A tricky thing to navigate in the field of relationship advice is that most of it centers around concepts instead of energetics.

What’s the difference?

Concepts are definitions pointing at what’s happening, while energetics are what’s actually happening.

Concepts can also change over time.

For example, what falls under the defined concept of “racism” today is much broader than it was 50 years ago, but the energetics of racism didn’t change.

If we purely relate to racism as a concept, then occasionally we’ll label someone a racist for saying or doing something specific that fits the definition, even if they clearly harbor no hate in their heart.

On the other hand, a person can do something that falls completely outside of the definition of racist but do it with ethnically motivated hate in their heart, and everyone will feel right away what’s going on there. Even if you can’t point at what exactly they did that was racist.

The same thing happens in the realm of relationships:

We’ve introduced concepts and described them as a set of behaviors, and as a result, people can energetically do the exact opposite while technically matching the concept.

I recently wrote about​ how this applies to lying​.

Boundaries are a great example of this, and often more destructive.

Take a phrase like “I have a boundary for you drinking around me.”

This seems like a fairly normal thing to say if you’re not comfortable with someone’s drinking. Especially when spoken to someone who tends to get a little rowdy when they’re drunk.

It also fits the concept of boundaries. Because it describes the limits of what you’re okay with in terms of personal interactions.

But energetically, it is not. I’s the energetic opposite of maintaining boundary. It’s reaching outside the boundary between you and another and trying to control their behavior.

—Wait, but then how do boundaries work? Aren’t they always about others’ behavior?—

I’m glad you asked.

What Is a Boundary and What Is Not?

The function of a boundary is to delineate where I end and where you begin.

Which space is yours, which space is mine, and what we ​both agree to doing when we touch each other’s space​.

Your body, for example, is your space.

If you don’t want to be touched a certain way, having your boundaries respected means the other person honoring your request not to be touched like that.

Your home is your space. For example, the phrase I mentioned “I have a boundary for you drinking around me.” would be a perfectly fine example of a boundary if it had said “I have a boundary for you drinking in my home.”

Telling them not to drink around you is not your boundary to set, because it is about their body.

What would be a boundary about this would be saying “I have a boundary for being around you when you drink.”

Because to respect that boundary, you will use your body to walk away, rather than telling them they can’t use theirs to drink when you choose to use yours to stay.

There’s, of course, a wide realm of social negotiation that can be explored around this:

You can tell people you’re uncomfortable when they drink.

You can ask if they’d mind staying sober when hanging out with you.

You can see how willing they are to meet your request.

But none of that is a boundary. Because them drinking is just them doing something to themselves. It never meets the space where you begin.

So where do you begin?

You begin the moment the other person directs a specific action towards you.

This doesn’t need to be physical. Calling you a “nincompoop”, for example, is a verbal message sent to reach you. Even though they use their body to send the message, not yours, the message is meant to enter your awareness.

Telling someone you have a boundary against them calling you a “nincompoop” is energetically accurate. Telling them you have a boundary against them calling other people “nincompoops” is not. Because it is trying to meddle beyond where you end (it’s ​drama​).

This distinction is useful because it can untangle some otherwise confusing dynamics.

Imagine that a person exposes themselves to you out of the blue.

If this person has read everything I said above and interpreted it conceptually, they might say “they can’t have a boundary against this, it’s my body, I do what I want with it”. But energetically that’s not what they’re doing.

Since they expose themselves to you (or a group you belong to), specifically, the very purpose for exposing themselves is that your eyes would see it. Therefore, it is accurate to say that they might be crossing a boundary there (in this case, one that is culturally pre-defined for strangers…outside of a strip club).

However, if someone is changing clothes in a locker room and you walk in on them, it’s inaccurate to say that they violated this boundary. It’s still your eyes that saw them. And they’re still exposed. But they didn’t expose themselves with the energetic intention for that visual to enter your space.

They did not energetically cross the line where they end and you begin, instead, you just ran into each other. That’s the difference.

This distinction matters, because if we don’t fully internalize these energetics—that boundaries are about where I end and you begin—then boundaries as a concept can quickly start become a form of force.

Because when stating you have a boundary for something, the other person not respecting that means them choosing to position themselves as a person violating your stated boundary.

If someone says “I know you don’t like it when I drink around you, but we’re at a bar and this is what I came here to do. I wish you’d have told me before we met here, then maybe I wouldn’t have come tonight, and would’ve invited you for coffee tomorrow.” they are giving a normal response to you stating you preferred them not to drink. They weighed your preference against their own, and decided they cared more about theirs.

But if you called it a “boundary”, they can not give that same response without being perceived as a bad person.

This may not matter on the little things. But it does:

Give a sociopath a concept validated by a therapist and you just gave them a weapon they can use scot-free. After all, they’re just doing what the therapist said, right?

