A girl's perspective on boundaries

[sylvester the cat]

You are the commonality in this thread, and a previous thread where there was incongruence between your actions and your written words. So that is what it has to do with this thread.


Given that this board has an amazing weakness for recognizing incongruence between women's actions and their words, it only makes sense to illustrate an example of a man doing it.

Lack of congruence is such a foundational aspect of game and relationships it belongs in any discussion where incongruence happens to appear.



Your questioning was also prevalent in the previous thread where I made the same observation, and in this thread as well where you are asking what I would consider to be basic boundary questions.

The original post in this thread was not the main reason for my observation, but just aligns with the other clues in illustrating the incongruence.

It's all good, I am merely stating my observation on the matter.

If I'm questioning you it's because it seems the definition of boundaries is confused. On the one hand you say there are the pro boundaries and then on the other you say there are the anti boundaries. Then it transpires that both parties are actually pro boundary because it turns out the pros set out their boundaries pre exclusivity whereas the antis set them out post exclusivity.

As I said before. I see no distinction between pro and anti so if it looks like I am questioning the pro boundaries it's because I am! Both parties are pro boundaries. This is a matter of pre v post not pro v anti.

Your attempt at deflecting the issue with the use of aggrandizing words will not change this.

 

[zekko]

If I'm questioning you it's because it seems the definition of boundaries is confused. On the one hand you say there are the pro boundaries and then on the other you say there are the anti boundaries. Then it transpires that both parties are actually pro boundary because it turns out the pros set out their boundaries pre exclusivity whereas the antis set them out post exclusivity.

As I said before. I see no distinction between pro and anti so if it looks like I am questioning the pro boundaries it's because I am! Both parties are pro boundaries. This is a matter of pre v post not pro v anti.

I agree that the two sides are a lot closer than all the arguing would indicate. It seems like some people have gotten very heated about a very thiin line. But I don't agree that the anti-boundary people want to set boundaries post-exclusivity. They don't think boundaries should be necessary at all.

Danger is right though, for someone claiming to be pro-boundary, you haven't really acted like it with your posting. He's not the only one who noticed it. Now you are saying you don't see the difference between the two arguments, so apparently there is something to it.

 

[sylvester the cat]

I agree that the two sides are a lot closer than all the arguing would indicate. It seems like some people have gotten very heated about a very thiin line. But I don't agree that the anti-boundary people want to set boundaries post-exclusivity. They don't think boundaries should be necessary at all.

Danger is right though, for someone claiming to be pro-boundary, you haven't really acted like it with your posting. He's not the only one who noticed it. Now you are saying you don't see the difference between the two arguments, so apparently there is something to it.

Your assertion that the 'anti-boundaries' don't think boundaries should be necessary at all is simply not true. Time and again they assert that they set boundaries AFTER an event has happened. Hence why they will go NC or delete a woman from their life if she oversteps an expectation. That is clearly setting boundaries. To them they think these expectations should be unwritten or common sense whereas the pre's think they should be clearly delineated.

Once again I am not claiming to be pro boundary because I see no distinction between pro and anti. This is about pre v post exclusivity of which I have made quite clear I am pro pre exclusivity boundary setting.

 

[sylvester the cat]

I don't think it is confused, but that is just me. And in all of the discussions the issue has really settled around pro/anti-verbalizing boundaries, not necessarily the boundaries themselves.






What exact issue am I "deflecting"? I have answered every query, and now I am stating an observation I made, and apparently I am not the only one who noticed.

But again, no need to get upset as it may mean nothing, I would just expect someone who is pro pre-exclusivity boundary setting to be asking questions of the post-exclusivity boundary setters as opposed to your current approach. But maybe you are just trying to learn more about how to do it, I don't know honestly but the incongruence made my spidey-sense tingle, that's all.

I am questioning you both. Because up until now it was pro v anti boundary setters.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Time and again they assert that they set boundaries AFTER an event has happened. Hence why they will go NC or delete a woman from their life if she oversteps an expectation. That is clearly setting boundaries. To them they think these expectations should be unwritten or common sense whereas the pre's think they should be clearly delineated.

For the most part, I'd agree. A lot of the 'expectations' gets worked out in the screening process, before exclusivity. There's obviously some logical verbal discussions, but most of the jockeying is done through tests. As she $hit tests you, you in turn, test her.

She doesn't tell you: "When I act like a brat, make sure to act like a man, and not put up with it."

No, she $hit tests you (most of the time not realizing what she's doing), then her inherent ATTRACTION is raised or lowered depending on how you handle these $hit tests.

