Boundaries vs. Rules in Polyamory: What's the Difference?

My IG question was “I know boundaries are for me. But how to repair after partner goes against it willingly”

So to be clear, this was NOT a boundary that we’d spoken of before because you know I never thought of it happening. But I found out that my partner was planning to go to a sex party with someone he dated 10 years ago and recently reconnected with in October. Anyway, once I found he was going to the sex party, which was a month ago, I told him that would be a boundary for me because we’ve been trying to go to a sex party for the past year and it’s always fallen through for whatever reason.

I also personally felt like a sex party would be reserved for someone you’re seriously dating or partnered with due to its vulnerability and intimacy. This whole situation is nuanced because he omitted that he was going, and omitted a few other details that we have agreements on telling each other. After me telling him the sex party was a boundary for me, it’s been a month to figure out what he planned to do. He is still going, which to me shows he’s making a conscious decision to go against something I’m not ok with, and he was willing to end our relationship over it. I ended up caving, because ultimately I do want to be with him and question if I’m overreacting, and now I need to learn to let go of feeling resentment because he got what he wanted, and I did not.

Your Instagram question was: "I know boundaries are for me, but how to repair after a partner goes against it willingly?" But it doesn't seem like you understand what a boundary actually is, or what it means. This is why I think it's important to differentiate between a boundary and a rule. A boundary is something that you will do to facilitate a relationship. It's about how you're willing to interact with someone, not about controlling their behaviour.

The example I always give is this: if you don't like being around drunk people and you don't like alcohol, a rule would be telling your partner, "You're not allowed to drink alcohol around me." A boundary would be: "I'm not going to attend functions with you that have alcohol in them. If you come home drunk, I am going to sleep in a different room. I'm not going to interact with you whilst you're drunk because I don't enjoy that.

I do not want alcohol in our shared spaces like our shared kitchen. You can store it somewhere else and drink in other places." The purpose of a boundary is that you're not trying to control what your partner does, but you still want to have a connection with them. You're saying, "I want to be with you, but I can't be with you whilst you're drunk. That's just not acceptable for me." They can still drink, but they have to be aware of how you're willing to interact with them around that. That is a boundary.

What you're talking about isn't a boundary. You're saying your partner can't go to a sex party because you've been trying to go together and it's always fallen through. You're basically wanting to make a rule that he is not allowed to go to a sex party unless it's with you, or that the first sex party he goes to has to be with you. That's literally what you want, and that's fine if that's what you want, but that is a rule. That is something you're imposing upon him. That is a way you're wanting to control his behaviour. When you phrase it as "him going to a sex party is a boundary for me," you're communicating to him that if he goes to this party, he's violating your boundaries. But it's not a boundary. It's a rule. You're saying he can't go to this sex party, and you're essentially saying that him wanting to go means he doesn't respect you. Which isn't true.

The real issue: conflicting definitions

Your personal feelings around sex parties being reserved for someone you're seriously dating are valid for you, but that doesn't mean those feelings have to be valid for your partner. It doesn't seem like you share the same understanding of what a sex party means.

I've had similar situations. I had a relationship where I didn't really do casual things at the time, and I wanted to impose a rule on my partner that they would only sleep with people they had known for a while. I tried to argue it on STI risk, claiming it was safer to only have sex with somebody you'd known. My partner rightfully challenged me: "What does that have to do with STI risk? Whether or not you know somebody has nothing to do with whether or not an infection is communicable. If people have been tested, they've been tested. You can know somebody and they've never been tested. It doesn't matter."

And I was like, "Oh yeah, true. You're right." It's just that I had a personal definition of when I felt comfortable having sex with somebody. I had a personal definition of what sex meant in terms of intimacy. I was imposing that on my partner and assuming they had to share the same definition. Truly they didn't, and truly it wasn't fair for me to decide for my partner what sex meant to them, what intimacy meant for them, what all of this had to mean for them. It was okay that I had this definition, but we didn't have to share it, and it wasn't fair for me to impose that. If I wanted someone who shared my definition of what these things meant, then we were incompatible.

