A girl's perspective on boundaries

[jurry]

Tarantula swooping in with some searing analysis:

Have you removed calling your exclusive relationship exclusive?

You leave your value entirely up to the woman's perception of your so-called value.

Lol wtf does that even mean? Are you on meth bro?

Sooli puts it as concise and clear as it can possibly be:

When she is showing you with her own actions already there is no need to set a boundary cause it is obvious she understands and knows what she wants.

When she has other guys still hanging around odds are she is still going to have those guys cause she wants them. That's why you don't become exclusive with them until she makes an effort to get rid of them. That is her showing you through her own actions.

Very difficult concepts to grasp apparently..

 

[Atom Smasher]

The big question I have is why a handful of guys care sooooooooo much! Who on earth has the time to debate this kind of thing in such fine detail? Why do people need to "prove" that they are right?

Uncontrolled EGO!

I've said my piece and let it go. Why should I perceive a need to convince anyone of my position? There are a couple of guys in these threads who are noticeably upset and angry. WTF?

Big boys say their piece, engage in some useful (and hopefully respectful) dialog and debate, and then go live their lives. To be so emotionally wrought-up in this disagreement reveals volumes about the ones making their points.

There are two kinds of men... those who argue with detachment about the outcome (and there have been some of those here) and those who come off as intensely angry and emotionally invested.

This subject seems to be as "earth shattering" as the great "Looks Don't Matter" wars of a few years ago. It was funny to see guys raging about how "looks don't matter".

I guess it's just human nature, but isn't it true that one reason this site exists is to make balanced men out of us? One of the loudest tells of a weak man is one who is emotionally invested in anything and who stoops to insulting others. The whole "Alpha" thing involves being emotionally detached, exhibiting a strong frame, and living with an internal locus of control, which evokes non-reactiveness.

Interestingly, me and another mod don't always see eye to eye, but we have developed a mutual respect for each other. He says his piece, I say mine, and we leave it alone and we work just fine together. I respect him for disagreeing and then moving on.

A lot of these disagreements involve semantics and writing style, I'm sure, but even when it comes to fundamental underlying ideas and life paradigms, it's a good idea for us as men to show class in our disagreements. There's nothing wrong with some heated debate, but threads like these reveal some serious loss of internal control.

I submit that we all examine what motivates us to invest ourselves so deeply in trying to convince others of our beliefs. When it comes to severe anger, labeling, name-calling, it's out of control IMO and it clearly shows weakness.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled war...

 

[TarantulaHawk]

Tarantula swooping in with some searing analysis:



Lol wtf does that even mean? Are you on meth bro?

Sooli puts it as concise and clear as it can possibly be:



Very difficult concepts to grasp apparently..

Apparently they are for you.

You let the woman determine your value on what you think she will or won't do in regards to boundaries or lack thereof. Therefore she controls you and your value. She wears the pants in your exclusive relationship. You have no say as to your own value in your exclusive relationship as it's all left to how she perceives you based on what you claim she is going to do or not do. You leave everything up to her like a neutered man who's value is solely based on her perception and not on his own internal value.

I've said my piece and let it go. Why should I perceive a need to convince anyone of my position? There are a couple of guys in these threads who are noticeably upset and angry. WTF?

Big boys say their piece, engage in some useful (and hopefully respectful) dialog and debate, and then go live their lives. To be so emotionally wrought-up in this disagreement reveals volumes about the ones making their points.

There are two kinds of men... those who argue with detachment about the outcome (and there have been some of those here) and those who come off as intensely angry and emotionally invested.

:crackup:

Apparently Peaks is emotionally invested since his reply was a crackup emoticon and gave me a neg rep. LMAO

 

[Soolaimon]

Hilarious!

Here we go with more projection again. It never fails from the boundary crew.

Have some self-respect Sooli and don't rely on a woman to determine your value based off what you think she's going to do or not do regardless.

I do have self respect.

That's why I don't commit to crap women like you and the rest of the crew do.

You guys define terms upon her request not taking into consideration to screen her making sure she is a quality candidate beforehand. You guys don't have the value to decline requests from unqualified women to become a girlfriend.

