A girl's perspective on boundaries

[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.

 

[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.

 

[zekko]

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.

No, they weren't swingers. My friend's attitude is "Nobody tells me who I can see and who I can't". And he wants to go see his exes now and then and some female friends. His wife apparently had the same attitude. Obviously she wouldn't be a good match for me, but she was for him. That's why couples decide for themselves what they want.

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?

I'm not saying that at all. You guys seem to think this is all about cheating, but to me it's simply a lifestyle choice. I have no interest in having a girlfriend who hangs out with male friends. Period. I'm not saying that it would necessarily lead to cheating, I object to it on the face of it. Well, I wouldn't object, I would just dump her.

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.

I'm not telling anyone that they NEED to set boundaries (although everyone sets boundaries). I'm saying that they should not be AFRAID to set boundaries. If there are expectations that they have, they should go out and get the relationship they want, and not settle for less because of social conditioning.

You're right, my friend's marriage lasted 15 years. She DID end up cheating on him with one of these guys (they're now divorced), but that doesn't negate the fact that 15 years is a pretty impressive run these days. That's longer than any relationship I've had.

Good for them, but again, their definition of exclusivity was completely different than mine. Maybe they even had a talk about it at some point: "You wouldn't object if I went out and had lunch with one of my exes or female friends, would you"? That's why you talk about your expectations. I don't see why a couple's expectations should be such a white hot forbidden topic of discussion.

Zekko, Guru, Atom and I are not ok with her hanging out with even the non-threat men.

Nor do I "have to" regulate what she does. I have to make sure she IS AWARE of what is expected from a committed relationship with me, because many women are NOT AWARE.

Yes, it's just that simple. The anti-boundary folk should not be trying to pretend that women don't think it's all right to keep their male friends, or that they won't want to, because I can think of numerous examples in real life that shows the opposite.

Regarding the "threat" and the "non-threat" men, why bother with differentiating them? Just get rid of the whole batch, that's the simplest thing to do. I fully believe that in 99% of opposite sex friendships, one (or both) of the "friends" want to bang the other.

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.

As long as she agrees to my leadership on the matter, I don't really care what she did before. I'm not sure, but I may be the only boundary guy here who set a boundary with a girl who had orbiters. As soon as she found out I would not seriously date a girl with orbiters, she dropped them like hot potatoes, and I haven't had the slightest problem with her in the 11 years since.

Her boyfriend believed in having opposite sex friends, so she had kept them around. But her boyfriend ended up cheating on her, so she could see that my viewpoint made sense, and she bowed to my wisdom on the matter. Since she's 15 years younger than I am, it's only natural that she respect my experience and opinion.

 

[Jaylan]

jurry,

I am still waiting for the answers to my questions.



Solly,

Strawmen galore. My position is simple.

• I date women who are not retaining male orbiters as a habit, "friends" or otherwise.
• If they drop them on their own during the course of dating then I can consider them for a relationship, otherwise, no.
• I still communicate my expectations should I decide she is worthy of her exclusivity request.

No contradictions in there at all, nice try though. All just grasping at straws to build your straw-men.

I dont agree with you on some things, but agree with this.

Whats so fvking hard for some men to understand? Hell, why dont people in general understand that you behave a certain way in a relationship. If Im seeing a girl who I think is relationship worthy, I stop talking to other women, I stop going out partying a lot, and I behave in the way I expect her to. And if I must party once in a while, shes more than invited.

Also, whats so hard to understand that people should communicate their boundaries from the get go? What are guys missing here? I once told a girl I dont like the idea of being friends with exes. She told me her ex from high school is like her best friend (he might have been gay too), and then she said we had to part ways the next day.

It wasnt messy, it wasnt a big deal since we were casually seeing each other...and it prevented drama from the jump. She got to know what my boundaries were, and as a mature adult, instead of hoping id change, she chose her friendship over the guy she was casually sleeping with. Thats preferable over ending up in a more serious arrangement, and then dealing with the drama of her friends later on when its harder to make a clean break.

Now in the present day with the girl Im currently seeing, I let her know from the beginning where I stand on certain things. And its yet to be a problem for us. And when we have certain conversations regarding people we know or things we see on tv, I drop reminders of where I stand. For example, if some chick in a tv show lies to her bf, ill comment "Id dump this girl so quick. Dont care how small the lie is...trust is gone and the precedent is set".