Give sociopaths enough of these concepts and they’ll end up saying they have a boundary against you not honoring their love language of physical touch.

That’s why energetics matter. Concepts can be used to dress up anything.

Boundaries Are Primarily an Inside Job

Having defined boundaries as the line where you end and another person begins, there’s one aspect that might start to become a bit unclear:

Aren’t boundaries about informing the other person’s behavior, not our own?

Yes and no.

Our own boundaries aren’t about what the other person does, but whether it happens in relationship to us and whether we like that (in the current context) or not.

In general, the way to handle them will continue to center around us, and only cross the line towards the other when there is a clear need for reinforcement.

What does this mean?

Let’s say someone, well-meaningly, touches us in a way we don’t like.

For example, they grab you by the shoulder and pull you close as a way to show they’re proud of you, but they don’t like to be grabbed.

The first thing you can do is inform them that you don’t like it.

(Or if it’s nothing major for you, you might even do something more gentle: ​give them feedback on how it impacted you​.)

This way, they know that while this is generally a normal and socially acceptable form of touch, you personally don’t want people to do it with you.

Now, if they do it again, it might have 2 reasons:

One reason could be forgetfulness and force of habit. Another could be not caring.

If they don’t care about you not wanting this form of touch and selfishly keep doing it, now it becomes an inside job.

All boundaries are primarily an inside job.

What does this mean?

Reinforcing your boundaries doesn’t have to involve defensiveness or demand. It starts with the part we can control: Your own response.

You stop interacting with them. If this is not possible (e.g. they’re your co-worker and you love your job), you keep your distance and keep reminding them.

Since they chose to not honor the invisible line between the 2 of you, it makes no sense to insist or demand harder that they do it. Instead, you just create extra padding for that line.

This is the internal side of your boundaries, and it matters most.

You may think “that’s not fair, they’re the ones who disrespected it”, but actually, it is fair:

Because the only way to control the external side of the boundary is to cross theirs (e.g. with violence).

So if you’re someone who cares about boundaries, the internal part is what matters most.

What internal boundaries look like: “I don’t like this behavior, I’ll move away.”

What external boundaries look like: “I don’t like this behavior, I’ll stand my ground.”

You need both, because occasionally people have bad intentions.

But the weaker your internal boundaries, the stronger your external boundaries need to be.

That said, remember, upholding external boundaries nearly always involves crossing a boundary of theirs in some way.

It’s quite common for people to resort to this right away (e.g. through punishment or other control mechanisms), but this begs the question:

Did you even have a boundary in the first place?

Because the thing is, if you can safely handle the issue with an internal boundary and you choose not to, the boundary wasn’t there. Maybe it should’ve been, but it wasn’t yet.

Ask yourself: What do I get out of not setting an internal boundary on how I allow this person to affect me?

Sometimes that has to do with safety or self-image (e.g. not wanting to be seen as rude).

Sometimes, it can be that a part of us wants the so-called boundary to be crossed so that we have a justification for our otherwise unexpressed anger and frustration.

We often focus on whether other people are respecting our boundaries or not. But it’s equally important to ask how well we are respecting our own.

This matters both in terms of “am I complicit in creating or perpetuating this dynamic” but also in terms of how we treat ourselves. (Are we willing to talk to ourselves in ways we wouldn’t be okay with someone else doing, for example?)

You can imagine the path of upholding firm boundaries starting inside you, and slowly extending outward when it becomes necessary:

The 6 Degrees of Setting a Boundary

Personally, I ​distinguish​ between 6 different degrees:

1st degree: I will not allow myself to do this to myself (or internalize others doing it to me as valid).

Interestingly, you may often find that this in itself stops the majority of people from doing it to you. It’s not a hard rule, but keeps surprising me how often it’s true.

2nd degree: I will inform others of ​the impact it has on me ​when they do this towards me.

This allows others to make informed choices on their behavior. They may occasionally miss a beat. But if it’s genuinely something that involes crossing the line where you begin, most people will try to respect this.

3rd degree: I will let others know that I will not tolerate someone doing this to me.

If people are informed and keep crossing the boundary regardless, you may want to develop stronger language. Note that “I will not tolerate” is stronger language that respects the line. It’s still an internal boundary and not imposing or controlling them.

4th degree: I will walk away and maintain permanent distance with anyone who knows I don’t tolerate this yet still does it.

They are aware of your boundary and don’t respect it. So you reinforce it by removing yourself from interacting that person, permanently if possible. If not, creating thick distance.

5th degree: I will command someone to immediately stop doing this to me.

If you can’t leave or create distance, now it’s time to fully cross the line where you end, and to impose your command on them to hold them accountable for respecting your boundary.

6th degree: I will enact consequence, not as punishment, but deterrent.

