Addressing The CWAF's Biggest Fear - Cheating

[VikingKing]

I'm sure there are plenty women who agree with that and who have open relationships with their boyfriends/husbands, or are willing to have one.

Personally I don't think sex and attention have the same value/weight to them. When I'm in a monogamous relationship I don't necessarily need sex from others, as long as my girlfriend is capable of satisfying my sexual needs.

However, I'm a busy man and I can only see my girlfriend in the weekends (for quality time with the girl) and in the late evenings (for a quick bang). I'm not gonna expect her to just ditch all her male friends that she already had before she met me just because I'd otherwise be afraid she might cheat with them (I'm not afraid of that but some of you would be). It's not even realistic to believe she would fvck them. She didn't fvck them in the past when she was single and free to go, so why would I be afraid she would fvck them now? Thinking she would is completely irrational.

Why should I not allow her to spend time with her friends during the week (whether they're male or female, doesn't matter) as long as she spends time with me in the weekends and fvcks me exclusively on a regular basis? I see no good reason to act like such an insecure possessive control freak.

You should re-read my post.

They have to be sexually loyal to you, but if they want attention from other guys they can (but no sex, kissing, touching) but you get to have sex with other women (but no emotional connections).

If the women dont like this, they can have female friends to talk to about their "girly" stuff.

That would be a fair trade.

Whats not fair is if a woman gets her emotional/ attention needs met from multiple male sources, and the male can only get his sexual needs met by her.

See how that works? It's not an open relationship at all, its a fair trade.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

LOL so now calling you out for resorting to an insult is an insult.

I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.

You cannot claim from one side of your mouth that it has nothing to do with fear of her walking away, only to claim from the other side of your mouth that "she will lose attraction". They are directly related and the fear she will lose attraction is because she will walk away.

I'll say this again for you, someone who has zero reading comprehension abilities.

It is insecure.

It has nothing to do with the fear of being perceived as insecure.

The reason I don't say it is because....wait for it.... I'm not insecure.

Why would I make an insecure statement if I'm not insecure???

Try to wrap your non-comprehending brain around that one....

And what was the point of saying "Either you are full of $hit" if not to suggest that you don't believe me?

How can you not understand some of these things?

Fear of losing the source of pu$$y (as implied by the "still 40 and not married"), and marriage as the end goal, which is classic blue pill.

The only fear based action, is the setting of boundaries, for the FEAR of her cheating. You are confused.

What is amazing to me though is the avenues of rationalization on the subject.
Peaks says that women will stop seeing orbiters on their own, so you should not set boundaries.
Exception's woman has orbiters alone with her at his house so obviously Peak's assertion is untrue unless of course Exceptions girl does not have high interest for him, which may explain Exceptions ego-investment as a self-defense mechanism).
Kalikoat now says that women need these orbiters.

Exception's woman has orbiters alone with her at his house so obviously

Didn't Exception explain this one to you already?
I think your problem Danger is that you have a hard time understanding the meaning of some of these statements.

What's your definition of an orbiter Danger? Is it any guy they work with, or go to school with, or have any dealings with in their daily lives? I think that's where the confusion lies. If that's the case, as I explained in an earlier post, the only way to stop her from running into any men, is to keep her chained up in the basement.

I also did state that a few of my gf's did still keep in contact with some of their orbiters/guy friends. However, it was at a diminished capacity. Instead of seeing them twice a week, they were seeing them maybe once a month, sometimes less, sometimes more. But always at a distant second, if the I was around, it was me they wanted to be with. That's how a relationship usually goes. If I was in the picture, the attention and focus was on me. Also, though, to relate to the other posters argument that women NEED orbiters, I understand this. I made this statement in that first thread:

That's why, if there are some guys/acquaintances in her life, that she needs to "catch up with" every few months. I don't really give a fvck, I know they're her actual friends/orbiters that she likes to talk to every once in a while because they'll sit there, nod and listen, while she does a data dump of useless information.

Women are different. My best chick friend, the one I've talked about before, that's married, calls me up and talks to me about her husband, every so often. I listen, and give her advice. Is that a bad thing? Should he tell her to cut contact with me? She would probably laugh in his face. But if it came down to it, I'm guessing she would cut ties, to save her marriage, however it would put a strife in their relationship. And all of her friends would laugh their asses off at what an insecure douche he would come across. But then again, she wouldn't have married him if she had realized at all that he was ever that insecure. And he's not, I wouldn't call him Alpha neccesarily, but he's not insecure. And she's definitely not cheating on him, if anything, she's worried about him going astray.

