I am
> extremely sensitive to and respectful of the
> privacy of the people I have relationships with.
>
>
> And there are STILL areas which I would never
> dream of transgressing without specific permission
> (for example: I would add back cash I had borrowed
> to my partner's wallet without any
> hesitation...but I would NEVER go THROUGH that
> wallet!!!).
>
> I think this is one of the least considered areas
> of potential Mo/exmo/nevermo conflict...
>
> When is "privilege" about a specific area of
> privacy assumed to be morally and ethically
> acceptable by one person (but, from the other
> person's perspective, has never been granted)???
>
> And when do privacy boundary issue "violations"
> (at least, in one person's opinion) just equate to
> disrespect???
>
> EDITED TO ADD: I am going to make a new thread out
> of this, but I'm not sure how to do it, so it may
> take me a bit to figure out. ;) ;) ;)

Are you serious? He's joking. Are you so without humor

that you believe he was serious? I think you go too far

for whatever reasons but you are making a mountain out of

a mole hill. You know Tevai, yesterday I stated that you are

neither an exmormon or a mormon... you never answered me

but its my feeling that you are not and your attitude with

this post of all the posts shows you are not and you are

here for your own reasons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 07:13PM by saucie.

saucie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You know Tevai, yesterday I stated
> that you are
>
> neither an exmormon or a mormon... you never
> answered me
>
> but its my feeling that you are not and your
> attitude with
>
> this post of all the posts shows you are not and
> you are
>
> here for your own reasons.


1) You are absolutely correct. I am, MOST definitely, here for my own reasons. Is this not a true statement for every member of this community---whether that person be exmo, Mormon, or nevermo?

2) Go over to the "Closing threads question" thread, and scroll down to the post with my biographical response for the bio facts you are seeking. :)

tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> saucie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You know Tevai, yesterday I stated
> > that you are
> >
> > neither an exmormon or a mormon... you never
> > answered me
> >
> > but its my feeling that you are not and your
> > attitude with
> >
> > this post of all the posts shows you are not
> and
> > you are
> >
> > here for your own reasons.
>
>
> 1) You are absolutely correct. I am, MOST
> definitely, here for my own reasons. Is this not
> a true statement for every member of this
> community---whether that person be exmo, Mormon,
> or nevermo?
>
> 2) Go over to the "Closing threads question"
> thread, and scroll down to the post with my
> biographical response for the bio facts you are
> seeking. :)

Sure , I'll do that as soon as you publicly apologize to Elder Olddog for ridiculing him publicly for a joke he made.

I was joking. After all, who in their right minds would invite ME to their home?

There's also the issue of who's invitation I'd accept! Uptight people need certainly wouldn't extend an invitation.

I'm uptight and outta sight...and would invite you over in a flash!

;^)

You have good taste Moose...!!!!! All of a sudden the new moderator has singled Elder Olddog out as a bad example.

It sounds personal to me.

For a new mod, I think the job being done is better than I would do!

moose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For a new mod, I think the job being done is
> better than I would do!


That remains to be seen. People are watching her.

I'm guessing the people who are "watching" have no idea at all how thankless the job is. I've been a board mod (at another message board) in the past. It's bloody difficult. I can't even imagine how hard it must be for a fast-moving board like this one. Kudos to Tevai for taking it on.

And yes, there will be a learning curve. It's a normal part of the process of taking on the job of moderator.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 08:02PM by summer.

I've had people do some pretty outrageous things in my home, so I'm not surprised at what people think are perfectly reasonable. I learned about the marble trick from Amy Sedaris' "I Like You: Hospitality Under the Influence." It's good to keep in mind if you have parties and someone brings a date you don't know from Adam. Junkies come from all walks.

I don't care about people checking out my books, art, and curios, but unless it's in the kitchen or guestroom, stay the hell out of closed containers. You might be offended by what you find. ;)

Good Idea Itzapapalotl....

Elder Olddog is always joking , he's never serious thats why

I was so surprised that Tevai singled him out like that as a

bad example. Not cool.

I don't see it as a "bad example" -- just a discussion starter: What's public? What's private? What falls into a gray area?

saucie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good Idea Itzapapalotl....
>
> Elder Olddog is always joking , he's never serious
> thats why
>
> I was so surprised that Tevai singled him out like
> that as a
>
> bad example. Not cool.

My intention was to do the very opposite of "singling out" Elder Olddog as a "bad example."

On the contrary, I was trying to open up a PRACTICAL discussion of boundaries, and how exmos learn (or do not learn/choose to not learn, depending on the person involved) about how to develop healthy boundaries when, typically, people raised in LDS culture have been raised to NOT possess the commonly-accepted boundaries which are taken for granted in the society at large.

