A girl's perspective on boundaries

[mangotot]

I could understand telling the girl no to parties if he/they are religiously inclined.

 

[captain55]

People are gonna do whatever they want. Setting boundaries at the beginning is your insurance so that she knows how it goes and you have no emotional qualms about dropping her if she fails. Eventually, any woman would get caught, unless you really are that naive, in which case hopefully you'd learn.

This. Who cares if a girl cheats on you, as long as she still wants you.

As long as your not more emotionally invested in her than the other guys she is playing, they're the ones being cheated on in my mind. Never let your happiness be dictated by things completely out of your control, no man is safe from infidelity.

 

[Octogonal]

This. Who cares if a girl cheats on you, as long as she still wants you.

If she's cheating, she doesn't want you. If she wanted you, why would she cheat?

 

[captain55]

If she's cheating, she doesn't want you. If she wanted you, why would she cheat?

IDK about that, I've cheated on women I was madly in love with and thought I couldn't live without simply because the opportunity was there, most of us have. Women always got their eye out on the bigger better deal brother. If a girl is attracted to a guy and she thinks she can cheat and get away with it, she will.

 

[VikingKing]

IDK about that, I've cheated on women I was madly in love with and thought I couldn't live without simply because the opportunity was there, most of us have. Women always got their eye out on the bigger better deal brother. If a girl is attracted to a guy and she thinks she can cheat and get away with it, she will.

Men and women are different. Men can love more than one woman at a time, women can't.

 

[sylvester the cat]

Men and women are different. Men can love more than one woman at a time, women can't.

LOL. What? Where did you get this from? Any evidence to back this up?

Who cares if a girl cheats on you, as long as she still wants you.

Wtf? I don't know if it's because I had a few drinks last night or whether sosuave has just gone crazy all of a sudden. Maybe it's always been this way and I just didn't notice.

 

[Between_The_Lines]

Who cares if a girl cheats on you, as long as she still wants you.

Holy Mother of all things blue pill..

 

[jurry]

Men and women are different. Men can love more than one woman at a time, women can't.

This is a CRUCIAL point that is really at the crux of the boundary discussion in my opinion. Within my own experience and anyone I can recall, as well as on dating expert websites like chateau heartiste and in the DJ bible, this statement has been totally true, though im not sure Id use the word love.. Maybe just fvck lol.

When a woman finds the man she is looking for, that is the only one she will want. Women arent wired the same as men, they arent out looking to bang as many guys as possible. They are trying to get the highest value man to commit to them, that is their goal. Men on the other hand generally just enjoy the variety, and will cheat on their gf if the opportunity presents itself and they can get away with it (not all guys but you get my point), even if they are totally happy with their current gf.

What this means for the boundary discussion, and what me and sooli and peaks have repeatedly said, is that you WILL KNOW when you are that high value man. Women wont confuse you about this, they wont be keeping other men in the picture, going out clubbing, disrespecting you, etc. This is their biology.

What it also means is that you will know when you ARE NOT the one they want, and it is your job as a DJ to calibrate your own actions based on what a girl shows you. We've all been in the situation many times seeing the red flags and knowing something isnt quite right, shes not around much, seems distant, etc. This doesnt mean you cant date and enjoy that particular woman, it means you need to be realistic about what she is showing you and find other girls, because shes probably not that into you. This may change at another time but you can only control yourself, not her level of attraction. And the best way to raise your value in that instance is showing her you give no fvcks and can easily find another girl.

So, if she is not showing you what you need to see to be exclusive with her (in which case 99/100 she wouldnt be asking for exclusivity anyway) then you know whats up, and you act accordingly. Otherwise, she will do the things the boundary brigade wants to discuss with her ON HER OWN, making the discussion pointless. This has been my experience across the board as well as any healthy relationship I can think of with my friends or acquaintances, as well as numerous anecdotal stories on other websites and the original example from this thread.