You guys automatically define terms expecting women to behave how you feel they should when they haven't shown you through action that they are worthy.

If the women aren't willing to put forth any effort into becoming exclusive then you have no value and those women aren't worth being with.

Want to know why? Cause you guys are doing all the work for the women and that's what betas do. That's why you guys are so easy manipulated by women when the $hit hits the fan when your relationship starts to crumble. Then they discard you without any remorse.

Men of value always do less cause they can. That is what you should be doing. Less.

If she wants you that bad then make her earn it through her own actions. Women will do anything to get what they want when they want it bad enough.

Not you trying to qualify yourself as a better man to her (than her orbiters and other men of value) through useless boundaries she can disregard anytime she wants.

Betas and men of less value worry about what the woman does (and might never do) and always puts in more work into the relationship.

The woman should be showing you she is worthy to be with you if you had any value.

Not you guys trying to show her that you are more worthy than her other men she refuses to give up cause you don't have value.

That is pathetic!

You leave your value entirely up to the woman's perception of your so-called value.

Isn't that what you and your boundary crew does when you're defining your terms and explaining your expectations to her hoping she will follow?

You define your terms and explain your expectations out of insecurity to the woman.

You then leave your value entirely up to the woman's perception of your so-called value to follow the boundary terms you set forth.

If she doesn't follow your terms and expectations your boundary is broken and the relationship is a bust just like your previous relationships.

Too hard to understand?

The big question I have is why a handful of guys care sooooooooo much! Who on earth has the time to debate this kind of thing in such fine detail? Why do people need to "prove" that they are right?

Isn't the point of this forum to teach men what is correct for relationships?

That 's what I'm doing.

The boundary guys will never admit they their concept is flawed but at least people who read the threads will learn something.

This is common sense but boundary guys can't see it and refuse to admit it.

I only post here a couple of times a month so it's no big deal.

The rest of the boundary guys are on here all the time arguing their nonsense with thousands of posts.

Tarantula swooping in with some searing analysis:

Lol wtf does that even mean? Are you on meth bro?

Sooli puts it as concise and clear as it can possibly be:

Very difficult concepts to grasp apparently..

Everything I write is detailed so I can get these guys to understand.

Still they refuse to see it for what it is. Crazy!

Tarantula like the others write a bunch of nonsense and contradict themselves trying to look correct but it makes them look even worse.

You can't help but shake your head and laugh at these guys.

 

[jurry]

You're right atom. We've gone on for far too long with it, agree to disagree. Unfortunately it is fairly polarizing subject and seems to come up a lot, but im done with it.

Whosoever names the unutterable "B" word from here on out shall be tarred and feathered.

 

[TarantulaHawk]

Hilarious!

Here we go with more projection again. It never fails from the boundary crew.






I do have self respect.

That's why I don't commit to crap women like you and the rest of the crew do.

You guys define terms upon her request not taking into consideration to screen her making sure she is a quality candidate beforehand. You guys don't have the value to decline requests from unqualified women to become a girlfriend.

You guys automatically define terms expecting women to behave how you feel they should when they haven't shown you through action that they are worthy.

If the women aren't willing to put forth any effort into becoming exclusive then you have no value and those women aren't worth being with.

Want to know why? Cause you guys are doing all the work for the women and that's what betas do. That's why you guys are so easy manipulated by women when the $hit hits the fan when your relationship starts to crumble. Then they discard you without any remorse.

Men of value always do less cause they can. That is what you should be doing. Less.

If she wants you that bad then make her earn it through her own actions. Women will do anything to get what they want when they want it bad enough.

Not you trying to qualify yourself as a better man to her (than her orbiters and other men of value) through useless boundaries she can disregard anytime she wants.

Betas and men of less value worry about what the woman does (and might never do) and always puts in more work into the relationship.

The woman should be showing you she is worthy to be with you if you had any value.

Not you guys trying to show her that you are more worthy than her other men she refuses to give up cause you don't have value.

That is pathetic!






Isn't that what you and your boundary crew does when you're defining your terms and explaining your expectations to her hoping she will follow?

