A girl's perspective on boundaries

[:-)]

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=224428

Somehow I doubt you had the fortitude to pull the next trigger.

I'm not in an exclusive relationship so I have no-one to dump.

 

[:-)]

Accusing guru and I of being the same and then calling him mammon are usually indicators of disagreement, otherwise why are you bothering?

Don't evade the question Guru.

My message is simple. If you are entering an exclusive relationship then your woman should conduct herself in a manner befitting an exclusive relationship. It boggles the mind that any man would disagree with such a fair and simple concept.

Now show where I disagreed with what you were saying. But of course you cannot because nowhere did I disagree with the above statement which proves a major flaw in your logic and reasoning skills.

Also I did not call you/Guru Mammon. Yet another failure in your logic and reasoning.

 

[No.Danny]

Accusing guru and I of being the same and then calling him mammon are usually indicators of disagreement, otherwise why are you bothering?

danny,

Because any man with confidence and value is able to attract women, filter them out based upon his expectations and set terms of his exclusivity.

If you do not want to do that, that is fine, but when you attack other men for doing it then it is either jealousy that you cannot do the same or you simply do not believe it is possible. Either case means you are low value, and being that your 17 I would bet you are low value and indoctrinated to boot.

So, go improve yourself and stop crying about other men who are able to set expectations successfully.

Ohh danger. You've never changed, who attacked who first calling me low value? Who's assuming I can't attract women because I'm low value? You say attacking someone for what they believe is low value. Ironic huh? Idgaf about boundaries or no boundaries. I talk to a girl for a while before we even think of becoming exclusive. If she does not fit my ideals I walk away, no explanations because I owe nothing to anyone. 1. Because I was born alone and will die alone 2. Because I'm confident in my ability to attract another.
Secondly I would argue I can attract hotter women at this age than you can right now. But that's all subject to perception and beauty is differently valued person to person.
Thirdly I'm the star of my schools basketball team standing at 6'1 and very popular who also happens to be funny and outgoing but in no way am I bragging just trying to make you reevaluate your baseless statements.

 

[Atom Smasher]

My message is simple. If you are entering an exclusive relationship then your woman should conduct herself in a manner befitting an exclusive relationship. It boggles the mind that any man would disagree with such a fair and simple concept.

This. Precisely.

In any group (a group being defined as "more than one person"), the leader of the group sets the general expectations of group behavior. In normal human relations, those who are being led take comfort in that dynamic. This is true a hundredfold for women. These agreed-upon expectations are viewed by both parties as reasonable and mutually beneficial.

Women find security in their man setting boundaries. Only experienced men understand this. For the inexperienced theorists, unfortunately the feminized education eclipses reality. Hence, the impossibility of reasoning with them. Only when a man can observe life from outside of the constricting sphere of his education can he see objectively.

Setting boundaries is not a dictatorship. It is the man taking responsibility for the welfare of his relationship and establishing that the two parties are on the same page.

In the real world, quality women covet and appreciate this. For them, the setting of boundaries is the very essence of pure manhood and leadership.

Here's one for the theorists: The setting of boundaries requires very few words. A man of understanding knows how to elicit her tacit agreement with his requirements with implication and sub-communication. This is a language she understands. I can speak volumes to a woman with barely any words at all, because I demonstrate that I back up my principles with ruthless action.

To tell a woman something is one thing (and sometimes necessary). To install an inner knowing into her is quite another.

But I digress. Danger is spot-on. Most of the arguments against his points are straw men. There's a reason that the more experienced men maintain that boundary setting is necessary and healthy for any relationship.

 

[zekko]

Atom Smasher's wisdom is a light unto this board.

 

[sylvester the cat]

This wasn't intended as a discussion for or against boundaries. Rather the nature of humans.

 

[BrainDamage92]

Well the only thing I dislike about the concept is the word itself. Its a thing that comes from the fact that most women are more stupid than most men - scientifically proven D). Really intelligent women ofc dont need to be told what to do.

Until somebody comes up with a better name it will do.

Its just that a boundary has a kind of nigative meaning as a word.

