Boundary Implementation

[guru1000]

It’s been a while: The following is a refresher course.

Ten years ago, I dated a Japanese girl. One night, she invited me over to her house for dinner, and as I sat down at the dinner table, her father glared at me. I apparently did not remove my shoes before sitting, thus abrogating Japanese custom. But, how am I, American born and conditioned, expected to understand Japanese custom, without an overt explanation as to the “house” rules?

Similarly, in a social environment predominated by AFCs, how are women supposed to understand the rules of social engagement? Women--who have been socially conditioned/trained to exhibit poor behavior--are rewarded, notwithstanding their egregious conduct. Accordingly … a DJ must utilize the cardinal gun in his arsenal: Boundary Implementation.

Without boundaries, women will act as they are conditioned. At the forefront of any relation, a DJ must overtly disclose the “rules” of engagement. A high IL partner will defer to your boundaries. Should your partner violate a boundary, one of two dynamics are manifesting: (1) She has lower IL, which is your cue to walk away from the relation; (2) She is testing and probing to see of what type of substance you are made. If the latter, a DJ must overtly state “When we met, I had explained to you what is and is not acceptable. You have done X. Such behavior is not acceptable.” Her ensuing response should be your prescription of action. If she does not defer to your holding her accountable, you must walk away.

Counterclaims

Boundary implementation is unsoundly controlling another's behavior. You are incidentally controlling her behavior by directly controlling your behavior in response to hers. Where there is despotic control such as in a dictatorship, there is a paucity of choice. She has a choice not to comply, just as you have a choice to walk away. You both have choices; thus unhealthy, despotic type of control is not prevalent in such a course.

Boundary implementation is a euphemism for “ultimatums,” and ultimatums are declarations rendered out of weakness. Ultimatums are generally spoken once one’s tolerance to unacceptable behavior has been exhausted. Disparately here, boundary implementation is initiated before any capital offenses occur. Should unwarranted behavior ensue, an ultimatum is not necessary, as she has already been forewarned. Walking away, then, is the prescription.

Women are adults, and shouldn’t have to be “told” how to behave. Adults conditioned and trained by whom?

Boundary implementation is a beta act. Alphas could care less how their women act, as they have a stable of other high IL women in their stable. Here is an articulate, arguable objection. However, such contention obfuscates cause and effect. DJs don’t walk away because they can; they walk away from disrespectful, unwarranted, unhealthy behavior exhibited by their partner. How could a woman understand “disrespect,” if she has been conditioned in a manner where disrespect is acceptable? How could I prognosticate that I would disrespect the Jap’s father by failing to take my shoes off at the dinner table?

Incompatibility Prevails No More

Some relations fail due to “incompatibility,” which is another word to describe, in most cases, albeit unintentional, the myriad violations of another’s rule of engagement. Why not overtly disclose your boundaries, bifurcating, thus unblurring, the lines surrounding rules of acceptable behavior and rendering accountability for all conduct. Try it.

 

[dasein]

Agree totally with what's in your OP. Getting out popcorn bowl in anticipation of the fourth counterclaim you list coming along to the thread any minute now.

I certainly don't intend this literally, but carrying on an exclusive relationship with a woman without boundaries is like trying to raise a dog without housetraining or basic obedience training. There is no reason whatsoever to ever commit to an exclusive relationship with a woman without understanding of groundrules and sticking to them just as there is no reason to keep a dog that sh-ts in your house and causes you unnecessary stress. Just stay unexclusive or else make a clear, simple no nonsense exclusivity plan. Mine is relatively simple, when she starts up with the exclusivity talk, "well, what does that mean, exactly, to you?" Then after you listen and agree while looking at her lovingly... "here's what it means to me" with a "harmless" sweet, kindness and warmth-beaming smile:

1. All orbiter friends who aren't real friends GO. Now. NC. It is very easy to tell real friends from sexual orbiters and attention supply. Ask her, "when is the last time you did a real favor for that person that inconvenienced you when no alcohol or partying were involved?" Real friends share real life with each other, they don't only do nightlife, only drinking, all the favors and niceties don't all run her way as if she is being courted.