We have experienced men here actively arguing for behavior that benefits the female.

Why is it only a benefit for the female? This is where you should try and shift your paradigm.
One small example to relate to my my chick friend:
Do you think he would rather have one of her gf's giving her advice, or do you think he would rather have me giving her advice? This is just one example, but I do believe there are ways to have platonic friendships between men and women. Yeah, men have a c0ck and balls, and would bang her a lot of the times. But, unlike some guys, I wouldn't bang a chick, just to bang. There are consequences for every action. This guy knows I'm not a threat, because I'm not. She also knows I'm not a threat, that's why we're able to keep up this platonic friendship.

Now, if this woman was single, we would be hanging out a lot more, and in different settings. It's all relative.

 

[Mr. Kalikoat]

@noobolgy:

I read your post several times and that is my response.

Like I said, I don't think attention and sex have the same value and weight to them, especially not for women. Because to women, sex is the ULTIMATE FORM of attention. When you are fvcking her good, you're giving her the closest, most intimate form of attention she can think of.

The average man is perfectly capable of separating sex from emotional connections, but the average woman is not capable of that at all. To her it's one and the same.

 

[VikingKing]

If women can emotionally cheat, men should be able to sexually cheat. This is a simple concept.

Otherwise, you yoohoo's who think its ok for your girlfriend to emotionally cheat, while your sexually loyal to her... well see how that works for you in the end..

I promise you, regardless of your confidence levels currently (or while things are going well) it will not work out in your favor.

Maybe its just me. But my last relationship my ex had a couple of male friends who were from her native country. Once she went to dinner with one, but first she told me he invited her and told him that she wanted me to go (respect) I declined and said she could go and have fun. See how that worked?

Another one of her male friends from her native country gave her a ride once to get a rental car (I crashed the other one, but ended up getting a better one). I also got him drunk for his first time (funny sh!t).

Another one (also from her native country) she took to take his driving test (which he failed like 5 times in a row).

But she never texted these guys or talked them on a regular basis. Didn't spend time with them on a regular basis. She did before me, but not after. If she spent time 1 on 1, its was always in a public setting, or if not it was with a group of her friends from her native country. Also I'm taller, more muscular, and more masculine than all of them put together. She also probably only spent time with each guy one on one once each, the examples above.

So this is fine. She was always respectful about it, always went out of her way to basically ask my permission, and I never told her no, because when we first moved in together I told her "Look we are together now, so that means you have to be loyal (or somthing along those lines)" She understood, and I was very important to her (at that time) so she was cautious to not do anything that might cause her to lose me.

That's all I had to say and she understood.

But if you ever have a relationship with a girl from the west, it really doesn't work that way. I also told her at one point "if you ever cheat on me, just leave and disappear because I'll kill you." Now I know that seems a bit rash, and no I wouldnt have done it, not sure if that was a good thing to say in retrospect, but it didn't phase her one bit.

I'm telling you guys, its really a bad idea to have a monogamous relationship with 98% of western women. It's far more conducive to pump n dump. Women are very, very good actresses, and shes not going to tell you she is fvcked up in her grape.

Even if you have tight game, and other things that they value, in time she will get bored and probably do somthing stupid it might be a week or 5 years.

That's not insecure. That's taking into account the ramifications our western media influenced society has on the women. It's self preservation.

I mean its give and take really. Traditional women are more respectful/ loyal and sometimes even less drama, but they are in it for life, and having the same woman gets boring. Western women are easier to fvck, super hypergamous (to an unhealthy extent), fvcked up emotionally, more manipulative drama, lying, not down to earth.

I've had both.

Not all eastern women are traditional. Sometimes the ones that are, are harder to gain access to.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

I went through a 2-3 year period where I exclusively fvcked women who were taken. I thought I had found the secret to happiness! Why was I happy? Fvcking taken women is one of the least stressful things in the world. All it basically is is sex. The women don’t normally get clingy (sometimes they do). They don’t ask you to do things with them. It’s just sex.

