A girl's perspective on boundaries

[zekko]

If a woman's behavior is unacceptable, tell her.

She either WILL comply or she won't.

Your boundary may be unacceptable to her, or she simply doesn't care if you walk. Then, she will not comply.

So you walk.

Why is this a big issue?

Great question, I have no idea why it's an issue at all.
I guess it's because some guys will defend a woman's right to keep male friends and orbiters to the death.

 

[:-)]

Anti-overt boundary group? Someone please tell me this is all just a joke. It is a joke right?

 

[zekko]

THIS is why I say it stems from their feminist indoctrination, which to date they have been unable to reject from their now compromised values. Thus the woman will often attempt to maintain frame and leverage over the average man, usually defended by the typical "you don't trust me", "you are just insecure", "you are so controlling".

I completely agree that it comes from feminist indoctrination, because when I was in my 20s I was brainwashed by the same train of thought. If you would have asked me then, I would have said "Of course you can't say anything about women having male friends. That would make you look jealous and insecure".

It wasn't until I got a little older that I realized that it was all a crock of sh!t. I was totally just spitting out the feminist imperative that I was taught. If I'm not mistaken, you've changed your viewpoint on this topic also, Danger?

 

[guru1000]

Guru enters the battlefield. Smoke and debris clutter the contours of this once treasured garden. Guru gazes ahead in the distance and sees two generals: General Zekko and General Danger.

“General Zekko,” Guru screams into the distance, “Where are the troops and generals of the opposing army?”

“The generals absconded and the bodies of the troops are laid out on the ground before us,” Zekko states with a saddened countenance.

Guru looks to the ground and sees thousands of young bodies of desolate soldiers laid before him concealed in the midst of debris and dust. Strangely, Guru notices these bodies are still alive and breathing, but appear incapacitated.

“General Danger,” Guru calls out, “These troops are still alive. Why are they prostrated on the ground in this manner?”

“Guru, they are alive, but are not truly living,” Danger replies.

“What do you mean that these troops are not truly living,” Guru exclaims with a puzzled countenance.

“Well you see, Guru, as they have led their lives by and invested into the indoctrination of the feminine imperative, they are now castrated, and have thus failed to impose their will upon life. And so, life, instead, imposed its will upon them--and they accepted it!” Danger exclaims.

Guru even more puzzled asks, “But if they are subjugated to life’s whims, why are they not truly living?”

“Hahaha,” Danger chuckles, “Fate has its own agenda, and those who fail to take life's reins will also fail to learn the valuable lessons—their purpose--which they were born to learn. In a vacuum of indecisiveness where no will exists, no lessons can actualize. Thus, fate will impose its will upon its subjects, in hopes to wake them up to prompt a rise in retaliative efforts and impose their wills. But like the troops laid before us, if they refuse to rise and take the reins, then they will remain dead.”

Guru takes a few minutes to ingest this labyrinthine, but yet insightful wisdom. “But what does one’s imposing their will upon life have to do with boundaries upon women?” Guru asks.

General Zekko steps in closer from the distance, “Guru, your question obfuscates cause and effect. Women are not the focus of a DJ’s life, just a byproduct of it. If a DJ fails to impose his will upon life, then he will be governed by life and thus not living; hence the byproduct of life, women, too, will be nonexistent or in scarcity. You see the cause is the DJ’s failure to impose standards for himself, and the effect transmutes into no, paucity of, or fruitless female relations. Standards must be verbalized and fought for tenaciously, so life recognizes clearly the fortitude of the soldier’s will.”

Guru walks over to a soldier prostrated on the ground. The soldier’s eyes are affixed to the sky. “Hey Soldier, get up,” Guru urges, “Get up!”

“He can’t hear you,” Danger exclaims, “He was indoctrinated with the feminine imperative from birth and thus closes his eyes to any reasoning that contradicts his conditioned beliefs.”