You define your terms and explain your expectations out of insecurity to the woman.

You then leave your value entirely up to the woman's perception of your so-called value to follow the boundary terms you set forth.

If she doesn't follow your terms and expectations your boundary is broken and the relationship is a bust just like your previous relationships.

Too hard to understand?





Isn't the point of this forum to teach men what is correct for relationships?

That 's what I'm doing.

The boundary guys will never admit they their concept is flawed but at least people who read the threads will learn something.

This is common sense but boundary guys can't see it and refuse to admit it.

I only post here a couple of times a month so it's no big deal.

The rest of the boundary guys are on here all the time arguing their nonsense with thousands of posts.





Everything I write is detailed so I can get these guys to understand.

Still they refuse to see it for what it is. Crazy!

Tarantula like the others write a bunch of nonsense and contradict themselves trying to look correct but it makes them look even worse.

You can't help but shake your head and laugh at these guys.

Surely you've dumped a girl before sooli from your multiple high value exclusive no boundaries relationships. Or do you passively leave that up to them too?

 

[zekko]

I submit that we all examine what motivates us to invest ourselves so deeply in trying to convince others of our beliefs.

Woohoo, 16 pages!
Speaking for myself, I am not really interested in convincing the other side to convert. Rather, I have always been active in these threads because I think it is important that the younger guys reading the board know that they have options, and that there is more than one way to look at this topic.

Because when I was a young man, I thought there was only one viewpoint, the feminist "You go girl, you do whatever you want, no man can tell you what to do, you keep all the male friends you want" viewpoint. That may even be a good mindset for the youngest fellows on here, but as you get older it becomes lame. If nothing else, there's light at the end of the tunnel.

Bottom line: I have no use for female friends, unless they are "with benefits". If I give up my plates, she can give up her orbiters.

 

[Peña]

the feminist "You go girl, you do whatever you want, no man can tell you what to do, you keep all the male friends you want" viewpoint.

No one ever said that. Who said that?

 

[Starwolf]

i didn't read all the posts.. i did read the last 2 pages.

And to be honest I have to agree with the anti-boundaries group.

I have had gf's where setting boundaries never crossed my mind. The girl was so invested in me. For her the thought of being with any other guy was a complete turn off. All she wanted was me.

I bet a lot of the anti-boundary guys must have been in a similar position.

I have also been in relationships where the power of control was somewhat equal. you feel it instantly and you start to worry when she wants to go out or whatever. You tend to want to set rules or get into discussions about it.

so yes..boundaries do come from a position where you do not feel as strong as you would like to be.

This could be a good indicator of your position in a relationship. and a good reason to walk away when u see the need for boundaries comming up.

Go for the relationships where you are in full control. These types of relationships are ZEN like. granted there could be some clingyness or jealousy from her end.

but i'll take that over having to worry if some dude is going Balls Deep in your girl when you are not around

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

i didn't read all the posts.. i did read the last 2 pages.

And to be honest I have to agree with the anti-boundaries group.

I have had gf's where setting boundaries never crossed my mind. The girl was so invested in me. For her the thought of being with any other guy was a complete turn off. All she wanted was me.

I bet a lot of the anti-boundary guys must have been in a similar position.

I have also been in relationships where the power of control was somewhat equal. you feel it instantly and you start to worry when she wants to go out or whatever. You tend to want to set rules or get into discussions about it.

so yes..boundaries do come from a position where you do not feel as strong as you would like to be.

This could be a good indicator of your position in a relationship. and a good reason to walk away when u see the need for boundaries comming up.

Go for the relationships where you are in full control. These types of relationships are ZEN like. granted there could be some clingyness or jealousy from her end.

but i'll take that over having to worry if some dude is going Balls Deep in your girl when you are not around

Very simple concept.

It's not that you're trying to be a 'cool boyfriend' by not setting boundaries, it's that you feel absolutely no need to set them. To a point where it would be ridiculous to do so.