This is where you figuratively (or literally) kick someone in the balls so they stop doing it. Which of course, means you crossed their boundary too. Justifiably so. But that’s why this is only a last resort.

The good news is, in close intimate relationships, you generally only ever have to go up to the 2nd degree (and if any friend or romantic partner makes it beyond the 3rd degree, that ​person shouldn’t be in that role for you​).

But there’s something more important going on here:

Boundaries Are Generative for Both Sides

Culturally, we tend to frame it as a bad thing when a boundary is crossed. And of course, on the extreme end, it is.

But crossing each other’s boundaries, often accidentally, is actually a normal and crucial part of establishing relationships.

We have to bump into each other so we can get to know each other and understand the limits of our intimacy and interactions.

Until you tell me “hey, you did this thing and I didn’t like it” (which doesn’t even have to involve a boundary being crossed), I will never know what’s important to you, nor will I know what it means to be a good friend to you.

Until I accidentally bump into you in some way that crossed a boundary and you gently inform me of it, I will not know that boundary was there.

That’s how it goes in interactions. This doesn’t have to be something we apply ​shame​ or blame to.

We just keep interacting and by gently holding 1st or 2nd degree boundaries, we get to know each other’s limits.

When we look at dating, it gets even more complex. Because often, the only way to take things to a next level is to risk crossing each other’s boundaries.

Granted, we can ask for ​consent ​and stuff. And at some crucial points, this obviously matters. But if we do it every single step of the way, we kill the very tension that would make us desire the things we’d eventually be consenting to in the first place.

At some point, there usually is a moment where 1 or both parties risks doing something that might be too intimate, and that’s the way they find out there is more. You can’t ask your dentist out on a date without risking crossing a boundary they have towards clients doing so.

But that’s the point: The art of dating is to take small leaps of faith that invite the other person into deeper intimacy, without taking a leap so big that you’re leaping over multiple boundaries at once and they have no chance to cleanly say no to it.

(In other words: Do make a move. Don’t be the reason someone has to resort to a 5th or 6th degree boundary.)

The role of boundaries, between good-faith actors, in this sense, is not protective but connective.

It’s revealing each other’s intentions and mapping out the approved playing field for your interactions.

We do this primarily by stating boundaries in the 2nd, 3rd, and occasionally 4th degree, and not blaming each other for bumping in to us.

Each time you do this is a gift to the relationship. Because you’re letting that person know who you are and what you’re available for right now.

And I’d add to that, somewhat controversially, that each time you test an unknowable boundary while fully respecting the person you’re testing it with and ensuring they know they have a clean exit, you are also giving a gift to the relationship:

Because you’re leading them towards the possibility of exploring new ​areas of intimacy​ with you.

Now, this doesn’t mean that if they reject this invitation, they are denying intimacy.

The result is intimacy regardless. Because a “no” is also a form of intimacy. Now you know the edges of the relationship and can respect them.

In this sense, boundaries exist on the intersection where it’s possible to be in relationship and honor both of us:

Find the dignity to honor your needs & boundaries.

Find the humility to respect the needs & boundaries of others.

Avoid nurturing one at the expense of the other.

The moment one of us is dishonoring themselves to maintain the relationship, a boundary is disrespected. Whether it is done so internally or externally.

That is why internal boundaries are so important, and why I hammered on them in this article.

If we can’t trust ourselves to uphold them, we become less available for connection in general. We can’t let people come close because if they do, they might end up crossing them.

So the more boundaried we are, the more generous we can be (a phrase I borrowed from ​Natasha​, and might be hers).

Not just in terms of intimacy (if I know my limits very well, and can trust myself to communicate them, I can comfortably allow anyone I meet to flirt with the edges of our relationship) but also in terms of energy (if I give within my limits, I don’t deplete myself and have more to give).

Boundaries are also generative because absence of boundaries creates resentment in the relationship, and resentment has the power to slowly kill what used to be a strong relationship.

“Sometimes, we must let a boundary slide for the sake of love.” sounds noble, but isn’t true. An unspoken boundary is a soft lie. It gives them the idea you’re fine with something you’re not. This hinders intimacy as they’re not relating to the real you.

Resentment doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. It’s the result of 100s of tiny moments of unexpressed “no’s” and little bits of suppressed anger piled on top of one another. And that ​anger​ usually came to offer you help with asserting a boundary.

And lastly, boundaries are generative because while love is infinite, boundaries are what allows it to exist between 2 people specifically:

2 people can only exist when there are boundaries (if there’s no place where you end I begin, there’s only one).

Boundless love includes love for boundaries, or it wouldn’t be boundless.

Unconditional love includes love for conditionals, because excluding them would be a conditional too.

You can love someone unconditionally 𝘢𝘯𝘥 be very firm about leaving them if they ever violate your boundaries. The person is not the behavior. The love is not the relationship. And unconditional love includes love for yourself within it, too.