I have yet to hear one real life example of a girl who pursued exclusivity with a high value man and then didnt understand what that meant, was out hanging with other men all the time, etc. It makes no sense biologically and is totally inconsistent with female dating psychology. The only exception I mentioned above is if you were out of her league or not interested and she tries to hook up with other guys in an attempt to make you jealous, and this will be comically obvious.

 

[zekko]

This is a CRUCIAL point that is really at the crux of the boundary discussion in my opinion. Within my own experience and anyone I can recall, as well as on dating expert websites like chateau heartiste and in the DJ bible, this statement has been totally true, though im not sure Id use the word love.. Maybe just fvck lol.

Are you really suggesting that women will not fvck more than one man at a time? Because that's what it sounds like. Anyway, I don't agree women can't love more than one guy at a time. Or, even if they do, they might love one guy for five minutes, then five minutes later be all about some other dude. Women are infamous for being fickle. I don't agree that being faithful is some intrinsic trait of the female gender, that's why the manosphere talks about hypergamy so much. Even once they find their Prince Charming, they can always be on the lookout for Prince Charminger.

I have yet to hear one real life example of a girl who pursued exclusivity with a high value man and then didnt understand what that meant, was out hanging with other men all the time, etc. It makes no sense biologically and is totally inconsistent with female dating psychology.

A friend of mine was married to this woman for 15 years, and both of them regularly saw opposite sex friends. She was constantly bringing multiple guys home from work. Similarly, my friend liked to have coffee with his exes or other women he knew. But they both hung out with opposite sex friends, she probably more so than him (let's face it, it's easier for women to pick up orbiters).

Anyway, to them, this is what they both wanted, that's how they both wanted to live their lives, so they did. I would not find that acceptable, but that's why couples have to decide for themselves what they want.

 

[jurry]

You're confusing fickleness and hypergamy prior to exclusivity for just general sluttiness. Two completely different things.

Women want a high value man. When they have found it, that is all they want to go for. When men are not that guy and she chooses another, its much easier to blame society, hypergamy, and fvcking facebook than to actually look at ourselves honestly and say ok she found someone else cool i can live with that and move on and find another girl, the same as she would if I decided im more attracted to another girl.

So rather than accept the fact that there are men in the world that your girl may be more attracted to, you want to prevent her from seeing men at all so that you wont lose her. This is basically saudi arabia-lite, and the pinnacle of beta behavior. You can call it a straw man and that you are just explaining terms so she knows what your expectations are (which is pointless since she should already be doing these things or you shouldnt be agreeing to exclusivity), but the truth is quite clear in your words.

I dont bother with any of it. I can tell based on her actions whether I am what she wants or not. If she pulls back an inch, I pull back a foot. Her interest is always going to be equal to or higher than mine or I'm pulling back and looking for new girls. Very simple.

The example you gave sounds like they are swingers and sounds like he is very weak. And presumably they both knew about this prior to "exclusivity" and knew they had similar interests.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

EDIT: Grammar

Are you really suggesting that women will not fvck more than one man at a time?

They CAN, but for the most part, they don't WANT to.

Do you guys understand this simple premise?

zekko, you have been with your woman for over 10 years, you set boundaries with her. Do you feel the only reason she hasn't cheated on you is because you set boundaries? Is this what you are saying?

Because that's what it sounds like. Anyway, I don't agree women can't love more than one guy at a time. Or, even if they do, they might love one guy for five minutes, then five minutes later be all about some other dude. Women are infamous for being fickle. I don't agree that being faithful is some intrinsic trait of the female gender, that's why the manosphere talks about hypergamy so much. Even once they find their Prince Charming, they can always be on the lookout for Prince Charminger.

That's because it's all their realtionships are bull $hit. They don't give a fvck about the guys they are with, he's just someone who may or may not make their vag tingle, and who also keeps them warm at night. These guys are just someone until someone new comes along.

BIOLOGY, DNA, NATURE. It's still there. They WILL commit for the right MAN. That's why Inner game is so important, tricks, methods, all that **** will ony get you so far. She needs to be attracted to YOU, not a persona.