It would be like telling a woman you feel she should only drive around her new Mercedes that she loves, and not the old Camry that been untouched behind the barn for the last three months.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

have fun with your "hot" unicorn GFs lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EwcYwax4Oo

 

[guru1000]

It's a discussion for dummies. Except for Peak, all the "anti-boundary-ers" admit using, and the utility for, overt boundaries, and yet are still debating boundaries?

Qualify the debate: It's not, nor was it ever, about boundaries. It's whether to overtly discuss male orbiters with your gf? That's it. And as I wouldn't entertain an exclusive relation with a girl who had male orbiters to begin with, what does that make me, an "anti-boundary-er"? LOL. This is laughable.

 

[TarantulaHawk]

Nobody, not ONE person is saying to set this kind of boundary mid relationship.

NOT. ONE.

In fact, it is agreed by all to not do this.

But that does not stop the anti-boundary group (who still sets boundaries), from rallying around this strawman as starwolf and now peaks have just done.

Meanwhile, when the anti-boundary crew (who still sets boundaries) are asked how a woman is to know what is expected of her when even we here cannot agree on what exclusivity means.....

....crickets. Not one answer.

Nor is there an answer to why the anti-boundary crew (who set boundaries) would go exclusive (a boundary), when she will just do as she wishes and that exclusivity boundary is useless anyways.

Nor can they explain their conflicted statements where the anti-boundary crew (who set boundaries) say you can trust her to hang out with other men....but no wait, she will do what she wants and will cheat on you so boundaries are useless...so you can't trust her.

Or my personal favorite.....Boundaries are ok, but only the hanging out with other men boundary is taboo....because insecurity, controlling, she already knows its unacceptable, you should trust her, etc,.... other endless conflicting reasons.


The story always changes to fit their narrative, but as in any false narrative under scrutiny, the cracks get exposed and silence greets those who bring light to the subject and ask tough questions.

Will nobody from the anti-boundary group (who still set boundaries and enter exclusive relationships) address these questions? Or will they remain forever ignored, relegated to the position of elephant in the room?

We shall see.

I'm wondering if these anti-boundary dudes have ever had to dump their high quality women before and why? Or are they in exclusive LTRs with one high quality woman for life? If they are so high value themselves then surely they've dated multiple high value women and broke up with them for some reason (since of course they'd have to be the one's doing the dumping as she wouldn't DARE dump these high value men) or they've been in relationships with only ONE high value women their entire lives..

I mean if they're so "high value" surely they either have had several high value women they were exclusive with then broke up for some reason and it surely cannot be the woman's fault as she would see them as soo high value she'd never leave them...or again are they in high value exclusive relationships with one woman for life?

Either way they are in a boundary of a one woman relationship for life. Or they dumped a high value woman for some boundary breaking reason instead of her "just knowing"?

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Nobody, not ONE person is saying to set this kind of boundary mid relationship.

NOT. ONE.

In fact, it is agreed by all to not do this.

Can you explain this then, maybe I mis-interpreted:

Timely, just set these boundaries today:

........

Pairs
I am a somewhat attractive man with numerous options when it comes to women. I enjoy exercising those options and I don't mind being single. Even though I am more than willing to sacrifice that for you, if I feel like you are not making an equal sacrifice. An equal sacrifice is not doing anything that - as we lawyers call it - gives the appearance of impropriety. Platonic dating other men, namely. Communicating with exes. Etc. Etc. The Golden Rule. In return I can make an equal sacrifice.

But that does not stop the anti-boundary group (who still sets boundaries), from rallying around this strawman as starwolf and now peaks have just done.

Forgetting about the quote above, the point is, he only felt the NEED to set boundaries, once he could feel her eyes wandering. In this instance, the 'when' is irrelevant. Women can wander at any stage of the relationship. It's about feeling the NEED to set them.

Meanwhile, when the anti-boundary crew (who still sets boundaries) are asked how a woman is to know what is expected of her when even we here cannot agree on what exclusivity means.....

....crickets. Not one answer.

Myself, and others, have answered this a plethora of times. Women/humans have NATURAL survival instincts. They KNOW. There may be some guiding or teaching involved, of course, but when it come to matters of the heart, unless they're damaged goods, they KNOW.