I NEVER want to be woken up at 2AM by her buzzing phone text signal on the nightstand from some "dude/friend/drinking buddy who is just lonely." Adults don't need sexual attention supply, kids do. If I ever hear that text buzz, it means she didn't do her job when getting such texts when I'm not around of saying, "hey, I'm involved and happy, good luck to you and no more contacting me please unless you're on your deathbed."

2. Nights out on the town without each other present decrease in number... drastically. People who are involved in exclusive relationships generally don't "just have to go out" 3+ nights every week. People who are exclusive don't get dressed up for long, elaborate "nights out" with single or divorced friends/GNO... it's a rarity and has a good reason, never "just because I'm bored or XYZ needs me tonight." No.

3. Work "friends," bosses, etc., of the opposite sex don't ever call/text at night to chat... erm... about "work" unless there is some emergency or a stated, specific project. Flirty work relationships don't go with my idea of exclusivity at all.

Can't keep the rules? don't like them? fine! even better for both of us, let's just keep having fun like we have been without any labels, who needs exclusivity? Once again beaming that loving, understanding smile.

Stronk medicine, I promise. Smell the glove stuff, LOL. Here, many use the hamster wheel analogy, want to see it spin so fast it throws off sparks?

Many women today, some normal, decent women, consider an exclusive relationship to be a mere accessory on their fabulous social life, that it's like a purse they can choose to wear or not. This is a function of so much gynoculture MSM sunshine being blown up their ass on a daily basis, so somewhat understandable. Your reasonable boundaries set them straight and make your life less stressful generally. Mostly, they avoid exclusivity in the first place in the very sweetest way possible. Taking reasonable steps to make life with women less stressful and dramatic is never "beta" IMO.

 

[Malcontent]

Good stuff, but probably eliminates 99% of women. Not saying I disagree with any of this though.

Do you think young 'uns could adhere to these rules? I've gotten to where I'm not attracted to >25 y.o.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

I wish ONE time, just ONCE. Nismo would come into a thread like this and say: "Do you think Channing Tatum has to set boundaries?" Instead it's.... ah nevermind. I'm tired. If this thread goes anywhere I might come have to come back in and say my two cents and/or just copy and past a bunch of crap from all those other threads where we "discussed" this.

As far as the OP goes, I can see a time when you two are sitting together discussing the "rules" of the relationship, boundaries might come up. Whatever, if that's what you gotta do.

Me, for the most part, fvck that. Like has been said by even pro-boundary guys in reference to other aspects of game: "If your gf is with you because she's actually attracted to you, and therefore worried about losing you, then she's not going to do anything that would undermine the relationship anyways."

She should be the one secretly not wanting YOU to go out with your friends. She should be the one staying home waiting up on you. If that's not the case, then you shouldn't be with her in the first place.

Forbidding her to see some orbiter d1ck wad is only going to make him now be the forbidden fruit.

How could a woman understand “disrespect,” if she has been conditioned in a manner where disrespect is acceptable?

You don't go exclusive with a woman who doesn't know what goddam disrespecting you means in the first fvcking place. Fvck, you know why they're not going out with dingleberry orbiter jack fvck once they meet you? Because they don't WANT to. When you start getting hot and heavy with a chick, she will drop everything for YOU. She will talk with orbiters for one reason, to discuss you and/or to feed them attention when you are off doing other things. But the second you come back around, orbiter will get dropped in a fvcking heart beat, orbiter will get cut off in mid-sentence and left with the bill in his hand once you are back available again. Forcing her to cut these guys out is ridiculous. It serves no purpose. All it will do is, 2 months into the relationship, when she won't give you any fvcking space, is make you wish she had some other guy to take her to go see the twighlight saga, and listen to her complaints about her boss. And, once that Honeymoon stage is over, she will start resenting you when that bestie guy friend of hers is no longer in the picture....only because you won't allow it. Even if she would have only kept in touch with him through texts once every two months.