A friend of mine was married to this woman for 15 years, and both of them regularly saw opposite sex friends. She was constantly bringing multiple guys home from work. Similarly, my friend liked to have coffee with his exes or other women he knew. But they both hung out with opposite sex friends, she probably more so than him (let's face it, it's easier for women to pick up orbiters).

Anyway, to them, this is what they both wanted, that's how they both wanted to live their lives, so they did. I would not find that acceptable, but that's why couples have to decide for themselves what they want.

I don't think I'd ever go this far, but who knows, I've never been married 15 years. Anyways, if this above is true, then why are you preaching to the younger guys that they need to set boundaries? If your buddy has made it 15 years in a marriage all the while both parties having opposite sex friends, why are you saying that it doesn't work, and women will cheat, or whatever.

 

[jurry]

Danger,

My personal experience as well as anyone I can think of is that women will get rid of orbiters when they become exclusive with a high value man. Men that want to fvck her that she doesnt want are not friends, those are guys trying to fvck her. If your girl is not getting rid of these people on her own then I would seriously question your filter and screening abilities.

Wouldnt you rather see for yourself that your girl doesnt keep any men around on her own ot of respect for the relationship rather than you having to tell her not to?? As ive said ten times now, if I felt I needed to tell her this, I wouldnt be agreeing to exclusivity.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

LOL, I saw your response above jurry (which I fully endorse), and I knew immediately what Danger's response was going to be.

So you would expect her to drop the men who want to fvk her, but NOT drop the men who do not want to fvk her.


And how does she know the difference between these two types of men?

Round and round we go.

 

[jurry]

Because women know when men are trying to fvck them. That is human biology.

What is your response to my question?

Haha yep I knew that was coming too peaks..

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2147238&postcount=71

Because it still fails to be answered, just like my other questions.

At the end of the day, this is not about boundaries, this is about whether or not you are ok with your gf hanging out with other men.

Jurry says it is ok if she doesn't want to fvk him and he doesn't want to fvk her.....ok fine...

• How does she know if he wants to fvk her or not?
• How does jury know if he wants to fvk her or not?

• 
  
  http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2149766&postcount=80

 

[jurry]

I broke up with my gf, but she did not have any that I was aware of, unless you count the boyfriends of her girlfriends.

Im not seeing the reality that most women do not know what is expected of them, but if thats the case for you wouldnt you want to date the ones who do know?

My question was the second paragraph in post 370.

 

[Soolaimon]

People put up a boundary wall or fence for protection and to prevent other people from coming in.

That is what the boundary crew is doing with their women.

They are putting up an "imaginary verbal boundary" to protect themselves from being cheated on and to prevent their women from seeing other men.

We all know that "verbal words" can mean nothing and women have free will to do as they choose. That means the "imaginary verbal boundary" they put up will be useless and a waste of time when the women they date chooses not to follow it.

The boundary crew claims they don't "control" their women in any way. So their women can easily hang out with other men since they have the free will to do so when the crew members aren't the wiser even though they don't tolerate their women seeing other men.

Their entire logic and boundary premise is a fallacy.

Most women in western culture will not respect boundaries, because they are trash women who should be only used as *** dumpsters. Most western women are not worthy of any relationship or commitment from any man.

So that would make setting a "verbal boundary" useless and a waste of time.

The only reason you would need to set a boundary is when you have a $hitty woman that you're trying to control her $hitty behavior.

That's a woman you should avoid for an exclusive relationship and not attempt to set a boundary with.

Now a respectable, sane, healthy, normal woman will have no problem staying with in the boundaries because she is not screwed up in her head and recognizes that its the right thing to do. Women don't think logically as much as men do. They follow their feels.

So when you have that respectable, sane, healthy, normal woman there is no reason to set a boundary. Cause she is not screwed up in her head and she already recognizes what the right thing to do is without having to "inform her" of exclusivity or to "control" her $hitty behavior.

