Women squimring out of boundarys

[SkrooU]

Of course you gotta draw the line somewhere, wasn't denying that. I was arguing against where OP draws his, I didn't have to go in detail because he's not talking about details. He's talking about just simply denying his girlfriend to have male FRIENDS, in the word "friends" it should be understood it looks like and is just a friend.

@zekko
None of the mentioned details are things I would accept, because that's not how just friends act. I was not arguing where the line should go in detail, that obviously varies depending on the individual guy. I was arguing against the extreme of totally denying them to have male friends.

I know what you meant. You said a boundary of no friends of the opposite sex is too restrictive for most to accept. I would agree. I think the OP specified that spending time with the opposite sex was inappropriate for both he and his girlfriend. He then gave examples of things like going to the movies and texting. And I think what he meant was that carrying on a relationship via text was inappropriate if it was just a means to have an emotional type affair with a guy friend. I could be wrong, so maybe he meant no man is to send a text for any reason. If that's the case then I'd agree it's too extreme. Being that restrictive is going to drive yourself insane.

 

[zekko]

And there's you... The man who only sees her a couple times a week while on the other days she's having emotional fluctuation around men who are NOT you.

I assume when you say "you", you're not speaking about me in particular, but rather to men in general. Because I've been cohabitating with my girlfriend for over 10 years now, so obviously I see her more than a few times a week lol.

 

[Desdinova]

I assume when you say "you", you're not speaking about me in particular, but rather to men in general.

Correct!

 

[daddymonsterpoodle]

Mate guarding seems too paranoid to me. Unless she is locked in your cellar she will find a way to cheat IF she wants to.

I go to movies with my women friends. I even stay the night (spare bed). She also knows that I could cheat IF I wanted to and that a f-ck is only a phonecall away. Takes a little bit of trust.

Screen for better women.
Be a man they want to be with.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Mate guarding seems too paranoid to me. Unless she is locked in your cellar she will find a way to cheat IF she wants to.

I go to movies with my women friends. I even stay the night (spare bed). She also knows that I could cheat IF I wanted to and that a f-ck is only a phonecall away. Takes a little bit of trust.

Screen for better women.
Be a man they want to be with.

Hey, but your parameters are pushing it for most...

 

[daddymonsterpoodle]

Hey, but your parameters are pushing it for most...

Probably but I don't cohabitate with the woman I am seeing so wtf am I going to do, stalk her, hidden cameras, key recording.

One of the things that attracted her to me was that I am confident in myself and independent. Mate guarding is not confidence and reinforces that you are low value. She also knows I am not afraid to end it if she is pisses me off.

I still have values and boundaries, but they are not driven by insecurity.

 

[zekko]

There's a good example of how different people draw the line in different places. But Poodle, don't assume that if someone draws the line in a different place than you do, it's because of insecurity.

If my girl did what you do, I would dump her and find another girl whose behavior is more in line with what I think is appropriate for a girlfriend. But different strokes for different folks, as they say.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Mate guarding seems too paranoid to me. Unless she is locked in your cellar she will find a way to cheat IF she wants to.

I go to movies with my women friends. I even stay the night (spare bed). She also knows that I could cheat IF I wanted to and that a f-ck is only a phonecall away. Takes a little bit of trust.

Mate guarding is not confidence and reinforces that you are low value. She also knows I am not afraid to end it if she is pisses me off.

I still have values and boundaries, but they are not driven by insecurity.

Boundaries, if properly utilized, are not to mate guard, but rather to inform. Just as I would inform you now that sleeping at a girl's house while you have a gf is not appropriate behavior in exclusive relations, IMO. You would not understand that such was one of my boundaries unless I informed you accordingly.

 

[daddymonsterpoodle]

Well put and absolutely fair enough. It seems to work for me and my partner. May not work for everybody.
If my gf started smoking it would be over but that is ok for some people and they even find it sexy. Different strokes I guess.

 

[oOh Nasty]

If a girlfriend wants to go out with her ex alone, and she relents because you enforce a boundary, would you be satisfied at that?

I wouldn't.



It is mate-guarding. Let's call a spade, a spade.

