A girl's perspective on boundaries

[:-)]

Position of weakness = Girl MUST comply with said boundary. I will not walk away.

Position of strength = IF girl complies, great. If not, that's fine as well, but I will walk away.

Expectation of compliance and willingness to exit distinguishes the former from the latter.

Notice in the latter, the DJ is not absolutely crushed should boundary be violated, as possibility of noncompliance was considered. Much easier to exit a fruitless relationship when walking away was already considered upfront in your expectations. You will also carry a strong frame in any relation--increasing the likelihood of its success--should you take the position that relationships, by nature, are temporal, and at a moment's notice you can and are willing to walk away.

Clearly Danger aka Guru has met his daily 10 post limit.

 

[sylvester the cat]

you keep sending these questions at the pro-boundary group, playing "devils advocate" and starting threads like this one which contribute towards the confusion of posters like Harry. THIS is why you seem disingenuous in your assertion you are pro-boundary. Surely by now you should understand this if you are pro-boundary, so why are you taking these actions?

Because I do not see a differentiation between Pro and Anti.

Both parties set boundaries. As you already re-categorized:

Pre-exclusivity boundary party v Post-exclusivity boundary party.

And as guru1000 has expounded:

Pre-exclusivity boundary party = Strength

Post-exclusivity boundary party = Weakness

I care not for one or the other. All I care about is the Truth which I think is what we are getting at here via dialectic. Why do you have a problem with this?

 

[guru1000]

Sylvester, don't twist my words to support your agenda. You have young men reading this thread whose future may be shaped by the words you use.

 

[sylvester the cat]

Sylvester, don't twist my words to support your agenda. You have young men reading this thread whose future may be shaped by the words you use.

So you disagree with Danger's statement that men who make Pre-exclusive boundaries are coming from a position of strength whereas men who make Post-exclusive boundaries are coming from a position of weakness?

Please clarify for the sake of the young men reading this.

 

[guru1000]

36 & 58

 

[:-)]

If this was true, then again why are your questions, comments and statements only directed at one position?

Your words do not match your actions. I never said I have a problem with this, it is just an observation on the incongruency between your statements and actions. Why does that bother you and again, why are your comments, questions and "devils advocate approach" only directed towards one position?

If OP already said both parties are pro boundary (pre and post exclusivity) then wouldn't he naturally only be directed towards one position?

Is it truth you're interested in or just YOUR truth you're interested in? Seeing as how OP is directing this dialogue towards an agreement of what you say I don't see why you are so defensive unless the issue isn't about boundaries but about YOU winning an argument you Sophist you.

 

[jurry]

If one is coming from a position of abundance, it doesnt make any sense that he would set boundaries either before or after exclusivity.

You have a particular set of standards and things you are looking for, if a woman does not meet these criteria she is nexted. End of story.

If she does not meet the criteria with her actions (in this case drinking and partying all the time), then you do not agree to exclusivity with her. If you set boundaries in an effort to get her to change her behavior, you are compromising your own standards.

Why would a man with options go through the process of trying to change her? She is either what he is looking for or she isnt because of whatever reason. He would simply move on to a girl who already acts the way he wants a girl to act, as anti dump says you buy the girl you dont build her.

The point of dating and getting to know her is for this very reason, to see if she IS that girl. If she is not, thats all you need to know.. No discussion or boundary setting is required you just move on.

 

[guru1000]

... as anti dump says you buy the girl you dont build her.

I'll bite.

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2171346&postcount=49

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

If one is coming from a position of abundance, it doesnt make any sense that he would set boundaries either before or after exclusivity.

You have a particular set of standards and things you are looking for, if a woman does not meet these criteria she is nexted. End of story.

If she does not meet the criteria with her actions (in this case drinking and partying all the time), then you do not agree to exclusivity with her. If you set boundaries in an effort to get her to change her behavior, you are compromising your own standards.

Why would a man with options go through the process of trying to change her? She is either what he is looking for or she isnt because of whatever reason. He would simply move on to a girl who already acts the way he wants a girl to act, as anti dump says you buy the girl you dont build her.

