A clinical psychologist on why the popular version of "setting boundaries" is the opposite of the real thing—and why the counterfeit keeps you trapped.
I think this explains why boundaries can feel disappointing at first. They don't promise a better relationship. Sometimes they simply make the relationship more honest by showing us what the other person chooses when we're no longer managing the outcome. Letting people choose tells us something too.
Most importantly, it can be even more disappointing to fail to enforce your boundaries and see the other person overstep your limits even further as a result.
An even worse alternative is when your attempts to coerce your partner don't work.
Good question! The same applies to dating, with one subtle difference. Boundaries are limits you impose on yourself based on needs you express clearly and on where you draw the line between what's acceptable and what isn't. When you're dating someone, they don't know you, so they make assumptions, especially if you're not certain about what you need or if you've failed to express those needs clearly.
Thank you for this Rob - this is an incredibly helpful way of thinking about this issue.
I was particularly interested in your comments about how 'Humans are highly tuned to detect coercion wrapped in the language of care'. This has me thinking (I'm thinking out loud here) about the increasingly common experience of hearing parents trying to disguise the (reasonable) expectations they have of their children as boundaries. Whether it be in the consulting room or in public, my impression is that children see through (or at least feel through) this pretence. More often than not, my concern is that the parent's reluctance to be disliked by their children leads them to distort reality in a way that isn't helpful for either.
“Finally believing they are allowed to disappoint someone.”
That feels like the moment where boundary education often stops and the real work begins.
Because many people do understand, at least conceptually, that a boundary is about what they will do.
But in the actual moment, when the no becomes real, the body predicts danger.
Underneath the struggle to hold a boundary is often a nervous system imprint: the body has learned that saying no may cost love, approval, safety, belonging, identity, or peace.
So even with the correct language, the person starts managing.
Explaining.
Softening.
Persuading.
Trying to get the other person to agree.
Or turning the boundary into a demand, because disagreement itself feels unsafe.
That nervous system imprint can resolve.
There is a physiological mechanism here.
When the body is no longer carrying the old prediction that no equals danger, a boundary no longer has to be performed perfectly or enforced through someone else’s compliance.
It becomes exactly what you are describing here:
A decision about my own conduct.
A no can be a no.
Someone else’s disappointment can belong to them.
And the boundary no longer depends on whether the other person likes it.
Cleanest statement of this distinction I’ve read in a while.
What I’d add sits underneath it.
Most people can already feel that the demand version won’t hold. What they can’t do is tolerate what the real boundary asks of them. A boundary that requires no compliance also gives you nothing to grip. You have to stay steady while the thing you hate keeps happening, and you have to grieve the person you kept hoping they’d become. The counterfeit is appealing because it lets you skip both at once. The definition is the easy part. The harder part is becoming someone who can stay close while the other person remains exactly as they are.
This is so true. I used to try to change people I loved into to who I wanted them/thought they should be. It’s so much empowering (and successful) when you change your own behaviour. Thank you for this! 🙏🏻
Brilliant essay! Thank you Rob. Families can be the hardest place to assert oneself, particularly when one inadvertently perpetuates the pattern of the younger version of yourself wanting a particular version of a parent and then being hurt when once again the parent does what they have always done. Really well explained. We can only control our behaviors and accept the behaviors of others as facts.
“There is no demand that the other person stop raising their voice. There is no claim that raising one’s voice is wrong. There is only a description of what I will do in response to a condition. The other person remains entirely free to keep yelling—at an empty room. The real power of a boundary lies in the fact that it requires no compliance. I enforce it with my own behavior, not with theirs.” This is a perfect explanation. When I coach people this is what I explain. It’s all about your own behaviour and what you have control over. “If you do this…I will leave you to your own devices.” You can’t change people. It’s about what you feel uncomfortable with and what YOU are prepared to do, to protect yourself. If you say, “If you do this I’m going to do this to you.” That is a threat not a boundary established. It’s always “If you do this, this is what I’m going to do for myself.” I.e. if you yell I’m leaving.
Thank you for clarifying what a boundary is. This "‘a rule I am imposing on you for our mutual benefit’ is dead on. Clients are definitely confused about this and surprised to hear the actual meaning of a boundary. It is also a good opportunity for me to explain that boundaries are empowering but imposing a rule on another is the opposite.
I appreciate your response to "social media therapy" which can do more damage than good.
I think what trips people is the labeling, and that it's ok to voice a boundary well, and also ok to have expectations for how others behave, but how these are communicated and 'enforced' matters in conflict.