Blah, blah blah, there's a thousand other counter-points.

That's all I have for tonight. I'll probably be running this endeavor alone this time. Maybe I'll pop back in later and see how you guys are doing.

Last thing: Setting boundaries is logic based. Chicks are emotion based. Therefore, those boundaries, will be broken, unless she WANTS to follow them in the first place. All OVERTLY setting them is going to do is make you look like a weak beta chump who has a fear of getting cheated on.

 

[guru1000]

Dasein: Indoctrinated with DJ wisdom, I see. I like how you introduce your boundaries with "well, what does that mean, exactly, to you?" Excellent!

Malcontent: Field tested a myriad times, as well as on my wife who I met at 22 yos, HB 9.

Samspade: We have to hang out one day; I live in Brooklyn.

Peaks&Valleys: Thank you for some witty and ostensible solid counterpoints. Theories cannot be tested unless opposed. Let’s see if I can debunk your four rebuttals:

Do you think Channing Tatum has to set boundaries?

Yes; perhaps boundary implementation would reduce the Hollywood divorce rate of 80% down to societal 60%.

If your gf is with you because she's actually attracted to you, and therefore worried about losing you, then she's not going to do anything that would undermine the relationship anyways… You don't go exclusive with a woman who doesn't know what goddam disrespecting you means in the first fvcking place

How would she understand what undermines relations, if a lifetime of beta conditioning has indoctrinated her with unacceptable standards of play? We are not referring to ubiquitous capital offenses such as cheating.

She should be the one secretly not wanting YOU to go out with your friends. She should be the one staying home waiting up on you. If that's not the case, then you shouldn't be with her in the first place.

Diametrically, then, if she occasionally doesn’t mind my going out with my friends, I should leave her?

Last thing: Setting boundaries is logic based. Chicks are emotion based. Therefore, those boundaries, will be broken.

Let’s look at facts, not Manosphere theory. In state and federal prisons, 113,000 were women offenders in 2010 compared to 1,500,000 male inmates. So male outnumber women 13:1 in breaking societal rules, but women are incapable of following relational boundaries? Gotcha!

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Yes; perhaps boundary implementation would reduce the Hollywood divorce rate of 80% down to societal 60%.

Well, Hollywood relationships are one giant $hit show anyways, I don't think anything can help those guys out.

How would she understand what undermines relations, if a lifetime of beta conditioning has indoctrinated her with unacceptable standards of play? We are not referring to ubiquitous capital offenses such as cheating.

This kind of fuels my points. If she's conditioned to act one way, then a mere "setting" of boundaries, for the long term, ain't going to do jack $hit. She will nod her head and agree but then, soon as you go out of town, she'll be scrolling through her phone, and what do you know, there's Orbiter Abe, then her "conditioning" will come right back in full force. "Why can't I hang out with my FRIENDS??" "Why is he such a controlling jerk (as her conditioning would tell her you are)", next thing you know she's going behind your back to "hang out" with "friends" that you don't want her hanging out with.....this is all a slippery slope, if she's already going behind your back just to hang out, what's the difference if she gives the guy a quick HJ......it's all the same...it's ALL forbidden, Now it's an Affair....Mystery....DRAMA.... All the crap that chicks read about in their crack head novels, and hear about in Hollywood (eh?), it's Okay..... everyone is doing it!

Diametrically, then, if she occasionally doesn't mind my going out with my friends, I should leave her?

