For a long time i explained my limits like they required justification to be valid. If i said i could not do something or did not want something, there was always a reason attached. A long one usually, carefully constructed to be reasonable enough that nobody could argue with it. As if the boundary itself was not sufficient without a convincing defence of why it existed.
What that produced was two things. First, people who understood the logic but then negotiated with it, because a reason is something you can argue against in a way that a clear boundary is not. Second, a version of me that felt like i was constantly on trial for my own needs, defending them before a jury that had not been elected to that position.
A boundary is not a debate point. It does not require your audience to agree with the reasoning behind it in order to be valid. It just needs to be yours and it needs to be held.
I do not mean this as a prescription for coldness or for refusing to communicate in relationships. Context matters, closeness matters, there are absolutely situations where explaining yourself is part of genuine connection and care. But there is a difference between sharing your perspective with someone and auditioning your limits for their approval.
When i stopped over explaining and started just holding the line, something shifted. Some people respected it more, not less. Because a clear boundary held calmly communicates something a heavily defended one often does not, it communicates that you know your own mind and are not going to be argued out of it.
Some people pushed harder when the long explanation disappeared, looking for the gap the justification used to provide. That was useful information about those people.
Your limits do not need a permission slip. They need to be real and they need to be held.
The rest is noise you do not have to engage with.
https://vote.hive.uno/@thebbhproject
https://vote.hive.uno/@hivecuba
Support the witness and vote for TheBbhProject carried out by 