You don't have to inform a suitably interested woman not to do ridiculous things.

A woman engaging in some of these examples is either a complete moron, or she is losing interest.

Edit: I should indicate that I believe boundaries to be more about ourselves (what we will, or won't tolerate), than to be about trying to control other people.

True. I think most women are intuitive enough to know what your reasonable boundaries are. If a chick I'm "exclusive" with suddenly asks if she can go hang out with an ex-boyfriend, I'd see it as some kind of sh*t test more than anything. If she's actually being serious, then I'd laugh at how dumb I've been for not realizing what I got into.

In any case, my response would be something along the lines of: "Have fun." At that point, she'll know she was demoted to plate status. Sure, we'll still f*ck and go on dates, but she won't be the only one anymore.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

You don't have to inform a suitably interested woman not to do ridiculous things.

You inform her of your boundaries. You don't need to overtly tell her not to do or to do anything, as implicit in your informing her is the understanding that if she violates your expectations, she is out.

A woman engaging in some of these examples is either a complete moron, or she is losing interest.

Some women are more conservative, promiscuous, liberal, religious, indoctrinated than others. There are social, cultural, genetic, and nuanced disparities among women. To think that every woman has the same level of conditioning and experiences, whereas all women think identically is inexperienced, juvenile--and quite idiotic--thinking.

 

[daddymonsterpoodle]

If you have to explicitly tell your GF that you don't want her sleeping with other men then you are the moron not her, because she is playing you.
"oops, I tripped and fell on his penis"
"he was so sexy I couldn't help myself. ""it didn't mean anything"
"we didn't have sex. We just masturbated near each other/ate each out"

If you are not mate guarding or setting boundaries because you are worried she will sleep with someone else then why are you setting them? Don't you trust her? If you don't trust her why are you in a relationship with her? Maybe she is not the right one for you.

How far are you willing to go. There are men that beat their wives but still get cheated on. There are people living in very strict orthodox communities where adultery is punishable by being stoned to death yet men and women still commit adultery.

If my gf said I couldn't talk to any women including ex girlfriends we would be over and I would expect the same from her.

I could get a lay from someone else any time I wanted but you know what, I just don't want to because I like and value the woman I am seeing now. I hope my gf feels the same. We are adults. We know what behaviors are ok and what aren't FOR US.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

That doesn't address desire.

You sound like Rollo. Another indoctrinated RM member??

Frankly, I care not about her desire. I care only about my expectations and clarity of those expectations.

To think that any adult human doesn't understand that doing these things is improper whilst in an exclusive relationship is deluding yourself.

Many women believe having male friends is proper in exclusive relations. I don't. What happens to your absolute here?

The truth is guys that find themselves keep 'enforcing boundaries' care more for the relationship than the woman does.

Show me how "informing boundaries" relates to "emotional investment." I'm waiting.

If my gf said I couldn't talk to any women including ex girlfriends we would be over and I would expect the same from her.

In the plate phase, I have always communicated in passing, "Any girl who keeps in contact with her exes is not LTR material for me." Never had an issue. I expressed what my criteria was for an LTR, if I ever elected to engage in one with her. She either is LTR material or not, according to how her behavior ensues. Notice, I didn't say "You must drop communications with your exes." If after my boundary, she communicates with her exes, then she remains a plate. If she drops her exes and she requests exclusivity (and I want exclusivity), then she is granted passage. Simple.

If you are not mate guarding or setting boundaries because you are worried she will sleep with someone else then why are you setting them? Don't you trust her? If you don't trust her why are you in a relationship with her? Maybe she is not the right one for you.

I trust no one. And I would encourage you to do the same.

I set boundaries to set awareness of the ground rules of exclusivity. For example, with my current gf, ALL her gfs take vacations without their bfs. Such behavior is considered normal within their circle. I made it clear at the beginning of the relation, such types of woman are not LTR material for me. Never had the question of taking a vacation with her gfs ever arisen. Did I suppress her desire to vacation with her gfs? Possibly. But who cares. I suppress my desire everyday to go fvck all the hot women I am surrounded by. In any exclusive relation, compromise of desire by each party is a given.

