A girl's perspective on boundaries

[Atom Smasher]

You guys give women WAY too much credit.

They need a "pack leader". It's the only what they know they will be taken care of. They're wired for this. They need to be told in no uncertain terms what your expectations are, because in their ethereal, dreamy minds they cannot solidify what is right and wrong.

Without expressed boundaries they will simply follow their emotions and backwards-rationalize whatever they're doing.

But when the pack leader's expressed expectations are a solid, real entity inside their heads, they have the structure of their existing relationship within their awareness and that eclipses the natural "emotional winging" that they would normally default to.

That's a good way to look at it... a man's expressed expectations overrides women's default state of "fuzzy logic". Their logic is so fuzzy by default that most of them are capable of backward-rationalizing almost anything at all that they did "in the moment"

Your boundaries and expectations default her to the real.

In several of these boundary threads I've told you guys about three or four women I've had long-term relationships with who snuggled up to me and said completely out of the blue "Atom, I love how you set boundaries for us", yet not once has it been acknowledged.

Their doing this demonstrates that they think about these boundaries that I've set (always when I'm not present) and they value them. What some of you guys are having trouble with is how the boundaries are set. You must be imagining some kind of stern lecture.

As a matter of fact its done on the fly, casually, at key times when the iron is hot. That's where a man's sense of timing and instinct comes into play.

Like I said before, a man sets boundaries for the "WE", not the "her". We agree that if we are in an exclusive relationship that certain mutually acceptable parameters of behavior apply.

Just as a woman expects (and needs) a man to plan and execute their outings, so does she need and expect his taking the reins of the mutually accepted boundaries in the relationship. This is leadership 101, and this is one of the ways she knows she's cared for by a strong, centered man.

Personally I like it when a woman snuggles up to me as stated above. You guys should try it.

 

[jurry]

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)?

1) then we'd end it, 2) i would never get married unless i was planning to have kids

I dont see how one can possibly take into consideration every conceivable "significant" issue that is going to come up at the beginning. You get an idea of what shes like, and you take a leap. Are you gona sit there with a checklist? "Hmm and when will you be ready for marriage? How many kids? What are your parents like? Whens the last time you spoke with an ex? Are you going to turn into a raging cvnt 10 years down the line?" Etc. What if your decisions change afterwards?

I cant imagine anyone doing this. You seem to have a highly analytical, transactional approach to dating and women, so maybe that works for you. I'm more spontaneous and take it as it comes kind of a guy.

 

[zekko]

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

Apparently you find setting boundaries unpleasant, but I don't mind doing it at all. If you are a CEO of a corporation, it's no problem to send one more memo down the line. Also, if you prefer to remain single, great. You're a very young man, and you should be enjoying your singlehood. But there may come a time when you find a woman you find worthy of more attention, and that is what this thread is about.

For the record, I am 54, and no I don't want any babies.

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

Trust your woman to do what? To stay with you forever? I would submit that if you do that you have certainly not swallowed the red pill yet.

I cant imagine anyone doing this. You seem to have a highly analytical, transactional approach to dating and women, so maybe that works for you. I'm more spontaneous and take it as it comes kind of a guy.

If you're more spontaneous and that works for you, fine. But I think you're overestimating the amount of effort that goes into this. As Smasher says, it's done very casually, a one time discussion, it doesn't take that much thought or effort at all. It could literally be five seconds of your life and it's done. These discussions have taken about 10,000 times the amount of time and effort as actually setting the boundary does.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

If you are a CEO of a corporation

Lets get this straight, real quick: She does not work for you, she has no obligation to please you, or do your bidding. If she leaves you, it will not effect her well being in any way. She is not tied to you for any other reason than her WANTING to be with you.

Are we on the same page?

If we are, then being a 'CEO' has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[TarantulaHawk]

Some men are seen as more attractive by setting boundaries.

Some men are seen as more attractive by not setting boundaries.

Men who don't set boundaries are worried if they did set boundaries their women wouldn't find them attractive.

Other men who do set boundaries aren't worried if their women wouldn't find them attractive in doing so otherwise they wouldn't set boundaries in the first place.

 

[guru1000]

1) then we'd end it ...