During this period – I learned the #1 sign I was about to fvck the woman. It went like this:

“My boyfriend/fiancé told me I’m not allowed to hangout with you anymore.”

Up until this point – I was always just working the “flirty innocent ****y funny sexual” angle (yeah, that’s a real angle haha). Women will normally mention a guy to their boyfriends who’s impressing them. If she mentions him too much – most boyfriend will snap about it. It happened like clockwork!

“My boyfriend told me I’m not allowed to hangout with you anymore.”

Always resulted in sex soon after. That “always” is not an understatement. 100% of the time - when I heard those words – it was followed soon after by sex.

Great post bukowski. Can you expand on the above part? How did you usually meet these women? What was the setting? Did you usually meet them before or after they were in a relationship?

 

[JoeMarron]

Why is it only a benefit for the female? This is where you should try and shift your paradigm.
One small example to relate to my my chick friend:
Do you think he would rather have one of her gf's giving her advice, or do you think he would rather have me giving her advice? This is just one example, but I do believe there are ways to have platonic friendships between men and women. Yeah, men have a c0ck and balls, and would bang her a lot of the times. But, unlike some guys, I wouldn't bang a chick, just to bang. There are consequences for every action. This guy knows I'm not a threat, because I'm not. She also knows I'm not a threat, that's why we're able to keep up this platonic friendship.

Now, if this woman was single, we would be hanging out a lot more, and in different settings. It's all relative.

Personally I wouldn't really see that as an issue. Me and I'm assuming the others are mainly talking about 1 on 1 hangouts. I say it's a benefit for the female because if a man can't choose the type of relationship he wants then it's only benefiting the woman by default. When a woman wants a relationship from a man this essentially means that she's asking him not to fvck any woman but her. If the man doesn't set any terms for the relationship then he's sacrificing his right to fvck other women for little in return. Biologically speaking, a woman benefits from exclusivity much more than a man does.

I'm pretty sure we all set boundaries in one way or another. We're just disagreeing on what type of boundary to set. I've said that a sensible man would set a boundary against one on one hangouts with other men but I'll take that back, a man has a right to whatever type of relationship he wishes. This is a matter of preference, not about who's insecure or scared of the woman cheating. If a dude wants a relationship with a chick who doesn't talk to other men and gives him bl0wjobs everyday then I'm not going to knock him for it. Sure it might be a silly expectation to us but who cares, if he has the value to expect that sort of thing then go for it.

Now, if this woman was single, we would be hanging out a lot more, and in different settings. It's all relative.

Right. My point is that by setting your expectations for the relationship, you screen out women who would hang out with other men on a regular basis and in more intimate settings. It all comes back to screening. When she starts doing sh!t that you told her in the beginning was a line she couldn't cross, you know without a shadow of a doubt that she's consciously disrespecting you. Without the boundary in place you're left with just making assumptions. "Maybe her attraction is lower then I thought." "Maybe other men let her get away with sh!t like this and she doesn't know any better." I know we'll probably never agree on what boundaries to set but can we at least agree that a boundary makes it easier for a man to know when to end a relationship? Then we can finally bury this fvcking fossil of a dead horse.

 

[Mr. Kalikoat]

If women can emotionally cheat, men should be able to sexually cheat. This is a simple concept.

No, that's just a childish way of thinking. No one should cheat. Cheating, whatever form, is wrong. Any reasonable adult knows that. Countering one wrong with another wrong doesn't make a right.

Otherwise, you yoohoo's who think its ok for your girlfriend to emotionally cheat, while your sexually loyal to her... well see how that works for you in the end..

You assume I'd accept my girlfriend emotionally cheating on me. I do not.

That said, when it happens it happens. Nothing you can do about it. By the time your girlfriend cheats on you, or even has the urge to do so, your relationship is already beyond repair. Might as well just end it there and then.

I promise you, regardless of your confidence levels currently (or while things are going well) it will not work out in your favor.

What won't work in my favor? Allowing my girlfriend to stay in touch with her (childhood) male friends? Dude, it does work in my favor, always has and always will be.

I can tell you, at two occasions in two different relationships I tried to forbid my girlfriend from seeing a male friend/male friends. The first cheated BECAUSE of me trying to forbid her from seeing male friends, the other flat-out called me an insecure possessive control freak and said if I expected her to give up a life-long friendship for me I was seriously deluded. Both girlfriends called me out on the fact that making such ridiculous demands just because I was afraid they would otherwise cheat on me was a sign that I was hella insecure and that there was something seriously wrong in our relationship. And you know what? They where right.