Let's say I don't feel comfortable talking about a topic you bring up. I can hold that boundary silently, which may leave you feeling ignored, confused, invalidated, punished, etc. I can say to you, in some variant of which I'm sure there is a more ideal version than my example, 'I'm just letting you know I don't feel comfortable talking about that topic, so I won't be. Does that work for you?' Which is a boundary held, and communicated.
Now, if I say to you, that, but what I actually mean is: I expect—or even demand—you don't bring it up. Often in scenarios like this, a lot more of the dissonance is born not out of whether the boundary is understood or respected, but that it is an expectation being disguised as a boundary, and there's a certain—even if unconscious or unintentional–gap in the honest thing.
Or I say, 'don't talk to me about that. That is a boundary.' In this case, the expectation—which is what it is—itself might be something an individual is happy to consent to, but labeled as a boundary can feel disingenuous, othering, etc.
So I don't think it's a simple choice of boundary vs. expectation or held vs. communicated. I think it's ok to have both, and communicating is good, because it provides informed consent.
A deeper look, maybe, in communicating these, intent matters. Some boundaries are actually expectations and some expectations carry a certain amount of intent to achieve for example punishment or compliance, under threat or shame.
A nuance here, often that intent isn't there. Often the intent is anger at impact caused, not being seen or understood, feeling disrespected and frustrated.
Those feelings are valid, and important. It is not about becoming a zen cow and communicating perfectly, but being able to untangle those feelings from boundaries and expectations, and also from the person you have those boundaries with.
A lot of misunderstanding, and the boundary/expectation set then 'violated' cycle, triggers here.
And then too, fear is a major factor. Someone can not even be pushing on a boundary but due to fear or conditioning, it looks like they are, and the boundary is triggered.
I think that you may be conflating the tacit rules of social interactions and communication with the self preserving actions potentially required to achieve psychological safety from harm.
For what it’s worth, I think all three of you are adding something useful here: the structure of the boundary, the relational value of communicating it, and the role psychological safety plays in determining what communication is actually possible. They seem more complementary than contradictory.
This was a great read. And all the valuable comments in the chat. Thank you.
Thank you.
I think this explains why boundaries can feel disappointing at first. They don't promise a better relationship. Sometimes they simply make the relationship more honest by showing us what the other person chooses when we're no longer managing the outcome. Letting people choose tells us something too.
Most importantly, it can be even more disappointing to fail to enforce your boundaries and see the other person overstep your limits even further as a result.
An even worse alternative is when your attempts to coerce your partner don't work.
Excellent! That makes so much sense. Boundary setting topic was confusing. This seems realistic and almost like common sense!
How does this relate to setting boundaries in dating ?
Good question! The same applies to dating, with one subtle difference. Boundaries are limits you impose on yourself based on needs you express clearly and on where you draw the line between what's acceptable and what isn't. When you're dating someone, they don't know you, so they make assumptions, especially if you're not certain about what you need or if you've failed to express those needs clearly.
Thank you for this Rob - this is an incredibly helpful way of thinking about this issue.
I was particularly interested in your comments about how 'Humans are highly tuned to detect coercion wrapped in the language of care'. This has me thinking (I'm thinking out loud here) about the increasingly common experience of hearing parents trying to disguise the (reasonable) expectations they have of their children as boundaries. Whether it be in the consulting room or in public, my impression is that children see through (or at least feel through) this pretence. More often than not, my concern is that the parent's reluctance to be disliked by their children leads them to distort reality in a way that isn't helpful for either.
Thank you Matthew, this is a very pertinent point.
This is such a useful distinction.
Especially this line:
“Finally believing they are allowed to disappoint someone.”
That feels like the moment where boundary education often stops and the real work begins.
Because many people do understand, at least conceptually, that a boundary is about what they will do.
But in the actual moment, when the no becomes real, the body predicts danger.
Underneath the struggle to hold a boundary is often a nervous system imprint: the body has learned that saying no may cost love, approval, safety, belonging, identity, or peace.
So even with the correct language, the person starts managing.
Explaining.
Softening.
Persuading.
Trying to get the other person to agree.
Or turning the boundary into a demand, because disagreement itself feels unsafe.
That nervous system imprint can resolve.
There is a physiological mechanism here.
When the body is no longer carrying the old prediction that no equals danger, a boundary no longer has to be performed perfectly or enforced through someone else’s compliance.
It becomes exactly what you are describing here:
A decision about my own conduct.
A no can be a no.
Someone else’s disappointment can belong to them.
And the boundary no longer depends on whether the other person likes it.
Cleanest statement of this distinction I’ve read in a while.
What I’d add sits underneath it.