Now let me ask you a question, would you allow your exclusive gf to take a vaca with her gf? If yes, then,

Would you allow your exclusive gf to take a vaca with her male friend? If yes, then,

Would you allow your exclusive gf to take a vaca with her male friend and sleep in the same bed ? If yes, then,

Would you allow your exclusive gf to take a vaca with her male friend and sleep in the same bed and suck his c0ck? ...

Somewhere along this rainbow of possibilities, you will draw a line.

Boundaries are there to make that line unequivocally clear. Converse to what Deesade said above, the "line" is not common knowledge, and differs materially based on past, experiential, cultural, societal, and media influences (see vacations with gfs above).

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

You care not to read the situation for what it is then. Indulging in ignorance.

Your "expectations" serve only to browbash a woman into a relationship frame.

Non-sequitur. This makes absolutely no sense. Explain exactly how communication of your boundaries browbeats a woman into exclusive relations.

Why is there such a desperate need to have exclusive relations in the first place?

Non-sequitur. How does expressing my LTR expectation in an LTR or LTR prompted request (by her) mean I possess desperate need for LTR? Again, you are not making sense.

Girl is living a carefree lifestyle from abundance.

Ok.

Guy is setting out rules, and trying to control her, because he wants a girlfriend.

Stop here. Desire for LTR has no correlation to setting boundaries. Your conclusion, for the third time, does not follow from your premise.

NEWSFLASH PAL. In any exclusive relation, there is an implicit dynamic of control upon both parties. The very nature of exclusivity means you and she are both not fvcking others, so by this fact alone, you and she are both controlling each other by suppression of outside parties.

To think that an implicit level of control could not exist in any LTR demonstrates your naivety.

That bullsh*t comes from need. To argue otherwise is delusional.

Try leading your premises organically to a conclusion with examples to avoid these non-sequitur parroted fallacies.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Deesade, all you wrote except for the counter below is nonsensical drivel in an attempted subterfuge, as you have no logical counter because your original assertion has no legs.

I will address the following in a few words, as it is a real argument.

The difference between us seems to start at our basic expectations for etiquette.

I expect that a woman know she shouldn't do outrageous things such as go sleep out someone with other men. Or go meet up with an ex-boyfriend.

The argument of boundaries holds no relevance to universal understandings or etiquette such as remaining faithful, as exclusivity means no other partners. Accordingly, explaining that you and she shall have no other partners during exclusivity is a frivolous exercise and is not to be confused with what "communicating boundaries" mean.

Boundaries deal with behavior that she is otherwise conditioned to feel as acceptable as her previous experiences, conditions, and dealings deem such behavior as appropriate.

Examples

1. Male Friends;

2. Vacation(s) with her gfs alone;

3. Communications with her male coworker (outside of work);

4. GNOs. How many are appropriate?

Respond to the subject matter.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

I should indicate that I believe boundaries to be more about ourselves (what we will, or won't tolerate), than to be about trying to control other people.

Boundaries can ONLY be about ourselves. Ever. This is what I tolerate this is what I don't tolerate. Are you in or out? Her actions answer the question, your job to interpret and respond accordingly, usually fairly simply.

If you find no girls fit your boundaries there're only two reason:

1) Your boundaries are inappropriately severe

2) Your value is too low

Luckily, both are in your control.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

How can you not see that taking a woman who's interest is middling, and imposing boundaries upon her until she submits to the particular relationship that you want isn't indicative of you needing that particular relationship?

1) You assume that the woman’s IL is middling;

2) You assume that you “impose” a boundary until she submits to your request.

Both assumptions are incorrect.

What is correct:

1) Discussions of LTR expectations are made upon a woman who is LTR worthy. One requirement of LTR worthiness is high IL in you;

2) You don’t communicate a boundary to make her submit. You do communicate your boundary to bring her awareness to what you deem as appropriate behavior, whereas to see if are LTR compatible.

Example during the plate-phase:

Her: My gfs Victoria and Suzie went to party in Vegas this week.

You: Nice. How do their bfs feel about that?

Her: They’re fine.

You: <Chuckle>

Her: Why?