Great that you would end it if she doesn’t meet your expectation or standard regarding the “big stuff.” This is the hallmark of a DJ. But to know she doesn’t meet your expectation/standard means that at one point the subject was overtly discussed. Whether it was a tongue-in-cheek casual mentioning or a direct approach doesn’t change the fact that your expectation/standard was verbalized at one point.

You seem to feel aversion toward the riot-act verbalization of boundaries. In other words, you don’t want to pull out a 20-page contract and read the terms before continuing. You prefer to discuss “things” in the moment or when the subject arises. And that’s fine. Besides my upfront respect boundary, I also verbalize expectations as situations arise. Atom and Zekko seem to verbalize expectations this way as well. Danger and Pairs prefer upfront, which is great to minimize time loss. See, we are all pro-verbalizing boundaries, but differ in how we deliver them.

 

[sylvester the cat]

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.

Pre = Overt
Post = Covert

See, we are all pro-boundaries, but differ in how we deliver them.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

 

[zekko]

Lets get this straight, real quick: She does not work for you, she has no obligation to please you, or do your bidding.

Lol, I knew that CEO remark would ruffle someone's feathers. I was using that as an example more to how easy and natural it was to set an expectation. However, I am the leader of the relationship, so the CEO analogy stands.

Other men who do set boundaries aren't worried if their women wouldn't find them attractive in doing so otherwise they wouldn't set boundaries in the first place.

That is certainly true. I definitely do not give a rat's behind how my attraction level is affected by setting boundaries, though I can't see how it has been hurt any.

Besides my upfront respect boundary, I also verbalize expectations as situations arise. Atom and Zekko seem to verbalize expectations this way as well. Danger and Pairs prefer upfront, which is great to minimize time loss

No, I am definitely in the "upfront" camp. Nip the sh!t in the bud before it comes up.

 

[Soolaimon]

These boundary guys still argue their same failed fallacies about boundaries. Amazing!

If the middle aged women you guys are exclusive with are that stupid needing guidelines on how to think and behave at their old age then all of you deserve what you get.

When you're not around to guide them they are going break your boundaries cause they are too stupid to know any better and you will have another failed relationship to chalk up.

If you were exclusive with smart intelligent classy women who know better then you wouldn't have to waste your time trying to train low quality idiots who aren't smart enough to come out of the rain.

Girl went out with her friends last night. Got pretty trashed. She's telling me how her friend's man thinks she just went to her friend's house and chilled out. She didn't tell him that she was going out partying out of respect for his boundaries.

L
O
L

Here's the perfect example of why boundaries are useless and a waste of time.

It confirms what I've said from the get go and the boundary guys refuse to listen and are not capable of understanding common sense through their severe delusion that clouds their minds.

This girl has free will to do as she chooses even though the boyfriend set boundaries.

She broke his boundaries with ease and the boyfriend is none the wiser to her actions.

This happens all the time to the betas who set boundaries when their women choose not to follow "their rules" and "expectations".

Women will find ways to break your boundaries without you knowing. Your boundaries allow women to lie and sneak around cause they can't let you know they are breaking your rules and expectations. They still are breaking what you defined. It's a waste of time!






Same old members from the boundary crew repeating their same fallacies in over a dozen threads with nothing of substance to argue anything valid. Hilarious!

These betas who set boundaries out of insecurity feel it's necessary to state their definitions of exclusivity otherwise they aren't secure in their relationship until they hear the reassuring words of the woman "agreeing" to their expectations.

They try to frame it as having value or being confident and secure but they are not.

If they had any value at all the woman would get rid of other men on her own without having being told to do so by these betas. Women crave men of value and will do anything to have a valuable man. If you have to "define terms" and tell her she can't hang out with male friends then you have no value.

If they were confident and secure they would know the woman wouldn't want any other man cause other men are inferior to them. They wouldn't be scared of other men and of the woman cheating. They would know the woman can easily be replaced without having to "educate" and "train" an idiot who doesn't understand what an exclusive relationship is from their lack of value.

When a woman has the man she craves she isn't going to need jokers who don't even compare to the valuable man. There is no need for them. But the betas who need boundaries are scared of those men and the woman cheating so they set boundaries.