This works both ways. She goes out on her 2nd GNO that week, all the while you're sitting at home twiddling your thumbs. Your attraction to her should lower, that type of behavior should repel you. <----If you're a man. You then start looking at other options. She realizes this, then NATURALLY curbs her behavior due to a build up of ATTRACTION for you (because you're not putting up with her $hitty behavior). She's partly curbing her behavior because she FEARS losing you, but she's mostly doing it because she WANTS to.

She WANTS to be with you instead of her girlfriends.

Does ^this make sense?

 

[sylvester the cat]

Perhaps you can show me where you directed questions to the anti-boundary camp? Because I have missed them if you have.

And again, it has always been and continues to be anti-verbalizing boundaries.

There is no anti boundary crew. That's why you won't find any questions directed to them. We are all Pro boundaries.

 

[jurry]

Ok so help me understand this danger, you're saying that you would automatically disqualify her as relationship worthy if shes always going out with her friends.

And then you're saying she would be the one to confront you if you stopped seeing her, and that she needs to be told what is ok for a relationship.

How is this not a contradiction? Either she is acting the way you want a girl to act and she is relationship material (because youve screened her etc.), or she is not relationship material and therefore no more discussion is needed, boundaries or otherwise, since she is already disqualified.

If a girl isnt going out with guy friends etc. and you have screened her, then why would you have a discussion saying dont go out with guys anymore. You already know!

 

[jurry]

She knows because she is showing you through her actions that she doesnt do it, arent you always saying judge their actions not their words? You oddly bringing it up when she already doesnt do something reeks of fear and insecurity.

The original post is a perfect example. The girl lies about where she is going because she doesnt want her BF to know because he has told her not to! If a girl is no longer attracted to you, do you really think the "contract" you wrote up at the beginning makes a difference?

If you are a man of value then she is going to be the one worried about what YOU'RE doing, not the other way around.

 

[guru1000]

I pity any individual that's enters ANY agreement without delineation and negotiation of the terms.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

I pity any individual that's enters ANY agreement without delineation and negotiation of the terms.

So you can get a guarantee?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dpBpaFiMo

 

[zekko]

For the most part, I'd agree. A lot of the 'expectations' gets worked out in the screening process, before exclusivity. There's obviously some logical verbal discussions, but most of the jockeying is done through tests. As she $hit tests you, you in turn, test her.

Sylvester says the anti-boundary people are in favor of setting boundaries POST-EXCLUSIVITY (post 84), that would be after the screening process.

Regarding sh!t tests, I think this shows where we part ways. I do not like to play games, nor am I very tolerant of them. That's why I like to say what I expect instead of beating around the bush.

But the one constant is that no matter the situation or the girl, one should verbalize the definition of "exclusivity" so as to remove all doubt. Given that every man seems to have a different definition, it becomes a no-brainer that of course women would have a different definition as well.

This makes such perfect sense to me I don't understand why anyone disagrees with it. When a woman asks you to be "exclusive", don't you think you should define what it is that you are agreeing to? And no, I don't believe "Everybody knows what it means". Clearly different people define it differently.

If you are a man of value then she is going to be the one worried about what YOU'RE doing, not the other way around.

As a man of value, I have certain expectations of any woman I am going to grant exclusivity to. And those standards are going to be met, or I am not going to be in the relationship.

 

[guru1000]

So you can get a guarantee?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dpBpaFiMo

Exactly, a guarantee that the agreement is nullified should a party violate the terms.

I would love to do business with you: please send me $100,000, I will manage it well for you.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Exactly, a guarantee that the agreement is nullified should a party violate the terms.

I would love to do business with you: please send me $100,000, I will manage it well for you.

A relationship isn't a business arrangement, it is for some, but not for most. I know quite a few successful business/sales men that are horrible with women. Some things are relative, but most are not.


Do you verbal boundary guys also agree with the Yes Means Yes law? I would think so. You have to speak about the 'terms' the whole way through, right? Otherwise one party might violate the other's expectations. I mean, how do you know if she really wants to have sex with you unless she gives you verbal consent?

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

This makes such perfect sense to me I don't understand why anyone disagrees with it.

Because this is not a problem with a simple logical solution like what does 2 + 2 =? Men have the most difficult time realizing this: relationships rarely ever make logical sense. (red pill anyone) If they did, then NO ONE would ever have any trouble with them.

Example of logical relationship sense: Be nice to her and she'll be attracted to you.

That makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

 

[jurry]

Okay.. so you are saying that the purpose of the discussion is not to prevent her from breaking your boundaries, but to give you justification for dumping her if you find that she has crossed them.

This assumes that a woman would be requesting exclusivity from a guy who she does not intend on being monogamous with, which goes against almost everything we know about female attraction. Women want to secure a high value man, they do not want to be a wh0re to 5 different men. That is not their nature.

You're also assuming that if a woman lost attraction and cheated on you, that she would vocalize this to you because of a boundary discussion. Also a highly dubious postulation.

