A girl's perspective on boundaries

[Peaks&Valleys]

One thing you do NOT want to do is get into excluding specific men. To me THAT displays insecurity.

Well, I don't exclude ANY man. If she's not excluding these MEN(that are threats) on her own, then the only thing I will exclude is myself, from the relationship.

It's pretty simple...

And no I do not believe you and jurry agreed unless you are recanting your position to say she can go on a "date", even if it is an "old friend"?

Don't understand you here.

It is perfectly natural to discuss that.

It's natural to discuss if, after screening her, getting to know her, and building whatever relationships it is you've built, you still FEAR her hanging out with other dudes, as a possible means of her cheating.

As the leader and as a man, she WILL follow your lead and it will always feel natural to her, as long as you are dominant with a strong frame. You must have the confidence and convey that confidence.

Or you can be so confident that you know there's no way in hell she would cheat on you, and therefore you understand that setting boundaries would be futile, and a fools errand (for many reason that have already been discussed). And also, so confident to know that even if she does cheat, then that will be no loss to you, because you can easily move on. If she cheats, it will be HER loss, and if she's going to anyway, then the sooner the better, so that way you don't end up marrying a chick who later cheats 4 years down the road.

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.

Co-signed.

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.

Okay. But don't need what in your 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.

Precedent? The only precedent that is being set is that I'm making her personally responsible for her own actions.

Again, this comes down to leadership. I find that if you set the tone by not playing games, she will not play them either.

Like I said, this is good in theory, but "games" come in all sorts of shapes and sizes (most often in the form of $hit tests) A strong frame is one thing, but a woman's need for drama and emotional stimulation can sometimes get in the way of normal rational behavior.

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

I think this has something to do with the "Law of Attraction"

 

[guru1000]

A relationship isn't a business arrangement ...

Depends what you define as business relationship. If business relationship is pecuniary-related, then you are correct. IF a business relationship means a transaction where value is provided by both parties structured by an agreement of sorts, then the terms are homogenous.

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?

Sex is a binary, physical act, requiring a yes or no, whether overtly or covertly. Sex, a physical agreement--where body cues are the telltale signs of consent--requires no verbalization because of its physical nature and simplicity.

Physical agreement ==> physical communication
Verbal agreement ==> verbal communication

Although my saying “I need to get a condom, brb” is verbalizing the act.

Exclusivity is a verbal agreement, as well as multifaceted with disparate meanings/contexts, thus cannot be explained physically. Exclusivity does not only mean exclusive banging. That’s one-dimensional thinking. Even you Peaks could contrive many scenarios where different interpretations of exclusivity could arise. Sure you can’t delineate 1000 terms, as conditions you cannot predict will arise; but a general verbalized umbrella boundary such as “Don’t disrespect me or contribute to others’ disrespect of me” to create culpability and govern subsequent offenses can go a long way toward bifurcating future appropriate and inappropriate behavior/patterns, warranting your exit without seesaw contemplation.

 

[sylvester the cat]

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

If the post exclusivity crew do not delineate terms of exclusivity I think it is because they assume these things are generally regarded as common sense just as one would assume that murdering another person need not be delineated or stealing from someone etc.

 

[sylvester the cat]

Let me restate my question with better clarification....


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

But I am not questioning pro verbalisers or anti verbalisers. Each to their own I say.

I am questioning the definition of pro v anti boundaries. As I said - both parties are pro boundaries.

 

[guru1000]

If the post exclusivity crew...

Stop the strawman. There is no pre- or post-exclsuvity crew. The distinction is between overt/covert boundaries. Both are invaluable resources when deployed effectively.

[T]hese things are generally regarded as common sense just as one would assume that murdering another person need not be delineated or stealing from someone etc.

Common sense is shaped through the impetuses of conditioning fashioned by the state and its laws, social upbringing, education, and advertising. Many believe they are the masters of their volition, but they fail to understand that their "common sense" is in fact a "programmed sense"—a social machination — and any thoughts or decisions that arise from these "common sense" decisions are, in fact, a derivative of their unconscious, conditioned prisons of thought. The act of murder in many historical cultures was regarded as alpha/heroic carrying no stigma. Try explaining to those cultures that murdering is "wrong" is common sense.

Think outside the box you painted yourself in.

 

[Reservoir Dog]

What's this?

 

[zekko]

I think the problem with Jurry (why he got flustered) is he came into this conversations late and maybe wasn't familiar with a lot of the arguments and terminology that some of the rest of us take for granted, since we've probably been arguing about this for four years or more, lol.