Do you realize some animals mate for life? How do the do this? Do they sit down and have a discussion beforehand on what's expected of each other? No, it's called instincts. Biology.

Nor is there an answer to why the anti-boundary crew (who set boundaries) would go exclusive (a boundary), when she will just do as she wishes and that exclusivity boundary is useless anyways.

It's funny you bring this up. I mentioned this before in another thread, like a marriage, it's just a title. The title has some weight, but it's not nearly as strong as the feelz and emotions: http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2232784&postcount=5

In my case, I guide, lead, but never forbid. I give her just enough rope to hang herself. If she can survive on her own, without me helicoptering around her, then I will accept her into my life.

Nor can they explain their conflicted statements where the anti-boundary crew (who set boundaries) say you can trust her to hang out with other men....but no wait, she will do what she wants and will cheat on you so boundaries are useless...so you can't trust her.

That's the point. You start with the trust, and the faith. That's how the foundation is laid. Then it's up to HER to break that foundation. She is responsible, it's on her.

Or my personal favorite.....Boundaries are ok, but only the hanging out with other men boundary is taboo....because insecurity, controlling, she already knows its unacceptable, you should trust her, etc,.... other endless conflicting reasons.

There is a big difference between not letting her smoke in your car, telling her what your favorite meal is, what you like to do, your interests.....and telling her who she can and cannot hang around with.

BIG difference. One you can more or less control, one you really can't, therefore she is ultimately in control.

The story always changes to fit their narrative, but as in any false narrative under scrutiny, the cracks get exposed and silence greets those who bring light to the subject and ask tough questions.

Will nobody from the anti-boundary group (who still set boundaries and enter exclusive relationships) address these questions? Or will they remain forever ignored, relegated to the position of elephant in the room?

We shall see.

Addressed.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Pretty pathetic to willfully quote out of context where its PRE relationship and SHE pushed for exclusivity...me saying feel in that context is preceded by IF...a conditional not a statement of fact...pretty desperate.

She wants exclusivity while still wanting to hang out with other dudes?

Do you read and understand anything?

You're a lawyer, and by your own admission, good looking, right?

Perfect beta simp to have on her arm, while she secretly bangs Alpha's on the side. Your 'boundaries' are a false sense of security. In the long run they are meaningless. You, again by your own admission, believe that most/all women cheat. Why are you constantly repeating the same faulty actions over and over?

You are the poster child for non-boundaries.

 

[TarantulaHawk]

You purposefully quoted only part of his statement in order to misrepresent him. Context is everything.

Shame on you for that attempt at deceit.

Inb4 Sooli joins ranting, misinterpreting, attempting to spin, misrepresenting, contrarian trolling, and building not only straw men but in his case straw villages.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

You purposefully quoted only part of his statement in order to misrepresent him.

Are you serious?

Any little respect I had left for YOU is gone.



I'll respond to the rest in the morning.

 

[Soolaimon]

Nobody, not ONE person is saying to set this kind of boundary mid relationship.

NOT. ONE.

In fact, it is agreed by all to not do this.

But that does not stop the anti-boundary group (who still sets boundaries), from rallying around this strawman as starwolf and now peaks have just done.

As usual Danger and his boundary crew claims "straw man" when they have nothing valid to say.

Weak insecure men set boundaries out of fear either before or during the relationship cause they are scared of losing the woman to other men. That is a FACT.

When the guy is scared of losing her mid relationship he will set a boundary. Just as he is scared setting a boundary before the relationship with the fear of getting cheated on mid relationship.

That is the reason for your boundary. FEAR. But there is no guarantee that she will follow your verbal boundary. It's just a formality that she can easily ignore after your words were spoken. So why make a big deal out of it when you claim you only tell her "once"?

When you have value and a woman that respects you there is no need to set a boundary out of fear.

A relationship boundary is useless to set at anytime unless the woman is willing to follow it.

Just cause you "define terms" to her or expect her to behave a certain way does not mean that she will do that for you when she does not want to.