The point of dating and getting to know her is for this very reason, to see if she IS that girl. If she is not, thats all you need to know.. No discussion or boundary setting is required you just move on.

It's very simple. If her behavior isn't up to par, then....wait for it....don't go exclusive with her!!!

If a woman is into you she WILL drop other guys on her own. If she doesn't, then it's usually because of one of the following:

-she's not really that into you
-there's something mentally wrong with her (ex. BPD),
-her values/conditioning trump anything that comes natural to her (ex. feminist)

In all of these above cases, YOU DON'T WANT TO GO EXCLUSIVE WITH THESE WOMEN.

Not setting boundaries is it's own natural screening process.

Very simple....

 

[:-)]

I'll bite.

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2171346&postcount=49

So you're comparing women to houses now are you?

A house does not have fluctuating emotions such as a woman does. Nor is a woman subject to contract such as the possession of a house is. That you sold your soul to Mammon a long time ago in your pursuit for man's glory is all too evident.

Perhaps it's a pet you need, not a woman. One that can give you all the glory your pathetic ego desires.

 

[jurry]

I'll bite.

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2171346&postcount=49

I remember you making that point and of course no relationship or woman is going to be perfect, there will always be issues and differences that come up that you deal with.

This would happen after you've ALREADY made the decision to "buy" the girl, and there will be a give and take with a great many things for you and for her. So yes, stay strong throughout the long term.

But we are talking about major red flags in the early stages of meeting and dating women, such as the party girl who drinks all the time. You should not be agreeing to exclusivity with a girl who doesnt meet your standards at the outset, or trying to change her into what you want her to be.

Its one thing to repaint the walls or install a new shower, quite another to buy a house that was in a major flood a couple years ago or has a faulty foundation (excuse my bad examples im not in constuction or real estate).

 

[guru1000]

I agree. Perhaps much of the confusion is distinguishing between disqualifying deal-breakers and violations which merit boundaries.

 

[Peña]

Because in this new age of enlightenment, mutual agreement is now considered "control".

I do find it interesting that her requesting exclusivity is NOT her trying to control you, whereas you stating that exclusivity means no more dating other people IS controlling.

In other words, you are expected to give up your other sources of sex but she is entitled to keep her orbiters, backup options, and other sources of male attention.

But then, these arguments of "controlling" also come from the same small group who hate the idea of men not committing to sluts, so they are either hardcore blue-pill men, or more likely they are women posters.

Don't get exclusive with her to make a boundary. Weak men that make boundaries are blue pill.

 

[zekko]

If a woman is into you she WILL drop other guys on her own.

I notice you've changed your position on this issue gradually over time, Peaks. Originally, you were all "You have to let the girls have their male friends and beta orbiters". Now you're taking up Sooli's position, which is that a woman will drop her male friends if she is into you. This is good, we're making progress. Many of the no boundary guys now openly admit that women keeping male friends and orbiters is a bad thing. Hopefully, in five more years you will be on our side.

I know a couple who were married for 15 years and they BOTH kept their opposite sex friends. Not only did they keep them, they added to their total over the years. Fact is, all people DO NOT AGREE on this issue. It really all depends on what you, AS A COUPLE, decide what is best for the relationship. As the man, it is your position to take the lead in making these decisions. Obviously, if she cannot sincerely agree with your position, you should not enter exclusivity.

You should not be agreeing to exclusivity with a girl who doesnt meet your standards at the outset, or trying to change her into what you want her to be.

Agreed, she must meet your standards before exclusivity is granted. That is why expectations are stated before exclusivity is agreed upon. Both parties should be aware of what they are agreeing to. And your experiences with her should tell you whether or not she it trustworthy.

 

[BrainDamage92]

The thing that Guru says that relationships are TEMPORAL...

This is the most important thing, and I wish someone told me this years ago, if you approach these situations with the mindset ITS TEMPORAL the rest will come easy, bounaries or whatever (I still dont like that word) will come naturally.

Just dont be all like "Thats it my old self dies today and my new realtionship self is born" lol nope

You still the same ;]

So you have to realise a deteriorating relationship is no biggie, it happens, there is other **** you need to worry about.