But if you ever have a relationship with a girl from the west, it really doesn't work that way.

Yes it does work that way. At least where I live (West Europe) it does.

I also told her at one point "if you ever cheat on me, just leave and disappear because I'll kill you." Now I know that seems a bit rash, and no I wouldnt have done it, not sure if that was a good thing to say in retrospect, but it didn't phase her one bit.

If course it didn't phase her, because it's just a ridiculous empty threat. I'm surprised she didn't just laugh at you in your face and ditch your pathetic ass after you saying that. That's what I would have done if I where a woman and my boyfriend would say something ridiculous like that.

I'm telling you guys, its really a bad idea to have a monogamous relationship with 98% of western women. It's far more conducive to pump n dump. Women are very, very good actresses, and shes not going to tell you she is fvcked up in her grape.

Even if you have tight game, and other things that they value, in time she will get bored and probably do somthing stupid it might be a week or 5 years.

The game never ends. And if your game is tight, she won't leave you because of something stupid. She will fight for you until the very end.

That's not insecure. That's taking into account the ramifications our western media influenced society has on the women. It's self preservation.

No, it is very much insecurity on your part. You're afraid of western women. I'm not. I simply realize they require a bit more high-level solid game than other women from other countries.

I mean its give and take really. Traditional women are more respectful/ loyal and sometimes even less drama, but they are in it for life, and having the same woman gets boring. Western women are easier to fvck, super hypergamous (to an unhealthy extent), fvcked up emotionally, more manipulative drama, lying, not down to earth.

I've had both.

Last time I checked eastern women are easier to game than western women. Far easier.

There really is no such difference between western women and eastern women as you try to make it seem here. The only difference is that in an LTR, eastern women are more comfortable with the traditional gender roles, while western women tend to be more liberal and often try to challenge the traditional gender roles (it's the media that did this to our western society).

Aside from eastern women being more orthodox and western women being more liberal, I really see no huge difference.

And yes, I've had both as well.

Not all eastern women are traditional. Sometimes the ones that are, are harder to gain access to.

Not at all. Eastern women are easy as fvck. All you need to do is show you're a good provider and someone who can take care of her (e.g. having a solid income and being healthy and stable mentally). Being a traditional man and having at least a moderate level of game will make most eastern pvssy wet.

 

[Jaylan]

You're absolutely right. I insulted you because you have no leg to stand on when it comes to LTR game. You sit here and try to preach to men younger than yourself how to have a good relationship and that a good relationship needs boundaries yada yada yada........yet there you sit......unmarrried. You have failed LTR game to this point. You have no family(atleast stable family unit), no kids(unless from broken home), yet you talk as if you know whats best for all of us.

You're damn right I see marriage as the end goal for LTRs. Thats the point.....I am seeking a high quality female to eventually have a family with. Doesnt have to be now, or in 2 years.......but waiting until my 40s or 50s I would consider a failure. I plan on being the "alpha dad" archetype and raising my kids with a strong masculine influence. I want to be able to run around the yard with them and coach them in sports. I dont want to be using a walker for their high school graduation...

And look at this......one one hand(quote above) you denounce marriage and call it a "fearful blue pill mindset"......yet below.....you claim committing to any woman without the intention to marry her is "scarcity beta game".


Guess you are putting yourself in scarcity mode there pal.....since you dont plan on marrying YOUR GF.

I have a suggestion....since you love bragging so much about how many women you have gotten to cheat.....maybe stick to those topics. Maybe we could petition to have a new "subforum" opened up for you....we can call it "CWAF Game/Making Women Cheat"

Damn, homie went in on Danger.

While I dont agree with all of Exception's viewpoints regarding boundaries, he is right about certain older guys with no successful relationship experience trying to give younger guys advice on relationships.

I much more value the opinions of the older men here who have had stable long term relationships in the past or present. And its easy to tell whos in happy and stable relationships based on how they speak. Thats more valuable to me than hearing the opinion of guys on this forum who advocate cheating and going after low quality women. Dealing with low quality women, even if its just for sex, perpetuates the spread and acceptance of low quality behavior. Plus all it does is make the mating game sh!tty for other men.