Some here define exclusivity in the broadest possible sense, which is that as long as the penis doesn't enter the vagina then it's okay. That's one point of view, but in order for me to sign on for exclusivity, the standards have to be more stringent than that. But it strikes me that if you take the broader definition of exclusivity, then maybe you might see no need for boundaries.

Or you can be so confident that you know there's no way in hell she would cheat on you

Hmm, that sounds a lot like self delusion or naivety. I don't expect my girlfriend to cheat on me, but I don't rule out ANY possibilities in this culture. But it's not all about cheating to me, it's about the kind of lifestyle you want to live. And that lifestyle does not include a girlfriend who hangs out with male friends

And also, so confident to know that even if she does cheat, then that will be no loss to you, because you can easily move on. If she cheats, it will be HER loss, and if she's going to anyway, then the sooner the better, so that way you don't end up marrying a chick who later cheats 4 years down the road.

I agree with that, except for the fact that I will not be getting married again. And I think that boundaries help in "early detection".

Okay. But don't need what in your life?

I don't need a woman bringing in close male friends that she has hung on to for the last 10 years or whatever. To me that's baggage. The guy may be an ex, maybe not. In any case, IMO if I say it's okay to go hang with the friend of 10 years, then I see no reason to have a problem with her hanging out with a NEW male friend. And that can lead to problems.

They talk about the friendzone all the time here, but the fact is that in cheating situations, most cheating grows out of friendship.

I used to hang out with female friends in my 20s, but at my age now I've come to view it as a waste of time. But if she sees opposite sex friends, then so should I. Problem there is:
1) I consider it a waste of time that I don't want to bother with
2) If I hang out with some chick chances are I'm going to want to fvck her. Unless she is ugly, in which case I probably don't want to hang out with her anyway.
The whole thing is just easier if we forgo hanging out with the opposite sex friends altogether. It just runs smoother that way.


Peaks, you're saying that the girl should police her own friendships for "threats". And then if she's into you then she will drop the threats. But now let's make this clear, you're saying she will NOT drop the 10 year old friend? So she will NOT drop all of her male friends?

 

[jurry]

Its not difficult zekko and im not flustered, im simply in amazement that grown , "high value" men need pages and pages of threads (which apparently has been going on for years according to you) to understand the most simple idea.

Exclusivity = you dont date other people, you obviously dont fvck other people. Hanging out with a friend of the opposite sex is not a date, its hanging out with a friend. If you dont trust her to know the difference, YOU SHOULDNT BE WITH HER.

This ENTIRE discussion is coming from a position of weakness and fear and insecurity. "How can i minimize the risk of x", "how do i get her to stop doing y", etc. etc. No DJ or man of value would ever find himself asking such questions.

SHE is the one pursuing HIM. SHE is the one worried about being cheated on. If you are in the reverse scenario, wondering what shes doing and being unsure if she would hang out with xyz guy from the past, well then you need to seriously reevaluate how you are dealing with women because this is textbook AFC behavior.

Thats all there is to it, its pretty cut and dry. Sorry if you guys cant accept it.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

I do not exclude the men either, that is entirely up to her. But first she needs to know that is the expectation. Too many men will have trained her otherwise for her to know better.

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE HOW OTHER MEN HAVE 'TRAINED' HER.

All that 'training' goes right out the window when they become involved with a strong 'Alpha' MAN. As I've said before, if you hit the NATURE side of her, her NURTURE side will go up in a ball of flames.

It is natural that she will think it is ok to hang out with other men because of modern society telling her she is an entitled princess and thus has never had any boundaries or rules placed upon her, and certainly not from her historical beta orbiters.

So what? See above. SHE WON'T WANT TO HANG OUT WITH OTHER 'MEN' (Threats)

If she wants to hang out with this guy, I really don't care: http://www.baconwrappedmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/friendzone-bacon-wrapped-media-13.jpg

Educating her is not based upon fear, it is retraining her to better understand what is expected from a relationship. It is to remove ambiguity.

If she hangs out with another man I dump her, simple as that. But how will she know that if I do not tell her when she requests exclusivity?

Your method of "educating" is based off of fear. I educate women all the time, then let them make up their own mind. Your educating is telling them what they can or cannot do.

It's like telling a chick she needs to go on a diet. She'll eat healthy....in front of you, but as soon as you leave the house, she's scarfing down cupcakes and donut holes.

Again you are coming at this from the concept it is to prevent her from cheating. It is to educate her on the expectations of exclusivity that she is requesting.

You guys go back and forth all the time on what is the purpose of your boundaries.