A smart girl would pick up on that and think "I better not mess this up...because he wont ever soften on his boundaries". Matter of fact, some people expect the person theyre dating to forgive certain things depending on how long theyve been going out. Thus I find it important to sometimes remind a chick you dont stand for bullsh!t. I dont care how long, how short, how serious or how casual the relationship is either. If you disrespect me in any way, or do anything to break trust, Im done.

 

[Soolaimon]

Strawmen galore. My position is simple.

There is no "straw man". Only lies and contradictions coming from you. Your position is a fallacy that you can't even explain. You're creating straw man through lies and contradiction to defend your faulty position. It is quoted below in all your own contradicting words.

I date women who are not retaining male orbiters as a habit, "friends" or otherwise.

According to you every woman retains male orbiters as a habit, "friends" or otherwise cause they don't understand the term exclusivity. You need to "define the terms" to her in order for her to understand. The women you date can still easily retain those men without you knowing. You even said you would consider women with male friends and orbiters. Where is the "straw man" since that is what you preach and said?

If they drop them on their own during the course of dating then I can consider them for a relationship, otherwise, no.

According to you no woman on the face of the Earth will drop men on their own. So you can't consider them for a relationship cause ALL women will still retain men. You need to define terms to women cause they don't understand exclusivity. That is the entire premise to your boundary fallacy. You're contradicting yourself again trying to create straw man for your argument. Where is the "straw man" since this is your position?

I still communicate my expectations should I decide she is worthy of her exclusivity request.

How can she be "worthy" when she still has other men according to you?






Here's a few of the contradictions and lies you made creating your own straw man argument that never ends with you repeating the same fallacies only reworded differently.

I date women who are not retaining male orbiters as a habit, "friends" or otherwise.

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

Nice contradiction!

How can you date women who are not retaining male orbiters as a habit, "friends" or otherwise when you said below that it's false?

You can't date women who are not retaining male orbiters as a habit, "friends" or otherwise cause you believe that women won't automatically cut off all men.

That women will automatically cut off all men is completely false , because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

If they drop them on their own during the course of dating then I can consider them for a relationship, otherwise, no.

Now you're lying and contradicting yourself again creating your own straw man. You said your second quote is false with your own words in your first quote. You argue with me that women will never cut out men on their own. That is the whole absurdity that you argue for with your boundaries. You're lying!

First you say above it's completely false that women will cut off all men cause she doesn't understand the term exclusivity.

Then you say below women will drop men on their own and you would consider them for a relationship and if they don't you won't.

How can they drop men on their own when you say that is false and they don't understand the term?

According to this latest contradiction of yours you would never commit to or date any girl cause you believe all women have orbiters and never automatically cut off all men.

I date women who are not retaining male orbiters as a habit, "friends" or otherwise.

Having said that, over time I have evolved my position where I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters, but I can still see there may be exceptions.

Contradicting and changing your opinion again. So you would consider women who have male orbiters. How do you answer that?

I date women who are not retaining male orbiters as a habit, "friends" or otherwise.

If she had a few, then I would consider it

Really? Cause you're on the record below saying if she had a few male orbiters you would consider dating her. More lies and contradictions.

If they drop them on their own during the course of dating then I can consider them for a relationship, otherwise, no.

If she had a few, then I would consider it

Another contradiction!

You just said below if she has a few male orbiters that you would consider it. That contradicts your first quote above. Which is it?

If they drop them on their own during the course of dating then I can consider them for a relationship, otherwise, no.

It needs to be defined because so many women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

She doesn't know any better so when the time comes that she wants to, she will engage in behavior unacceptable for a committed relationship.

So you're contradicting yourself again saying women don't know any better to drop men on her own. Your last two quotes contradicts your first and latest claim.

No contradictions in there at all, nice try though. All just grasping at straws to build your straw-men

LMAO. I just pointed out all your contradictions and lies for you and everyone to see.

You contradicted your own straw man fallacy of boundaries. LOL

Are you going to lie again and claim you didn't contradict yourself to build your straw man for your boundary fallacy?

 

[sylvester the cat]

birds of a feather flock together:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKhZxk942wA

 

[guru1000]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gKk7-IYCr...AhA8/203wT_9grDg/s320/Straw+man+newspaper.jpg

 

[sylvester the cat]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gKk7-IYCr...AhA8/203wT_9grDg/s320/Straw+man+newspaper.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxrlcLktcxU

 

[TarantulaHawk]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gKk7-IYCr...AhA8/203wT_9grDg/s320/Straw+man+newspaper.jpg

Sooli the Scarecrow still parading his nonsense throwing straw confetti.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FxwsMB3UU8o/TT84QkbAQ3I/AAAAAAAAApk/u90y14VPqFw/s1600/StrawManI.jpg

 

[Soolaimon]

Sooli the Scarecrow still parading his nonsense throwing straw confetti.