It's valid if sex parties for you are reserved for people you're seriously dating due to vulnerability and intimacy. But he doesn't have to share that definition. If he doesn't have that definition, he's not wrong, and you're not wrong for having that definition. You just operate in different ways. Maybe if you'd explicitly agreed that the first sex party you ever go to has to be with each other, then that's one thing. But I don't think it's fair to dictate to him when he can and can't go to a sex party if he's not agreed to that.

Why this feels unfair

You're issuing an ultimatum. You're saying he can't go because you've not gone to one and it's always fallen through. But think about this: why should this other person not have the chance to have a fun time with your partner because of stuff that's completely out of their control? It's not their fault that you've been trying to go to a sex party together and it's fallen through. If it were any other situation, it's like saying, "Because we haven't been able to go out on a date to this restaurant, you can't go to a restaurant with anybody else." I know you're saying it's different because the restaurant isn't vulnerable and intimate, but you have that definition of the sex party, and he may not.

To be honest with you, I'm not even all that interested in sex parties. But if I had a partner who told me, "You can't go to this thing," I don't think I would want to be in a relationship with them at all. It's not within my values to have somebody who tells me what I can and can't do in that way. I wouldn't be okay with that. In a way, even if you may not feel like that's what you're doing, that is what you're doing. Yes, he should have been more honest about the situation and the context. He's probably omitting details because you don't have a clear understanding of what things are, and because you're trying to control what he does. He wants to go with somebody that he dated ten years ago and recently connected with. That doesn't mean he defines sex parties the same way you do.

What's really going on here

I'm not saying you're overreacting. I think the actual problem is that you feel sad and unvalued. You want to have this experience with him and it matters to you, and you're genuinely upset that he's able to have it with somebody else when you haven't been able to have it together. That's valid. But the issue isn't the sex party itself. It's not like if he was going to a Minecraft party and you didn't feel like he cared about you, that would be the issue. It feels higher stakes because it's a sex party and because it's with someone he dated ten years ago. You're feeling like you're not valued. The question is: how can he make you feel valued? How can you work together to come to a solution?

What might work is having a conversation like this:

You: "Hey, you know, I feel really sad that we haven't been able to do this, because I feel like it's a vulnerable and intimate experience, and I really want to have it with you."

Him: "I really want to reconnect with this person, and I'm really excited about this. I understand that you feel this way, and I do really want to go. But what I will do is make it a priority to schedule a party with you. I'll schedule some time every Friday where we're going to spend time looking online, trying to find a party that works for both of us. I will block out the time, and I will prioritise making sure we go to this together. What else feels vulnerable and intimate to you? What else makes you feel valued? What else makes you feel like you're important to me? Because I don't want you to feel like you're not important to me, so let's find ways we can actually address this."

Two things can be true at the same time. You can want to do this with him, and he can make an effort to prioritise that. If he's not willing to do that, then you're not compatible. Then he's kind of being a jerk. But here's the crucial point: you can't make him a more considerate partner by forcing him to be considerate through rules. You can't make him want to schedule a sex party with you by forcing him to do that through rules. He has to be willing to do that himself. You can't force him to be a better partner by controlling what he does. That's one of the reasons why I don't like rules like this. Not because I think people are wrong or trying to be controlling, but because you can't make somebody into a nicer, more decent person by forcing them to be nicer through rules. That just doesn't work.

Moving forward

You need to both come to a better understanding of what non-monogamy means to you, what sex parties mean to you, and how much time you want to spend together. It seems like you're not having that conversation. You're instead trying to impose on each other your different perspectives. Your partner isn't willingly going against your boundaries. Your partner is simply saying, "I want to go to this party." If you need somebody who operates in the same way you do, who shares your definitions because it makes you anxious to not be on the same page, then that's valid too. It's not about either of you being invalid in your perspectives. It's about whether you're compatible.

See if you can have a talk together about this. See if you can come to a better agreement. See if he's willing to prioritise organising something like this for you both. See if you're willing to talk with each other about what it means to be non-monogamous, how much time you spend with other people, and how much time you spend with each other. Try to come to agreements and work together on things, rather than impose ultimatums and rules on each other.

Come to an agreement, work together. You're on the same team. See if you are compatible, rather than trying to force yourself to be compatible by forcing each other to do things that you don't want to do.

I hope that helps, and good luck.