I think this is exactly where your confusion is. T/client boundaries are not determined by the event or by anything external. Boundaries are established internally. Boundaries are a reflection of individuals in relation to one another. Your T is your T regardless of the surroundings, and the boundaries which govern how she relates to you are hers to establish. Just as your boundaries with her are yours to establish. The conflict comes when one of the internal boundaries violates the other. Then, a negotiation has to happen. Good clinical practice tends to dictate that the T is responsible, ethically and legally, for upholding boundaries in the best interest of the therapy. Altering the boundaries in order to engage in the ways you've described would be commonly seen as not beneficial to the therapy. And while you may agree with MUE's T's statement, it's worth noting that MUE has posted about her discomfort with how that statement has at times been enacted in a dual relationship (something about buying her hand-made jewelry).

Pushing the establishment of the boundary onto external scenarios has the effect of objectifying your T because it discounts or supersedes her internal boundaries. When someone is objectified, they are disrespected.

This endless spinning of scenarios seems very counterproductive because it buries the issue of recognizing and respecting and accepting a T as an individual and professional with rightful ownership/control of their behavior. The question that still remains to explore is why it is so important to you to maintain this kind of control?