How do we fix "weak boundaries"?

Many believe that good personal boundaries are the ability to say no, which some lack due to overly good manners.

Supposedly, there are those ultra-sensitive people who can't say no because they're too polite. And it seems necessary to teach these overly soft and open people to be tougher. To do this, they need to be told that they have every right to defend themselves. And then these sweet people will learn to stand up for themselves.

What's the harm in this myth?

People who constantly allow their so-called boundaries to be violated do so for a simple reason. They're afraid to refuse. So "weak boundaries" aren't about lacking defense, but about excessive defense due to fear. Everyone in the world knows that technically, you can refuse. In response to any request, offer, or even demand, you can technically say no. When someone throws you a request, it's like a tennis ball that you can hit back by saying "no" or "no, thank you." But to hit that ball back and send it back, you have to be sure it's the right move. Victims of weak boundaries aren't sure about the correctness of refusing. They hesitate, doubt, waver, and often agree. Sometimes they agree without hesitation, and then later regret and complain to acquaintances. And these acquaintances ask them: why don't you defend your boundaries?

The correct answer to this "why" is usually not the one given, meaning not "I'm too well-mannered," but much simpler: "I'm afraid of the consequences of refusal." Refusal can have various consequences. The smallest consequence: the person who made the offer won't offer again. The biggest consequence: the person who made the offer will hold a grudge. Remember the old joke about the hare who kept inviting all the animals to dinner with the lion, meaning that the animals had to take turns being the dinner. And when some animal, I can't remember which one, asked "can I skip?" the hare said "then I'll cross you out." And that's it. So in most cases, the person who refused won't face anything, they won't even harbor a grudge, or if they do, they'll quickly forget. They'll just cross the person off the list of those who can be offered something similar. And that's exactly what people with so-called weak boundaries fear. I say "so-called" because I want to say that it's not about weak boundaries. In other words, it's not that the person has everything but their boundaries are bad. Not at all, their boundaries try to adapt to their significant needs.

You probably know stories about overly delicate people. Here's a delicate person whose house is constantly invaded by uninvited guests who raid his fridge, make themselves comfortable, or party all night long, completely ignoring the headache of the host. And those whom the host later complains to are very angry about stories of such impudence. Look at them, they say, what scoundrels, taking advantage of the fact that the person is well-mannered. But good manners have nothing to do with it. Good manners, on the contrary, protect against such things because they signal a gross violation of decency. But the person who constantly lets uninvited guests into their house doesn't hear such signals, and if they do, they ignore them because they're very afraid to refuse. Maybe they hint at something, hoping that the hints will be understood and the guests will stop behaving so brazenly, but they won't have to argue with them. Because such a person is deathly afraid of arguing. They're afraid of being left alone, unwanted, and abandoned, so when aggression rises in response to the actions of the impudent, and they're ready to exclaim "Enough!" this aggression is overcome by their fear. They'll look at them now with surprise, say disdainfully, "Look at you, we didn't even know" Gather up and leave. And that's it! And instead of being impudent, and disrespectful, but still friends, this person will have an empty space in their life. Or even enemies, which is even scarier.

And at work, such a person can behave in a similar way. Everyone rides on them, everyone loads them with their work, everyone forgets about them when handing out bonuses, but remembers when something needs to be done that nobody wants to do. And they stay silent. They do everything and can't refuse. And then they complain in psychological communities about their weak boundaries, or even about their overly good manners. The habit of attributing one's problems not to weaknesses, but to some virtues, is a very harmful bug. It's harder to fix than a bug, as it not only prevents working on one's flaws (because it's a virtue), but also demonizes other people as greedy for virtuous blood, and propagates virtues as something very harmful to society, but also sees society as completely opposed to virtues. In reality, there are no virtues in this case, we simply have a weak person, dependent, needy, trying to make people support them, willing to do humiliating work, ready for humiliating relationships, just to avoid being alone, and only because of this, they yield to everyone. I don't want to blame this weak person for their weakness, labeling them won't help in this case. But as long as this weak person doesn't acknowledge their weakness, they won't do anything about it, won't strengthen themselves. They'll just keep yielding, yielding, yielding, and then become powerless to anger and hate rude people, further reinforcing their external locus of control, thus increasing their weakness.

