The general consensus tends to be that boundaries are limits that a person puts down. Normally, they don't need a reactive element, but that means there's no mechanism for handling disrespect. As such, we class traditional boundaries as requests. See below for more.
As such, from our perspectives:
Example boundaries would be:
Notice how these boundaries are protecting the person setting the boundary, and not setting any limits on the other person's personal freedom. They are reactions to your own safety and comfort being breached.
This is what most people do consider to be a boundary, but what happens if it's breached? You’ve not got a plan in place for how you will stop them if they don’t choose to stop.
This is an ultimatum, not a boundary. Ultimatums are useful in desperate situations to resolve an unfair conflict, but often resort to escalation. After enacting this ultimatum, both of you will be sad and have lost something.
This looks like a boundary, but the demand on the other person is unfair. Organisations often include non compete clauses in contracts, but even by free market capitalism’s own standards, this is unacceptable, as it stops the market from being free.
Aggressive tactics will build a hostile environment, breed resentment amongst those involved, and encourage them to leave.
This is a threat. A boundary is something you do to yourself, your environment, or in your space. A punch is an act against the other person.
A boundary should never need the other person to do anything to enforce. It should be an action you take in response to their disrespecting the boundary.
You should ALWAYS enforce the boundary unless you have a conversation about an exception with the other person BEFORE they act.
Yes, even if the person believed they were helping you, you are a person who stated a clear boundary, and that should be respected.
Failing to enforce a boundary, will weaken all your boundaries. This is how you get a reputation as a pushover.