Boundaries.. The Definitive Answer?

[LondonTowers]

Look at the conversation that is happening in the "Over 50% of Wives Cheat" thread:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=221500&page=7

I've seen this argument come up so many times on SoSuave. How come after all these years, we haven't found the definitive answer when it come to setting boundaries in a relationship? Shouldn't the DJ Bible have nailed this one by now?

In my last LTR I never set boundaries, let her hang with her ex, guys, never got jealous, just didn't give a fuk.. because my life was going well and I had no insecurity she wouldn't do anything because I was the sh1t. She even wanted her ex to hang with us, just so she could show me off. This actually seemed to work for me as I had some natural alpha state for the first 1 year due to life success and she could feel this, thus other guys were just orbiters.. I would even joke to her about who she found attractive in the bar, that's how self confident I was.. this would actually make her want me more.

Then cracks in my game came out, I was going through a rough patch with life and suddenly the game shifted. She would start to compare me to other guys including her ex in a negative way. I suddenly became insecure because I didn't feel alpha anymore due to life not going well and suddenly started enforcing boundaries which she would constantly test because she knew I lost my game unlike when I was alpha and didn't give a sh1t. Enforcing boundaries was actually coming from an insecure place and I don't think your words mean sh1t if you ain't got your game tight.

Now, I'm not too sure how I would handle my next LTR. I'm in the process of becoming alpha again, but now truly alpha as in my inner game this time. But would I now still have the not give a sh1t attitude if my girl still hung out with her ex/guys?

Part of me thinks if my game is tight, I give her great sex, pluck at her emotional spectrum, she rides on the magic carpet of my exciting life (which comes from knowing my life mission) she will be hooked on me in a multiple of ways and if she knew I would drop her cold and can easily replace her if she doesn't provide me with the affection/sex that I need.. she will enforce her own boundaries.

This is the only true boundary I can provide. A girls attention will drop if she starts even emotionally involve someone else.. at that point you just freeze immediately. So the only boundary you can ever enforce is through your attention and her subtle awareness you have options and will walk away with ease at the very beginning of her not providing for your needs. That loss is something she could not deal with.

This kind of boundary only works if you truly are a DJ.. which is what we should all be striving towards.

 

[sylvester the cat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guVAeFs5XwE

 

[TheException]

Yet another nail in the coffin on Jurry and Solly's argument that she will stop "dating" those other men when she has an alpha

Well I can't speak for those two....but the main point IS NOT her banning all other men on her own.

I don't expect my girlfriend to avoid every guy just because we are dating. I know she would not do anything to risk our relationship. That is the point. I don't need to sit her down and explain to her like I'm her daddy that she is not to cheat on me. That actually gives me the chills when I think about it.....how pathetic.

 

[zekko]

Well I can't speak for those two....but the main point IS NOT her banning all other men on her own.

I don't expect my girlfriend to avoid every guy just because we are dating. I know she would not do anything to risk our relationship. That is the point. I don't need to sit her down and explain to her like I'm her daddy that she is not to cheat on me. That actually gives me the chills when I think about it.....how pathetic.

And the result is that your girl sees other men, while mine and Danger's do not. You may call it pathetic, but I think it's great. See, we all got what we want. Everybody's happy.

 

[Fireballs]

I only found out the importance of setting boundaries AFTER I had agreed to exclusivity with my current girlfriend.

I am not going to bring up the no 1 on 1 with guy 'friends' boundary now, it's too late for that but if she does hang out with a guy 'friend' 1 on 1, I'm not going to try and control her and say she can't. That will just make me look weak and insecure. All I will do is hang out with other girls 1 on 1 and hope that she sets the boundary. If not then I will extend my 1 on 1 hangouts to ex-girlfriends. She will no doubt have a problem with this so I can have a talk to her about the friends thing when she brings it up and ask her if that's the kind of relationship she wants. I mean, an ex is just a friend right?

 

[zekko]

I only found out the importance of setting boundaries AFTER I had agreed to exclusivity with my current girlfriend.