But let's condemn the rude people who take advantage of others' weakness and their dependent and defenseless position. Of course, let's condemn them. Especially since rude people, constantly using various loopholes to take control of other people, are another category that often complains about weak boundaries. Like, my boundaries are being attacked, I have to throw punches left and right. For example, a former wife attacks, demanding alimony in a rude manner instead of asking. Or an old mother calls and wants attention, encroaching on "personal" space. Or the landlord demands more money or wants the apartment vacated quickly. In other words, there is a category of people who don't understand that it's not their territory being encroached upon, but they are intruding into someone else's territory, and they're trying to push others around there. The moment when the rude person settles on someone else's territory, they don't notice. But when they're trying to be driven away, they perceive it as an act of aggression against them and try to "strengthen their boundaries." Like the fox in the oatmeal house: "when I pop out, when I jump out, pieces will fly into the corners."

The situation is even worse when a "virtuous" person in quotes, that is, someone who is always afraid of offending everyone (out of fear of being left alone or losing some hypothetical opportunities), encounters a rude person who doesn't pay attention to where their territory is and where someone else's is, and considers everything they like as their own. If an ordinary person interacted with a rude person, at the very first attempt to extend their paw, they would receive a polite refusal, probably stay dissatisfied, accuse the one who refused of rudeness, but a serious conflict would hardly arise, because the refusal would come immediately and politely. So literally "stop, listen to the word of God" ("let's get to know each other" - "no, thank you"), and the person moves on. After such a refusal, they might mutter something, but the one who refused quickly doesn't provoke serious anger, as for a serious conflict, the rude person must penetrate the territory and establish themselves there.

It's another matter if an ordinary person is replaced by a person with weak boundaries. In this case, conflict is almost inevitable. Here comes such a girl who engages in conversation. And not because she liked the young man or the old lady-sectarian, no. The young man didn't appeal to the girl, he didn't look very good, drunk and unkempt, but she still stopped and answered his questions. Why did she stop? Well, because she can't understand if she needs him or not. Maybe he's not so drunk after all. Maybe he's not so bad. Once she's stopped and engaged in conversation, with each passing minute it becomes more difficult to interrupt this conversation, say goodbye, and leave. She tells herself that well-mannered people don't behave like this, but in reality, it's not about manners, but about fear. She's afraid of seeming unfriendly, and arrogant. Maybe this guy doesn't look aggressive, but, on the contrary, very pitiful, but our girl is still afraid to offend him. Whatever lies behind the fear, it's always fear.

She can give him her phone number and even allow him to escort her home, and then this young man, who is unnecessary to her, will decide that he has spent so much time on her, received so many signals of agreement from her, that now he needs to insistently demand further acquaintance. The girl, who initially had doubts, had time to examine the guy and became convinced that she has no interest in him. But how to get rid of him now? Why did he stick to her? Why don't they stick to others, but cling to her with a death grip? But no, they don't cling to her with a death grip right away. The adhesive force gradually builds up. Initially, the sticking force is very weak. The point is that she hesitated for a very long time and thought, and then told herself not "I liked him at first, but then I didn't like him anymore," but "I didn't like him from the very beginning, why did I let him cling to me, oh, it's all my good manners." But it's not manners, it's fear.

There's not much difference in what a person with weak boundaries fears—losing their job, being left without friends, missing out on hypothetical opportunities, or gaining enemies—weak boundaries always stem from fear. If this fear is justified (there's a chance of harm), it's not about weak boundaries (even a strong person will choose life over money and give everything to an armed robber if asked), but if there's no objective danger and the person still fears something, whether physical or moral, concrete or hypothetical, it all indicates that such a person feels defenseless. This is their real problem and it needs to be addressed.

How to solve the problem of feeling defenseless? First, realize that you yield because of fear. Second, understand what this specific fear is associated with. What will happen if the pushy friend never calls again? What if a colleague stops taking advantage of your compliance? How much will you actually suffer from their most negative reaction? How much of your fear is a real danger to you, and how much is just the habit of feeling defenseless? Perhaps you're not as helpless as you've been led to believe. And if you are, you need to urgently create a plan to break out of this state of helplessness and take concrete steps. In other words, the very moment you're afraid of losing something and allow something or someone to dictate terms to you, it indicates that your situation requires attention and work. Not just analysis, but actual work, meaning concrete actions that would give you a little more support in this situation. At the very least, you need alternatives (another job option, another circle of friends) to avoid such strong dependency.

Third, remember that the earlier a polite "no" is voiced, the less resonance it will have. Even utter jerks only show anger when they've become accustomed to thinking that your territory belongs to them when you've allowed them to settle comfortably on it and feel like owners. The longer such occupancy lasts, the stronger the anger. If the "no" is voiced immediately, the jerks will calmly retract their claws, and if they suddenly hurl abuse, you can be sure it's the least they're accustomed to rewarding everyone who refuses to cater to their whims.