Something that comes up in so many discussions I have about Relationship Anarchy is boundaries, rules, and expectations. Honestly, it’s so important that it comes up in any conversation about relationships, regardless of philosophy or style! I find this is especially prevalent in non-monogamous dynamics as there tend to be more navigational requirements around these topics than for monogamous folx.
This week I wanted to dial in and focus on the difference between boundaries and rules. I want to share my definitions of these terms, how I differentiate them from each other, and some areas where I’ve seen these come up in my own relationships and the relationships of those around me.
Please be aware that this is just a reflection of my own experiences, and these definitions and perspectives may not be helpful for everyone. This isn’t a one-size-fits-all kind of thing!
What is a boundary?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of a boundary is:
Noun:
Something that indicates or fixes a limit or extent.
So, what does this look like in relationships?
I like to think of boundaries as structures that help a person stay on the right path. If I am a forest and my beloved wants to explore the forest, then they would likely use a pathway. My boundaries would be the areas where the path and the forest floor meet, indicating where is and isn’t appropriate to walk.
It is also up to me to maintain clear pathways within my forest, so that others know where is and isn’t okay to walk.
De-stigmatizing the concept of boundaries
I hear people focusing on the “limit” aspect of a boundary often. I know I have at some point in my journey with boundaries. In this perspective boundaries are viewed more as walls that stop a direction dead in its tracks. In my experiences, this perspective can create a lot of anxiety toward the mere concept of boundaries, let alone expressing them. Often it is through this perspective where boundaries can be mistaken for rules, as it has a more aggressive tone to it. That aggression can cause unnecessary conflict within a conversation or connection.
Instead of perceiving boundaries as a wall which denies access to something or a part of someone, I see boundaries as the barriers which help us find the best path to take. Rather than focusing on the limiting aspect of the boundary, I choose to see boundaries as helpful guardrails guiding me along the path to deeper, more wholesome connections. This perspective shift helps me to de-stigmatize boundaries and unravel the notion that they are synonymous with rules.
How do I know if this a boundary instead of a rule?
A lot of information I’ve seen on the net talks about boundaries as if they are synonymous with rules. I think this is a harmful way to approach boundaries because it can create controlling dynamics in relationship negotiating. This is especially true for non-monogamous relationships, where there is more communication and navigation of peoples’ needs, wants, limits, and edges required.
Something I emphasize heavily in my own relationships is that Radical Transparency around wants, needs, boundaries and expectations is extremely important. This is so that I can make the most informed decision about how best to engage with the other person, and I want to give them the opportunity to do the same. I also emphasize expressing these truths in a way that preserves the other person’s autonomy.
I make my needs clear, but I do not force the other person to help me meet those needs. Instead, I welcome them to support me meeting my needs in whatever ways they authentically can or want to.
So, how we differentiate between boundaries and rules? Here is a list of a few key traits that identify a boundary:
· The boundary/need expressed serves a self-care/self-maintenance function.
· The person who expresses the boundary takes accountability for fulfilling this need.
· The person expressing the boundary does so in a way that invites autonomy support for the recipient but does not force it.
The emphasis is always on one’s own experiences and actions when discussing a boundary. Boundaries typically express something a person needs to navigate a situation or conversation safely and healthily, and clearly identifying and expressing the boundary is a self-care practice on its own.
Rules, on the other hand, place explicit emphasis on what the other must do to resolve the unmet want or need.
Rules in relationships
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of rule is:
Noun:
1. One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
2. Control of or dominion over an area or people.
Verb:
1. Exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people)
2. Pronounce authoritatively and legally to be the case
That’s a mouthful, I know.
Something that sticks out to me about this definition is the emphasis on authoritarian interaction styles. The essence of a rule is that one party is asserting a semblance of control over another. Sometimes this is consensual (agreed-upon rules), and sometimes this is not.
Identifying traits of a rule are:
· An abundance of “you statements.” (Ex: “you must check in with me once every hour when you’re on a date”).
· A threat of punishment for the person who does not adhere to the rule.
· The rule places the responsibility of meeting a want or need on the other person, and not on the person with the want/need.
The key trait that I sit with is that rules force the other party to take accountability for the wellness of the person setting the rule. Unlike boundaries, which serve a purpose of self-maintenance, rules can be set for any number of reasons – both healthy and unhealthy ones.
There are certain times when rules do make sense, though. As I mentioned above, there are times when boundaries can lead to the creation of rules in relationships. I see this often in non-monogamous relationships where children, co-habiting, or shared finances are present. Just as with boundaries, I think that the inherently contractual and authoritarian aspect of rules makes them seem more destructive.
When in a relationship where shared assets or children are involved, rules may need to be set to protect both parties and/or the children from potentially serious consequences of not following said rules. These could be things ranging from spending money in a shared bank account to new beloveds meeting children.
As with anything, the rule itself is not inherently a bad thing. It is how rules are discussed and why they are being implemented.
In my own relationships
I try to keep rules to a minimum in my more intimate relationships. I admit this is easier for me than some others because I am not legally married, co-habiting, or co-parenting with any of my beloveds.
Instead of implementing rules in my relationships, I have standards for Radical Transparency and practices I ask my beloveds to participate in for the sake of navigating mental, emotional, and physical health and wellness. For me, supporting my beloveds’ autonomy is one of the most important parts of relating, and I feel that implementing rules is counterproductive.
When I have created rules in past relationships, it has always boiled down to an attempt to curb an insecurity within myself. As I continue discovering new things about my relating self, I find that I tend to focus more on finding the “edge” of my comfort zone where the rule wants to come from and seeing if I can identify unmet wants or needs to communicate instead. Recognizing that my feelings, wants, and needs are my own responsibility encourages me to communicate these things to beloveds in a nonviolent way.
I use Nonviolent Communication (NVC) as a nice framework for inner dialogue about my edges and how those translate into boundaries in relationships. You can use my Finding Your Edges guided meditation as a framework for this reflective process.
— written by Amelia Lichtenberg