My confidence is that I can replace her, but she deserves to know my expectations, especially in the light of betas and society telling her that there should be no expectations made of her.

More logic 1 +1 = 2 thinking.

Have you ever witnessed a woman's behavior do a 180 after meeting a certain guy? Is it because the guy told her how to act? Her behavior flipped because he simply said: "change your behavior!" No. He tapped into her primal feminine nature. That is all. She then treats beta orbiters like foot stools, while treating that certain guy like a King.

I can be supremely confident she won't cheat on me, but I will still have the expectation she honors my definition of exclusivity and does not contribute towards disrespect to that relationship. In order for her to abide by that, she needs to know what my definitions and expectations are.

Round and round we go. Buy her flowers and she'll have sex with you.

Look, if you get a dog from the pound, does it know how to sit and roll-over? Of course not. You have to train it.

okay, then, when you leave the house does the dog ever go up on the couch, or dig through the garbage? What about when you leave the door open? Does it stay inside?

When you get a girl who has had men bend backwards for her during her whole life and society screams at everyone that she is a special snowflake princess.....chances are you will have to train her.

No. This is blue pill thinking.

These situations are no different. And this will be the queue for posters to attack me for comparing her to a dog, or to an investment, or to a house, but those are personal attacks rooted in trying to "humanize" what is a logical irrefutable argument.

Your laying it out like women are a simple step by step instruction manual.

No. Wrong.

EVERY being on this planet needs to be trained to some degree on the proper way to act, your exclusive relationship is no different.

Well your method of 'training' is bush league, IMO.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

They talk about the friendzone all the time here, but the fact is that in cheating situations, most cheating grows out of friendship.

This^ is blue pill feminist thinking. I think you're confusing new "friendships" with old friendships.

But, I agree, cheating can grow from old friendships if the man forbids the woman to now see her friend, therefore---> raising his value, removing him from the FZ, and making him the forbidden fruit.

Peaks, you're saying that the girl should police her own friendships for "threats". And then if she's into you then she will drop the threats. But now let's make this clear, you're saying she will NOT drop the 10 year old friend? So she will NOT drop all of her male friends?

Some will, some won't.

I don't expect her to drop ALL of her FRIENDS. But she'll drop a lot of her single friends -> guys and girls. It's natural for her to do so.

She will have no DESIRE to hang out with them.

But I do expect her to drop ALL of the guys that she was DATING, or were in the running AKA 'threats'.

What is so hard about understanding this?

Some girls will have a guy or two that she considers "friends" that are actual friends to her. SO FVCKING WHAT? She doesn't want to have sex with them, they've been put in the FZ long before I came into the picture. She'll probably eventually drop these guys anyways, just because she does not want to see them anymore, like a lot of her friends. Otherwise, if they're really serious friends, then they'll keep them around somewhere.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM??

SHE'S NOT GOING TO CHEAT WITH THEM. NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

[zekko]

Its not difficult zekko and im not flustered, im simply in amazement that grown , "high value" men need pages and pages of threads (which apparently has been going on for years according to you) to understand the most simple idea.

This argument has been going on for years because we don't agree, just like right now you and I don't agree.

Exclusivity = you dont date other people, you obviously dont fvck other people. Hanging out with a friend of the opposite sex is not a date, its hanging out with a friend. If you dont trust her to know the difference, YOU SHOULDNT BE WITH HER.

This ENTIRE discussion is coming from a position of weakness and fear and insecurity. "How can i minimize the risk of x", "how do i get her to stop doing y", etc. etc. No DJ or man of value would ever find himself asking such questions.

Oh, here we go with the accusations of fear and insecurity again.
Fact is, I will not seriously date a woman who hangs out one on one with friends of the opposite sex. My parents didn't do it, I won't do it. I have friends who do it, but I won't. To me, that is inviting trouble.

And no, I don't sit around all day worrying about my girlfriend cheating on me. If she cheats on me, or if she decides that seeing male friends is more important than our relationship, then she can be replaced. You can call me all the names you want, but I'm not changing my standards. That is what I demand from a relationship, and if I can't get it I won't be in one.

SHE is the one pursuing HIM.

Yes, exactly. If she wants to be in a relationship with me, she has to meet my expectations. Which include not hanging out one on one with other men. If she can't meet my expectations, then I will not date her exclusively. No big loss - as "DJs", we all know we have other options.

This^ is blue pill feminist thinking. I think you're confusing new "friendships" with old friendships.

Don't insult me by calling me a blue pill feminist, Peaks, I expect better from you.