Saddened, Guru walks over to a second soldier, “Hey Soldier, get up,” Guru urges, “Get up!” The soldier turns his head and gazes at Guru but says nothing. “Say something,” Guru states angrily. The soldier continues staring at Guru but says nothing.

“He hears you Guru, and wants to join our army but is paralyzed by fear. He will say nothing, take no action, and remain prostrated on the ground, until death truly takes him,” Danger exclaims.

Disheartened, Guru walks to a third soldier, “Hey Soldier, get up!” Surprisingly, this soldier rises and responds, “I am ready to go to war and fight with you!” Guru shakes the young soldier’s hand and states, “Welcome to the army of manhood. There will be good days and difficult ones, but I guarantee you that if you accept nothing short of your standards, voice and tenaciously fight for those standards, and are willing to die for and to protect those standards, then you will prevail with glory in your herculean efforts one day.”

“But what if I fail in imposing my standards?” the soldier contorts.

“Young man, the veiled purpose of our corporeal existence is to learn life's lessons and evolve. But, how can we evolve if we were to always succeed in our efforts? Real change, our evolvement, can only catalyze in pain, not comfort; in failure, not success. Just as a muscle needs to be torn down in pain and brought to failure to evolve stronger, so do we. Thus, we must fail intermittently! Besides, our greatest glory is not never failing, but instead in rising every time we fall. And as you have already fallen and risen, I have no doubt as to your future resiliency!”

“Hey Guru,” Danger exclaims, “Why did you join us here at the battleground today?”

“If I can just help one soldier out of the thousands laid before us, then my duty here is done.” Guru with a drained look on his face exits the battleground. “My job is done … for now.”

 

[zekko]

“If I can just help one soldier out of the thousands laid before us, then my duty here is done.” Guru with a drained look on his face exits the battleground. “My job is done … for now.”

Damn guru, you been taking post writing lessons from Scara or something?

But you are correct, you've hit on exactly why I continue to argue this point after 12 pages of this thread and numerous other threads. I don't want the younger guys thinking that they have to listen to the feminine imperative like I did when I was growing up. There are other, better points of view out there. Do what you want to, you don't have to obey the brainwashing. And maybe most surprisingly, you will find women out there who will agree with you.

 

[zekko]

I was reading the message board for the TV show Big Bang Theory yesterday and noticed this thread. It's talking about an episode when Penny had invited her former FWB to stay overnight at her apartment without telling Leonard, her boyfriend. Leonard objected to the idea.

Anyway, the discussion about who was in the right here reminded me a lot of these boundary threads. Everybody seems to have very different ideas on the matter. Some don't understand how Penny can even consider letting this guy stay with her, and others don't undertand how Leonard could possibly object to it. It just demonstrates how far apart some people are on this type of issue.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898266/board/thread/240716936

 

[jurry]

You've obviously taken away nothing from this discussion zekko which makes me wonder why I'm even bothering, but im bored at work so here goes YET ONE MORE TIME!

Leonard is a little beta bîtch (depressing to admit I actually know who the characters are). He is trying to object to something he doesnt like and set a boundary from weakness. You keep trying to present the no boundary position as being too scared to stand up for themselves when you are missing the point entirely.

IF you are a man of value, she will not do these things. It is not biologically consistent, makes no sense. Perhaps you havent been in this position and thats why you dont understand it, and the fact that you would present this scenario as an example of a boundary discussion seems to support that conclusion.

To add to that, even if he expresses he doesnt want her to do it SHE WILL DO IT ANYWAY. Words dont mean shît when you're a pandering lap dog. The only one close to alpha (or farthest from beta I guess) on that show is sheldon, because he gives no fvcks about a bîtch and is his own man. He doesnt need to set boundaries because he doesnt need a girl and wouldnt waste a second of his day thinking about it, and that makes the girl want to work ever harder to prove that he is all she wants.

It really boggles the mind that you cant follow this logic..

 

[Soolaimon]

It really boggles the mind that you cant follow this logic.