LMAO. There is no "Straw Man". Only delusion and denial coming from you, Danger, and the other boundary guys claiming "Straw Man". You guys have no argument or answers to your boundary contradictions so you claim "straw man" as a way out.

Just like you trying to claim going to college leaving a girl behind and meeting new girls is the same "boundary" (not even a boundary) as you guys being scared enough to set boundaries with your woman thinking she is going to cheat on you with other men.

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

Danger, you, and the rest of the crew claim this. That no woman will cut off any men at all for even high value men cause women don't understand what exclusivity is. All of you guys argue with me on that. That is the entire premise to your boundary fallacy.

If they drop them on their own during the course of dating then I can consider them for a relationship, otherwise, no.

Then Danger claims that women are dropping other men on their own and he can consider them for a relationship.

That completely contradicts his and your boundary fallacy of women "not understanding the term exclusivity" for them to drop other men on their own.

There is no "straw man" as you claim trying to save face. Danger is contradicting his own boundary fallacy.

If they drop them on their own

That women will automatically cut off all men. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

Here is the contradiction Danger and you "claim" as "straw man" when Danger and the rest of you say that it is false. You are arguing against yourselves creating straw man.

Danger claims women won't cut off any men on their own and then he claims they will.

Having said that, over time I have evolved my position where I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters, but I can still see there may be exceptions.

Danger argues against and makes fun of Exception, jurry, peaks for allowing their women to have male friends.

Now Danger is saying "he can see there may be exceptions" to that.

So why is he making a big deal about those guys when he now says there are "exceptions" where women can have male friends?

That's another contradiction to him saying women should have no male friends at all and he doesn't allow it.

He is wavering on his boundary claim in contradiction.

If she had a few, then I would consider it

Now Danger says if she had a few "male friends" or "orbiters" that he would consider it after he says he doesn't date women with male friends and orbiters and argues against for jurry, peaks, and Exception for their women having male friends.

He contradicted the whole point to his boundary fallacy.

There is no "straw man" that he and you claims cause these quotes contradicts everything Danger and the rest of you boundary guys claim about boundaries.

We now know that Danger will consider his woman having male friends when the situation calls for it under "an exception".

Very hypocritical when he argues nonsense for pages and threads against it. He is agreeing with peaks, jurry, and exception and wants to argue against them with his fallacy in contradiction.

 

[Soolaimon]

For your very few statements which are not strawmen, you throw around the absolutes instead....ALL or NONE.

LMAO. There is no "Straw Man" Danger. I've already shown you that above.

You're creating a straw man argument through your many contradiction with your boundary fallacy.

You say women won't drop men on their own. Then you say they will. Then you argue against your 2nd position in all these threads. That is the definition of straw man.

You argue against Exception, jurry, peaks for their women having male friends. You claim you don't allow your woman to have male friends under any circumstances. But then you say you will "consider it" and there are "exceptions" for her having male friends but still argue against that. That is the definition of straw man.

You're arguing for "absolutes" when you claim "that no woman on the face of the earth understands the term exclusivity". That is an absolute. And I'm arguing against that showing your contradictions and lies. Are you that stupid not to know what you're arguing?

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

Women do not understand the term exclusivity.

No, I am pointing out that women do not know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship.

girls have never been taught was is respectful in a relationship.

women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

She doesn't know any better so when the time comes that she wants to, she will engage in behavior unacceptable for a committed relationship.

So YES, these need to take place because she simply does not know any better.

Now if these aren't "absolutes" then I don't know what is.

First off, "Bob", if he was a man of value, would not argue on the definition of exclusivity with a plate.


You must give your definition of exclusivity when she requests it of you.

It needs to be defined because so many women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

Women need to be taught what is respectful for a relationship.

women do not know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship.

it is your job as a MAN to teach women what is respectful for a relationship.

It needs to be defined because so many women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters.

Now you contradict your whole boundary fallacy.

You say Bob is low value (which you lied and said he was arguing when he wasn't) for defining terms to his plate when you claim women need to have the terms defined for them cause they don't know any better.