I am not going to bring up the no 1 on 1 with guy 'friends' boundary now, it's too late for that but if she does hang out with a guy 'friend' 1 on 1, I'm not going to try and control her and say she can't. That will just make me look weak and insecure. All I will do is hang out with other girls 1 on 1 and hope that she sets the boundary. If not then I will extend my 1 on 1 hangouts to ex-girlfriends. She will no doubt have a problem with this so I can have a talk to her about the friends thing when she brings it up and ask her if that's the kind of relationship she wants. I mean, an ex is just a friend right?

Now that's an interesting post, let's examine it.

I agree that you waited too long to bring the subject up, but that aside here's the main issue:
You think that objecting to her hanging out with guys will make you look weak and insecure (because that's what the feminists want to brainwash you to think). But the fact is you DO object to her hanging out with guys. So either that in itself makes you weak and insecure, or it doesn't. So you are either weak and insecure, or you are not. I say it is perfectly natural to object to her hanging out with other men, and more men should.

It's amazing that you are willing to go through this dance of hanging around other women (and even exes) in order to get her to change her mind about it, even though you don't really want to hang around with these women. Who wants to hang out with an ex anyway?

First off, a guy hanging out with a woman is a different thing. A guy who hangs out with a woman is more than likely going to want to bang her. I know I am not going to waste my time hanging out one on one with some chick unless I am getting laid out of the deal.

Secondly, she may not object to you hanging out with women, as long as it means she can have her orbiters or whatnot. I've known couples (who had no boundaries) who both spent time with opposite sex friends. If anything, rather than objecting, the woman just found MORE guys to hang around with. Because it is always easier for women, right? If it becomes a shootout, she is likely to win.

 

[( . )( . )]

For what it's worth I think all this is much ado about nothing. If a woman thinks you're high enough value she's not going to be stupid enough to hang out with ex's, cavort with random dudes to begin with. She's not going to risk what she perceives as a high value man for low value men.

Here's the important part. What the pant pissing pink shirt brigade don't seem to grasp is a man who she suspects has boundaries is more often than not a higher value man. Btw if it makes the pant pissing pink shirt brigade feel any better I used to be in the same camp as them. Now I lay the law down (with everything). It's the natural order of things and how it's been for thousands of years. This whole "she's a free spirit, who's whims will never be contained" is a bullsh!t 40 year? experiment that's failed miserably. Western men lost their way and forgot women are empty vessels to be filled by men.

Don't be afraid to let her know how it's going to be on your watch. And yep even in public places if anyone was wondering. As a matter of fact you get extra points.

 

[Soolaimon]

These boundary guys have it ass backwards.

They are judging women by their words instead of judging them by their actions.

Judge women by their actions and not their words.

Agreeing to a boundary is only her words that these guys think will keep her from cheating.

Women who cut out other men from their lives on their own is a woman who understands what an exclusive relationship is.

Those are her actions you judge her on.

Not useless words she can go back on at any moment.

The point of boundaries are to ensure she has the same values as you, as well as to provide clarity on what exclusivity means.

Your same repetitive fallacy you say over and over.

Smart classy intelligent women already know what exclusivity means they don't need to have it defined when they are defining it for you by removing other men on their own.

Women do that for Alphas and not betas who need to set a boundary out of fear.

Women that are really into you will agree to what you want with no problem.

When they lose interest they will still cheat on you making your boundary useless.

If your woman knows what exclusivity means and has the same values as you why are you so terrified to put a ring on her finger and marry her?

You never should have set a mid-relationship boundary. Just leave her if she violates them.

You don't need to set a boundary in the first place.

Just leave her if she violates your values and expectations at anytime.

That is what alphas do.

They don't live in fear of a boundary.

They just replace her with another woman.

Nor will she ever know what the definition of exclusivity is. You have another perfect example of a girl who would still hang out with other men while in a relationship.....because she never knew what the rules of exclusivity meant.

Showing off your ignorance and lack of experience with women again I see.

It doesn't matter what definition of exclusivity you define for her. When she decides she wants to sleep with another man she will no matter what you defined for her in the past. What she cares about is what she is feeling now. Not what you said before.

Women don't care about your definitions when their IL is at 0.

Your false argument is that women don't know what exclusivity is.