No.....not the same. This isn't progressive egalitarian voodoo that the hippies are having fake orgasms over. YOU are the leader of the relationship, SHE is the follower. She CAN see her friends, but they come a far second to you. Her friends are there to see her when you can't, and/or when she needs someone to listen to the stories that you usually fall asleep to. So in a sense, they're actually needed to keep your relationship going strong. Females mostly yes, but guys.....eh, as long as you keep the communication lines open between the two of you, then you should be able to see if any threats come into the picture. At that point it's your job to educate her and/or explain the ways of the Alpha male and how these type of guys are looking for ONE thing from her. Where as these betas would in most likely hood have sex with her, but they're happy enough just being used as an emotional tampon, therefore they're no one your woman would ever even consider having sex with. Unless, of course, you forbade her in anyway of seeing them..... which would then flip that dynamic on it's head. This guy is no longer Nerdy Ned, he's now NED - the guy that she's not allowed to see.....

Let’s look at facts, not Manosphere theory. In state and federal prisons, 113,000 were women offenders in 2010 compared to 1,500,000 male inmates. So male outnumber women 13:1 in breaking societal rules, but women are incapable of following relational boundaries? Gotcha!

I think Atom Smasher has a good rebuttal to this particular one, I forget what he had said exactly, and I doubt he's going to jump into this soon to be circus of a discussion, so I'll give it a try: Something about how women follow laws because they're scared of being outcast from the herd, or some $hit like that. Where as guys, just go their own fvcking way, and the true Alphas, they can just go ahead and start their own fvcking herd.....so they just don't give a fvck.

 

[Vulpine]

I've overtly outlined "house rules" to guests for many years. I generally take the opportunity for "remedial training" once the first offense occurs. Other times, I'll give them a casual run-down: Seat AND lid down on the toilet, please. If I have to bend over, you have to bend over, THAT's equality.

But, I've noticed with women in my life, it's always after a "pet peeve" offense that I'll use the opportunity to draw lines out. I'll start to become visibly angry (amplified for effect, mind you), then transition with: "Hold on..." *take a deepbreathreadyrelax* "You have no way of knowing..." *pause for effect* "There are some things that I shouldn't need to, and don't, tollerate..." or something along those lines.

I can't remember a time when it wasn't received with
I mean, for a guy to have the confidence to stand up to crap? The boundary outline is a demonstration: value, wisdom, experience, and confidence. So, after the "rub their nose in it", and after they decipher their emotion (the anger/resentment fades), I have yet to see results other than increased interest/attraction. I think the specific dynamic working is that a woman feels like she has a place once you put her in her place. Indeed, the "boundary" conversation is ultimately a "pull" to follow the initial anger/scolding "push".

Let’s look at facts, not Manosphere theory. In state and federal prisons, 113,000 were women offenders in 2010 compared to 1,500,000 male inmates. So male outnumber women 13:1 in breaking societal rules, but women are incapable of following relational boundaries? Gotcha!

You are delusional if you honestly believe the 13:1 discrepancy is because women "aren't breaking the rules". That statistic is bunk; flimsy at least.

No, more women aren't in prison for two main reasons:

1. Douchebag AFC police supplicate to hot chicks, they don't enforce equally.
"Oh, you're a hot chick? Well, let me give you a ride home instead of tossing your ass in jail for drunk driving. Maybe I'll get a BJ out of it." It makes me want to puke knowing how many first-hand accounts of this type of abuse-of-power I've heard. [notice I said: douchebag AFC police? I'm not saying all law-enforcement is D-AFC, I'm aware that there are those unicorns out there whom are "good" police, but they are only as good as the laws they are enforcing.]

2. If the woman offender was unlucky enough to be caught by a butch-dyke cop (and douchbaggotry is not a factor), when she actually gets to court, same deal... "Oh, you're a hot chick? Well, let's reduce this drunk driving to just speeding." Lenience. "You stabbed your husband? He must have been a bully. Not guilty." Projecting guilt onto the man instead of the woman.

This is why implementing boundaries is so shocking, and yet so refreshing, for women: it doesn't happen to them, and they need to man to lead. It tickles their "daddy" nerve, and I've found that women with daddy issues aren't as receptive/compliant. Which is good! You can filter out those man-hating types handily once you've issued the guidelines.

