This Is Where I End and You Begin
The Hidden Toll of Boundary Violators
Some relationships do not fall apart with loud arguments. They dissolve quietly under the burden of invisible expectations, emotional debts you never agreed to, and the steady erosion of emotional space.
It often begins subtly. A friend constantly asks for help as they depend on your self-reliance. They may not carry the best intention for you, may be constantly attempting to sabotage your existence, but proudly demand your help for trivial matters.
A colleague “leans on you” a little too much, constantly asking for your opinion, ideas and support on projects that you are not even involved in. A message that starts with “Hello, how are you?” but it actually only means “I need something from you.” You don’t want to seem unkind, so you give them your time, your presence, your emotional labor. Again and again.
Too often, sensitive and generous people become emotional caregivers in relationships. You might become “the therapist friend,” “the fixer,” or “the always-available one.”
And while boundaries are essential in such situations, this write up is not about instructing those who are already aware of the importance of boundaries to become more assertive in enforcing them. It’s not about telling people to learn how to set limits. Instead, this piece seeks to address the larger issue: the widespread inability of others to recognize and respect boundaries in the first place.
The true problem often lies not in weak boundaries, but in the lack of awareness and respect from the people around. Society often fails to acknowledge when someone has set a boundary or worse, it taunts them for doing so. Whether it's subtle ridicule or outright criticism, there exists a pervasive cultural tendency to view boundary-setting as an inconvenience or selfishness.
It is time we stop blaming those who are trying to maintain their space and well-being. Rather than demanding that individuals continuously explain themselves, the focus should be to recognize that boundaries are not barriers, but essential elements of healthy relationships.
What Are Boundaries?
Boundaries are essential guidelines we establish in relationships to protect our emotional, mental, and physical well-being. They define where one person’s responsibility ends and another begins, helping to create a clear distinction between what is acceptable and what is not.
For someone who has never considered boundaries or views relationships solely as a means to meet their own needs, understanding the concept of boundaries can be transformative.
In relationships, it’s easy to fall into the mindset that the other person exists solely to fulfill our needs, whether it’s emotional support, advice, time, or even validation. However, this one-sided perspective can create an unhealthy dynamic where one person’s needs are constantly prioritized while the others are ignored or undervalued.
Without boundaries, we lose sight of where we end and where someone else begins, leading to exhaustion, resentment, and imbalance. It’s important to recognize that just because someone is in your life does not mean they are obligated to give endlessly without consideration for their own limits.
Boundaries serve as a way to protect your time, energy, and emotions. For example, if you constantly ask someone for help but never check in on their well-being or respect their needs, you are not acknowledging their right to set limits.
Boundaries are about mutual respect: both individuals should have the space to express their needs, take care of their mental health, and make decisions that align with their personal values without feeling guilty.
The Truth About Boundary Violators
For people who have never considered boundaries, it might be hard to understand why others need them. The idea of "I need this from you" might feel like an expectation rather than a request. However, it’s important to realize that healthy relationships are built on reciprocity, and that means both people need to respect each other’s limits. Relationships should not be a constant cycle of emotional taking without giving; they should allow space for both parties to feel valued, heard, and supported.
Imagine you’re constantly leaning on someone else to meet your needs without thinking about their emotional exhaustion. Over time, this will cause strain, and the person you rely on might feel depleted or even resentful. Boundaries violators may be taking on the other person as they themselves exhibit certain psychological traits or behaviors. While it’s important to note that such behavior isn’t always intentional, it typically stems from a lack of self-awareness, emotional dependence, or a pattern of seeking external validation which again is caused by several factors.
Psychological Perspective
From a psychological viewpoint, emotional dependency arises from various factors, each contributing to an individual’s reliance on others for emotional support and validation. This often stems from an inability to regulate one’s emotions independently, leading individuals to seek constant reassurance from others in an attempt to feel secure. This dependency creates a one-sided emotional burden, where the person offering support becomes emotionally drained. The psychological factors at play include:
People with low self-esteem often struggle to establish healthy boundaries and rely heavily on others to fill gaps in their self-worth. They seek external validation as a way of compensating for their internal feelings of inadequacy (Crocker & Park, 2004). This dynamic perpetuates a cycle of dependence, where both parties become emotionally exhausted. Individuals with low self-esteem tend to feel unworthy of self-sufficiency, relying on others for validation, which makes it difficult to develop the self-efficacy necessary to break free from this cycle (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Narcissistic individuals often exhibit a heightened need for attention and validation but lack empathy for others. They often view people and supporters as a way to only meet their needs without considering the emotional toll this takes on those around them (Kernberg, 1975). Their relationships are often viewed as tools for self-validation, creating an imbalance of emotional labor. (Raskin & Hall, 1979).
Attachment theory plays a critical role in emotional dependency. Those with anxious attachment styles, in particular, tend to seek constant reassurance and emotional support due to a fear of abandonment. According to Bowlby’s (1969) attachment theory, individuals who experienced insecure attachment during childhood often carry these patterns into adulthood. They overstep boundaries in relationships and rely heavily on others for security, which can place an undue burden on the person providing that support.
Unresolved trauma, particularly emotional neglect or abuse, significantly contributes to emotional dependency. Individuals who have faced neglect or abuse in the past may struggle to regulate their emotions and seek validation from others as a means of addressing unmet emotional needs. This pattern often leads to unhealthy dependency in relationships, as the individual is unable to self-soothe or manage their needs independently (Herman, 1992).