Women do know what exclusivity is.

They are attracted to and stay with high value alphas not wanting other men.

They cheat and hang out with other men when they have a beta boyfriend they lost interest in.

That's the difference.

Yet another nail in the coffin on Jurry and Solly's argument that she will stop "dating" those other men when she has an alpha.

The "alphas" who put boundaries on their girlfriends who I slept with were really betas at heart when their women cheated on them breaking the useless boundaries with no problem.

No, she will not. This is two threads in two days proving that fact. When she requests exclusivity, you state your definition and she can either accept or walk. The moment she breaks any of your boundaries (stated or otherwise). You walk.

I guess you never heard of infatuation where a woman will accept your terms then later on break them when she loses interest.

Women will do whatever you want if they are really into you at the time.

When her interest is gone she won't care what she felt or agreed to before.

She will tell you goodbye with your useless boundary that didn't do anything except give you false hopes.

Agreeing to your terms in January doesn't mean anything when she's breaking them in November.

That is a waste of time and is useless.

Get some experience.

 

[Fireballs]

Now that's an interesting post, let's examine it.

I agree that you waited too long to bring the subject up, but that aside here's the main issue:
You think that objecting to her hanging out with guys will make you look weak and insecure (because that's what the feminists want to brainwash you to think). But the fact is you DO object to her hanging out with guys. So either that in itself makes you weak and insecure, or it doesn't. So you are either weak and insecure, or you are not. I say it is perfectly natural to object to her hanging out with other men, and more men should.

It's amazing that you are willing to go through this dance of hanging around other women (and even exes) in order to get her to change her mind about it, even though you don't really want to hang around with these women. Who wants to hang out with an ex anyway?

First off, a guy hanging out with a woman is a different thing. A guy who hangs out with a woman is more than likely going to want to bang her. I know I am not going to waste my time hanging out one on one with some chick unless I am getting laid out of the deal.

Secondly, she may not object to you hanging out with women, as long as it means she can have her orbiters or whatnot. I've known couples (who had no boundaries) who both spent time with opposite sex friends. If anything, rather than objecting, the woman just found MORE guys to hang around with. Because it is always easier for women, right? If it becomes a shootout, she is likely to win.

Ok, if I forget about the whole hanging out with other girls tactic, what am I left with if the situation arises? I think if I bring it up with her AFTER we are exclusive, it gives her the power?

How would you handle it?

 

[( . )( . )]

The "alphas" who put boundaries on their girlfriends who I slept with were really betas at heart when their women cheated on them breaking the useless boundaries with no problem.

And when sooly says "slept" he literally means it. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're the dude who was genuinely surprised a man can jerk off twice a day and it was simply inconceivable to you how a man in a relationship could jerk off at all, am I right? No offence mate but I'm not exactly sold on you tearing up the sheets or even having the test levels needed to cuck random betas.

 

[TheException]

Interesting stuff from zekko

I agree that you waited too long to bring the subject up

What's the difference between setting it in the beginning and in the middle? Honestly it's the same boundary regardless. The only thing I can think of is perhaps the frame in which it is established....but even then. It's still an unattractive thing to do in my opinion and will lower your value no matter the time point in which it is set.

but that aside here's the main issue:
You think that objecting to her hanging out with guys will make you look weak and insecure (because that's what the feminists want to brainwash you to think). But the fact is you DO object to her hanging out with guys. So either that in itself makes you weak and insecure, or it doesn't.

The whole "well I it's just the way I feel" argument is a poor one. Because really, we are conditioned to act beta aka buy women flowers, confess love, etc. We do those things simply because "it's how we feel". Same goes for this....it is simply another mental condition ingrained in us, that has no real application. It is an UNFOUND fear. It is the same as being scared of heights when in an airplane. We are conditioned to fear heights....even though we are securely safe inside of an aircraft.

Getting over the fear of a woman cheating is the same thing. Sure, we may fear it at first, but just like being scared of heights, one can over come it and frankly....should.

First off, a guy hanging out with a woman is a different thing. A guy who hangs out with a woman is more than likely going to want to bang her. I know I am not going to waste my time hanging out one on one with some chick unless I am getting laid out of the deal.