 

[guru1000]

Well the only thing I dislike about the concept is the word itself. Its a thing that comes from the fact that most women are more stupid than most men - scientifically proven D). Really intelligent women ofc dont need to be told what to do.

Until somebody comes up with a better name it will do.

Its just that a boundary has a kind of nigative meaning as a word.

Let's analyze further, so boundary implementation is not miscomprehended by newbies.

Telling a person what to do = Unilateral expectation

Do what I say or I will get mad.

Here, you operate from a weak frame: You give your power to the contender, as should she fail to comply with your request, you will get mad. You are a puppet and she pulls the strings, as she can control your emotional state simply by noncompliance.


DJ delineating boundaries = Binary expectation

Here are my "rules of engagement." If you comply, this relation will continue; if you don't, that's fine too, but I will walk away. Either decision will do.

Notice the keyword above, "DJ." Here, you operate from a strong frame: She cannot control your emotional state with either decision, as your expectation is binary, rendering her powerless over you.

Understand the distinction?

Heed and analyze your expectation of compliance to see from which motivation you are operating.

 

[zekko]

Well the only thing I dislike about the concept is the word itself. Its a thing that comes from the fact that most women are more stupid than most men - scientifically proven D). Really intelligent women ofc dont need to be told what to do.

"Boundary" is simply a word that has become commonly used on this forum when discussing this issue. I've also used "expectations" and "standards" in these often very lengthy discussions. So there is no reason to use the word boundary if you don't like it.

Like Smasher said though, someone has to lead, and lead in a way that is best for the relationship.

 

[Peña]

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

Boundaries are stupid. She lied.

I think the more important issue is, why is her going out with friends and getting trashed being set as a boundary in the first place? It shows he's trying to "cuff" and control her over something dumb. Women have the right to go continue hanging out with their friends after getting into a relationship. Worse, he's trying to change something about her that was part of her personality prior to, and when they first, started dating. If he didn't want to date a girl that was going to go out and party/drink/whatever, he shouldn't have started dating her - as such, men need to learn to see a woman as she currently is (not what she COULD be) and decide if they can deal with it vs. telling themselves "eh, I can change her later."

They try to change her and control her to how they want.

 

[salinechow]

I have noticed something as I have grown to know SS over the last six months.

When reading from an outside perspective I can tell someone’s age and therefore maturity level before I investigate it by looking at their stated age.

Its funny too because those that are younger in age sound intelligent with wordsmithing, grammar and cadence.

But you know what is different that makes immaturity and youthful thinking so easy to spot despite the mask of intelligent arguing?.....

When young people argue. THEY SOUND JUST LIKE WOMEN!!!

Shallow perception masked by the trimmings of smart words and cantor.

Illogical and emotional thinking, lacking a critical angle and flexible stature in pursuit of truth.

Obtuse viewpoints argued for the sake of argument and for the sake of hearing one’s own words to be proud of. Pontificating for stimulation with no pursuit of knowledge or understanding a point. A f^cking merry-go-round of “Look at ME, hear ME, listen to ME, ME, ME, ME, MEEEEEE.”

Complete unawareness and lack of concern that truth and wisdom abound. If they would just shut up for a second and use the same intelligence they use to create musical arguments, to instead LISTEN and process, maybe they could enjoy more from a dialogue then their own ornamental phrasing.

The young (some) and women(most) are masterful spinners of turning dialogue into attack and argument. This is so the original point that they only pretended to understand gets buried under the ruble of what could have been their own enlightenment. Shame.

My father would always tell me “Put your hand on your face and tell me what you see? Now, pull it away.” Then he would ask. “Much clearer now isn’t it?”

When we are young, we know we have a hand… but when you mature you realize what it is really capable of.

 

[sylvester the cat]

lmao Of course it wasnt, how could we not see that! just like how your girlfriend isnt out drinking.

Could you point out where I said i was talking about my girlfriend?

 

[sylvester the cat]

Pairs,

Sylvester claims in his words he supports boundaries, but his actions speak differently. He is constantly questioning only the pro-boundary group or making posts which in a strawman manner attack the concept of boundaries.

