Keep an expressed choice visible
Explore responses to no, pauses, silence and contact boundaries. Read the six-item arithmetic and consent limits without rating another person.
At least four of six numeric responses are required. Sum the values and divide by their count; skips are excluded, and a 3 is uncertain or depends. Read this part separately, without a risk grade.
What this part observes
- This part concerns your reports of what you did after someone said no, requested a pause or expressed a boundary. The focus is the response to an expressed choice, not whether you consider yourself caring.
- Only answer about your own past three months. Do not fill the statements in for a partner, colleague or family member, or use a result to certify that someone respects every boundary.
The six statements and their limits
- The six statements concern continued persuasion, pressing for a conclusion, demanding explanations, citing obligations or past effort, proceeding through hesitation and switching contact channels after a pause.
- They do not measure all forms of consent or determine whether a particular act was consensual. Silence and hesitation do not supply permission; a previous agreement does not settle a later choice.
Read the arithmetic with the response count
- At least four of the six answers must be numeric for this part’s sum and mean to appear. Values 1, 2, 3, 5 with two skips produce sum 11 and mean 2.7500.
- A three remains a valid uncertain or situation-dependent response. Skips stay outside the calculation. Fewer than four numeric answers withholds this part; it does not infer avoidance or ask you to justify the skips.
An ordinary situation to examine
- Suppose someone asks to pause a conversation until tomorrow, and you send the same question through another app. Look at the pause they expressed and your next action, rather than treating the new channel as a fresh invitation.
- Practical arrangements may sometimes need discussion, but a questionnaire cannot authorize overriding a refusal. If communication is unsafe, no one needs to stay in contact to complete an exercise from this guide.
A response does not settle another person’s experience
- Wanting an explanation does not create an entitlement to one. A relationship, a role or previous effort cannot by itself turn a clearly expressed no into agreement.
- Continued persuasion cannot be classified or dismissed as coercion from this score. Consider real words, pressure, available choices and conduct separately; the result neither establishes nor rules out harm.
Similar numbers can describe different situations
- The same mean might describe pressing for explanations in one setting or changing channels after a pause in another. The item details matter; a shared average does not make the situations equivalent.
- Read this part on its own, without an overall dangerousness score or a best-to-worst ranking. Neither low nor high agreement tells us someone’s motives, legal responsibility or future behavior.
One optional, observable next step
- An optional private check is to recall one clearly stated boundary and the next action you took. Keep the wording of the request separate from what you wished it meant.
- A concrete next step might be honoring an existing pause without asking for another explanation. This requires no new contact, disclosure, reconciliation or proof from the other person. You may also decline the exercise.
Limits, privacy and safety
- This is an unvalidated original self-observation preview, not an assessment of abuse, criminality or a personality disorder. It cannot decide whether a relationship should continue or whether another person should trust you.
- The page stores no draft or result and offers no personal-result sharing or analytics. Actual coercion, threats or immediate danger should be addressed through appropriate real-world support, regardless of the numbers here.