Men of value don't go through all the trouble of trying to "educate" and "train" women to get them to do what they want. It isn't that serious to them cause women are in abundance. The women should already be doing what you want cause of your value.

So these betas "define terms", "set rules", "give expectations" trying to control the woman by changing her behavior into doing what they want her to do. They do this to gain control over the woman as a fake power trip thinking they are leading. Again, if they had any value the women should already be doing what they want her to do without having to tell her.

If these women are normally hanging out with orbiters the betas who set boundaries are trying to change her behavior and control her from doing that. Those are women you shouldn't commit to if you screened her well enough.

They feel that after they set expectations she will follow their wishes with no problems even when her interest is low. That is how delusional they are.

Your expectations don't matter, It's the value you have and her attraction to you is what matters. When it's gone so is your relationship.

All of the boundary crew members have failed past relationships with boundaries but they never talk about it.

Danger is trying to make excuses by saying this guy set boundaries late or wasn't "confident enough" in setting them. Those are false assumptions. The boundary was set and was still broke by the woman who chose not to follow them. The boundaries are useless.

This is why I say boundaries are set out of fear and insecurity and this is the truth.

Men who see their woman hanging out with another guy becomes insecure of the other man and scared their woman is going to leave him for the other guy. So they set a boundary out of fear and insecurity forbidding the woman to see him.

It isn't done as a position of power or confidence. It's done out of weakness and fear of losing the woman. It's a desperation attempt.

Same thing as setting the boundary before the relationship. These guys are setting boundaries out of weakness and fear of losing the option to other men.

There is nothing strong about that or leading a relationship. But these guys try to frame it that way to feed their delusion.

Strong men who are leaders don't fear their women cheating on them with other men needing to "define terms".

I prefer strong smart classy intelligent women who can think for themselves without me having to parent them about things the should already know.

These betas that believe boundaries are everything. They are naive and don't know much about women.

These are the same women who lied and got past the boundaries their own parents set defying the parents expectations. And these betas think women are above this type of behavior.

Of course women will be on the same page as you when they agree to your terms at the start. When they lose interest they won't agree to your terms making your boundaries useless and a waste of time when they break them.

The boundary crew bases their argument only on assumptions and fallacies without any facts.

They believe all women are stupid not knowing what exclusivity means and needs to be told what it means by them in order for her conduct herself in a relationship.

That is only an assumption but that is the fallacy they provide as their phony fact for their support of needing a boundary.

They claim they will dump her when she breaks the boundaries so that means they were useless.

She will do what she wants whether you set the boundary or not when she isn't into you anymore. That is a fact but the boundary crew will gloss over that fact arguing more of their fallacies pretending that isn't the case.

When you are committing to women who are too stupid to know any better you are going to get cheated on like you did in the past with your boundaries when they don't follow your terms.

Women should be showing you through their own actions what exclusivity means. Not you trying to define terms or change them to how you expect them to behave. That means you have no value and are with a crappy unintelligent woman hoping for the best.

If you had real value none of this boundary stuff would be necssary cause the woman would not need any other man besides you.

She will make that very clear through her actions and you would have true confidence knowing you are above other men instead of fearing them using boundaries as a security blanket to ease your worried mind.

 

[guru1000]

Looks like Sooli is pro-verbalizing boundaries, having told his plate never to smoke in his car. Jurry is pro-verbalizing boundaries in a tongue-in-cheek, spontaneous delivery, when necessary.

Peaks, you seem to be the last of the Mohicans. When are you going to cross over to the dark side?

 

[playa99]

Do you guys not want a woman who understands what a healthy relationship is, in terms of the emotional side?

My LTR has a guy friend who she has known from being a young child, I have absolutely ZERO problem with her going round for a coffee, it is not a date.

Equally, if she is going to do something with someone else, Whether you verbalize it or not, SHE IS GOING TO FVCKING DO IT!


From a practical perspective, it makes sense to set boundaries such as.. not smoking in the car, not leaving your sh!te everywhere around the house.. These are non issues which happen in every relationship.. You should be able to reach an agreement easily.