But everyone in the boundary crew believes that no woman on the face of the Earth understands "exclusivity" and are unable to "police themselves" around other men. Therefore they set their "boundaries" to "control" her behavior for their own security and protection.

This is why men have to lead, and women should always follow.

Men do lead without having to set "verbal boundaries". Scared betas set boundaries out of fear following the woman's actions trying to police her activities.

When you're constantly worried about her behavior holding her down to "boundaries" you're not leading. She is. You're reacting to her $hitty behavior instead of you doing your own thing. She should be worried about other women wanting you if you had high value. Not you worried about her wanting other men placing more value on to her with your low value.

So if you think that its useless to state your boundaries to a gf, then you shouldn't be committing to her or taking her seriously what so ever, you should be just using women like that for your entertainment.

It's useless to state verbal relationship boundaries period.

The boundary guys are putting boundaries on crappy women to control their behavior. They shouldn't commit to those women but they do.

Putting boundaries on respectful sane normal women is not needed cause they won't cheat on you. Why would you need to "inform them" when they already understand what exclusivity is?

But in a way sooli, jurry, and peaks are right but not in the way they think they are.

Not "in a way". We are right cause their is no logic to their boundary fallacy.

Women cannot be your first priority, nor your second, nor 3rd

But the boundary crew is making women their first priority putting boundaries on them.

Women always got their eye out on the bigger better deal brother. If a girl is attracted to a guy and she thinks she can cheat and get away with it, she will.

That makes "verbal boundaries" useless and a waste of time when she thinks she can cheat and get away with it.

My point is when you have a girl that is so in to you wanting you all for herself she doesn't even have to know what the definition of exclusivity is. It's clear as daylight that she wants you and you alone.


So why would you be fearful if she is going out or you see some chump trying to put the moves on her. At that the moment You are the only one who makes her "vage tingle"

And no, this is not a Unicorn woman. Women still fall in love like this. actually in the beginning stages of relationship a lot of women are totally fcking crazy about you and you alone... with some it just lasts longer... with others it's over in a month

and for that no amount of boundaries will change it... i'll say it again...when you feel you even start to think about boundaries with ur gf... Go dust off those game skills,... Someone about to be Soltero and Hittin the clubs/bars Again.

Great post my man. Accurate and to the point!

The boundary crew won't understand this common sense cause this goes against their flawed logic and the delusion they believe.

The boundary crew believes that all women will still keep other men around regardless cause they don't understand the term "exclusivity". They say women won't give up those men until they are "informed" that is not acceptable in an exclusive relationship. After the women are "informed" of "exclusivity" the women then supposedly drop all men for the boundary crew guys and follow all "their terms" and "expectations"after they were only stated once. Then the boundary crew guys "police" their women's activities to make sure the boundary they verbalized "just once" is being followed. What a way to live LOL.

These guys have no clue that their women can still see other men if they wanted to.

They are gullible as well just believing everything women tells them just going on her words alone.

The boundary crew all believes women are so stupid they don't understand what exclusivity means.

How do they expect women (who they all believe are too stupid to understand what exclusive means) to fully understand and follow all their "expectations" from a brief 1 minute conversation (after the women behaved that way their whole life) when they all believe women can't control themselves around other men?

Obviously they are "policing" their women's activities like zekko admitted in this thread.

 

[TarantulaHawk]

People put up a boundary wall or fence for protection and to prevent other people from coming in.

That is what the boundary crew is doing with their women.

They are putting up an "imaginary verbal boundary" to protect themselves from being cheated on and to prevent their women from seeing other men.

We all know that "verbal words" can mean nothing and women have free will to do as they choose. That means the "imaginary verbal boundary" they put up will be useless and a waste of time when the women they date chooses not to follow it.

The boundary crew claims they don't "control" their women in any way. So their women can easily hang out with other men since they have the free will to do so when the crew members aren't the wiser even though they don't tolerate their women seeing other men.

Their entire logic and boundary premise is a fallacy.