It really does cause these guys are delusional and their fragile egos can't admit they are betas.

They talk about "feminist indoctrination" as their attack on guys who don't use verbal boundaries.

These guys are too stupid to figure out that women will still keep the men hidden from them when they set their boundaries to avoid a confrontation.

The boundaries they set aren't doing anything for them except to give them false confidence and a false sense of reality.

Women will still keep their male friends if they want to even with boundaries.

They will lie to the boyfriend agreeing to the terms keeping their male friends hidden.

Hilarious how these idiots can't figure that out.

When you get a quality respectful woman none of this is necessary cause she won't need other men when she only wants you.

Women will still have other men if they want to regardless if you set boundaries or not.

But these idiots call that straw man and can't understand that women will do that when they had no problem placating their parents and previous boyfriends to get arouund their boundaries.

Why the need to refer to Sooliman as Strawsooli? Why the personal insults? Does he call you 'verbioseguru'? or ''grandiloquentguru'? Is your case that flimsy?

Why are you resorting to personal insults? I know Danger is averse to personal insults. If you have a genuine case to make then make it without the personal insults. That is if you have a case to make.

It doesn't bother me one bit what they call me.

I think it's funny myself cause it shows me they are full of $hit with their useless crap boundary argument.

TarantulaHawk is just a troll who used to be The411/Demfeeelz.

A long time member emailed me and told me he has been causing problems in this forum for years as a troll.

Like I said before the boundary crew members have a super thin argument. After their argument for boundaries is picked apart they have nothing left except to make lame insults.

They are angry cause their boundary theory has been proven to be crap once again.

Solly is essentially a megaphone filled with strawman arguments and personal attacks.

Given Solly's predilection towards insults and inability to constructively discuss a topic, Guru's behavior should hardly be scrutinized in that interaction. Especially given that the strawman is Solly's goto position.

Says the master of contradiction (who insults everybody all the time) who lies in every post (claiming he never said it) even when he is quoted as saying it.

There is no straw man.. You claim straw man cause your argument is crap and it ran out of gas several threads ago.

Calling someone insecure for worrying about what a woman may never even do is exactly what it is. That is being insecure. And you boundary guys certainly are in that regard.

Setting boundaries makes no difference to your relationship.

When the woman is attracted to you she won't see other men. When she is no longer attracted to you she will. Setting a boundary won't stop that from happening.

That is common sense not straw man as you claim.

Setting a boundary will have no difference whether she sees other men or not. It's what she feels for you is what matters.

When she breaks your boundary you are going to have to dump her.

Not one of you boundary guys can understand that with your same repetitive false claims.

All of you boundary guys have failed marriages and relationships with boundaries.

If a woman's behavior is unacceptable, tell her.

She either WILL comply or she won't.

Your boundary may be unacceptable to her, or she simply doesn't care if you walk. Then, she will not comply.

So you walk.

Why is this a big issue?

Not sure why it is either.

Ask the boundary crew. They are the ones who live boundaries arguing for them in every thread making it the issue.

Nobody would bring it up if it wasn't for them talking of "boundaries" in each thread.

They believe if you "set a boundary" the woman will comply to "your will" no matter what.

It's strange they believe that since they all have failed marriages/relationships with boundaries.

They all saw first hand they don't work but still argue for them.

Crazy!

I guess it's because some guys will defend a woman's right to keep male friends and orbiters to the death.

Nobody is defending a woman's right to keep male friends except for one person. I guess you have no idea what you're reading in these threads.

You have no problem with your woman talking to and texting other men. Aren't those "male friends" and "orbiters" she has?

I guess you're too stupid to figure out that she can still hang out with those guys at some point when they get cozy from all that talking and texting they do.

Didn't that ever occur to you? LOL

If I'm not mistaken, you've changed your viewpoint on this topic also, Danger?

So have you.

Danger has no viewpoint. It changes by the day so he can try to "win his boundary argument."