Ironically enough, I have been having this conversation with someone close to me today. They are having MAJOR issues with there partner acting in a disrespectful way. He has been emotionally abused by his partner for years, from the emotional side, you screen a woman over a couple of months to judge there emotional suitability for a relationship with you.. It does not need to be verbalized!

 

[zekko]

Do you guys not want a woman who understands what a healthy relationship is, in terms of the emotional side?

You and I do not agree on what a healthy relationship is, that is why it needs to be discussed. People seem to be firmly on one side of the fence of this issue or the other. That much at least should be OBVIOUS. Or have you not read this thread, or the many others on this topic?

My LTR has a guy friend who she has known from being a young child, I have absolutely ZERO problem with her going round for a coffee, it is not a date.

That's up to you. I would not have hooked up with this girl in the first place if she has such a relationship that she cannot move past. But to be honest, at your age, I would not expect the issue to come up, unless perhaps you are married. I'm also not sure that someone with the nickname "playa99" would understand what exclusive relationships entail.

Equally, if she is going to do something with someone else, Whether you verbalize it or not, SHE IS GOING TO FVCKING DO IT!

And she is completely free to do whatever she pleases. By the same token, that doesn't mean I have to stay with her.
If she spends time with another guy, friend or not, I'm dumping her. I'm just fair-minded enough to let her know that ahead of time.

From a practical perspective, it makes sense to set boundaries such as.. not smoking in the car, not leaving your sh!te everywhere around the house.. These are non issues which happen in every relationship.. You should be able to reach an agreement easily.

You call them non-issues, but people have broken up over less. You also call her going to coffee with a male friend a non-issue. Again we disagree. You anti-boundary people are being hypocritical because you are willing to set boundaries over anything on the planet except when it comes to her going out with her male friend. And then you will white knight until the end of time to defend her right to do it. Your feminist brainwashing is coming through.

One might also say that if you want a girl who doesn't smoke, then you should date one. Forget smoking in your car, kissing her would be like kissing an ashtray.

 

[playa99]

1: People have a difference in views, I agree with soolis view that you want a woman who you don't have to spell out emotional boundaries to, however there are still boundaries albeit unspoken. By qualifying a woman you are establishing whether or not you are on the same page emotionally. As I said I am not anti boundary. I have read this post and I am simply putting forth my point of view.

2: Bringing a username I made 7 years ago into a discussion has zero relevance.

3: So your saying it's impossible to have a non sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex? I disagree, I have female acquaintances who I have no sexual interest in and vice versa. As millions of people worldwide do. Not having opposite sex friends is your preference when your seeking a relationship, a reason you gave earlier is that it attracts trouble, I disagree but fair play to you. Either party in a relationship not agreeing with the other would be a major issue, if your both in agreement that's fine. This is why you date someone to screen them prior to being exclusive, to see if you're compatible. I believe the non friends boundary leads to issues in itself as you are going to acquaint yourself with people in every day life of the opposite sex, and you are going to get closer to some more than others, whether you like that or not!

4: Some peoples molehills are other people's mountains, to me there are day to day things which couples do bicker about, to some people they would be major, to me they aren't! There must be bigger emotional reasons coming into play if a relation ship ends through someone being untidy, slightly late etc. Smoking wasn't the best example because it is a major issue for a lot of people, me included.

 

[guru1000]

So your saying it's impossible to have a non sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex? I disagree .

This is what we call a buffer. You are blinded to unconsciously support your compromised relation. Stickie this:

Men and woman cannot have a bonafide friendship. For a man/woman friendship to exist, at least one party must desire the other.

Accordingly:

If your exclusive gf has male orbiters cough: friends) that she entertains, probability lies that her male friends desire her, not vice-versa. Ergo, her continued communications with a man who sexually desires her while she is exclusive with you, is a total disrespect to you and your relationship. You should never have been exclusive with such a girl to begin with. The central issue here are not boundaries (boundaries are for worthy contenders), but instead why do you continue to entertain an exclusive relation with a girl who does not respect you or the relation?

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Men and woman cannot have a bonafide friendship. For a man/woman friendship to exist, at least one party must desire the other.

Do you have a sister? How's your relationship with her?

 

[playa99]

@guru

Says who??