I'm not questioning or attacking (a word which pops up frequently in your posts I might add) anybody. I just reported what was relayed to me. You and anybody else here are free to make your own judgements on the matter.

 

[sylvester the cat]

You reported it in a manner consistent with those who believe that boundaries are meant to stop cheating or change her behavior.

Combine this with all of your comments towards ONLY the boundary crew and your actions demonstrate a lack of understanding on boundaries and an anti-boundary mindset. It is just an observation.

I think you are deliberately obfuscating the issue to satisfy your own personal agenda - that you are being attacked - which is not the case.

I made a report. If you would like to discuss the issue and what this means then be my guest.

 

[sylvester the cat]

Your "report" from my perception is clearly written from the perspective of the anti-boundary crew as if it was supposed change a girl.

My report was written from an impartial perspective.

A man quite rightly set boundaries. Boundaries designed not to restrict the woman but indicate his limitations regarding her behaviour should she choose to overstep them.

She chose to evade the boundaries using deceit knowing what would happen if she were honest.

He is none the wiser.

Clearly she was low-value before he set his boundaries and he just didn't pick up on this.

Why not?

Again my point is, that it is his judgement rather than the boundaries that are at fault here. <--------- This here is my point.

 

[sylvester the cat]

I do agree she was low value and did not pick up on this, but I would also strongly suspect he set the boundary from a position of weakness and not strength.

Additionally I think a man would have to be an utterly naive fool to be fooled for long by this kind of behavior.

Then we are in agreement.

Could you clarify for readers how you differentiate setting boundaries from a position of weakness and strength?

 

[zekko]

men need to learn to see a woman as she currently is (not what she COULD be) and decide if they can deal with it vs. telling themselves "eh, I can change her later."

I just want to point out here that the pro-boundary side has never advocated the idea of "eh, I can change her later". The pro-boundary side has ALWAYS stated that boundaries need to be agreed upon at the BEGINNING of an exclusive relationship, and that waiting until later is too late.

When reading from an outside perspective I can tell someone’s age and therefore maturity level before I investigate it by looking at their stated age.

I know this isn't what you are talking about, but I do think it's telling that the pro-boundary side tends to be comprised of older, more experienced men. When I was a young guy in my 20s, I would have been on the no-boundary side too. Because when you're young, you're still half brainwashed by feminism, and you believe the garbage that women tell you, and that it is controlling, possessive, and insecure to hold them to standards. It's similar to the old saying "If you are young and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and not conservative, you have no brain".

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.

Great point.
HB: "I want you to myself. Let's agree not to date other people".
DJ: "You realize that means you can't date other men"?
HB: "Stop trying to control me! You are jealous and insecure!"

A man quite rightly set boundaries. Boundaries designed not to restrict the woman but indicate his limitations regarding her behaviour should she choose to overstep them.

She chose to evade the boundaries using deceit knowing what would happen if she were honest.

First off, we don't know these people, they could be a couple of losers as far as we know (they sound like it).

Secondly, what is the boundary that the man set? That the girl is not allowed to party? I don't know anyone from the pro-boundary side who has ever advocated setting such a boundary.

Third, she will get caught eventually, and if the guy has any balls, she will get dumped.

 

[sylvester the cat]

The vast majority of men put in boundaries only from weakness and I believe everyone would agree this is just stupid. Most men do not have the ballsack to implement two, also from a scarcity mindset.

As it seems we are in agreement I am going to play devil's advocate here:

It seems then you as a Pro-boundary are now attacking other Pro-boundary guys albeit under a new category:

Pre-exclusivity Pro-boundary v Post-exclusivity Pro-boundaries (who are really the 'anti'-boundaries), no?

 

[sylvester the cat]

I do not believe anyone is making the post-exclusivity argument in support of boundaries.

You did say this, did you not?

a position of weakness is when you set a boundary post-exclusivity in an effort to stop her from continuing to engage in poor behavior in a bid to keep her. Scarcity mindset at it's finest

.

Therefore you must believe someone is making the post-exclusivity argument in support of boundaries, no?

 

[guru1000]

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 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.