The concept of learned helplessness, as outlined by Seligman (1975), describes individuals who have experienced repeated failures or trauma, leading them to believe they have no control over their circumstances. This mindset causes them to seek others to solve problems for them, reinforcing their dependency and inability to navigate life’s challenges on their own. This belief that they are powerless to effect change in their lives contributes to a continued cycle of emotional reliance on others (Seligman, 1975).
Avoidant coping mechanisms are another significant factor in emotional dependency. Some individuals avoid confronting and accepting their own needs and difficulties, instead relying on others. This avoidance prevents self-reflection and self-care, hindering emotional growth and reinforcing dependency (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989).
Philosophical Perspective
Philosophically, the issue of leaning on others for support without consideration for their needs raises essential questions about responsibility, mutual respect, and the nature of human relationships. Existential philosophy, especially as articulated by Jean-Paul Sartre, emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility and authenticity in human existence. Sartre argued that to constantly rely on others for support is an abdication of personal responsibility and an avoidance of the inherent difficulties of life (Sartre, 1943). This results in a lack of self-actualization and fulfillment, as individuals fail to confront their ability to navigate life’s complexities independently.
Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory argues that relationships should be grounded in mutual respect, where each person treats the other as an end in themselves, not a means (Kant, 1785). In other words, his argument implies recognizing and valuing another person for who they truly are, not merely for the benefits or utility they provide to you. When you treat someone as an end, you respect their autonomy, dignity, and individual worth. You engage with them as a person who has their own goals, desires, and intrinsic value, rather than seeing them as someone who exists only to fulfill your needs or desires.
Similarly, when you treat someone as a means, you view them as a stepping stone, where the relationship or interaction is seen only in terms of how it benefits you or helps you reach a specific goal. For instance, if someone helps you out of a difficult situation, but you are primarily interested in the help they provide, rather than valuing them as a person, you are treating them as a means.
Social contract theory, as outlined by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, stresses the importance of mutual benefit. A relationship where one person consistently depends on the other without reciprocity undermines the balance essential for fairness and equality (Hobbes, 1651; Locke, 1689; Rousseau, 1762).
Finally, Aristotle’s concept of true friendship, based on mutual respect and shared values, highlights that healthy relationships are built on both parties contributing to each other's growth. One-sided emotional dependency, however, becomes transactional rather than nurturing (Aristotle, 350 BCE).
Spiritual and Religious Perspectives on Boundary Violations
In many spiritual and religious traditions, the repeated violation of another person’s emotional boundaries is not simply a psychological pattern. It is seen as a profound disturbance of moral and spiritual balance. Though modern terms like “emotional dependency” or “co-dependence” help us understand these behaviors clinically, ancient teachings viewed them as signs of deeper spiritual unrest: an imbalance within the self that spills outward, harming others.
In Buddhism, clinging to others for simple favors stems from tanhā (craving) and upādāna (grasping) which bind us to suffering. When one cannot sit with their own pain and instead clings to another person for regulation, this creates not compassion but entanglement. It violates the path of ahimsa (non-harming) and interrupts the process of vipassanā (clear seeing), where one is meant to look inward for healing. Such patterns are not just unhealthy, they hinder liberation.
Hinduism teaches that every soul (atman) has its own journey and its own svadharma, a personal path of duty and growth. Emotional over-dependence or manipulative closeness, when unbalanced and one-sided, disrupts the sacred order of dharma. Behaviors like possessiveness (mātsarya) and fear-driven attachment (moha) are not small flaws, they are among the inner enemies (arishadvargas) that keep the soul from evolving. To violate someone’s emotional space is not only to fail them. It is to wander from your own divine path.
These teachings converge on one fundamental truth: true spiritual maturity requires honoring others' boundaries and space as sacred. Relationships, whether romantic, professional, familial, or platonic, thrive when mutual respect, personal responsibility, and emotional boundaries are maintained.
When these boundaries are repeatedly violated, whether through unconscious neediness or intentional control, spiritual traditions see it not just as a psychological issue, but a moral failing. They urge individuals to cultivate self-awareness, practice non-attachment, and engage in relationships with a spirit of balance and respect.
To Those Whose Boundaries Are Constantly Being Violated
This is a note for you: not because you are weak, or unaware, or incapable of setting boundaries.
This is for those of you who do understand boundaries, who have tried to protect your inner peace, your energy, your emotional world. And yet, despite all that effort, you find yourself repeatedly drained, manipulated, or crossed by people who refuse to respect the sacred space you’ve tried to uphold.
You are not the problem.
Some people, whether knowingly or not, thrive on crossing the boundaries of others. They test limits not because yours are unclear, but because their sense of power comes from violating what you have made clear. These individuals are not seeking connection; they seek control. They are not confused; they are calculated.
Compassionate people, those who seek to understand rather than confront, can often be seen as easier to manipulate. This is not because they are weak, but because they lead with empathy. In such dynamics, silence can be misread as agreement, and forgiveness mistaken for tolerance. It’s a quiet truth: the most aware and emotionally generous among us are often the ones most targeted. Not because they lack strength, but because they possess a depth others may try to exploit.
You are not too soft. You are not too much. And you are not overreacting.
The world needs your sensitivity, your insight, your care. But it does not need your self-sacrifice for the sake of keeping peace with people who only bring you war. Boundaries are not walls; they are sacred markers of self-respect. You are not obligated to explain, justify, or plead for your right to be safe, to be heard, to be free.
You are not alone in this. And you are not wrong for wanting more than survival in your relationships. You deserve safety, integrity, and peace.
References:
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence. Basic Books.
Sartre, J.-P. (1956). Being and Nothingness (H. Barnes, Trans.). Washington Square Press.
Rahula, W. (1959). What the Buddha Taught. Grove Press