For awhile now, you've been saying that if women are into you, they will drop their male friends and orbiters ON THEIR OWN. That is the same position that Sooli took. Of course you know that Danger and I, at least, don't agree with that. Now you are making clear that you do not include male friends in that group, that they will still continue to see male friends.

If that is acceptable to you, fine, to each his own. But it is not acceptable to me.

 

[jurry]

If you are admitting that her hanging out with male friends is "inviting trouble", what other words can describe this besides fear and insecurity?

Either you are comfortable with your frame and you trust the girl you are with because of your own value, or you are not comfortable and are worried another man is going to steal her.

Furthermore, if she DOES have male friends and wants to still hang out with them, and you force her to stop seeing them, then she will just resent you for this, and it is more likely she would go behind your back to hang out with them.

Which all begs the question, why would you agree to exclusivity with a girl who you know does things you dont like? And if you are with a girl who doesnt hang out with male friends, then such a conversation is redundant. She is already the kind of girl you want, so no boundary discussion is necessary.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

For awhile now, you've been saying that if women are into you, they will drop their male friends and orbiters ON THEIR OWN. That is the same position that Sooli took. Of course you know that Danger and I, at least, don't agree with that. Now you are making clear that you do not include male friends in that group, that they will still continue to see male friends.

I think I've explained my position quite a few times already. To try from a different angle: I don't "rule with an Iron Fist" or have "Iron Rules". I'll make judgment calls. Some (maybe most) women won't have any male FRIENDS, therefore all those other orbiters they call 'friends' will be dropped, once we get serious, and she'll do this ON HER OWN. If they're not really 'just friends', and she's still keeping him around, I should be able to see it for what it is, and simply not go exclusive with this woman. Then, on the other side of the spectrum, there will be a few women, who have a long term bestie guy friend that they'll 'keep in touch' with, that may eventually fall off, or not. <----I could not give two $hits about these.

There's no ALL OR NOTHING. I don't paint all guy friends with the broad stroke of the brush. Like I said earlier, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE. And, all things considered, again: SHE WILL DROP ALL THREATS ON HER OWN.

If she doesn't, then see previous posts in this thread on WHY she is not doing so.

At this point, I'm 50/50 on whether or not you're trolling me.

If you are admitting that her hanging out with male friends is "inviting trouble", what other words can describe this besides fear and insecurity?

Either you are comfortable with your frame and you trust the girl you are with because of your own value, or you are not comfortable and are worried another man is going to steal her.

Furthermore, if she DOES have male friends and wants to still hang out with them, and you force her to stop seeing them, then she will just resent you for this, and it is more likely she would go behind your back to hang out with them.

Which all begs the question, why would you agree to exclusivity with a girl who you know does things you dont like? And if you are with a girl who doesnt hang out with male friends, then such a conversation is redundant. She is already the kind of girl you want, so no boundary discussion is necessary.

It's so simple.

 

[zekko]

If you are admitting that her hanging out with male friends is "inviting trouble", what other words can describe this besides fear and insecurity?

I call it having standards. I have no interest in having a girlfriend who hangs out one on one with male friends. She can talk to whoever she wants, I have no problem with that, but I'm not interested in being with one of those girls who goes out one on one with her male friends. I find it disrespectful to the relationship.

Either you are comfortable with your frame and you trust the girl you are with because of your own value, or you are not comfortable and are worried another man is going to steal her.

Of course she is with me because of my value, why else would she be with me? As for another man stealing her, eh, if he can win her he is welcome to her, that's not something that I sweat. My mindset is that I believe most relationships are temporary, I don't expect them to last forever.

That doesn't mean that I think it's appropriate to place yourselves in situations of temptation. Almost anyone might cheat under the right conditions. But that isn't my main objection. I simply refuse to be with a woman who hangs out with male friends, that's not my scene.

Furthermore, if she DOES have male friends and wants to still hang out with them, and you force her to stop seeing them, then she will just resent you for this, and it is more likely she would go behind your back to hang out with them.

I'm not forcing her to do anything, that is her decision to make. If she agrees that we should not see opposite sex friends, then I might give her a chance. If she sees someone behind my back and I find out about it, then she gets dumped.

Which all begs the question, why would you agree to exclusivity with a girl who you know does things you dont like? And if you are with a girl who doesnt hang out with male friends, then such a conversation is redundant. She is already the kind of girl you want, so no boundary discussion is necessary.

If a girl is single, there's nothing wrong with her having male friends. It doesn't become disrespectful until she enters an exclusivity agreement. If she agrees with you (as she did in PairPlus's example above), then I might give her a chance.