I don't know how many contradictions he made regarding boundaries.

His contradictions and lies are all quoted. So go back to all the old threads and count them up.

 

[Soolaimon]

Solly of course is just creating more strawmen, so strawman on.

The weak man who is out of ammo claims straw man cause he has nothing left to contribute worthwhile to the discussion.

That's what you're doing with the rest of the crew who claims straw man.

Telling her not to hang out with other men does nothing for your relationship.

She will always find a way to get around "your boundary" when you set one.

All you guys have failed marriages/relationships with boundaries.

Nothing about that is straw man.

Your fragile ego can't admit that can happen to you. That's strange cause it did before to you and the rest of the crew with boundaries.

Especially given that he is already pro-boundary given his no smoking boundary he set with his gf.

Not smoking has nothing to do with you guys being afraid of your woman hanging out with other men.

Men lead in a relationship. They aren't insecure enough to verbalize boundaries to her worrying about if she "might" hang out with other men.

That is being insecure of her and other men.

You need to know her answer so you can be secure.

That still does not guarantee that she will follow it.

Your woman could have easily went out to lunch with another man without you knowing.

With boundaries she can easily keep that hidden from you cause she has to.

 

[jurry]

The boundary brigade apparently doesnt set them for the sake of preventing her from seeing other men, it is so that they will have "grounds for dismissal" if she does choose to see other men, as if a) she would even tell you, or b) you needed an excuse to dump her in the first place.

And also it somehow displays self confidence/respect to verbalize boundaries even though you all admit she couldnt care less and would still hang out with other men if she wanted to.

I havent heard this much bullshît since the presidential primaries four years ago, you all should consider running for office.

 

[Soolaimon]

It is a strawman solly, because the arguments you rage against are made nowhere in this thread by me.

Now you lie again and say I "rage" when I'm just outlining your bogus boundary theory. LMAO

Another attempt at diversion from your failed boundary theory.

You set boundaries to inform your woman of your expectations telling her she can't hang out with other men.

She can "agree to your terms" and still keep male friends hidden from you if she wants to.

Setting a boundary isn't going to make any difference.

You don't need to set a boundary to dump a woman. Setting a boundary won't keep her from other seeing men.

That is not straw man no matter what you claim as your defense of a lack of argument.

Guru pointed it out, which is why you avoid him.

LMAO. You boundary guys are incapable of reading, remembering, comprehending anything.

Look at page #10. Where did I avoid guru?

I did not avoid guru. I picked apart his crap boundary claims that you agree with. How is that avoiding him? Why do you always need to lie in here?

That's why he started to insult me cause he looked like an idiot. Just like the rest of you who argue his claims.

The boundary brigade apparently doesnt set them for the sake of preventing her from seeing other men, it is so that they will have "grounds for dismissal" if she does choose to see other men, as if a) she would even tell you, or b) you needed an excuse to dump her in the first place.

And also it somehow displays self confidence/respect to verbalize boundaries even though you all admit she couldnt care less and would still hang out with other men if she wanted to.

I havent heard this much bullshît since the presidential primaries four years ago, you all should consider running for office.

LOL. exactly right.

There is no point to the boundaries they argue for.

Boundaries won't prevent her from seeing other men when she wants to. But they claim that as straw man.

You don't need to set a boundary to dump her in the future. They claim that's straw man too.

Setting a boundary does not give you any more power or confidence in a relationship. They say straw man on that too.

There is no point to the boundary except it does what I say it does.

It gives insecure men a security blanket that she "won't see other men" from her verbal words. But she can easily go back on those words when she wants to.

The "verbal boundaries" provides insecure men a false sense of security and a fake power trip thinking they are controlling the relationship and the woman's actions. It's the beta way to have fake power.

Little do they know when they are not around their women can hang out with the same men they told them not to see and the boundary guys won't be the wiser.

So much for your boundaries and that's why they are useless.

But they still call that straw man when it's common sense they can't understand or refuse to admit.