These are the steps and actions of a low value man who is wayyy overly concerned with the potential for losing a woman. Overall the perspective here is completely backwards.

As an aside, has anyone reading this ever heard of a girl cheating on her boyfriend because "he didnt tell her she couldn't"? And does the "boundary crew" agree that the purpose of boundaries is not to prevent her from breaking them?

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

It is as far as determining what are offenses which will not be tolerated.

:yawn:

Nice cheeky response to a one-time discussion. This is just another straw-man that jury erected a page ago. This is not a constant discussion, just a one-time agreement on what "exclusive" means.

Why is there such resistance to defining exclusivity when she requests it?

Because, much like the verbal disclosure of consent, it's UN-NATURAL to verbalize these things. It just is, it should be known. If it's not known that she shouldn't be hanging out with guy's that are threats to the relationship, then you shouldn't get exclusive with her.

People have INSTINCTS. It's partially how they survive. If she's running around town, going on 'dates' (as you call them) with these dudes, then either she's got some type of damage to her brain, or she's doesn't respect the relationship. Either way, GET RID OF HER.

Why do you need rules and guidelines to dump her a$$, or just not go exclusive with her in the first place?

 

[jurry]

I wasnt aware that men here did not understand what exclusivity means. I am under the impression that everyone understands what it means after they finish say, middle school.

Exclusivity means you dont have a sexual relationship with someone else. How is that open for interpretation? This is not subjective like the term "slut"

I just cant fathom a scenario where I'd feel I need to explain to a potential girlfriend what it means. If I feel that she doesnt know what it means, then I would not be considering her for a LTR. And why would she be asking me for something that she doesnt understand?

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

At this juncture I would like to point out that jurry and Peaks have different definitions of exclusivity. Peaks recognizes that women should not be "dating" other men, but jurry defines it only as a sexual relationship.

Hence my argument that it needs defining.

Nah, I actually think we're pretty much on the same page. I don't think I've disagreed with anything he's said in this thread.

As I explained to zekko previously (in this thread). It's not all black and white.

Two different scenarios:
-meeting up with her long time guy friend that she's known for 10 years to get some coffee, while you're out playing golf.

-going out one on one with a single good looking male co-worker on a Friday night, while you're at home watching T.V.

You have to be able to tell the difference, these are not the same.

Why are you forcing her, in order for her to be exclusive with you, to completely cut out her long time guy friend?

Sylvester says the anti-boundary people are in favor of setting boundaries POST-EXCLUSIVITY (post 84), that would be after the screening process.

I know, that's why I was correcting him, with my opinion anyways.

Regarding sh!t tests, I think this shows where we part ways. I do not like to play games, nor am I very tolerant of them. That's why I like to say what I expect instead of beating around the bush.

All 'games' are is acting as if you are Don Juan Demaarco with a harem of 1000 women at your disposal. Therefore, once the 'games' get internalized, you really won't be 'playing' them anymore, they'll just be who you are.

Also, you can say: "I do not like to play games" But, games will be played. YOU may not like to play them, but women do. And, on that and previous notes, I'm really starting to think your woman is somewhat of a unicorn.

 

[jurry]

Theyre not different, her dating another man implies acting on romantic aka sexual interest. You're just trying to grasp at any bs excuse you can to avoid facing the stupidity of your argument. You dont date or fvck someone besides the one you are EXCLUSIVE with. Jesus tittyfvcking christ.

The resistance is because having to explain what exclusivity means to a woman like she is a child indicates you dont trust her and you are afraid of losing her. Its a weak beta position to take. DJ's arent sitting around explaining exclusivity to women, they are either acting right or they gi fvck another girl. Everyone knows what it means.

Im done with this. Good day.

 

[zekko]

Two different scenarios:
-meeting up with her long time guy friend that she's known for 10 years to get some coffee, while you're out playing golf.

-going out one on one with a single good looking male co-worker on a Friday night, while you're at home watching T.V.

I don't find either of these situations acceptable. If she's THAT close to some dude that she has to go get coffee with him regularly, then I'm not going to get involved with her. I don't need it in my life.

Also, as Danger says, I don't like the idea of differentiating between those situations. Because it seems to me that if you say she can go out with a guy who is a FRIEND, then that means she can go out with any guy as long as she calls him a "friend". It sets a bad precedent, so I'm not dealing with it.

Also, you can say: "I do not like to play games" But, games will be played. YOU may not like to play them, but women do. And, on that and previous notes, I'm really starting to think your woman is somewhat of a unicorn.

Again, this comes down to leadership. I find that if you set the tone by not playing games, she will not play them either. Of course she has to be attracted to you in order to follow your lead. I agree my girlfriend is exceptionally well behaved, but you have to remember that she has impeccable taste in men, which shows a certain amount of discernment