So that would make setting a "verbal boundary" useless and a waste of time.

The only reason you would need to set a boundary is when you have a $hitty woman that you're trying to control her $hitty behavior.

That's a woman you should avoid for an exclusive relationship and not attempt to set a boundary with.





So when you have that respectable, sane, healthy, normal woman there is no reason to set a boundary. Cause she is not screwed up in her head and she already recognizes what the right thing to do is without having to "inform her" of exclusivity or to "control" her $hitty behavior.

But everyone in the boundary crew believes that no woman on the face of the Earth understands "exclusivity" and are unable to "police themselves" around other men. Therefore they set their "boundaries" to "control" her behavior for their own security and protection.



Men do lead without having to set "verbal boundaries". Scared betas set boundaries out of fear following the woman's actions trying to police her activities.

When you're constantly worried about her behavior holding her down to "boundaries" you're not leading. She is. You're reacting to her $hitty behavior instead of you doing your own thing. She should be worried about other women wanting you if you had high value. Not you worried about her wanting other men placing more value on to her with your low value.






It's useless to state verbal relationship boundaries period.

The boundary guys are putting boundaries on crappy women to control their behavior. They shouldn't commit to those women but they do.

Putting boundaries on respectful sane normal women is not needed cause they won't cheat on you. Why would you need to "inform them" when they already understand what exclusivity is?




Not "in a way". We are right cause their is no logic to their boundary fallacy.





But the boundary crew is making women their first priority putting boundaries on them.





That makes "verbal boundaries" useless and a waste of time when she thinks she can cheat and get away with it.





Great post my man. Accurate and to the point!

The boundary crew won't understand this common sense cause this goes against their flawed logic and the delusion they believe.

The boundary crew believes that all women will still keep other men around regardless cause they don't understand the term "exclusivity". They say women won't give up those men until they are "informed" that is not acceptable in an exclusive relationship. After the women are "informed" of "exclusivity" the women then supposedly drop all men for the boundary crew guys and follow all "their terms" and "expectations"after they were only stated once. Then the boundary crew guys "police" their women's activities to make sure the boundary they verbalized "just once" is being followed. What a way to live LOL.

These guys have no clue that their women can still see other men if they wanted to.

They are gullible as well just believing everything women tells them just going on her words alone.

The boundary crew all believes women are so stupid they don't understand what exclusivity means.

How do they expect women (who they all believe are too stupid to understand what exclusive means) to fully understand and follow all their "expectations" from a brief 1 minute conversation (after the women behaved that way their whole life) when they all believe women can't control themselves around other men?

Obviously they are "policing" their women's activities like zekko admitted in this thread.

Sooli why don't you give us a few specific reasons you and your high value exes broke up and not some ambiguous "many reasons". Obviously these high value women you broke up with didn't just "know" unless you'd talked about it.

So what specific reasons did you break up with them? And did you just leave it up to them to figure out? Especially since you claim the high value women you date "just know" everything so obviously they would've corrected something before you'd broke up with them...

 

[Soolaimon]

How can Danger claim it's not about "having to tell her" in the first quote when in the second quote he disagrees with that claim?

Again this is not about "having to tell her" because she is doing it, but moreso preventive maintenance.

Moreover I disagree that women will think it is *not* ok to hang out with those men simply because betas have trained them otherwise.

It's preventive maintenance now? Look at that...you just disagreed with yourself. LMAO

Danger, you just contradicted the entire premise of your boundary theory very badly once again.

First you say in black "you don't have to tell her" because "she is doing it" which is removing men on her own. You and your boundary crew disagree with me on that claiming that is false.

Then you say in contradiction below in red (which is the entire premise to your crap boundary theory) that women "don't know any better" to remove men unless "you tell them to" cause they've been trained not to know. So which is it Danger?

She can't "be doing it" cause according to you the crew "she doesn't know any better" and "she doesn't know what is expected of her". You just said that again below in red. So how can she be doing it on her own when you disagree with that?