 

[zekko]

You don't go exclusive with a woman who doesn't know what goddam disrespecting you means in the first fvcking place. Fvck, you know why they're not going out with dingleberry orbiter jack fvck once they meet you? Because they don't WANT to. When you start getting hot and heavy with a chick, she will drop everything for YOU. She will talk with orbiters for one reason, to discuss you and/or to feed them attention when you are off doing other things. But the second you come back around, orbiter will get dropped in a fvcking heart beat, orbiter will get cut off in mid-sentence and left with the bill in his hand once you are back available again. Forcing her to cut these guys out is ridiculous. It serves no purpose. All it will do is, 2 months into the relationship, when she won't give you any fvcking space, is make you wish she had some other guy to take her to go see the twighlight saga, and listen to her complaints about her boss.

I have no interest in rehashing all this stuff again, but I have a few problems with your stance.

First off, women today are raised to believe they can have it all - which means orbiters, admirers, lovers, male friends, etc. And that men who object to that are jealous, possessive, and controlling. That's why the OP draws the analogy of his not knowing the Japanese customs at dinner. If he doesn't know the customs, he can't comply.

Therefore, I disagree that women should just instinctively know your boundaries without being told what they are. In fact, boundaries vary from man to man - mine are different than yours, for instance. I think the girl should know what my boundaries are, so she can then decide for herself if she can comply with them. The key think is whether or not she is receptive to your boundaries and sees the sense in them - or if she will argue over them and consider them unreasonable.

You say that she will agree to them to my face but then resent me later, and break them. I can see why you might think that, but so far that hasn't been my experience, not with the women I've chosen.

Finally, you are okay with her keeping the orbiters, and I am not. In that you are not far off from the mainstream view that she is raised with, that she can have it all, etc. I say that if she wants to go see Twilight, she can go with a female friend or family member, there's no reason that she needs to go with some other dude - anymore than I need to take some other girl to the movies instead of her.

Obviously all of that only applies to exclusive relationships, not for casual dating and plate spinning. IMO.

 

[Colossus]

Great thread and great knowledge imparted by all. This reminds me of ye sosuave of olde.

I dont have much to add, other than the CRITICAL step of selecting a well-bred, demure female from the beginning.

This seems obvious, but we tend to chose women for often erroneous reasons. Looks, sexual excitement, convenience, etc. Especially before we have fully internalized the DJ mindset, as it were.

Part of proper selection is luck (or blessing, fortune, etc), and some of it is recognizing a good thing when you have it. As the old saying goes, you cant turn a ho into a housewife. Similarly, you cant build a housewife from the parts of broken ho's. MOST women today, especially younger ones, have no earthly concept of what it means to respect a man within a relationship. They've never had to learn. As Guru said, in a world awash in betas and gynocentrism, they have no impetus to alter their behaviors and much like a spoiled dog or child, they will run roughshod over everything in their way.

Starting with 'good stock', as I like to call it, will put you LEAGUES ahead of the game as far as setting boundaries and establishing strong frame. That doesn't mean you can just coast on autopilot, but it does make your job easier. So what is 'good stock'?? Some ideas:

-A virgin, or <5 lifetime partners.
-Strong parental structure (parents still married, or at the least a positive ongoing relationship with both mother and father)
-A positive MATERNAL influence. Women tend to emulate their mothers once deep into a relationship.
-A genuine respect for her father
-Good moral upbringing
-No abusive past relationships, history of dating thugs, losers, serial cheaters

You get the idea. Easier said that done to find one, but it does make things easier when you know specifically what you are looking for.

-----------------

I'm personally not of the opinion that "any" woman can be made to fall in line with strong enough game or boundaries. Some women will fight you tooth and nail until the day you DIE. It's just the way they are. Whether they are broken, ignorant, have bad genetics or whatever, it doesn't matter.

I have a fairly strong personality and I like to lead. With most of my relationships since my darkest beta days, I have been the alpha from day one. And let me tell you, DESPITE all my boundary-setting early on, I was continually challenged by a couple of girls in particular throughout our relationship. Women can have boundaries too, which is fine, but if they end up overlapping yours you have a decision to make: cut bait and leave, or stick around for a war of attrition that you will never win.

