So I just ignored him for several hours. I chose to help alleviate his panic (evident in his nonstop messages) by sending the following message: "I'll get it. Teaching." making sure he knew I would take care of it, but since I'm teaching, I don't have the ability to have a conversation about details.
Spot on! I like this... .and think it is a great example of a boundary (you are at work and not available) and also a pragmatic approach to enforcement that takes into account the "rules" and "guidelines" for dealing with a pwBPD traits. What I see is that you wanted to acknowledge to him that his communication was important to you... .but because of your job... .were not able to continue it. There is a little bit of dealing with abandonment fears in there.
I'm a "good... better... best" guy when I give advice about communications with a pwBPD traits.
There are two points of view... .that I believe you should evaluate and choose one... .to be consistent with.
I think you gave the best response if you want to choose the point of view that you will get back to communicating to him... .when you get to it.
If timeliness and consistency is a big deal to him... .and to you... .AND YOU ARE ABLE TO FOLLOW THROUGH CONSISTENTLY... .then perhaps your response was "better"... .and a "best" response is below.hat
Suggested: "I'll get it. Teaching. I'll let you know further details around 4pm" (or some time that is a half hour or so after you get off work). That provides some certainty for you... .and for him. But it also creates and obligation on your part.
Later tonight he sent other messages saying he really needs it tonight and bla bla bla can he get his key back, etc. So I left town
Why leave town? The rest of my response has a bunch of assumptions in it about why you left... .so... .I'll wait for your response.[/quote]
I responded with: "No problem"
"I am for you. I hope you can see that."[/quote]
Remember... .less is more. My gut reaction is that you would have been better to stop at "I am for you"
He said: "I just want to get stuff I have left home please stop or don't start. Goodnight"
This response strikes me as odd... .and I don't understand it... .maybe I'm missing the backstory. My gut is that it either needs no response... .or simply. "Goodnight"
I responded with: "I feel like I should be able to speak freely with my husband. Goodnight." And immediately made myself unavailable on Facebook so that he would not send back a snotty response.
Hmmm... .why should you be able to tell him your feelings... .without giving him the chance to share his feelings? So far... .he appeared to be respectful and not abusive in his communications.
Again... .given what I know of the surrounding story... .less is more. "Goodnight" would have been a great response.
My boundary is, if you expect me to be available to help you out with things, I am willing to do that. But then I get to say what's on my mind and won't ask permission or forgiveness...
How did I do?
Hmm... .remember. Less is more. That boundary seems a bit complicated.
Here is a good test. If the roles were reversed... .how would you feel about "bumping into" the boundary and the enforcement of the boundary. Would it seem vindictive... .or reasonable?
What would a person think that is an outsider of the r/s... .the "reasonable person test".
What is your reaction to the following boundaries?
"If you communicate to me in an abusive fashion... .I will cease communication with you. I'll check back in with you a day or so later." If this happens to mean he doesn't get a key... .mail... .check... .whatever... .that is collateral damage of his choice to talk abusively to you... .because he knows you consistently enforce this boundary.
Option 2
"If you want me to help you with mail (or another issue) you are required to sit and listen to me speak my mind first"
What do you think of those two choices?
FF