Amazing!

 

[guru1000]

LMAO @ StrawSooli. I'll rebut once you rebut an actual point I made.

Jurry:

The boundary brigade apparently doesnt set them for the sake of preventing her from seeing other men, it is so that they will have "grounds for dismissal" if she does choose to see other men, as if a) she would even tell you, or b) you needed an excuse to dump her in the first place.

The underlined is a red-herring. I don't think Danger or Zekko ever set boundaries to create culpability for cheating, as your quote seems to allude to.

 

[Soolaimon]

LMAO @ StrawSooli. I'll rebut once you rebut an actual point I made.

LOL. Says the 40 year old divorcee who's now ex wife broke his boundaries of marriage.

It's hilarious how these beta boundary guys claim "straw man" when their own ex wives/ex girlfriends broke their useless boundaries they set with them.

They lived through it to experience it and they still claim boundaries are everything?

That's insane!




Yours and zekko's ex wife broke the ultimate boundaries which is marriage.

The rest of the crew has failed relationships with boundaries.

Your boundary argument and the whole boundary premise has failed on just that alone.



Marriage is the ultimate boundaries that you and your crew are arguing for.

You and your bride set a boundary defining terms and expectations agreeing to only be committed to each other until death.

That is the boundary you both set agreeing with each other to be on the same page.

She is to see no other men or to have orbiters in your marriage.

Women break those marriage boundaries with ease just as guru1000 and zekko found out with their divorce.

Do you not think women in ordinary relationships won't do the same when nothing is on the line? Of course they will with or without boundaries.

That's why boundaries are useless.

The boundary crew still tries to set them, argue for them, claim "straw man" when boundaries failed all of them. Crazy!

All of these boundary guys false claims of boundaries have no validity when their own boundaries failed them in their previous marriages and relationships.

Boundaries are useless and a waste of time.

Do you or any boundary crew members care to rebut that?

 

[guru1000]

Aww, how cute; like a little baby drooling on himself :crackup:

 

[TarantulaHawk]

LOL. Says the 40 year old divorcee who's now ex wife broke his boundaries of marriage.

It's hilarious how these beta boundary guys claim "straw man" when their own ex wives/ex girlfriends broke their useless boundaries they set with them.

They lived through it to experience it and they still claim boundaries are everything?

That's insane!




Yours and zekko's ex wife broke the ultimate boundaries which is marriage.

The rest of the crew has failed relationships with boundaries.

Your boundary argument and the whole boundary premise has failed on just that alone.



Marriage is the ultimate boundaries that you and your crew are arguing for.

You and your bride set a boundary defining terms and expectations agreeing to only be committed to each other until death.

That is the boundary you both set agreeing with each other to be on the same page.

She is to see no other men or to have orbiters in your marriage.

Women break those marriage boundaries with ease just as guru1000 and zekko found out with their divorce.

Do you not think women in ordinary relationships won't do the same when nothing is on the line? Of course they will with or without boundaries.

That's why boundaries are useless.

The boundary crew still tries to set them, argue for them, claim "straw man" when boundaries failed all of them. Crazy!

All of these boundary guys false claims of boundaries have no validity when their own boundaries failed them in their previous marriages and relationships.

Boundaries are useless and a waste of time.

Do you or any boundary crew members care to rebut that?

Let's talk about your useless boundaries sooli. We need to know why you've put a useless boundary on your own exclusive relationship by refusing to use useless boundaries. And the useless boundary of calling your relationship exclusive.

There also must be certain words such as "no" that you don't use in your useless boundary exclusive relationship. Or are you a yes man who refuses to say no? Which is a useless boundary as you'd refuse to say no in your exclusive relationship.

Focus sooli. We need to learn about your useless boundaries you use in your exclusive relationship.

Perhaps you can't verbalize useless boundaries as you and your exclusive high quality girlfriend are deaf, and mute? Do you use sign language instead to communicate your useless boundaries? Or are you both blind as well?