Parents expect their daughters to "follow their terms". Not all daughters will follow their parents terms. Some daughters will break their parents terms right in front of the parents or will do it when the parents aren't around. These women have the experience of breaking boundaries with ease and you beta boundary guys think that women will do what you "expect" as long as you "define terms" to them. How stupid can you be?

That is not "straw man" as you guys claim. It is simple common sense. But you idiots claim that cause you can't admit your useless position is wrong with your fragile minds.

Meanwhile, when the anti-boundary crew (who still sets boundaries) are asked how a woman is to know what is expected of her when even we here cannot agree on what exclusivity means.....

....crickets. Not one answer.

You boundary guys sure know how to lie and make up stuff. Amazing!

If you and your boundary crew paid attention to the posts instead of making sh1t up to fit your bogus boundary argument you would know this has been addressed MANY TIMES.

You're the main reason why these threads go double digits pages cause you are incapable of comprehending common sense.

Let me put this in red so you can see it clearly. Read it many times so it can finally sink into your head. Then you won't have to argue your bogus boundary claims anymore.


It does not matter what you "expect" of a woman. Can't you understand that?

Just cause you tell a woman that you "expect her" to behave a certain way or do certain things that does not mean she is going to do what you expect of her unless she wants to do it.

Why after all this time can't you and the rest understand that? How stupid can you be?

Look at all your failed relationships and the rest boundary crew's. You all defined terms to your former women and informed them what you expected of them. Those women didn't care what your expectations were when they broke your boundaries with ease. They all had the free will to do as they chose breaking your boundaries. But you guys claim "straw man" on that when your own real life relationships failed with boundaries right before your very eyes. How can you argue against something that happened to you? Crazy!

When a woman does not respect you or feel you are of value she isn't going to do $h!t for you no matter if you "define terms" or demand certain expectations from her. That makes your boundary useless. What about that can't you understand?

When a woman is showing you through her own ACTIONS by getting rid of jokers she doesn't need she is TELLING YOU that she knows what exclusivity means.

Therefore you don't need to set any boundaries.

When your woman is preparing dinner for you do you need to explain to her she needs prepare dinner or can you see she is already doing what is expected of her with her own actions?

Nor is there an answer to why theu would go exclusive (a boundary), when she will just do as she wishes and that exclusivity boundary is useless anyways.

This is a direct contradiction to your latter boundary claim that you changed.

Basically you are saying here that your boundary is used to control your woman that you earlier denied.

Every woman has the ability to do as she wishes unless she is being controlled or manipulated by you.

Your last contradictory boundary claim was that "you define your terms and expectations to her only once" and then she is free to do as she wishes.

So which is it? Since you now disagree that a woman can do as she wishes.

Is your woman free do as she wishes when she gets out of bed each day or does she need to have your permission until she can do anything or go anywhere?

Can she go to the store shopping alone or do you have to go tagging along to keep tabs on her to make sure she is following your boundary?

Got an answer for that?

Nor can they explain their conflicted statements where they say you can trust her to hang out with other men....but no wait, she will do what she wants and will cheat on you so boundaries are useless...so you can't trust her.

Or my personal favorite.....Boundaries are ok, but only the hanging out with other men boundary is taboo....because insecurity, controlling, she already knows its unacceptable, you should trust her, etc,.... other endless conflicting reasons.

LOL. This is a bunch of crap and you're making things up again. You're the King of confliction. Should we post all your quoted conflicting contradictory comments you made so you can read them again?

Nobody has said any of this. You're distorting what we said to fit your crap argument.

Women have free will to do what they want unless they are being controlled . Are you going to deny that?

Is a woman going to have sex with a guy she isn't attracted to?

A woman is only going to be faithful unless she respects you. She will cheat on you when she no longer respects you with or without a boundary. Setting a boundary makes no difference with your relationship. We all have said that but you lie and distort what we say to fit your bullsh!t claims.


Boundary with a respectful woman = Her not cheating
Boundary with a disrespectful woman = Her cheating


No boundary with a respectful woman = Her not cheating
No boundary with a disrespectful woman = Her cheating


In both cases with or without a boundary the respectful woman does not cheat.

In both cases with or without a boundary the disrespectful woman cheats.