According to your boundary fallacy she will not cut out any other men until you "define your terms" and make your "expectations" known to her. That is the claim all you guys make with your absurd boundary fallacy. You are quoted in red saying that contradicting your quote in black.

You, zekko, guru and the rest said that it is "false" many times that women will not cut out other men on their own. Why are you contradicting your claim again?

You have to "tell her" so she is informed of what is "expected" of her according to you.

If you believe your first quote that you don't have to tell her because she is already doing it...you would be agreeing with the non boundary position that you keep arguing against in over 12 threads now.

How many more times are you going to contradict yourself with your crap boundary argument that changes with each sentence and post?

So will answers to my questions be forthcoming now?

All the answers to your questions have been answered in detail in post #335.

I've asked you some questions that you still didn't answer.

So will the answers to my questions I asked you be forthcoming now?



Here's what you and the rest don't understand


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.

This is what I and others have said from the get go that these idiots claim as "straw man"

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


Just like TarantulaHawk can't comprehend that a relationship doesn't have to end from breaking a "boundary". He has no clue that a relationship can end when you go away to college, meet another girl, she gets a job across the country.

He and the others compare that to "breaking a boundary" or trying to compare smoking in a car to them being terrified their woman is going to bang another man. LOL

 

[TarantulaHawk]

How can Danger claim it's not about "having to tell her" in the first quote when in the second quote he disagrees with that claim?


[/Color][/B]

It's preventive maintenance now? Look at that...you just disagreed with yourself. LMAO

Danger, you just contradicted the entire premise of your boundary theory very badly once again.

First you say in black "you don't have to tell her" because "she is doing it" which is removing men on her own. You and your boundary crew disagree with me on that claiming that is false.

Then you say in contradiction below in red (which is the entire premise to your crap boundary theory) that women "don't know any better" to remove men unless "you tell them to" cause they've been trained not to know. So which is it Danger?

She can't "be doing it" cause according to you the crew "she doesn't know any better" and "she doesn't know what is expected of her". You just said that again below in red. So how can she be doing it on her own when you disagree with that?

According to your boundary fallacy she will not cut out any other men until you "define your terms" and make your "expectations" known to her. That is the claim all you guys make with your absurd boundary fallacy. You are quoted in red saying that contradicting your quote in black.

You, zekko, guru and the rest said that it is "false" many times that women will not cut out other men on their own. Why are you contradicting your claim again?

You have to "tell her" so she is informed of what is "expected" of her according to you.

If you believe your first quote that you don't have to tell her because she is already doing it...you would be agreeing with the non boundary position that you keep arguing against in over 12 threads now.

How many more times are you going to contradict yourself with your crap boundary argument that changes with each sentence and post?






All the answers to your questions have been answered in detail in post #335.

I've asked you some questions that you still didn't answer.

So will the answers to my questions I asked you be forthcoming now?



Here's what you and the rest don't understand


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.

This is what I and others have said from the get go that these idiots claim as "straw man"

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


Just like TarantulaHawk can't comprehend that a relationship doesn't have to end from breaking a "boundary". He has no clue that a relationship can end when you go away to college, meet another girl, she gets a job across the country.

He and the others compare that to "breaking a boundary" or trying to compare smoking in a car to them being terrified their woman is going to bang another man. LOL

So why would you leave a so called high value woman who'd do anything for you in your no boundaries exclusive relationship for another? Unless she wasn't the true high quality girl who just "knew" you thought she was in the first place? Therefore what you thought you originally "knew" you found different.

You left the other to go to college and the other left for a job across the country therefore putting a boundary of distance/college in your no boundaries exclusive relationships causing them to end due to a boundary. You had to have verbalized that eventual boundary during your exclusive relationship or did you just vanish and she just "knew" and vice versa?

There were still boundaries that needed to be verbalized and existed in your exclusive no boundaries relationships otherwise if they were truly no boundaries exclusive relationships they wouldn't have ended. If you didn't fear those useless boundaries you'd still be together.

Try again.