Thinking out loud here, I think part of the "we share everything" comes from a place of "othering" -- there's an "us", that shares everything, and a "them" which is outside that everything-shared circle. That is, the privilege and controlling comes from enforcing that us-and-them dichotomy. This probably doesn't explain all of the situations, but some of them certainly feel like that is one of the motivations.
I do agree that pushing at (likely to be) boundaries -- especially, but not only, when it results in different boundaries being enforced for the "us" and the "them" -- can come from a controlling place, and come across as controlling. So, eg, "we" get to see all your communication with one of us, but you don't get to see the communication between "us", could certainly come across as controlling (and easily be controlling too). Even if, as you say, that particular thing wasn't a problematic boundary for the person.
I've always found that coming at it from the point of view of "I'm a complete, independent, agent, interacting with you as an equal" is a helpful mindset to spot these sorts of things. There can still be, eg, legitimate reasons for hierarchy (for instance, actually you do need to discuss with the person you share children/pets/dependents with before you agree on a random date time), but if the hierarchy is not coming from an "us and them" place there's usually much more room for empathy for each person's situation. And transparency then comes from a place of telling someone things they need to know to make an informed decision.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Transparency"
Date: 4/9/15 01:06 am (UTC)From:I do agree that pushing at (likely to be) boundaries -- especially, but not only, when it results in different boundaries being enforced for the "us" and the "them" -- can come from a controlling place, and come across as controlling. So, eg, "we" get to see all your communication with one of us, but you don't get to see the communication between "us", could certainly come across as controlling (and easily be controlling too). Even if, as you say, that particular thing wasn't a problematic boundary for the person.
I've always found that coming at it from the point of view of "I'm a complete, independent, agent, interacting with you as an equal" is a helpful mindset to spot these sorts of things. There can still be, eg, legitimate reasons for hierarchy (for instance, actually you do need to discuss with the person you share children/pets/dependents with before you agree on a random date time), but if the hierarchy is not coming from an "us and them" place there's usually much more room for empathy for each person's situation. And transparency then comes from a place of telling someone things they need to know to make an informed decision.
Ewen