Secondly, she may not object to you hanging out with women, as long as it means she can have her orbiters or whatnot. I've known couples (who had no boundaries) who both spent time with opposite sex friends. If anything, rather than objecting, the woman just found MORE guys to hang around with. Because it is always easier for women, right? If it becomes a shootout, she is likely to win.

Right on.....it's pathetic to try to make her jealous on purpose. zekko is exactly right behind the reasoning.

 

[Fugitive]

I only found out the importance of setting boundaries AFTER I had agreed to exclusivity with my current girlfriend.

I am not going to bring up the no 1 on 1 with guy 'friends' boundary now, it's too late for that but if she does hang out with a guy 'friend' 1 on 1, I'm not going to try and control her and say she can't. That will just make me look weak and insecure. All I will do is hang out with other girls 1 on 1 and hope that she sets the boundary. If not then I will extend my 1 on 1 hangouts to ex-girlfriends. She will no doubt have a problem with this so I can have a talk to her about the friends thing when she brings it up and ask her if that's the kind of relationship she wants. I mean, an ex is just a friend right?

Agree with Zekko that there's nothing wrong with setting boundaries in my opinion as long as you don't do it in an extreme insecure way. If you set a boundary of she can't talk to any guys, she can't meet them at all, she can't have any guy friends then you're setting yourself up for failure. Every woman will overstep a boundary so extreme and you'll always be on the back foot trying to enforce an impossible boundary.

However you can set a reasonable boundary of "no meeting guys 1 on 1". If she goes against this then you must be prepared to next her. There are women out there who will agree to reasonable boundaries. It's not just the guy thing for me but I think it's important that you're woman allows you to control her to an extent, if she doesn't then you're always going to be dealing with mind f*cks and disobedience.

 

[zekko]

What's the difference between setting it in the beginning and in the middle? Honestly it's the same boundary regardless. The only thing I can think of is perhaps the frame in which it is established....but even then.

I think it's best to do it in the beginning, as opposed to reacting to something she does later. If you do it in the beginning, you are making an AGREEMENT together, just as you are making an agreement to be exclusive. If you wait until she does something wrong, then you are in the position where you either have to dump her or take her to task for her behavior.

Rather than dumping her, I prefer to give her a heads up in the beginning what my expectations are, since this is obviously an issue that divides a lot of people, both male and female. Better to make an agreement in the beginning than to tell her later she can't do something.

Getting over the fear of a woman cheating is the same thing. Sure, we may fear it at first, but just like being scared of heights, one can over come it and frankly....should..

You like to frame this in terms of FEAR, but I see it in terms of good judgement. There are good evolutionary reasons why people are afraid of heights, that fear is there to protect you. Just as there are good evolutionary reasons why cultures do not value slvts.

I do not FEAR my girlfriend cheating. You can believe me or not, but that fear is not there. I know I can always get another girlfriend, because I always have. But that doesn't mean I will approve of her engaging in what I consider to be high risk and disrespectful behavior.

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

As usual, SoSuavers are seeking the yes or no answer; looking for black or white where there is only several dull shades of grey.

Only a successful guy with power, a well-developed and well-maintained frame can set boundaries.

As the OP demonstrated at the beginning of his post, when he had control over his life, he was able to dictate his relationship and behave as he pleased in relative comfort. However, when his value dropped, for whatever reason, so did her willingness to live within his boundaries. Why would she. If he isn't living up to her expectations, why would she live up to his.

As I always maintain, a layabout can get what he wants for a while, because he DGAF. However, as soon as a better option comes along, that relationship will slide like a hot knife through butter.

A powerful man can and should set the boundaries he deserves. As the old saying goes, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. The alternative is supplicating beta-ism.

 

[jurry]

Let me break this down as SIMPLY as possible, because there is a whole lot of bs being twisted around here.

Basically there are two separate and vastly different points here.

The first one is that a man with value has to have boundaries. No one is disagreeing with this. There is certain behavior and actions which may take place that a man will simply walk away because he has options and doesnt need it. There is a little grey area here because some men would choose to correct the behavior and keep seeing her while some men would have zero tolerance and just walk. It really depends on the severity of it, you really shouldnt be putting up with any significant red flags early on.