That makes you and the crew low value for defining terms to women in your own contradicting words. You agree with me through your own contradiction.

If you want to throw out NAWALT defenses then go to loveshack.

LMAO. Now you're contradicting yourself again.

you throw around the absolutes instead....ALL or NONE.

If you want to throw out NAWALT defenses then go to loveshack.

You're last quote is an absolute contradicting your first quote. Cause you believe "all women are like that" with your boundary fallacy that you either argue for or against when it suits you to "win" an argument.

My last point was very clear on the three steps, go cry more that your queer @ss can't get over losing.

LMAO.

How did I "lose" when you're contradicting your boundary claims by agreeing with me in contradiction? Then you agree with exception, jury and peaks when the argument suits you.

It isn't about "winning" or "losing". You are trying to "win" an argument at any cost by arguing for both sides of the coin when it suits you. It's about presenting facts, showing the truth through reality which you and your crew are incapable of doing. That's why you lie and contradict yourself.

You made it very clear that you're lying and contradicting yourself in your own quotes that everybody can see. And you have to insult cause you can't answer for your lies and contradictions. So you slink away like a coward with a lame insult.


You claim that no woman on the face of the Earth understand what exclusivity is and will not drop other men. That is an absolute.

Then you contradict yourself saying that women do understand what exclusivity is cause they drop. That is a contradiction. So your point is invalid and not clear cause you can't understand your own point.

You claim that you don't allow your woman to have male friends or orbiters. You argue against and make fun of exception, jurry, peaks for their women having them.

Then you contradict yourself saying you will "consider" your woman to have male friends and orbiters cause there is always an "exception" for her to have them. That is a contradiction.

If you were anti drugs you wouldn't "consider" snorting cocaine.

If you were anti smoking you wouldn't sit around for hours "considering" to buy pack of cigarettes.

If you're so steadfast against your woman having male friends and orbiters you wouldn't waiver on your position by having to "consider it" or having "exceptions" to the rule foe her to have them. There would be no reason to "consider it".

You're a hypocrite for attacking other people for what you will consider too. Your woman having male friends and orbiters.

That is why your boundary fallacy and your position is a joke and you have no answer for it except for lies and contradictions.

 

[Soolaimon]

I would never consider a woman for exclusivity if she has a litany of "male friends"

If she had a few, then I would consider it

Here you are contradicting yourself badly again. How can you claim this is out of context?

First you say you would never consider a woman who has male friends. Then you say you would consider it if she has "a few". How many is a few? Even your boundary crew can see your contradiction. Why are you lying?

I would never consider a woman for exclusivity if she has a litany of "male friends".

Having said that, over time I have evolved my position where I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters, but I can still see there may be exceptions.

You say you would never consider a woman for having male friends but then you say there are "exceptions" and you would "consider it". Which is it? Another terrible contradiction to your claims.

You argue for both sides craftily wording it so the argument can fit you. That is your M.O. to "win" an argument in any way possible. Even your boundary crew can see it.

I disagree that women always know.

If she is too stupid to know what they are after, she is not worth committing to.

First you say that women don't know the difference between guys who want to fvck them and ones who don't taking the pro boundary position.

Then you contradict yourself below taking my non boundary position agreeing with me that women should already know the difference. And if she is that stupid not to know you shouldn't commit to her.

You argue for boundaries. Then you argue against your boundary position. Hilarious!

You argue in contradiction for whatever side of the argument fits you in order to "win". That is your M.O.

Everybody can see it too. Even your boundary crew.

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

If she is too stupid to know what they are after, she is not worth committing to.

Looks like you answered your own question in contradiction agreeing with the non boundary side!

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

If she is too stupid to know what they are after, she is not worth committing to.

Now you agree in contradiction below with Exception, jurry, and peaks that women do know the difference between guys who do and don't want to fvck them since their women have male friends who don't fvck them.

Your bounday argument is crap and you contradicted it many times for all to see. You have no clue what side you're on.

"I won't allow my woman to have male friends or orbiters....oh wait.....she can have "a few" if I "consider it" since there are "exceptions" LOL.

And you argued with jurry, peaks, and exception on that and you're just the same. What a hypocrite!

ALL and NONE are absolutes, when I say those words, then you know I am using an absolute.

You made it perfectly clear you're talking in absolutes with your quotes and boundary position contradicting yourself. Quit lying!.

