Jonah Hill and Sarah Brady: Unraveling the Notion of Boundaries in Modern Relationships

Navigating Power Dynamics and Emotional Boundaries in the Digital Age

Boundaries are important. They keep us sane. They keep other people away from catching this fade. They can be found at work. At school. Family, friends, and relationships. But what are they? Are they an abstract concept? Or can we qualify what constitutes boundaries?

Between Sarah Brady’s exposure of former boyfriend Jonah Hill’s texts re: what clothes and behavior he expects in their relationship and Keke Palmer’s boyfriend’s public social media comments on what she wears to events, there really needs to be a clear understanding of what boundaries are from a relationship and privacy standpoint. 

---

To condense the circumstances of Jonah Hill and Sarah Brady’s posted exchange and relationship dynamic: Jonah, who did a whole documentary on going to therapy, did not want her to post bikini pics on Instagram. She read that text while being a surf instructor for years. So she can still post her pics instructing in a cardigan. Also, he did not want her surfing with men—now she can narrow her career path and opportunities, which I’m sure she’s been dying to do. Additionally, he said she can’t have friendships with unstable friends. Unstable isn’t really qualified here. He could not just like her friend who doesn’t stop talking about her Paleo diet. A friend who wants his girlfriend to constantly search for God’s last 4Lokos. Or a friend who call him out on his BS. Who knows?

Jonah Hill referred to these statements as boundaries. Sarah Brady, however, refers to this behavior as emotionally abusive. And she says his use of boundaries and ‘therapy talk’ as a reason for these statements is gaslighting (another term used all over the damn place)—which contributes to the emotional abuse. 

Emotional abuse is defined as “ behavior meant to control, isolate, or frighten you” by the National Domestic Violence Hotline. 

Jonah certainly met the criteria with the first two elements. He is trying to control her relationships with others, which will lead to isolating her from people and opportunities. Now, he may not do this consciously. Although someone that represents himself as a supporter of mental health initiatives should certainly be more aware of what these behaviors look like.

The truth is, if taken literally, anything can be a damn boundary. It means a limitation. So Jonah is creating limitations with what he is comfortable with in a relationship. But context matters. A boundary in one context may not be healthy in another context. And while telling the mf in Accounting to stop asking aloud “who needs a booty massage?” v. telling your partner that it’s perfectly ok to say that (in your house, not at the Wendy’s)—I really can’t even think of a context where Jonah Hill’s ‘boundaries’ are valid.  And as this therapist points out, but maybe not the one Hill sees (THAT mf woke up to some unexpected DMs), boundaries generally aren’t set on what other people can or can’t do with their lives. They are set around ourselves as a line we’d prefer someone else shouldn’t cross. 

Now, condition means something else. A condition in a relationship is a mutually agreed upon decision and not just someone’s personal limitation. 

Clearly, there was no prior agreement that a surfer couldn’t wear surf clothes on social media. Or surf with half the surfers. And cut off half her friends. 

Here’s what Jonah Hill did. He imposed a sexist condition on his partner. That’s it. Maybe subconsciously. Maybe he felt it sounded sexist and would sound nicer with mental health words, so he said ‘boundary’ and felt better.

But what about the boundary of a private conversation? 

---

What is the standard for breaking the implicit private agreement between both ends of a text? What level of significance supersedes this pact? Or is there even an implicit pact? Should we say this every time we text someone—“please don’t post our texts anywhere; they are between us” maybe a text signature like the ones you get from an office sending potentially sensitive information? Does that sound excessive?

In this case, the condition for breaking that implicit pact was emotional abuse. Sarah even said “it hurt more to keep this to herself.” The suggestion there is that she needed to communicate this trauma. Of course she could do this with a therapist, so assuming it’s not just for her own benefit, she’s actually saying ‘this is important information to know’—and she actually said as much, posting in her story that women should take note if their partner speaks to them like Jonah Hill did to her. ‘

So the standard for breaking the private nature their exchange is the public gaining a better understanding of what abuse can look like. 

Of course this will also receive scrutiny, praise, and end up in the noise of social media, and she knew that, but to paraphrase someone who once crossed boundaries in his relations with women, Aziz Ansari, “if what happened with me makes people more thoughtful in their relationships, then it’s probably a good thing.” 

I do think part of being more thoughtful about relationships, does include evaluating when it is appropriate to share (what is assumed to be) private conversations. And inadvertently her posts also led to this discussion. And not just as a cautionary tale. This online discussion can help us, meaningfully, understand a healthy baseline of privacy boundaries. Not getting ‘caught’ isn’t a good enough reason to ultimately not do something. People exhibiting harmful behavior can always just find a different vehicle. 

---

We aren’t taught about emotional abuse in school—at least not in the vast majority of school curricula. Is there a better forum for expressing situations of controlling behavior that begin between partners than Instagram stories to a global audience? Sure. But there’s no meaningful guidelins for this. As long as educational institutions don’t sufficiently educate people—from children onward—about the forms of abuse, it’s up to us in our imperfect deliveries, our methods and platforms—especially when we have a larger platform than most—to do the educating. 

A sub-optimal forum beats an abjectly deficient one. 

And if one day lessons on emotional abuse does become a unit in our schools, it’ll probably be struck down as Critical Boundary Theory by Ron DeSantis’ and Chief Justice Don Trump Jr. And, of course, we must respect their boundaries to remain in a relationship with patriotism.

To imperfectly summarize—as we say here Bronx-side from the NY Holy Grail Trinity (The AF1, The Timb, The J), Book of Jeter, verse 2:2: 

“Don’t date a baddie and then act all surprised when they do baddie shit.”