With the respectful woman no boundary is needed cause she won't cheat.

With the disrespectful woman the boundary is useless and a waste of time cause the woman is going to cheat regardless.



That makes the entire concept of the boundary pointless since respectful women won't cheat and disrespectful women will. That will happen no matter if you set a boundary or not.

This is what I and others have said from the get go that these boundary crew fools constantly claim as "straw man"

It's simple common sense that they can't comprehend or refuse to admit.

The story always changes to fit their narrative, but as in any false narrative under scrutiny, the cracks get exposed and silence greets those who bring light to the subject and ask tough questions.

More lies and projection. Your story changes with each post you type and your crap argument was exposed many threads ago cause you have no argument. Only distortions, contradictions, lies, and projections is what you can type in order to save face.

Everybody can see it cause you 5 or 6 guys refuse to admit your argument is crap especially since your boundaries failed you in previous relationships. None of you guys have an answer for that.



Here's some questions I know you won't answer from this boundary example.


The man defines his boundary terms to the woman and she agrees to them. Later on she hangs out with some guy after she knew the terms cause she wants to. The man has no idea that she broke the boundary but he still thinks she is following his terms.



What did setting a boundary do any differently than not setting a boundary?

Did this woman still hang out with another guy after exclusivity terms were defined to her?

Did she care that she was informed what exclusive meant?

Did the boundary stop her from hanging out with another guy?

Wouldn't the same thing happen if no boundary was set with her?

Did this women have the free will to do as she wishes?

Did she care about the verbal boundary that was set?

Wasn't the boundary useless and a waste of time after she broke it with ease?

Don't you think boundaries only work when the woman is willing to follow it?

Will a woman still follow a boundary when she doesn't want to?

Why do you and others keep lying and claiming " straw man" when this is all common sense?




Don't forget to claim "straw man" for simple common sense to save face cause your boundary argument has failed! LOL

 

[zekko]

boundaries do come from a position where you do not feel as strong as you would like to be.

Disagree. I wouldn't even consider entering into a relationship unless I felt extremely strong. I happen to believe that it is extremely important for the man to hold a strong frame, and that the relationship will never work otherwise. The boundary comes in because I want there to be no misunderstanding of my expectations. In other words, I'm not giving up my plates unless she gives up her orbiters.

We now know you support boundaries, the issue is clarified in that you only do NOT support the verbalizing of the hanging out with male friends boundary.

Therefore our key difference is that you believe women somehow instinctually know NOT to do this, whereas I and others believe that women have been indoctrinated and trained their whole life to think they CAN do this and thus must be instructed on the definition of exclusivity when she requests it.

Peaks is not in favor of verbalizing the "no male friends" boundary because he doesn't care if his girlfriend hangs out with male friends. He's all in favor of it, so of course he wouldn't set such a boundary. He has no interest in it.

For those of us who do NOT tolerate our women hanging out with male friends, then we might mention it.

Peaks expects the woman to "police herself" and if a guy comes around who makes her gina tingle or whatever, then he expects her not to hang out with her. If he's a weak Herbert, apparently it's okay.

Now I think that my expectation of "no hanging out with male friends one on one" is much simpler and easier for the girl to do, than to run every guy she meets through a filter and then decide if he is a threat to the relationship or not. Especially when you throw women's emotions into the mix.

It seems to me that what Peaks is expecting from the girl is much more complicated than what we expect, and he expects her to do it without him ever expressing this expectation. See, I don't think these two sides are THAT far apart, we're arguing over a line in the sand. We both agree that women spending time around men who turn her on is bad.

I just go further and and say women spending time (one on one) around ANY men is not acceptable, and disrespectful to the relationship. And I will let her know where I stand on it, since society doctrinates them that as long as you can place a "friend" label on the guy, then it's okay. Well, not for me. Since Peaks' relationships follow the doctrinated version, there's no reason for him to set the boundary. Because he finds the doctrinated version acceptable, and I do not.

*I've always liked that quote from the movie Waiting.

 

[No.Danny]

This thread needs to be closed already, been given more than enough leeway