This is alluded to from time to time in different discussions, but it seems always in passing, and it never seems to get down to the nitty-gritty of how this is actually accomplished if a given person is a full adult when this process begins (rather than being a kindergartner or elementary-school-aged person at that beginning point).

I figured that Elder Olddog was well able to stand in for "exmos at large," given what I consider the importance of the subject.

He gave me an opening, and I ran with it...and I thought he would happily pick up the ball and roll with it, spinning his own unique take, and in his own unique way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 08:28PM by tevai.

tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I figured that Elder Olddog was well able to stand
> in for "exmos at large,"
>

How dare you! I am much more the stand in for the "Exmo petite, but wiry..."

The riff about medicine chests was based on a hilarious TV skit in which a 'nosy' person got her comeuppance when she pulled open a medicine that had a big container of marbles taped to the door. All the marbles came tumbling out and everyone came to stand in the door way to shame her.

As to pulling open the odd drawer here and there, that's simply is simply part of my nature. But it would depend on whose home I was in. The closer the friendship, the less likely I'd be to do it, so as not to find something that might spoil the relationship. And it's not likely that people who don't know me well would invite me over. I think this is an observation that fits most of us. Curiosity is a very human trait...

Among adults, the more you like and respect a person, the less likely you are to trespass boundaries; that'd be my take on the matter.

Most moderators don't start topics based on what one of us says.

They stay out of it.
I've never seen a moderator do something like that before.

but you seem rather critical of tevai for some reason. 'Ssup wid dat?

I'd think tevai can participate as we do. I haven't searched to be certain, but I believe Susan I/S started threads based on what some of us have said. I would guess it depends on the motivation and the need.

So, are you a mod?

No?

Me neither!

*shrugs*

I'm outta here for the evening! Have fun!



Edited to correct punctuation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 08:37PM by moose.

1. Susan started threads too. 2. If Elder Old Dog is okay with this, it is really no one else's business. If he has a problem,he is capable of speaking up. 3. Tevai explained why she started the thread. 4. IMO,she is doing a good job.

Yawn!!!!!

Elder Olddog is a very good friend of mine. I stick up for

him.It s what friends do,. ...If that had happened to you,

you'd be squealing like a pig on butchering day. But look,

here you are salivating on me... imagine that, and after all

the times you said you wouldn't ever talk to me. Bona, Bona

Bona..I guess you're not a woman?man? of your word are you?

Tsk tsk tsk.

I also consider Elder Old Dog a friend. I would stick up for him if I thought he had been insulted. I dont think he was and apparently neither does he.I also consider Tevai a friend and am sticking up for her.

Interesting.... in all the years I've been here Bona I've never seen you stick up for one person. I've never seen you have a friend here...

I have seen you attempt to attack people though, like now. But
go ahead... have a nice day, on me.

I stand up for people fairly often and I did not attack you. The only one attacking is you. Get over yourself. It isnt all about you

I agree it could have been phrased differently, but I didnt see any harm and you didnt seem offended. At any rate, you can take care of yourself

I'm a guy, so I just naturally stick up... Adding Saucie to the mix would be like adding a match ... to ... something or other.

I didn't have any problem with the original thought behind the thread, about boundary issues, but if she had to do it over, I think the OP could find a better way to introduce the topic, which we never really got to.

The idea that one person would invite another person into his or her home with no idea as to what 'boundary issues' might exist is hard to fathom. Some of us are more private than others. My parents let no one into our home except relatives. All others were met in neutral settings. A couple of my friends had parents who seemed to be running grand central station.

Most people think they're normal and it's the others who are strange. I long ago got over the notion that I'm "right" and others are "wrong."

Should there be a "next time" when I try to open a discussion of this topic, I will be even more attentive than I have been up to now to the possibility of unanticipated potential fallout.

I continue to see boundary and privacy conflict issues as an important (and relatively undiscussed, at least in my experience) part of the recovery from Mormonism process...

...in large part because the people involved may well not perceive that a problem (or a potential problem) might even exist.

As always, shining the light on a potential problem, all by itself, goes a VERY long way towards resolving what might turn out to be difficult issues BEFORE they have the opportunity to become actually problematic.

If people know that a problem area MIGHT exist, then they can individually mull it over, and talk it out with each other, and come to a win/win consensus before any problematic potentials actually become apparent.

Thanks to everyone who participated on this thread. All of you have, whether you know it or not, become part of the solution.