A friend of mine has spent most of her adult life looking for someone to tell her how much is too much. With money, with food, with how many glasses of wine is reasonable on a Tuesday, with how long it’s acceptable to stay at a party. These aren’t questions she asks out loud. But I’ve watched her orbit them for years—looking to whoever seems most grounded for a read on where the line is, and feeling genuinely lost when no one gives her one.
She grew up in a house with almost no rules. Her parents were warm and well-meaning and believed children should find their own way. She had no curfew, no restrictions on food or screens, and no one checking her homework. What nobody accounted for was that without an external structure to push against, she had no way to develop an internal one.
That’s what the freedom-without-limits model tends to miss: children need something to define themselves against, and when there’s nothing there, they spend years looking for it.
Nobody stopped them, and it never felt like a gift
There’s a version of limitless childhood that looks, from the outside, like a dream. No curfew, no restrictions, no one tracking where they were or what they were doing. And there were moments when they experienced it that way too—a kind of open expanse that felt genuinely freeing. But underneath it was something they couldn’t name at the time. A feeling of being unseen. Of being left in a room without walls and slowly understanding that nobody was going to come and put the walls up.
Limits, when they’re done reasonably, aren’t just about keeping children from doing things. They communicate something. They say: someone is paying attention, someone thinks you’re worth the effort of a response, someone has thought about what might not be good for you and cared enough to say so. The absence of limits communicates the opposite. Not freedom—absence. They felt the difference even if they couldn’t articulate it, even if the language for it didn’t arrive until much later, even if they spent a long time telling themselves they’d had it good.
The lack of no wasn’t permission. It was a kind of inattention dressed up in the language of trust. And they knew.
They got what they asked for, always, and it didn’t help
The yes was immediate and unconditional. Whatever they wanted was available—the food, the screen time, the later bedtime, the thing all the other kids were allowed to have. The parents said yes because it was easier, or because they believed in indulgence, or because saying no required a conflict they weren’t equipped to have. The yes arrived so reliably that it stopped meaning anything.
This is the paradox of limitless access: the things become ordinary immediately, and ordinary things don’t satisfy the way scarce things do. More than that, the constant yes gave them no information about what they actually wanted versus what they were simply grabbing because it was available. When nothing is rationed, they don’t develop a relationship with the thing; they just consume it until they’re done and move to the next. They never find out what they actually care about because caring about something requires learning to hold it at a distance first.
What they were deprived of wasn’t the thing itself but the experience of wanting it. And wanting—real wanting, the kind that lasts—requires the possibility of not getting. Nobody had told their parents this. Their parents thought the kindest thing was to remove that experience entirely. The wanting is what teaches you about yourself.
More Bolde Stories
Nothing in their house was consistent, and they were always bracing
The absence of rules didn’t mean calm. It meant that any given day could go any way, and nobody knew which way until it was already going there. There was no pattern to count on, no reliable script for how the evening would end or what mood the house would be in. They became skilled readers of atmosphere—checking the temperature of a room before they walked all the way in, watching for signals, staying light on their feet. Not because anything terrible was happening, but because the lack of structure meant that anything could be next.
I grew up in a house with clear rules, which is exactly why I recognize what its absence looks like in others. It’s not anxiety exactly, though it looks like anxiety from the outside. It’s more like an ongoing background monitoring that never fully switches off. They learn to read rooms before they’ve finished entering them. They brace before they land. What they’re waiting for is the floor to give way, and when it doesn’t, they wait longer rather than relaxing.
They never learned what the rules were actually for
When rules showed up in adulthood—at work, in relationships, in institutions they became part of—they registered as arbitrary impositions. Why does it matter when you get there? Why does the form need to be filled out in exactly this way? These felt like bureaucratic nonsense, and the feeling was genuine, because they had no early experience of a rule being connected to a consequence or a reason that made sense. Rules in their childhood had been suggestions. Rules everywhere else were supposed to be commands, and they couldn’t feel the difference.
Laurence Steinberg, whose research on adolescent development and parenting has been published in the Journal of Research on Adolescence, found that adolescents raised by parents who combined warmth with clear expectations—who were firm as well as caring—developed significantly better psychological outcomes and were more receptive to guidance than those raised without that firmness. The structure wasn’t oppressive. It was formative. It taught something about how the social world works, what the point of a limit is, and why honoring one matters.
That lesson didn’t get delivered in a limitless house, and the gap shows up in adulthood in ways that are hard to trace back to the source.
They still look for someone to tell them where the line is
The search tends to happen quietly and sideways. A boss who seems to know what they’re doing gets followed with an almost excessive deference. A partner who’s confident about what they want becomes the de facto decision-maker. A therapist gets asked, over and over, whether a particular thing is okay. The question is never quite about the specific situation. The question is: can you tell me where the edge is? Because nobody taught me how to find it on my own.
Tanja Rothrauff and colleagues, whose research on how childhood parenting styles predict adult functioning has been published in The Journals of Gerontology, found that adults who remembered growing up with indulgent parents—warm but without clear boundaries or expectations—reported worse psychological well-being and greater difficulty with adjustment than those raised with more structure, even decades later. The effect of an absent structure doesn’t end when childhood does.
They’re not weak or passive—they’re looking for something they were supposed to be given and weren’t. The looking continues until they find it, or until they learn to build it themselves, which takes significantly longer than it should have needed to.
More Bolde Stories
They grew up faster than they should have, and still feel behind
The precocious ones, the kids who seemed most adult, who could talk to grown-ups easily and were praised for their maturity—these were often the children doing the most work. In the absence of structure, someone has to manage, and it tends to be the child who develops the clearest sense of what’s happening. So they stepped up. They made their own rules because no one else would, or they learned to parent themselves because no one was doing it. They were described as old souls. They were doing labor.
And then they got to adulthood and discovered they didn’t know what to do now either. The maturity was real, but it had gaps in it, places where normal development had been skipped over in the rush to get to functional. They’d grown up fast in some ways and not at all in others. They’re not behind. They’re just missing things that were never handed to them, and it takes longer than it should to figure out which specific things are missing, because the absence wasn’t named while it was happening. That’s different from behind. It just feels the same.
