A little pejorative would describe my views pretty well, I think. I suppose we have to keep in mind that we are still dealing with different people, so my views will very much be based on my ex, and yours will be based on the experiences with your wife.
It's not that I believe the pwBPD is especially accountable as, like I implicated, I tend to look at it as instinctual behaviour. But there are many circumstances where there are logistical injustices committed by the pwBPD - more bad than good is coming from an action. This isn't to say that the 'non' is infallible, it's just that the pwBPD doesn't really want negativity to happen, and they don't want to hurt people or be hurt because it causes distress... .But! They're not as inclined to look for resolution because they want to avoid minor discomfort, not being able to see that the situation is multifaceted and they can profit.
So it's not so much that I disapprove since it's not really a conscious decision, it's just ... .I think it's incorrect? Haha!
To me just actions and 'morality' are sort of one and the same: progressive acts. Typically I view morality as self-fulfilling actions that also benefit others as a result. An act of justice is an act that improves or works towards improving the state of a whole. These factors work in tandem - self-fulfillment is better achieved by an improved whole, and someone self-fulfilled can better work towards improving that whole further.
So what I mean by 'incorrect' is that the pwBPD is often following an inefficient, unhelpful and thus illogical pattern (creating problems where there shouldn't be problems), so there is no need for that pattern to be followed.
E.g, the kind of thing my ex would get frustrated about is something equivalent to her mother telling her she should put on a coat because it's cold out. Most people would view this as an eyeroll 'yeah, yeah ma - every damn time! This is why I have my own place' kind of moment, maybe even laugh about it, but she'd see it as people being out to get her. To her this would be an act of passive aggression, someone telling her she's got a problem and that she's incompetent. It bubbles up from underneath and makes her seeth.
Obviously that reaction comes from insecurity and an inability to empathise, and without that ability it's hard to adjust, which is understandable. But the fact that it's an understandable action doesn't make the action positive - it's not beneficial to any parties, and it does not correlate with attaining her wants. It's still causing a negative reaction and it's not pursuant of a positive one. I suppose by this logic a sadist would be operating in a 'positive' manner because at least they're having a productive experience by enjoying negativity.
So put simply: there's little pursuit of a beneficial path - there is no problem solving happening. If happiness is being sought, lack of problem solving is an inviable action.
Personally I don't view it as trying to convince someone that they're wrong, I see it more as promoting beneficial behaviour. It's not about condemnation, it's about lifting.
So in conclusion, my belief is pejorative
and a little condescending.
And hey! The analogy makes sense, don't be a scaredy cat.
I'm appreciative of the share. Interestingly your statement kind of demonstrates my point as it illustrates tact and empathy as beneficial courses of action! If we didn't act that way then we wouldn't attain the positive outcomes.
I suppose relative success comes down to the individual nature of both parties more than anything. Also my relationship was long distance and there probably would've been a much better chance of success if we were closer, instead of her managing to disassociate easily.
The scenario being what it was, I don't think I would have been able to have the store pleasantry because I wasn't allowed to be nice if she was upset with me. :P I was supposed to sit around until she decided to pick me back up, but I couldn't go off and do my own thing in that time either because she would get annoyed if we weren't talking. So we had to talk, but I wasn't allowed to talk about the problem or be friendly, and I wasn't exactly going to be mean. Suddenly all those bored, youthful minesweeper frustrations turned into beautiful memories of a better time.
It's not like I was given an option to do anything at all, so I elected to do what I thought was most productive - the things I was barred from doing. Things were bad anyway so I figured they could only get better. Which they did until the next troublesome thing came along immediately again and again and again. I suppose there aren't right approaches to the situation, only managable ones, and as the problem is more underlying (thus causing minor surface problems to bubble up) speaking the language instead does make a lot of sense. At least the eyeroll and laugh approach can work for us.
This has been a great discussion thus far, but we really must apologise to Lala for invading her post!