I guess Im just of the mindset that I want to help good men out there, not screw them over, and not giving any sort of attention to low quality skanks. Because even if you dont commit to low quality women, sleeping with them and giving them attention still validates them and shows them they can get away with sh!t behavior.

We need more successful men with positive relationship experience to give guidance to young guys on finding the right women to date.

 

[Bokanovsky]

The vast majority of men and women will cheat under the right circumstances. Those right circumstances will be different for every person and some will have a lower threshold than others. Nevertheless, we are all capable of succumbing to temptation. And reducing one's exposure to tempting situations is a normal part of being in a healthy relationship.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

can we at least agree that a boundary makes it easier for a man to know when to end a relationship?

This would be assuming that she's not being deceitful. I feel it's easier to fall down that slippery slope of deceit the more restrictions she has. And you can't keep tabs on her 24/7, not in a healthy relationship anyways.

Added to this is the whole forbidden fruit deal. Just because the boundaries were set "before" the relationship began, doesn't mean that she's fully onboard, and it doesn't mean that she won't fantasize about these other men that she's "not allowed" to hang out with. Like has been mentioned, the simple rule of forbidding these men, however you may want to overtly communicate this, can actually push her towards them.

I just see so many issues with it.

#1 issue, she needs to set these other men free on her own. Otherwise, it will fester in her.

#2 She needs to be able to recognize a situation for what it is, and realize what she's getting herself into.

Then we can finally bury this fvcking fossil of a dead horse.

I will agree to disagree though

However someone will make another thread like this sooner or later....

I'll promise not to start it. But I don't think this one is quite done yet.

 

[Jaylan]

The vast majority of men and women will cheat under the right circumstances. Those right circumstances will be different for every person and some will have a lower threshold than others. Nevertheless, we are all capable of succumbing to temptation. And reducing one's exposure to tempting situations is a normal part of being in a healthy relationship.

Citation for these assertions?

While I agree a lot of people will cheat, I definitely think many wont. Theres no way to prove that a "vast majority" do either.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Only based on your flawed logic that calling you out for insults is somehow an insult.

Ummm, no, that's not what happened.

I thought I pointed out that, while yes, I insulted you, you've been throwing insults this whole time, which in turn, would make you a hypocrite. To be honest, I don't care if you insult me, and didn't care, I just thought it was something that needed to be pointed out to you.

You not placing boundaries for fear she will lose attraction is......insecure. Why? Because you embrace disrespect for fear of losing the puss.

Embrace disrespect? Huh? What the fvck are you talking about? Who said anything about embracing disrespect? Did you just make that up? Surprise, surprise. Dude, do you think you can just blatantly make $hit up and add it to support your argument?

And myself and Exception have explained this part to you a gazillion times, from 800 different angles. You don't understand, you will never understand.

The real point at the end of the day is that your woman will not be filtered aand your perception of red flags will now be clouded by her actions.

Filtered? How does telling her how to act, filter her?

I observe how my women are, once I know they are fully commited, and behaving like a gf should,then I decide if we're going into exclusivity.

I don't give them a road map of how they need to act beforehand, so they can pretend to be someone they're not.

And I counter with your fear of losing attraction.

Let's compare.

• One side sets a boundary before committing himself to a woman he is fvking.
• One side does not set a boundary as that would reduce her attraction.

Which of these two guys lives in fear of the pu$$y? Who is acting from a position of strength versus a position of losing something?

One side does not set a boundary as that would reduce her attraction

LOL, you keep saying that. Do you think that if you keep repeating it, I'll just change my feeble mind, and go, oh yeah, duh, that's why I don't set boundaries.....because of fear!!!

• The point you miss is that he now says "one-on-one's shouldn't happen".

• 
  Is that so? So what are you arguing here then? They probably shouldn't in some instances, it's all relative bro. However my point, and I believe Exceptions, and other posters is:
  
  -some one on one's should not happen, this is correct
  -some are harmless, and may actually be beneficial to the relationship (a few of us have this opinion)
  
  
  

  [*]The other important point is, what are you going to do when she wants to hang out with someone who isn't a Beta?

  That's why you don't commit until she proves she can stay out of these situations....but more importantly, until she wants to stay out of those situations.
  