Most people can already feel that the demand version won’t hold. What they can’t do is tolerate what the real boundary asks of them. A boundary that requires no compliance also gives you nothing to grip. You have to stay steady while the thing you hate keeps happening, and you have to grieve the person you kept hoping they’d become. The counterfeit is appealing because it lets you skip both at once. The definition is the easy part. The harder part is becoming someone who can stay close while the other person remains exactly as they are.
Thanks for sharing!
This is so true. I used to try to change people I loved into to who I wanted them/thought they should be. It’s so much empowering (and successful) when you change your own behaviour. Thank you for this! 🙏🏻
So fabulous! I’d love to give this to all the people who’ve commandeered therapy speak and twisted it into ways to feel victimized.
The disappointing thing about that is, none of them would understand it. 🤭
Thanks for a well written article!
Brilliant essay! Thank you Rob. Families can be the hardest place to assert oneself, particularly when one inadvertently perpetuates the pattern of the younger version of yourself wanting a particular version of a parent and then being hurt when once again the parent does what they have always done. Really well explained. We can only control our behaviors and accept the behaviors of others as facts.
Many thanks for your feedback and kind comments.
“There is no demand that the other person stop raising their voice. There is no claim that raising one’s voice is wrong. There is only a description of what I will do in response to a condition. The other person remains entirely free to keep yelling—at an empty room. The real power of a boundary lies in the fact that it requires no compliance. I enforce it with my own behavior, not with theirs.” This is a perfect explanation. When I coach people this is what I explain. It’s all about your own behaviour and what you have control over. “If you do this…I will leave you to your own devices.” You can’t change people. It’s about what you feel uncomfortable with and what YOU are prepared to do, to protect yourself. If you say, “If you do this I’m going to do this to you.” That is a threat not a boundary established. It’s always “If you do this, this is what I’m going to do for myself.” I.e. if you yell I’m leaving.
Thank you for clarifying what a boundary is. This "‘a rule I am imposing on you for our mutual benefit’ is dead on. Clients are definitely confused about this and surprised to hear the actual meaning of a boundary. It is also a good opportunity for me to explain that boundaries are empowering but imposing a rule on another is the opposite.
I appreciate your response to "social media therapy" which can do more damage than good.
I think what trips people is the labeling, and that it's ok to voice a boundary well, and also ok to have expectations for how others behave, but how these are communicated and 'enforced' matters in conflict.
Let's say I don't feel comfortable talking about a topic you bring up. I can hold that boundary silently, which may leave you feeling ignored, confused, invalidated, punished, etc. I can say to you, in some variant of which I'm sure there is a more ideal version than my example, 'I'm just letting you know I don't feel comfortable talking about that topic, so I won't be. Does that work for you?' Which is a boundary held, and communicated.
Now, if I say to you, that, but what I actually mean is: I expect—or even demand—you don't bring it up. Often in scenarios like this, a lot more of the dissonance is born not out of whether the boundary is understood or respected, but that it is an expectation being disguised as a boundary, and there's a certain—even if unconscious or unintentional–gap in the honest thing.
Or I say, 'don't talk to me about that. That is a boundary.' In this case, the expectation—which is what it is—itself might be something an individual is happy to consent to, but labeled as a boundary can feel disingenuous, othering, etc.
So I don't think it's a simple choice of boundary vs. expectation or held vs. communicated. I think it's ok to have both, and communicating is good, because it provides informed consent.
A deeper look, maybe, in communicating these, intent matters. Some boundaries are actually expectations and some expectations carry a certain amount of intent to achieve for example punishment or compliance, under threat or shame.
A nuance here, often that intent isn't there. Often the intent is anger at impact caused, not being seen or understood, feeling disrespected and frustrated.
Those feelings are valid, and important. It is not about becoming a zen cow and communicating perfectly, but being able to untangle those feelings from boundaries and expectations, and also from the person you have those boundaries with.
A lot of misunderstanding, and the boundary/expectation set then 'violated' cycle, triggers here.
And then too, fear is a major factor. Someone can not even be pushing on a boundary but due to fear or conditioning, it looks like they are, and the boundary is triggered.
I think that you may be conflating the tacit rules of social interactions and communication with the self preserving actions potentially required to achieve psychological safety from harm.
Where is the conflation, specifically?
For what it’s worth, I think all three of you are adding something useful here: the structure of the boundary, the relational value of communicating it, and the role psychological safety plays in determining what communication is actually possible. They seem more complementary than contradictory.
Precisely. This all made me think..
https://anddodever.substack.com/p/2026s-comprehensive-guide-to-healthy