Lastly, I clearly articulated my position in three bullet points. Everything you are posting is out of context, a strawman, ot using an absolute point of view. Try again.

You articulated nothing cause everything you said was in contradiction. Everybody can see it including your own boundary crew.

Nothing is out of context. You are lying to save face. It's your contradicting words you posted all in quotes.

How can it be out of context when you are contradicting yourself with your own quotes?

You say women will never drop men on their own. Then you say they will. You say you will never date women with male friends. But then you say there are "exceptions" and you will consider it. All blatant contradictions.

You argue for pro boundaries when the argument suits you. Then you argue for non boundaries against your pro boundary position when it suits you.

You also disagree on the pro boundary and non boundary position which makes it impossible to have a discussion with you cause you constantly contradict yourself so you can "win" your argument. Anybody reading these threads can see that.

 

[Soolaimon]

Solly,

You leave out the word "litany" in order to obfuscate.

LOL. More lying and projecting again. Don't you ever stop?

You're the king of obfuscation. Craftily wording your sentences and arguing for both sides of the argument in each post to confuse the reader just so you can "win" your argument. All your words of obfuscation in contradiction have been quoted in your own words. Why do you still lie and project?

I would never consider a woman for exclusivity if she has a litany of "male friends".

If she had a few, then I would consider it

"Litany" "a few" "one" "two". It doesn't matter. You state no women should have male friends or orbiters in your relationship. But now you will "consider her" if she has "a few"? You're a hypocrite contradicting yourself!

You're on the record saying you would "never" consider a woman to have "ANY" male friends. As it turns out you allow her to have "a few" male friends when you "consider it". Just like peaks, jurry, and exception do whom you argued against this whole time.

You won't say how many "a few" is to you. But then you project your lies on to me for pointing that out.

Members can now kindly point that out to you as well each time you lie and claim you don't allow your woman to have "male friends" or "orbiters" since you "consider it" too.

I date women who are not retaining male orbiters as a habit, "friends" or otherwise.

If she had a few, then I would consider it

You claim you date women who doesn't have male orbiters or friends.

Then below you will "consider it" if she has "a few". but you won't tell us how many "a few" is.

You're lying changing your position in contradicton claiming you set boundaries to filter women who have "male friends" but you still will consider her to have them. Thai is the definition of obfuscation.

What's the point of your boundary? That makes it useless and a waste of time when you "consider" her to have male friends setting a boundary for her not to have them. What an idiot!

You argued for pages and threads against men who have women with male friends. As it turn out you consider it too. You are a hypocrite!

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.

First you say you don't have to "tell women" cause they are "doing it" (dropping other men on their own) and then you claim you need to "tell them" cause they "don't know any better" to do it on their own.

Just another example of how you obfuscate arguing both the pro boundary and the non boundary position in order to "win" an argument.

It is clear your purpose is not to have a discussion, but to demonize men. Therefore as before, I am breaking up with you. You will need to find another poster for your perpetual strawman hard-on.

WTF? You're defining "break up terms" to me? LMAO. You're nuts!

I as well as other posters have been trying to have a discussion with you. But you lie, contradict, project, obfuscate, change your position all the time which make it impossible to have one. Everybody else has noticed the same thing about you.

Keep lying, projecting, and contradicting cause that's all you can do. You know that it's true. That's why you can't defend yourself and run away like a coward from the discussion. Not one member from your boundary crew has even tried to defend you in the last 2 days. Maybe they will now?

Jurry finds 1950s housewives "icky", Zarky hates the idea of society with stable families and girls who are in a committed relationship. He is ok with society burning as long as he gets his poosy paradise., including him fvking your gf.

Danger, you find 1950's housewives "icky" too cause you're terrified to marry your de facto housewife when she requests it of you. Here you have a chance to have an official 1950's housewife with a stable family and you tell her "no" out of fear. You are a hypocrite contradicting yourself again attacking other posters.

A normal society is supposed to have men marrying women and raising families. You object to that entire idea. You're supporting society burning as well cause you "hate" marriage. You're contradicting and projecting again.

What would happen to society if every man was terrified to marry a woman and raise a family like you? We would have no new generations to take over the older generations.


The rest of your response is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with your contradictions and your boundary fallacy.

Everything with you is an absolute with women.

You believe that "all women" are incapable of understanding the term exclusivity.

If you didn't believe in absolutes you wouldn't argue with me, jurry, peaks, and exception.

