they test whether you'll honor your conviction or yield to please them — RadicalJoe

This seems a surefire way to invite parasites into your life.

I’m not sure I find the poetic language helpful.

not just the boundary but the very essence of your self-respect, — RadicalJoe

For me this seems a bit muddled. How is “the very essence of your self‑respect” different from simply “your self‑respect”? What does “very essence” actually add? I also don’t understand what the word “soul” is doing here. What is a soul?

How is what you’re saying different to the maxim, Don’t let others push you around?

"Let your inner convictions maintain your soul's integrity." — RadicalJoe

What if your soul's integrity is to, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Then you are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Your desire for solitude is in conflict with your desire to help your friend. "Boundaries" may be self-serving; ignoring them may be altruistic.

Am I currently apologizing for my soul's integrity, or am I honoring the gold standard of my self-respect? — RadicalJoe

It's hard, when there are so many judges out there, ready to condemn you, for taking a stand. It's tough to be true to yourself, but I hope in the end, your will

It's tough to be true to yourself, but I hope in the end, your will — Questioner

It's tougher to be true to other people than to be true to yourself.

It's tougher to be true to other people than to be true to yourself. — Ecurb

When I make decisions, i abide by my own morality, not the morality of others

It's tougher to be true to other people than to be true to yourself.
— Ecurb

When I make decisions, i abide by my own morality, not the morality of others — Questioner

Being "true" to others means being loyal and constant, reliable, and adhering to vows and promises. Does your own morality suggest compliance? Aren't "boundaries" sometime in conflict with loyalty, reliability and adherence to promises?

It's tougher to be true to other people than to be true to yourself. — Ecurb

So think about what that means. You've established a "shifting sands" premise. If everyone faces elevated difficulty being "true" (by which I assume you mean consistent) to one's so-called pillars of value or at least arbitrarily-defined objectives (both of which are prone to change, often either without the person's knowledge or ability to recognize such a change), of course it's harder to track or follow what can be arbitrarily changed without your (or even the own person's) explicit declaration of such. Your basically saying two hurdles are more surmountable than one alone. No kidding.

When I make decisions, i abide by my own morality, not the morality of others — Questioner

But where did your so-called "own morality" come from? Did it just appear one day out of thin air? Was it delivered one cold Christmas evening by a mysterious specter sent to turn your life around? No? Then it was in fact the result of others, the environment they created that you had no choice but to have been born in, and the morality (or often amorality) of those you've met and of course those you've never will. Sure, you have a choice to move or not move your body in response to another person or stimuli, to say or not say a thing as a result of the same. But this is hardly an accurate view of what can be called "morality."

Polonius did say, "To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." Of course Polonius was a fool (Tolstoy and G.B. Shawm slammed Shakespeare for being unable to make his characters remain "true to themselves: when he could put a stirring speech into one of their mouths.) My point was simpler: the notion that one should retain "boundaries" that support one's own desires at the cost of one's duties to others might need to be reexamined.

But where did your so-called "own morality" come from? — Outlander

From my own experiences and internalization of 60+ years of living, and a commitment to do the right thing. I wasn't just an observer in my life.