I agree that a T should set and explain their boundaries with sensitivity to the circumstances and the client's feelings, but I think Ts learn, over the years and through experience, where their boundaries NEED to be with respect to their clients. They come to understand that clients with similar histories and issues will constantly want to "push" the boundaries (whatever they are) in a desire to become enmeshed with their T. Indulging that will not help the client. So, when a T notices that, it's in the client's best interests for the T to hold firm to their boundaries. Or, a T might learn that they NEED certain boundaries in order to stay healthy and available to their clients and avoid burn-out. I think Ts are the ones who come to the relationship with a lot of experience and knowledge, and they don't necessarily have to "reinvent the wheel" anew with each client. Of course, there are exceptions. If a T is unfamiliar with a particular demographic (cultural differences) or with a client with a particularly unique background or presenting issue, then that does require a more individualized approach and some boundary negotiation may very well be warranted. However, I don't think it is often in the client's best interests to continually "push" the Ts boundaries and try to change them in order to get the T to fulfill more and more of their needs. Often, when Ts begin to do that, they end up creating a really harmful situation where they realize that they've given too much, and suddenly need to pull back and tighten their boundaries. This often causes clients to feel rejected. Having good boundaries at the outset is often a better solution. For me personally, knowing what my T's boundaries are, up front, is really helpful. I want to know exactly what is okay and what isn't. That helps me feel safe and helps me trust my T. There have been times where I've asked T about a boundary and she has said "I haven't had that question before; let me think about that." or "Hmm, I don't know, let's talk about that." I think that's great. When a T is asked about a boundary and she doesn't have one set in that particular area, talking about it with the client is great. However, that is very different from the client rejecting T's boundary and trying to get her to loosen or change her boundaries. I also think there are instances when having "universal boundaries" are also less hurtful to clients. For instance, if "no hugging" is T's personal boundary-- because SHE does feel safe or comfortable hugging clients-- then I think it's less hurtful for the client to hear that T does not hug, rather than "T hugs, but T does not feel safe hugging YOU." It makes it less personal, and more about T's boundaries and T's need to stay safe (and keep her clients safe). It prevents it from being a personal rejection.