I've stated many times that my girlfriend cut out men on her own before we became exclusive. She was showing me with her actions that she understands what exclusive is

You and your boundary crew claim that is "false" and has argued against that for several threads with me.

Peaks, jurry, starwolf, govan, and others have told you the same thing. But you still argue your same fallacies.

If you didn't believe in absolutes you would understand and recognize that women do cut out other men for high value men. You wouldn't argue against that claiming it is "false".

Also you believe that any woman who hangs out with another guy is fvcking him. That is an absolute too. If a woman isn't attracted to a man she isn't going to fvck him. But then you "consider" your woman to have these male friends after you argue she shouldn't have them.

You believe in absolutes and in a world of black and white terms.

You have no answer to your contradictions cause you know it's all true. We all can see it. You refuse to admit it and accept it. That's why you're slinking away instead of owning up to it. A true yellow bellied coward.

You have no room attacking others when you believe the same as they do.

 

[Yorkex]

So what's the final verdict ? Boundaries or just accept that people will do what ever the fucckk they want & it's up to you to walk away ?

 

[Soolaimon]

A post full of strawmen as usual Solly. I made my points clear and concise in my post last page with the three bulleted items.

You're not very good at enforcing your boundaries. LOL

"Straw Man" is all you can claim when you are shown to be a liar and contradictor.

Your three bullet points were shown to be a contradiction with your own quotes.

But I will clarify since you love quoting out of context..... If she had a few male friends I would consider her a POSSIBILITY if she agreed to the terms of exclusivity.

This makes no sense "considering her to have male friends" when you set a boundary.

The point of the boundary is for her not to have male friends.

There is no reason for her to "agree to your terms" since you are allowing her to hang out with male friends. That voids "your terms".

"I want you to agree to "my terms" not to hang out with those guys"....."Ok you can go hang out with them since I considered it."

What a dumb ass!

You just keep on contradicting yourself!

But as always, you take everything out of context to suit your agenda. Which is all about attacking people instead of the arguments.

Nothing was taken out of context. It's your all your quotes in contradiction for all to see.

Your argument is crap. I've shown that and people can see that.

That's why you lie and contradict yourself cause you have no argument.

Have you sought help yet? You should before you go on a rampage like that Santa Barbara kid last year.

You're the one who needs help with this pathetic display.

So what's the final verdict ? Boundaries or just accept that people will do what ever the fucckk they want & it's up to you to walk away ?

People are going to do whatever the fvck they want if they really want to.

How are "verbal words of agremeent" going to stop a person from acting on their true desires? They will not.

If a woman wants a man she will do anything to have him no matter if she "agreed to your terms" in the past.

That's why this boundary stuff is nonsense. All these boundary guys have failed marriages/relationships with boundaries.

You'd think they would know better after that.

 

[Soolaimon]

Holy hell Solly,

All strawmen again, my three points did not contradict at all.

LOL. Of course you claim 'Straw Man".

Everybody can see those contradictions in post #388 in this thread.

you have already confirmed several times that you use boundaries when you told your girl to never smoke in your car.

Smoking has nothing to do with the verbal boundaries you set being afraid of your woman hanging out with other men. LOL

But I will clarify since you love quoting out of context..... If she had a few male friends I would consider her a POSSIBILITY if she agreed to the terms of exclusivity.

This has to be the worst argument and contradiction for boundaries that there is.

"Agree to 'my terms of exclusivity' to my boundary and then you can have a few "male friends" to hang out with if you promise verbally not to fvck them." LOL

You're a clown dude. There is no point in having a boundary when you're letting her have other male friends to hang out with after she agreed to "your terms".

 

[Tictac]

If you type the single word 'boundaries' as a new post, Foolaimon will launch into paroxysms for at least two pages.

LOL

 

[Soolaimon]

See this is why it is a strawman and a purposeful obfuscation on your part.

There is no "Straw Man" or obfuscation as you claim. You're lying again.

You are now claiming you will allow your woman to have "a few male friends" if she "agrees to your terms of exclusivity". LOL

There is no point in her "agreeing to your terms" when you allow her to date other men. That makes your boundary even more pointless. You are a contradictor of the worst kind.

You are the King of obfuscation agreeing and disagreeing with both the pro boundary and non boundary argument.

I said from the get go that boundaries are useless and a waste of time. I never changed my position once. You change your position in each post. Anybody that argued with you says that.

You say "Women will never drop men on their own". Then you claim they will. But then you come back and say they won't in the next sentence. It goes on and on with you.