 

[jurry]

To me this is a fear based mindset, you think that by trying to control every variable you can insulate yourself from the risk of everyday living.

Personally, im never going to tell a girl not to talk to xyz person. I am EXTREMELY relucant to get into relationships because I believe they are generally absurd constructions of a possessive human ego that needs the security and comfort of another person to call theirs. So when I do get into one, you can be damn sure that out of the two of us I will care less, or preferably we both care equally little.

Saying that women will not remove her other options and make herself obviously available and transparent when she is trying to get you to commit betrays basic experience that every man will have with a girl who is attracted to them, I cant put it any other way. You WILL know when you are what she wants, you WILL know when she is losing attraction and thinking about moving on.

This isnt rocket science, the amount of legal jargon thrown around by the boundary crew like "due diligence", "explicit communication", "removing ambiguity", leads me to believe you guys probably have some depressingly boring, controlling relationships.

Who gives a fvck about all that? Life is too damn short to be constantly positioning, evaluating, scrutinizing her every move. Bang a lot of girls (if you want), enjoy them, some will stay longer than others, you'll get burned by some, you will burn some of them. Nothing lasts, attraction rises and falls, keep moving.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

I notice you've changed your position on this issue gradually over time, Peaks. Originally, you were all "You have to let the girls have their male friends and beta orbiters". Now you're taking up Sooli's position, which is that a woman will drop her male friends if she is into you. This is good, we're making progress. Many of the no boundary guys now openly admit that women keeping male friends and orbiters is a bad thing. Hopefully, in five more years you will be on our side.

Eh, not really. I guess what I'm saying can be interpreted a few different ways depending on the context, as well as some of it being somewhat of a generalization. (it's not all black and white)
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2152110&postcount=51

Here's another one from that thread, scroll down toward the latter part of the post.
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=219823&page=10

For the record, I have never, ever, told a woman she cannot hang out with any other men. And, I will never will.

This is just 100% not true. I have female friends that I still wouldn't mind catching up with.

My desire to see them has nothing to do with my gf. I enjoy my gf, care about her a lot but this doesn't suddenly mean I want to drop all my female friends.

I keep text conversation with female friends to a minimum or reasonably professional and never meet up one on one (only in groups) out of respect for my gf.

Who do you want to see more, your gf, or your female friends?

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Here's another post that's somewhat relative.

Is that so? So what are you arguing here then? They probably shouldn't in some instances, it's all relative bro. However my point, and I believe Exceptions, and other posters is:

-some one on one's should not happen, this is correct
-some are harmless, and may actually be beneficial to the relationship (a few of us have this opinion)

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2152478&postcount=93

 

[zekko]

Others have already addressed this, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway:

To me this is a fear based mindset, you think that by trying to control every variable you can insulate yourself from the risk of everyday living.

This is a strawman, nobody is trying to control every variable.

Personally, im never going to tell a girl not to talk to xyz person..

Strawman. No one has suggested such.

Life is too damn short to be constantly positioning, evaluating, scrutinizing her every move.

Another strawman. Like Social Leper said, we're talking about one brief conversation when you begin to date exclusively. No one is suggesting doing all this scrutinizing. I live with my girlfriend and I'm pretty familiar with her habits. If something is amiss I would probably detect it without any effort.

Bang a lot of girls (if you want), enjoy them, some will stay longer than others, you'll get burned by some, you will burn some of them.

Since marriage in modern western culture is a sham, I agree and I keep a mindset that all relationships are temporary. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy them while they last, however.

For the record, I have never, ever, told a woman she cannot hang out with any other men.

For the record, neither have I. I HAVE, however, said that I would never seriously date any woman who continued to hang out with male friends. Which I would not.

 

[sylvester the cat]

@ danger- what does your perceived notion of incongruity have to do with this thread?

How am I questioning the pro boundary crew? I simply made a report. Perhaps it was the LOL you took to be directed at the pro boundaries? Let me put your mind at rest when I say that that LOL was directed not at the man for laying down boundaries but at the revelation that his boundaries were in vain due to his lack of judgement.