  However, if someone comes along and blind sides her, like you yourself might try to do: (posted this in the first thread)
  

  One day she may come to you and say: "this guy from work has two tickets to my favorite singer, he said his friend can't go anymore so he has an extra ticket and asked if I wanted to go."
  
  That is when you say: "he wants you to come along because he wants to bang you."
  
  Her: "no, we're just friends." (friends meaning some guy at work she talks to every once in a while)
  
  You: "yeah, but he wants to bang you."
  
  Her: *after hamster brain makes a few rotations* "oh, yeah, he probably does, I'll tell him I can't"
  
  Guy at work was coming on to her, in that sly devilish way of his, however, there are no real rules, or boundaries, but there is trust. So she brings up this situation to you, you handle it by helping her figure out what is going on here. She makes the decision to turn him down. Crisis averted, and she has gained some priceless knowledge on handling these situations in the future.

  A situation this extreme hasn't happened to me that I can recall, however, one like this did happen to my friend.
  
  Her: guy from work is really nice, we have a lot in common, he wants to hang out, blah, blah. I told him about you(bf), you guys probably could be friends.
  
  BF: Invite him along with us this weekend when we go out.
  
  I was there with my gf, this guy shows up, good looking, slick, he's the fifth wheel. He stays for half the night then realizes he's not going to get anywhere with this chick there or any other time. He didn't end up being my buddy's friend, and he realized what he was up against, so he dropped it and went after easier prey.
  
  One way to handle it.
  
  
  

  [*]Still another point you miss is that OF COURSE she will say he is a Beta. Have you never been the guy one-on-one with another man's girl and fvked her?

  Straw man argument?
  
  
  

  And this is where you have trouble listening. We are focused on one-on-one's here as has been stated over and over and over again. Nobody is saying she should have no interactions with men at all. Let's stick to that point before we bother expanding an already seemingly pointless discussion.

  Fair enough. However, I made that point, because you're repeatedly giving Exception $hit for letting his gf hang out with her partner for a class project..... Under your rules, Is she just supposed to not do the project? Or would you have to be there to supervise, so no funny business goes on? Or would you have just flat broken up with her for even bringing up this particular threatening, disrespectful situation because it crossed your boundary?
  
  
  

  You are now applying a boundary mid-relationship. Something that has NEVER been advocated in these discussions. Not. Once. So the question is, why do you keep bringing it up if we are saying to not do this but instead to do it in the onset of her exclusivity request?

  I am applying a boundary mid-relationship? Me? What?? Is that what you mean? I'm not applying $hit. How in the fvck are coming up with that?

 

[The_411]

The problem here is that there needs to be carrot and stick not one or the other.

The point of setting the boundaries is not to trap, coerce, intimidate, scare etc a woman into not acting poorly. It's merely to say these are my boundaries and if you value your relationship with me you will respect them.

The other critical point is the stick which is to say a woman needs to know immediately when entering a LTR that the stick is very real and that you will walk at anytime especially if she crosses your boundaries.

Again, the woman needs to feel that she will genuinuely lose you if she screws up and feeling needs to come from the loss of you ... not the threat of losing you.

It's a thin line that can very easily be misinterpreted.

I state my boundaries at the beginning.

I say you are always free to do what you will as that is your prerogative. I have a boundary about cheating and I do not tolerate it at all.



Women are like recovering alcoholics hence the reason you need to set boundaries so they know that you will not tolerate them putting themselves in precarious positions to relapse.

 

[TheException]

Damn, homie went in on Danger.

While I dont agree with all of Exception's viewpoints regarding boundaries, he is right about certain older guys with no successful relationship experience trying to give younger guys advice on relationships.

He deserved it.

Like I said.....why should any man who is looking to marry and raise a family listen to Danger when he has done neither?

And myself and Exception have explained this part to you a gazillion times, from 800 different angles. You don't understand, you will never understand.

This^

"Only save those.....who wish to be saved".

He is incapable of progress at this time. Its ok......I think we have made our point loud and clear and the forum is privy to the information in this thread and can view the entire discussion and judge for themselves. Its actually becoming boring, debating these CWAF drones who just go on an on about the same things, while making things up along the way. I dont care if the majority of people "think im right" or not......as long as I helped atleast a few people with this issue, its a job well done.

