The difference between being controlling and "not standing for it"

[Resealablestrip]

For example, if I say I don't like it when DH drinks and ask him not to, I'll be told on here that's controlling.

But if I say nothing and he goes out drinking with varying degrees of consequences for him/us I'll be told I shouldn't stand for it.

The same with hobbies or unpleasant friends, a particularly close relationship with MiL (all just examples, not the same man btw), asking him not to is controlling (according to MNetters) but "letting" him is something that shouldn't be stood for.

I guess the difference is one is controlling what the other person does, one is controlling what you do in response to it.

I’d leave DH if he behaved the way some people on here describe their partners behaving eg coming home wasted, shouting abuse at them, then vomiting everywhere and leaving it for their partners to clean up. It’s not controlling to say “your drinking has a negative effect on me and my life and I’m not putting up with it”.
It would be controlling to say “you are not allowed out drinking” or to ring them every half an hour while they’re out to make sure they aren’t drunk.

To use a non-drinking example, neither DH or I would stand for the other having an affair. We’d leave. But we don’t control the other person to make sure it doesn’t happen - he doesn’t track my phone, check where I’ve been and who I’ve seen, or interrogate me about who I’m texting etc.

I agree to an extent that the language “well I wouldn’t let that happen” sounds controlling. But I think what they mean is “I wouldn’t be with someone who did that” so what they wouldn’t let happen is themself being the partner of someone who comes home drunk and pisses themselves regularly, or whatever.

Quite.

Controlling = telling someone what they can/can’t do.

Not standing for something = you changing your actions in response to something because you don’t accept it in your life.

I don't think that's necessarily true op. If you say your husband likes a couple of beers at home on a Friday night but you want him to stop then, yes, you may well be told you're controlling. If you say your husband goes out and gets drunk every Friday night, comes home at 5am, throws up everywhere and then sleeps Saturday away and misses time with his kids, then you'll be told not to stand for it. It's the 'consequences' for you that are the important bit.

Same with hobbies. A husband going out for a run a few times a week around family obligations and you getting the same amount of time to yourself - obviously fine. A husband doing long bike rides 5 times a week, across a good chunk of the weekend, regardless of family obligations and leaving you no equivalent time to yourself - obviously not fine.

Ok, so if I say I'm not standing for it and will leave if you do...

It’s a tricky one OP. But I totally get the issue. I feel like there will always be someone that says you are controlling (but I think that’s pretty reasonable if your husband is a bad drinker).

Yes. And be prepared to follow through if he still does it.

Really, that wouldn't be considered controlling? It seems far more controlling than just asking someone not to do something, to me.

Well, you can leave a relationship at any time and for any reason. So, I don't think that would be controlling, unless it's an empty threat used repeatedly.

Someone on MN had a controlling partner who would start packing his bags whenever she did something he didn't like, and she would beg him to stay. Then one day, she was so fed up that she let him carry on packing. He was completely thrown by this and it was clear that he'd had no intention of actually leaving. He wasn't ending a relationship that wasn't working, he was being manipulative.

You are right it is nuanced as it is a question of where the line is but there is one clear distinction controlling is about telling them to stop their behaviour, I won’t stand for it is where you detail your response to behaviour that crosses a line for you.

It depends whether you are making an empty threat to leave in order to emotionally blackmail a partner who wants to go out and have a few drinks, and whose actions cause no negative consequences for you, or whether you’re seriously saying you will leave if a partner continues to drink heavily every night and who becomes unpleasant to be around, vomits all over the floors, has to cancel plans etc.

Which is he doing?

I think it’s controlling if used repeatedly over a variety of things, especially if they have no impact on the person saying it (eg “I’ll leave you if you wear that outfit”). But it’s not controlling to say “this just isn’t what I want my life to look like, so if that’s what life with you is like, I’m not going to carry on”.

I’d agree there is a grey area. And a relationship where someone is repeatedly saying they’ll leave is not great for a number of reasons anyway.

I think it's absolutely fine just to ask someone not to do something and I wouldn't consider that to be controlling at all. The point where it becomes controlling is when you insist upon it / won't listen to their answer / try to enforce it in other ways (eg by withholding affection or giving them the silent treatment). Threatening to leave could be considered to fall under that category, but on the other hand, you can always leave a relationship if you want to, for any reason. Leaving because you don't like his drinking is a good reason.

It's not either. I was just musung on the way everyone is controlling on MN, and also no one should stand for anything.

