Sorry for the confusion. The concept is a boundary that is
completely irrevocable and non negotiable----a condition agreed
to ahead of time, so that no possible misunderstanding exists.
"Threats" are (in my mind) intrinsically different. They are levers
of manipulation----whose innate weakness is that they are
dependent on the strength of will (credit) of the issuer. The fact
that threats are issued is often welcomed by the target of the threats
as reliable signals of impotence. How many times do you heard the US
boast of it's ability to annihilate North Korea? It never happens because
the fact is a given.
The code word was an agreed to reinstatement of original estrangement
whose violation (by either party) would be responded to as a hostile act.
(Game over. I don't know you. Next time you call, I call the law.)
To be honest, it was a tripwire,a way out of a badly deteriorating
situation----she gets pissed----says word----I'm off the hook of "standing by me
in my darkest hour". Except she never did. Even at her most pissed. Saying the
word meant no more contact, hence no more $. They are more pragmatic than is
sometimes commonly believed around these parts.
The tactic failed, as evidenced by the fact that I changed my phone #.
Hard to misinterpret that.