You: No gf of mine is vacationing to Vegas without me.

To be clear in this example. You and she are not exclusive. In accordance with her (and her friends') conditioning, she and her friends believe it appropriate to vacation in Vegas without their bfs (and their bfs have no balls and thus tight-lipped). You made it clear that such behavior in exclusive relations is not LTR acceptable to you.

Now she knows, if she ever wanted exclusivity with you, vacations with her gfs are out of the question.

Simple.

Click to expand...

No, let's flip the script.

Would the woman be okay with everything in reverse? Would she be okay with you going to the club all the time? Would she be okay with you going out with girls from work? etc etc.

Many women are fine with my going out with my buddies and one ex was fine with happy-hour outings with female coworkers. The question if such behavior was fine is, how often was deemed acceptable? Once a year, once a month, every week, every night?

Relationships work best when the woman is nagging the man. She should be imposing her boundaries.

Agreed.

LTR's are a woman's game/frame. If you want it more than she does, you are fvcked.

Agreed.

 

[zekko]

Regarding opposite sex friends within the context of exclusive relationships:

I've noticed that sometimes, a women will say opposite sex friends are okay because they think they have to - they think that YOU will want the freedom to hang out with female friends. They may actually have reservations about this, but feel under pressure from society to view these interactions as appropriate, or else be seen as a jealous shrew. They want to make a good impression. Maybe they've had boyfriends in the past who insisted on spending time with their female friends, and think this is the norm. This type of woman is only too happy to embrace the idea that such interactions are inappropriate within an exclusive relationship.

On the other hand, I've known many couples where both spend time with their opposite sex friends and think it's just fine. So it really is up to the individual to decide what is right for them. If you have to force a philosophy on them, obviously they're not a good match.

 

[SkrooU]

NEWSFLASH PAL. In any exclusive relation, there is an implicit dynamic of control upon both parties. The very nature of exclusivity means you and she are both not fvcking others, so by this fact alone, you and she are both controlling each other by suppression of outside parties.
To think that an implicit level of control could not exist in any LTR demonstrates your naivety.
.

I agree with most of what you've said elsewhere on this thread. But this quote here I think is about something I struggled with for a long time when dealing with relationship problems. It wasn't until I let go of the idea of implicit control that I was able to pursue better relationships and better happiness within myself.

People shouldn't be together because they want to control the other person. People are generally in a relationship because they just don't want to be with other people. Ideally, this happens when people realize they have compatible ways of showing they value the relationship and their partner. This allows the partners to trust each other and feel free to live and grow as a team while respected and valued. The boundaries are for yourself, and they're in place to allow yourself to feel valued and respected. You enforce the boundary by freeing yourself from something that is not right for you; for example, by ending the relationship. This shows respect not only for yourself, but also your ex partner because you're allowing them to live freely with the boundaries they have for themselves. You communicate the breakup this way too, rather than saying you are punishing the person. Sometimes when you enforce the boundary for yourself, you make the other person realize they actually do see value in the boundary you have for yourself. It's then up to you whether you reconcile and try again.

And as you have said, L_E_G_E_N_D, you communicate the boundaries for yourself while in the screening phase. So she should already know them. And if you know she doesn't share them, then you'd be a fool to enter into a relationship with her. It shows her you are weak and already disrespecting yourself by not enforcing the boundaries you have for yourself. And any attempt to change her mind will end in failure. At that point, she is trying to change you too, and you are obviously not compatible and now in an unhealthy relationship that has a power struggle. This is the reason for most breakups, whether it's about opposite sex friendships, money, or whatever. At some point, someone didn't stay true to a a boundary they had for themselves and/or it was never communicated before the relationship became exclusive.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

SkrooU, I agree with all you wrote except I did not state that a relationship or boundaries are about control or imposing control. I did state that in an exclusive relationship, there is an implicit dynamic of control, whereas YOU cannot have other sexual partners, and neither can she.

When, we as men, enter exclusive relations, we are controlled by virtue of, and insofar as, suppressing our biological urge to fvck other hot women. No matter how we paint it, there are degrees of compromise and control in any relation, although maybe not intended.