 

[zekko]

During this period – I learned the #1 sign I was about to fvck the woman. It went like this:

“My boyfriend/fiancé told me I’m not allowed to hangout with you anymore.”

Up until this point – I was always just working the “flirty innocent ****y funny sexual” angle (yeah, that’s a real angle haha). Women will normally mention a guy to their boyfriends who’s impressing them. If she mentions him too much – most boyfriend will snap about it. It happened like clockwork!

It makes perfect sense that once a woman reaches the right buying temperature, she will start giving off signs that might alert her boyfriend that there is some trouble afoot. The problem is that the boyfriend in this case is trying to set the boundary after the horse has already left the barn, lol.

"I'm not allowed to hangout with you anymore". So the guy had been fine with it up until this point. But then he tries to put his foot down and it's too late. You had already had time to work on her, and got her all lathered up and ready to go.

If the boundary had been set at the outset of the relationship, either she wouldn't have been hanging out with you in the first place, OR she would have to sneak around behind her boyfriend's back to do it. Which would give off warning signs of its own.

My intention with having the boundary in the first place is not some evil, sinister, controlling monster type of thing. It's just to make sure that we both define an exclusive relationship in the same way. I want a girlfriend who will realize it is better for the relationship for her to be knitting booties with her grandmother than for her to be hanging out one on one with bukowski merit. That is to say she respects the relationship.

Hands up, everyone, who think it is a good idea for your girlfriend to be hanging out one on one with bukowski merit!

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

I find it hilarious that you say I do not listen and insult my reading comprehension, but you ask this question for what must be the 50th time.

You filter her based on her response or reaction to your price for exclusivity. Her response will tell you everything you need to know.

Keep dreaming bro. Weren't you the one talking about how good of actresses women are.

That's the other point you refuse to understand.

If she wants you, she will pay the price. It is very simple. If she is already interested enough to push directly for exclusivity, and agrees to the terms, what makes you think she would be pretending to be someone she is not?

I've responded to this one 800 times. I think the last time it was to zekko, then he acknowledged it and responded with something that didn't fall along the lines of: FEAR!!!!!!

So why don't you set boundaries/ Tell us, all I have heard from your camp is because it will "lose attraction" and push her into other men.

After three threads, you say something like this. This is what I'm referring to when I say reading comprehension. I could honestly put myself in your shoes, pretend I am you, then make all your points arguing against what myself and Exception are saying. I understand your side. That's the difference, you don't understand our side, and you're not trying to.

Anyways, here's one that was made this afternoon.
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2152450&postcount=90
There is mention of the forbidden fruit in there, which by the way, is a valid point. But nothing of fear or looking unattractive.

Holy Hallelujah! Progress!

Actually, been saying that the whole time. Maybe you started actually listening....Progress!

So now we get to the point where one should not happen. Fantastic. So I still have not heard a good method for what is the process for you to approve or disapprove who it happens with? Is there a process?

Yeah, I've explained this one quite a bit too. Including in the exact post you are now quoting. I take back that progress statement.

For yours? You are just guessing and she will go right back to spending time with those men who are in line to fvk her.

Okay man, nice projection.

 

[BeDJ]

It makes perfect sense that once a woman reaches the right buying temperature, she will start giving off signs that might alert her boyfriend that there is some trouble afoot. The problem is that the boyfriend in this case is trying to set the boundary after the horse has already left the barn, lol.

"I'm not allowed to hangout with you anymore". So the guy had been fine with it up until this point. But then he tries to put his foot down and it's too late. You had already had time to work on her, and got her all lathered up and ready to go.

If the boundary had been set at the outset of the relationship, either she wouldn't have been hanging out with you in the first place, OR she would have to sneak around behind her boyfriend's back to do it. Which would give off warning signs of its own.

My intention with having the boundary in the first place is not some evil, sinister, controlling monster type of thing. It's just to make sure that we both define an exclusive relationship in the same way. I want a girlfriend who will realize it is better for the relationship for her to be knitting booties with her grandmother than for her to be hanging out one on one with bukowski merit. That is to say she respects the relationship.

Hands up, everyone, who think it is a good idea for your girlfriend to be hanging out one on one with bukowski merit!

I thought it was just my experience. The highest indicator that she will cheat is her saying "My BF doesn't like us hanging out." That's the highest buying sign you can ever receive. By her saying that relieves the guilt that 'one thing led to another' and at the same time puts her in a position to cheat.

