The 51% rule - do you know it?

[Indiegrl]

Definition:

The 51% Rule - The 51% Rule says that we need to consider our own needs just a little more than those of others in order to be able to help them effectively.

I hadn't heard of it before, but I kind of like the idea. How many of you are doing this today, have been doing it, when did you realize that this is the way to do it?

I'm terrible at it, and that's partly why I'm here today, maybe?


*note to self* this one... . 

[IsItHerOrIsItMe]

OK, is it me or would you LOVE to live by a 51% rule?

I'd give a kidney for a 21% rule. 

[Skip]

I never really understood this blogger's reference. What does it actually mean to consider our own needs just a little more  (1-2% more) than those of others. If my wife needs a baby and I need to surgery, how does she apply this rule?

Relationships are self-sacrificing. We sacrifice for children, for parents, for the poor, for neighbors.  A wealthy person could live fine on 21% (random example) of their income and give the rest to help others. Some could live on 5%. Some can't survive on 99%.

You can give, you can self-sacrifice, just don't put your life or sanity in peril. Then you won't be good for anyone.

The phrase (analogy) seems to conveys that message well.  

Please Put Your Own Oxygen Mask On Before Assisting Others.

In the case above - the surgery comes first.  How well can the wife raise a child if her husband becomes a dependent.

[Loosestrife]

OK, is it me or would you LOVE to live by a 51% rule?

I'd give a kidney for a 21% rule. 

This made me laugh, thanks 

[Indiegrl]

Hi,

the link (reference) was removed, and I think then maybe this rule seems a bit odd... .I do not know if it is allowed to quote something from another website here? For the sake of a better understanding of what's the point of the 51% rule, I'll give it a try:

"And I'm not saying "give the other person 100% and leave yourself nothing." We Non's sometimes make the mistake of thinking we have to meet all the other person's needs before we can begin to think about ourselves. If you are in a relationship with someone who gives back, perhaps you don't have to worry about taking care of yourself, because the other person will also be watching out for you. But if the other person has a personality disorder, their focus can shift to just themselves for blocks of time and they aren't always going to be consistent. You can't just rely on them to look out for your needs.

In other words, all we have to do is care for ourselves first - at least one ounce more than anyone else. That will put us on firmer, and less frustrating ground. Then, when we know that we will be ok, we can maybe give those that want it a helping hand as well.

by Gary Walters"

If I may try to say something about this: My first reaction to the notion of serving myself 51% first - I get anxious. I don't like it. It seems very strange. My default? I would be happy for serving myself like... .a third? Eh, or more likely, a fifth? I think the point by stating the provocative idea of serving yourself the majority (51%), is to make a point for the codependent. As if to say: Pst, if you take care of the 51% and give that to yourself, that is not egoistic. I know you think it is, but it isn't. And psst 2: If you are together with a very needy person who sometimes have a blind spot for your needs, you are likely to neglect your own needs and instead serving another person who doesn't give the same in return, and then things will get difficult after some time, you will start showing signs of distress - simply because noone is taking care of you.

And really, the point is not the 51% is it? Isn't the point the 1% more on your behalf than the other's? One percent is not much - why is my gut reaction to think of it as deeply immoral? 

Or... .am I wrong? Open for ideas  and critical  comments here!

[McGahee21]

me and my BPDex, i was probably .001% rule.  she took the rest

[123Phoebe]

If I may try to say something about this: My first reaction to the notion of serving myself 51% first - I get anxious. I don't like it. It seems very strange. My default? I would be happy for serving myself like... .a third? Eh, or more likely, a fifth? I think the point by stating the provocative idea of serving yourself the majority (51%), is to make a point for the codependent. As if to say: Pst, if you take care of the 51% and give that to yourself, that is not egoistic. I know you think it is, but it isn't. And psst 2: If you are together with a very needy person who sometimes have a blind spot for your needs, you are likely to neglect your own needs and instead serving another person who doesn't give the same in return, and then things will get difficult after some time, you will start showing signs of distress - simply because noone is taking care of you.

And really, the point is not the 51% is it? Isn't the point the 1% more on your behalf than the other's? One percent is not much - why is my gut reaction to think of it as deeply immoral?

Or... .am I wrong? Open for ideas  and critical  comments here!

I don't think you're wrong necessarily, I think the numbers and percentage is confusing the point: to take care of yourself.  It's a confusing sentence to understand when one's dependent on another to give them their worth.  Not doing so can feel like a foreign land--  "I AM taking care of myself; taking care of others is what brings me joy... ."  Only it doesn't, because they complain about it and search for answers for why the person in their life is so unhappy

I might be simplifying it a bit

[Svarl1]

My take:

It's not so much the PROPORTION of your time and energy you devote to your own needs - life is give and take at different times, as circumstances change.

For me it's actually BEING ENTITLED to fulfill one's own needs from time to time, without this automatically being a problem, without being driven to feel guilty. This should be a human right.

Someone with a PD will often not recognise another person as actually having the rights of need, agency and self-determination - let alone the right to spend time fulfilling them.

IMO this is at the root of the problem. They can oppress another person in whatever way, then later on say something like "I know I did this nasty thing to you but I didn't know it would actually hurt you." Like the other person has no feelings or opinions of their own.

This is incredibly frightening to be on the receiving end of.

If you are in this situation you need to fight to show, first of all, that you have feelings, opinions and wants separate from theirs.