The second point is completely different. It is saying that when a woman pushes for exclusivity, you should lay out exactly what that means and what you expect of her going forward.

To me and some others this is very bizarre. To put it as bluntly as I can, if I felt that I needed to explain what exclusivity means to the girl, I would not be agreeing to be exclusive with her. You should not ever be agreeing to exclusivity to a girl who you obviously have some hangups over. This is why anti dump says you buy a relationship you dont build it. The whole multi month process of dating and getting to know her is for this very reason, to figure if and where she fits in your life.

THEN, when she asks for exclusivity, and assuming she has ALREADY met your criteria, saying yes to her is a trivial, quick conversation. Its already been established over months. The only scenario where you would feel inclined to go into this big boundary and exclusivity discussion at that time would be if she hadnt met your expectations, in which case the answer should be NO. Either way no disussion is needed.

If you start that whole "women dont know what they want they have to be dominated and told what to do" thing, there is some truth to that yes.. But not on the scale of trying to change a girl into what you want her to be at the beginning of the relationship, that is a recipe for disaster.. You buy the girl, you dont build her.

 

[Stugots26]

A man can only set boundaries for himself and his behavior. He can establish his limits from the outset and what he will and will not accept. He cannot impose his boundaries on anyone else in an effort to control another person.

 

[SAYNO]

And when sooly says "slept" he literally means it. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're the dude who was genuinely surprised a man can jerk off twice a day and it was simply inconceivable to you how a man in a relationship could jerk off at all, am I right? No offence mate but I'm not exactly sold on you tearing up the sheets or even having the test levels needed to cuck random betas.

:crackup:

 

[guru1000]

The boundary argument is misplaced. All DJs set boundaries: whether overt or covert such as takeaways, walking away, detracting attention for poor behavior, rewarding for good behavior, or any action in response to her action. The foregoing, although covert, are boundaries.

If a contender:

• leaves the light as she exits the bathroom in your house; if she sees you irritated as you get up to shut the light off—that’s a boundary. She understands you don’t like that behavior.
  
• shows up 15 min late, and sees an irritated expression on your face as she enters your car; that's a boundary.
  
• texts at the dinner table, and you respond by leaving her at the table to take a one-hour sh*t; that's a boundary.
  
• fails to say "Thank you" after you pay for a drink/dinner; and you takeaway in response, that's a boundary.

Guess what, the aforementioned behavior may not bother you, but you will run into myriads of contexts where a contender behaves in ways that will irritate you. You cannot elude the simple fact that you will be irritated sooner or later; when you do--and you react/respond--that's a boundary.

Accordingly, the central tenet is not whether to set boundaries as we all do, most often unconsciously; rather, it is whether to set boundaries OVERTLY or COVERTLY. An effective DJ employs both dependent on the context.

Danger’s position is simple. If a girl makes an OVERT request for exclusivity, if you wish to and before you accede, you OVERTLY respond by stating your expectations. She wants to trap you in a cage and capitulate your harem. But in surrendering your harem, what value do you get in return? Think about it. It’s a bad proposition. But at least Danger has the gonads to demand compliance to ALL his expectations should he elect to make that sacrifice. And as Danger is a seasoned vet of higher value, I guarantee that his contender's IL will remain high, and that she will accede to all his boundaries without the grievance of disheveled misunderstandings/confusion as she was "unaware" of his idiosyncrasies.

My OVERT boundaries in ALL my past relations have never been violated. The contenders have always complied; and when I grew uninterested, they were dumped.

The counterclaim that a contender won’t respect boundaries if she has low interest belies the rudimentary premise that if a girl requests exclusivity of her own accord, she already holds high IL. The boundaries are imposed to alleviate all ambiguity in quotidian interactions as not to waste future time reacting/responding every time the contender behaves in manners in which you don't appreciate.

The counterclaim that boundaries are useless ignores that a DJ’s expectations, whether overt or covert, will be known sooner or later, irrespectively, as you spend more time with the contender.