Does that translate to walking out on a woman when she brings up another man she has been spending time with? How much does your action after she tells you really matter? I don't think your response makes any difference at that point because she has already decided to branch swing.

 

[zekko]

I thought it was just my experience. The highest indicator that she will cheat is her saying "My BF doesn't like us hanging out."

Yeah, that's setting the boundary in the middle of the relationship, and by then it's too late.

Once you establish that it is okay for her to hang out with her male beta orbiters (she will call them "male friends"), then she can go out with any male who enters the picture. All she has to do is characterize them as "friends". Five years down the line when some creeper like Bukowski or Danger comes along to seduce her, she has a built in excuse to spend time with him.

Peaks says a girl should police herself in this regard. But look at how Mystery's seduction method worked. It was all about stealth and coming in under the radar. One main reason for the "neg" was to "disqualify himself as a suitor". In other words, he wanted her to think he WASN'T hitting on her so she would let her guard down, and give him time to work on her. In the meantime, he could run his game, give off DHVs, apply some kino, and whatever. But the idea was to FOOL the girl into thinking he didn't want in her pants. Until her buying temperature was ready. You can't at that point suddenly decide maybe she shouldn't be hanging out with dudes, especially once she's found one she really likes lol.

 

[BeDJ]

Yeah, that's setting the boundary in the middle of the relationship, and by then it's too late.

Once you establish that it is okay for her to hang out with her male beta orbiters (she will call them "male friends"), then she can go out with any male who enters the picture. All she has to do is characterize them as "friends". Five years down the line when some creeper like Bukowski or Danger comes along to seduce her, she has a built in excuse to spend time with him.

Peaks says a girl should police herself in this regard. But look at how Mystery's seduction method worked. It was all about stealth and coming in under the radar. One main reason for the "neg" was to "disqualify himself as a suitor". In other words, he wanted her to think he WASN'T hitting on her so she would let her guard down, and give him time to work on her. In the meantime, he could run his game, give off DHVs, apply some kino, and whatever. But the idea was to FOOL the girl into thinking he didn't want in her pants. Until her buying temperature was ready. You can't at that point suddenly decide maybe she shouldn't be hanging out with dudes, especially once she's found one she really likes lol.

In my experience, even if boundaries are in place, she could very well cross them if she perceives her SMV is higher than yours. For example, my ex was dating this guy right before me and I told her to not talk to him again or our relationship could not move forward. All fine and dandy. Skip ahead years later, I gained weight, had little friends and unemployed. She became friends with said guy again, and started hanging out with him, even when I told her I disapproved and made it clear. One night she came home with puke all over herself after hanging out at his house with his room mates. It was the most rage-inducing sh!t I have ever experienced in my life.
/vent

Once a woman perceives her SMV is higher than her partner's, she will continue to test the waters on how far she can cross the boundaries. Once she does that, she has already checked out of the relationship and finding potential suitors for a branch swing. Her partner becomes disposable. The advantages of being in a relationship with a disposable partner is what you can get away with.

Off topic, what does CWAF stand for?

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Yeah, that's setting the boundary in the middle of the relationship, and by then it's too late.

Once you establish that it is okay for her to hang out with her male beta orbiters (she will call them "male friends"), then she can go out with any male who enters the picture. All she has to do is characterize them as "friends". Five years down the line when some creeper like Bukowski or Danger comes along to seduce her, she has a built in excuse to spend time with him.

Peaks says a girl should police herself in this regard. But look at how Mystery's seduction method worked. It was all about stealth and coming in under the radar. One main reason for the "neg" was to "disqualify himself as a suitor". In other words, he wanted her to think he WASN'T hitting on her so she would let her guard down, and give him time to work on her. In the meantime, he could run his game, give off DHVs, apply some kino, and whatever. But the idea was to FOOL the girl into thinking he didn't want in her pants. Until her buying temperature was ready. You can't at that point suddenly decide maybe she shouldn't be hanging out with dudes, especially once she's found one she really likes lol.

Yeah, once a Bukowski enters the picture, might as well just throw in the towel. Game. Over.

So......going back to guy friends/orbiters.

Your girl drops her orbiters to go exclusive with you, because you tell her she needs to. Then what happens when orbiter asks your gf to hang out? What does she say to him?