The problem with leaving the question undiscussed is that it may come up in the future. I think the girl has a right to know about my position, so there are no surprises down the line. When I met my to-be wife, and when she asked for exclusivity, she brought the subject up to ME. Because her ex-boyfriend had seen opposite sex friends and had ended up cheating on her. Like I said, it can cause problems. You can call it fear and insecurity or whatever you want, but the fact is, it can cause problems.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

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

Welp

 

[guru1000]

I understand that Peaks and Jurry don't want to verbalize boundaries relating to male friends. Fair enough; we each have the right to differentiate among disqualifying deal-breakers, acceptable behavior, and behavior which warrant verbalized boundaries.

• Sooli admitted verbalizing boundaries relating to his plate smoking in his car, which was effective.
• Peaks admitted to setting covert boundaries in relation to his plate's lateness, which was effective.

I'm interested to know if Peaks or Jurry discuss or have ever discussed any matter with their plate/gf relating to their differences. In other words, did you ever argue with or verbalize discontent to your plate/gf about a behavior/action? If so, regarding what; paint me a scenario.

 

[BrainDamage92]

So after 7 pages it got personal. Let me derail this disagreement with some of my BS:

1. Old folks over here say: "No matter who you are, someone, somewhere, someday will fvuck your woman"

2. An exclusive, serious relationship has a point only when making babies is concerned. So grow, become successfull, and get a woman who will raise your kids and will not be mad if you get some action on the side. You have to be so cool she feels proud to be your "first" not your "only". This dynamic woooooooorks.

The dynamic where youre both young people and you go "exclusive" over nothing I lived with a girl for 2,5 years, both same age, slept in the same bed every night an all, since I was what? 18?, 19 (****), till last year, so I know my ****, Im young but listen...

**** this serious ****... You are not ready for this ****. Youre ready for this **** when you want kids. Until then sit your ass down and dont do stupid ****. Just have fun and dont try to keep A girlfriend like a SINGULAR girlfriend... Keep aquaintances. Single is good believe me it is. **** society or whatever pathetic peer pressure is applied to you. I see my ***** whipped pals nowadays I feel sad for them and abit glad that Im free as a mo****a... It all comes down to this - are you bumb or are you smart.

So the boundary problem dissapears. Couse you know, nobody likes using stuff like boundaries its like telling your girl "I know youre retarded, so Ill tell you what to do" But its necessary. But... be like me and stay single its THE BOMB

 

[Darth]

THE DEFINITIVE POST ON BOUNDARIES (!)

If you don't trust your woman, you are toast. You are also insecure. You are both insecure and toast.

 

[jurry]

Agree with that braindamage, I was thinking perhaps age and generational differences may have some weight on this kind of thing as well. To each his own, I just dont personally understand why the "no opposite sex friends" discussion would come up, nor that it would even be effective in preventing cheating.

Guru I've been w my current gf for about 10 months and I think the most serious thing we ever disagree on is bickering over how to make food as im a picky eater and she'll just throw all kinds of shît together at once, forget whats even cooking, etc. I gave her shît for being late a couple of times.. Pretty small stuff. If i was having major disagreements and problems id be out.

Lifes just too short to be that serious about it IMO, enjoy the time if it doesnt feel right get out. The boundary discussion and ironing out exclusivity arrangements like a legal contract just depresses the hell out of me. If its workin cool, if it aint workin move on. If I felt like I needed to talk to a girl about what exclusivity means or who she hangs out with.. Id be very skeptical of my judgement and why im committing to that person.

 

[guru1000]

Guru I've been w my current gf for about 10 months and I think the most serious thing we ever disagree on is bickering over how to make food as im a picky eater and she'll just throw all kinds of shît together at once, forget whats even cooking, etc. I gave her shît for being late a couple of times.. Pretty small stuff. If i was having major disagreements and problems id be out.

OK, you verbalize your expectations regarding the "small stuff." I agree consistent lateness is disrespect of your time. If we set aside the exclusivity jargon for a moment, it appears, at least for you, setting expectations for the "small stuff" is acceptable. You are opposed to setting boundaries involving larger issues. The only downside to evading boundaries for significant matters is as a relationship progresses, differences of opinion regarding significant matters will arise.

For example:

(1) What if you don’t want to get married and she did; (2) What if you both want to get married, but she desires kids, and you don’t.

Wouldn’t it be prudent for you and she to verbalize expectations at the beginning to avoid years of exclusivity with a woman who has disparate motives--ergo an incompatible contender--thus compensating you with time to secure a compatible contender (one who did not want to get married or have kids in the scenario above)?