If your girlfriend refuses to accept any boundaries then she's placed a useless boundary by refusing to accept them. If your girlfriend refuse to say no and is only a yes woman to you then she's still used a useless boundary by refusing to say no to you.

Try to focus sooli. We need to hear about your exclusive useless boundary relationship.

 

[:-)]

They believe if you "set a boundary" the woman will comply to "your will" no matter what.

.

No they don't. That's not what's being said at all. Do you actually read their posts? They don't set boundaries so a woman 'will comply'. They set boundaries so that the man and woman are both sure about what is and what isn't acceptable in a relationship so that should either of them overstep the mark no-one can claim ignorance or that they didn't know what the terms and conditions were. No wonder this thread is 13 pages long.

 

[zekko]

Leonard is a little beta bîtch (depressing to admit I actually know who the characters are). He is trying to object to something he doesnt like and set a boundary from weakness. You keep trying to present the no boundary position as being too scared to stand up for themselves when you are missing the point entirely.

Excuse me? Big Bang Theory is a SITCOM, I wasn't trying to teach any life lessons from that example, I posted that message board link mostly for entertainment. And because it shows that, just like here, people have widely differing views on the subject of women having male friends.

There was a poster on there who said something along the lines of how they could not CONCEIVE of how Leonard had any problem with what Penny did.
Just as there was a poster who said he could not CONCEIVE that she could do such a thing. That was my point. There are two very widely differing views on this. So wide there is a huge gulf separating them. Which is why it is best to discuss what your expectations are of an exclusive relationship. Why is this considered so harmful by some?

No they don't. That's not what's being said at all. Do you actually read their posts? They don't set boundaries so a woman 'will comply'. They set boundaries so that the man and woman are both sure about what is and what isn't acceptable in a relationship so that should either of them overstep the mark no-one can claim ignorance or that they didn't know what the terms and conditions were. No wonder this thread is 13 pages long.

Hey, that's right! Well done.

 

[jurry]

No they don't. That's not what's being said at all. Do you actually read their posts? They don't set boundaries so a woman 'will comply'. They set boundaries so that the man and woman are both sure about what is and what isn't acceptable in a relationship so that should either of them overstep the mark no-one can claim ignorance or that they didn't know what the terms and conditions were. No wonder this thread is 13 pages long.

No one does this. No woman who is highly interested in a man will do things to disrespect him, make him question her interest or whether she is sleeping with other men. Either she will show this on her own because she wants exclusivity from him, or she isnt really that interested in which case she will go do things you dont like regardless. Both the OP's example and this new example from big bang theory by zekko illustrate the point PERFECTLY.

Who gives a fvck about her claiming innocence, its over. You dont need to set legal precedent for a breakup, what the fvck is wrong with you people lol.. My god.

By the time you have agreed to be exclusive with a girl, you should have already screened her, seen the way she acts, etc. and found out for yourself that she meets your expectations. If you are agreeing to exclusivity and you feel like you must at that point lay down your boundaries, it means you didnt do a good job screening her and do not really trust her. Simple. As. That.

 

[guru1000]

(1) No woman who is highly interested in a man will do things to disrespect him, make him question her interest ...

By the time you have agreed to be exclusive with a girl, you should have already screened her, seen the way she acts, etc. and found out for yourself that she meets your expectations. If you are agreeing to exclusivity and you feel like you must at that point lay down your boundaries, (2) it means you didnt do a good job screening her and (3) do not really trust her. Simple. As. That.

Guru I've been w my current gf for about 10 months and ... I gave her shît for being late a couple of times..

Why the need to impose boundaries upon your gf for being late? Did your imposing "no late boundaries" mean (1) she was not highly interested in you; (2) you didn't screen her well; or (3) you didn't trust her?

 

[:-)]

No one does this. .

You don't do this, you mean. The boundary guys evidently do. Do what you like I say. We're all men here. Don't let someone else dictate what you should or shouldn't do.