I don't have to sexually desire the woman who works on reception in my office and she doesn't have to sexually desire me, ergo we are friends, nothing more.

I choose to continue my relationship because to me, there is no issue. There is nothing sexual between them!

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Peaks, you said earlier that you do not have to tell her that it is unacceptable to hang out with other men, as she will cut them out on her own....but you then say it is ok for her to hang out with other men.

You cannot have it both ways.

Zekko and guru nailed it. You are all ok with boundaries....except when it comes to her hanging with other men.....seems to me that's perfect male behavior from a feminine imperative perspective but not so for the men.

Yes, I can have it both ways.

Do you see? SHE cuts out the ones that aren't FRIENDS, the ones she was dating or possibly had some type of 'feelings' for... She cuts them out, because she does NOT WANT or NEED those guys anymore. I am there now, and, as we humans are designed, she desires to pair off and mate, with me. Any other guy gets in her way of doing so.......except for a FRIEND.

It's biology.
,
Have you ever been spinning plates, then you commit to one, and that one is the ONLY one YOU want to see?

How is this difficult to understand?

I expect the moron Pairs to not get this. But even if you don't agree, YOU should at least be able to understand, comprehend what I am saying. Even if it's just a 'theory' or an idea to you.

Women CAN have friends that they don't want to have sex with. How have you not witnessed this?

 

[guru1000]

A fallacy of equivocation. Not all sisters are friends and not all friends are sisters. The terms are dynamically disparate.

You or your sister are joined to the other due to the social convention of "blood," not desire.

Men and women cannot be bonafide friends. And although you need not be concerned that your gf has friends she has no sexual desire for, doesn't change the rudimentary premise that her continued communications with a heterosexual male who desires her while she is exclusive with you is a direct disrespect to you and your relationship. The contention here is not will she cheat, but rather why do you remain in a disrespectful context?

 

[guru1000]

So, how do you tell the difference between who is a griend and who is looking to score with her?

.

No distinction exists. At least one party will desire the other.

SMV of girl > Orbiter = Orbiter desires girl
SMV of girl < Orbiter = Girl desires orbiter
SMV of girl = SMV of orbiter = One or both desire the other

I've had plenty of girl "friends" with SMVs lower than mine. The "friendships" only existed as they continued contacting me. Absent their motivation to contact me, the friendships could not endure.

It is not a conscious choice. Men and women are hardwired to desire the other with a SMV equal to or greater than theirs. The only exceptions are homosexuals who all desire the same-sex other, but also governed by the foregoing criteria.

 

[zekko]

Guru's chart below makes a lot of sense:

SMV of girl > Orbiter = Orbiter desires girl
SMV of girl < Orbiter = Girl desires orbiter
SMV of girl = SMV of orbiter = One or both desire the other

I had several female friends when I was younger, that I was not sexually attracted to. BUT, the thing is, eventually I would always find out that they had a crush on me. As I got older (pay attention, playa), I learned to realize exactly what was going on, and what a waste of time it was.

I think it is possible for a man and woman to be strictly platonic friends, but I think it is rare, very rare. Much rarer than you might even think. One of the two usually desires the other.

Then there is this well known bit of film making:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA

It's biology.
,
Have you ever been spinning plates, then you commit to one, and that one is the ONLY one YOU want to see?

Yes, but there are also a lot of people here who claim that monogamy is not natural.

I expect the moron Pairs to not get this.

Hey, Pairs isn't a moron.

Women CAN have friends that they don't want to have sex with. How have you not witnessed this?

Yes, but usually in those cases then the guy wants to bang the girl (see the above YouTube link). I find her continuing to hang out with such a guy disrespectful to the relationship. Like guru said above: "The contention here is not will she cheat, but rather why do you remain in a disrespectful context?" I have always said it's not just about cheating, I object to it on the face of it.

Okay, so Peaks now says that a woman will cut other guys out of her life, EXCEPT the male friends. Presumably that means guys she doesn't want to bang. But what about the guys who want to bang her (probably all of them)? Will she cut them off, too, or just the guys who don't particularly turn her on?

Sooli is the other guy on here who believes girls will "cut out other men on their own". So is he also saying that they will still keep their male FRIENDS, or will they cut them out also?