There are a couple of different things. You can't set boundaries for someone else, so if you start telling someone what to do then yes that's controlling (and that could include threats of "do what I say or I will leave"). You can set boundaries for yourself, such as not remaining in a relationship that isn't working for you.

Discussion and negotiation in a relationship aren't the same thing as being controlling. Having a conversation about things you like and dislike is fine. So saying, I would prefer it if you didn't squeeze the toothpaste from the middle because it makes it harder to get the last bit out and hearing the other person's view in return and agreeing how you will manage moving forward, is normal and not controlling.

Oh I see.

Well it’s not controlling to leave someone because you don’t like their behaviour or actions (or clothes or hair or way they pronounce their Hs). It is controlling to try and force them to change.

There will be extreme cases like a man who always cheats or argues after a drink. In which case it’s fine to say ‘if you continue to drink then I am leaving’. And then leave if he does continue. But it would be controlling to say he had chosen to agree to give up drinking so therefore he was allowed to see friends alone, couldn’t go on holiday with friends etc.

I think people miss the point when they talk about something being controlling or not

In a marriage, you are either going to tolerate the behaviour or you're not. You can ask somebody to not do something and if they just keep doing it they are sending you a very clear message that they don't care what you think or about your feelings they are going to keep doing the thing.

I think we're control comes in is somebody telling you you're not allowed to work or you're not allowed to go to school you're not allowed to buy a takeaway that would be controlling.

Somebody who was cheating, doing drugs, drinking excessively and you asking them to stop is not controlling.

That means you have a decision to make you either tolerate it and live with it or you get a divorce

It's about boundaries. Having consistent boundaries that are in line with what affects you is healthy. Having inconsistent boundaries is unhealthy as is having ones that encroach on other peoples "space" or ones that don't exist.

E.g if you are sitting on a bus you dont have much right to complain about the other person sitting with eg their legs crossed/not crossed or some quirky way because "I don't like that". If their legs are not only uncrossed but spreading into your part of the seat then it's fine to complain because it is affecting your personal space then.

If a partner wants to go out with his friends for a beer it isn't fair to stop them. However if they come home and piss in the wardrobe then it's fine to leave or set an ultimatum that if they ever do it again you will leave. Because that's affecting you at that point. Someone who is completely opposed to drinking for religious reasons or due to being an alcoholic might well decide they don't want a partner who drinks. That's fine but it shouldn't be about finding a partner and the trying to stop them from drinking. That would be controlling. I can completely understand someone with alcohol issues who gets sober then taking the regretful decision to leave a partner who still drinks. But that's about controlling your own life path, not trying to control someone else's.

I think a really big clue is is it a threat to leave someone in order to force them to control their behaviour? In which case it is more likely to be controlling behaviour especially if it is used repeatedly to get your own way on a range of matters. Or is it a genuine ultimatum "I can't be in a relationship where X is done therefore if X continues to happen we should split up".

If it’s a real boundary, you don’t need to say it. You just need to make the decision internally and leave. You can explain to them while you’re packing your bags that you don’t want to be with someone who goes out getting drunk all the time or whatever the boundary is.

Surely it's normal to talk about things before you get to the packing you bags stage. Drinking excessively is perhaps not the best example, but most things wouldn't be one strike and you're out?

This becomes a control tactic when you don't follow through. Then it becomes you threatening to leave when he doesn't do what you want.

Yes of course, but saying your drinking (or whatever) makes me unhappy, I'd prefer you don't go....?

On the whole, none of us want to be the type of person who needs someone to change for us to be able to be happy with them. There is of course room for negotiation. But if someone consistently makes choices that make you unhappy to live the life they obviously want to lead, there comes a point where you have to decide (IMO) that you don't want to be the person who nagged them into being who you need them to be.

So I'm sure by now, your partner is aware that his drinking makes you unhappy. He still chooses to drink. Now, you can either be the person who badgers him into making a different choice or you can walk away with the idea that right now, you can't be happy together.

No, of course you talk about it first. You point out the ways drinking is causing issues and having an impact on you or others. You ask for what you want, whether that’s reduced drinking or no drinking and point out the positive benefits. And then if he continues to prioritise it, you leave.

If you really want to, you can give him an ultimatum but if you do you need to prepared to leave immediately if he says he’s not going to agree to what you want.

None of that is controlling, no matter what people might say. Repeatedly threatening to leave while going nowhere is controlling though.

It depends on what it is. What exactly is going on?

Depends how long you’ve been doing this. Sounds like your boundary around it might be fuzzy.