I am not saying I am ok with her "hanging out" with those men, I am saying I typically immediately rule out women who are already hanging out with a litany of men, but if she has a very small number then I am less likely to immediately rule her out.

This is your contradiction and obfuscation above.

For over 12 threads you argued with people that "you never date a woman that hangs out with other men". Now you are claiming you are "less likely to immediately rule her out". That is a hypocritical contradicton. Anybody with half a brain can see that.

That is the whole point to your boundary. For you not to allow your woman to have other men.

Now it turns out that you do allow her to have "male friends" when you "consider it".

That completely contradicts the entire concept of having a boundary in the first place.

You can try to twist and project all your lies on me. Nobody is buying it cause they know how you contradicted yourself changing your position from your woman having "no male friends" to you "allowing it when you consider it". Your contradicting quotes are here for all to see.

That however does not serve your agenda....so strawman by Solly. Pure cowardice on your part solly to manufacture positions I never took

You're the coward not owning up to your lies and contradictions.

You took those positions in contradictions cause it is all quoted for all to see.

First it started with "I never allow my woman to have male friends" to "If she has a few I will consider it" to "She has to agree to 'my terms of exclusivity for her to have them'.

Anybody that argued with you knows you're lying. Not even your boundary crew has defended you.

Everyone already knows you do this as evidenced by so many posters in this thread pointing it out to you. But, strawman on.

Nobody evidenced anything. Even your own boundary crew can't save you from your contradictions cause they can see it too.

All your lying quotes are posted here in contradiction.

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.

First you say you don't have to "tell women" cause they are "doing it" (dropping other men on their own) and then you claim you need to "tell them" cause they "don't know any better" to do it on their own.

Just another example of how you obfuscate arguing both the pro boundary and the non boundary position in order to "win" an argument.

But then you claim "Straw Man" after you contradicted yourself cause you're a coward. Anybody with half a brain can see this contradiction.

I disagree that women always know.

If she is too stupid to know what they are after, she is not worth committing to.

Here you say you disagree that women know between guys who want to fvck them and don't taking the pro boundary position.

Then you contradict yourself below taking my non boundary position agreeing with me that women should already know the difference. And if she is that stupid you shouldn't commit to her.

You argue for boundaries. Then you argue against boundaries.

You argue in contradiction for whatever side of the argument fits you in order to "win". That is your M.O.

But you claim "Straw Man" after that. LOL

Anybody with half a brain can see this contradiction too.

These are these exact positions you took and then you contradicted yourself when the argument suits you. But you lie and claim "Straw Man" to save face cause you're a coward.

I date women who are not retaining male orbiters as a habit, "friends" or otherwise.

I would never consider a woman for exclusivity if she has a litany of "male friends".



If she had a few male friends I would consider her a POSSIBILITY if she agreed to the terms of exclusivity.

Here we go again with more contradictions craftily wording your sentences.

For over 12 threads you claimed the top 2 quotes arguing with other posters.

Then in contradiction you now say in the red quote that you would "consider her a POSSIBILITY if she agreed to the terms of exclusivity" when she has a few male friends.

That makes no sense at all to set a boundary of "defining terms of exclusivity" when she has male friends she's hanging out with that you allow.

That is like telling an alcoholic to "promise you that they won't take a drink" but you will let them have a drink after they tell you they won't.

"Promise me you won't see other men in our relationship agreeing to 'my terms'. If you agree to 'my terms' I will let you see other men." LOL

That is pointless and makes no sense with your latest contradiction.

The fact is you wouldn't have argued with peaks, jurry, exception so profusely for all those threads if you actually felt you would consider your woman to have " a few male friends" cause you would be agreeing with them since you allow it too.

You're a liar, projector, contradictor and a coward refusing to own up to your contradictions and lies you made.

 

[Shivastorm_88]

Internet. Serious business.

 

[BrainDamage92]

Man if all the brain power put in this thread was used to make electricity you would be rich.

Think stuff through, but dont dwell on it much. A retarded girl whos told what to do is better than a retarded girl that isnt. And most are in fact retarded.

There are rare gems, but there more men then gems so many are forced (not exactly, but the choise between jerkin off and easy regular sex becomes a formality) to get into a relation with the retarded kind. Yes they are not worth it but what is life without women. Im currently single and plan to remain single but still if you do it this way you play in hard mode and a steady girlfriend is easy mode so you have to pay a price...

Think for yourself.