The counterclaim that a contender should already know and comply to your expectations else you walk away is laughable. We are all idiosyncratic; accordingly, we have disparate expectations.

 

[Soolaimon]

The point of boundaries are to ensure she has the same values as you, as well as to provide clarity on what exclusivity means.

I find it funny that Danger and Zekko who profusely preach their support of boundaries are both scared to death of marriage.

You would think they would both be secure with their boundaries to get married since they defined exclusivity to their woman and she has the same values according to them.

Why are you guys so terrified of marriage when you put all your faith into your boundaries?

The truth is you know your boundaries are on shaky ground and you are still insecure of your woman in your relationship.

That is why you are scared to make a real commitment of marriage to your woman.

That shows boundaries are useless cause you are still insecure and scared with it.

I fearmaking bad investments.

I fear a bad investment. Women who have a different definition of exclusivity or different values are a bad investment.

Here you are still afraid living in fear everyday even with your boundary that should make you secure.

What do you have to fear when you already defined the definition of exclusivity to your woman?

What do you have to fear when she has the same values as you accepting your boundary?

Why would she have a different definition of exclusivity or different values when she agrees to your boundary?

Isn't that the whole point of the boundary claim you make to have the same values as her and a definition of exclusivity defined to her?

Why would you still fear a bad investment with your boundary?

Here you are still scared with your boundary intact. Amazing!

Your boundary theory is a contradiction and is useless cause you still live of fear of her having a different definition of exclusivity and different values even with your boundary you made clear to her.

All your claims of the boundary is b.s. cause even you don't really believe in it. It's just a security blanket like I said.

Your boundary theory has been proven to be a joke when you major claim was shown to be a contradiction.

How do you explain that?

You think 1950's feminine, nurturing housewives are icky.

Here you are projecting again on others with your absurd claims.

You are the one who thinks 1950's feminine, nurturing housewives are "icky" cause you are terrified of making your woman a 1950's housewife yourself.

Why don't you put a ring on your woman's finger and marry her since you like 1950's housewives so much?

You think 1950's feminine, nurturing housewives are icky.

I'm not a marrying man.

Therefore, your arguments for marriage based upon this reasoning do not "pass the sniff test".

Marriage? You would have to be a total pumpkin-head to buy into that garbage.

The risks of divorce rape will always be present.

If you want to see the benefits of NOT marrying, just compare your divorced friends to your never married friends. You will without a doubt see the same general theme of destitution for the divorced and prosperity for the never married. Very, VERY few men get through divorce unscathed.

See? You are scared of 1950's housewives.

They are "icky" to you.

Quit lying and projecting your fears on to others when you are the one scared of marriage.

Only a successful guy with power, a well-developed and well-maintained frame can set boundaries.

A powerful man can and should set the boundaries he deserves. As the old saying goes, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. The alternative is supplicating beta-ism.

Anybody can set a boundary with a woman.

A successful guy with power doesn't need to set a boundary cause he can get any woman he wants. It isn't that serious to him. He can replace her in two minutes.

Every woman wants a successful guy with power. That's who they are attracted to. The women won't want to be with any other man when she has him. The only way she will stray is if she loses interest. No boundary will save him for that. Boundaries are useless.

Do you think a guy who gets tons of women is worried about one woman who he can replace in 2 seconds?

Insecure betas needs a boundary to contain his woman from leaving him cause he is inferior to her and other men.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're the dude who was genuinely surprised a man can jerk off twice a day and it was simply inconceivable to you how a man in a relationship could jerk off at all, am I right? .

You are more ignorant than I thought.

You are as intelligent as your screen name.

I wasn't surprised by that at all. I think it's pathetic. I guess you can't understand sarcasm.

Men who get a lot of pvssy don't need to jerk off to porn twice a day.

They are busy fvking women and not jerking themselves watching other people fvk.

If you're jerking off twice a day you can't get women or your woman doesn't want to fvk you. That is bad.

Since you seem to be a big fan of jerking off I can see why you would take offense to my comment.

I guess we can leave the jerking off to you and the fvking to me.

Sound good?

 

[Tictac]

Soolie's never been laid.

He's far too confused to even talk to a woman.