I think strong male personalities pair best with more demure, submissive females. Strong male personas and strong female personas tend to clash incessantly. The passion may be intense, but so is the conflict.

 

[Vulpine]

MOST women today, especially younger ones, have no earthly concept of what it means to respect a man within a relationship. They've never had to learn. As Guru said, in a world awash in betas and gynocentrism, they have no impetus to alter their behaviors and much like a spoiled dog or child, they will run roughshod over everything in their way.

To be fair, I think there is a simple explanation that incorporates both men and women. The problem I've noticed is a global lack of understanding of "adversarial vs. cooperative". Men get into "adversarial" relationships with "adversarial" women. If you find a woman who understands a cooperative, this is a main part of the "good stock".

Two people, on the same team, with a similar goal (be it sex, or a future) will cooperate to meet those ends. Unfortunately, the default operating mode for most (not just women) is adversarial. "ƒuck you... me first." That attitude is the cause of traffic jams, long lines, stupid laws, poor customer service, and crappy relationships.

Fights, sh¡t tests, and the like are indicative of "adversarial"; these are the actions of "takers". Look for a "giver", and be a "giver" yourself, and it eliminates MOST of the "standard" dating drama right off the bat.

We could get into "good woman" and "needle in the countryside", but it's been done plenty already.

 

[guru1000]

Colossus: I hope that men use Boundary Implementation as an ancillary, secondary to the core DJ principle that you delineated.

Peaks&Valleys: I like your “forbidden fruit:” analogy: Whatever you restrict becomes the object of desire. Let me counter with an empirical analogy regarding a low carbohydrate diet. In an effort to lose body fat, I restricted calories by eating no/low carbs for six months. That is, restricting bread, rice, pasta, and grain intake. The first 2-4 weeks, I craved carbs tremendously; carbs predominated my daily thoughts, even dreams, lol. It was difficult indeed. Just around the 30th day, those cravings began to dissipate. Two months into it, I no longer craved carbs.

The human body/mind is an adaptable orgasm, and can habituate to any standard.

Vulpine: I’m glad to see that you field tested Boundary Implementation. Theories are not rooted in truth, unless successfully exercised.

No, more women aren't in prison for two main reasons:

1. Douchebag AFC police supplicate to hot chicks, they don't enforce equally.
"Oh, you're a hot chick? Well, let me give you a ride home instead of tossing your ass in jail for drunk driving. Maybe I'll get a BJ out of it." It makes me want to puke knowing how many first-hand accounts of this type of abuse-of-power I've heard. [notice I said: douchebag AFC police? I'm not saying all law-enforcement is D-AFC, I'm aware that there are those unicorns out there whom are "good" police, but they are only as good as the laws they are enforcing.]

2. If the woman offender was unlucky enough to be caught by a butch-dyke cop (and douchbaggotry is not a factor), when she actually gets to court, same deal... "Oh, you're a hot chick? Well, let's reduce this drunk driving to just speeding." Lenience. "You stabbed your husband? He must have been a bully. Not guilty." Projecting guilt onto the man instead of the woman.

Only one hole in this contention: Most women are not hot. Thus, in the context of most women inmates, this occurs rarely.

I do, however, understand your point that hot women have little accountability and are more prone not to obey rules due to their mainstream conditioning of exculpation. I agree with this. But, a hot woman will ALWAYS obey the rules of a higher value man.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

This is setting implied boundaries. You're basically conceding the point.

No. Where in that scenario did I tell her what she can or can't do? Im letting HER make her own choice. Educating, yes guiding, but ultimately letting her turn down these guys on her own. Its not my job to bat these guys away. Fvck that noise, I have enough $hit to worry about.



Im doing some RE-conditioning

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Peaks&Valleys: I like your “forbidden fruit:” analogy: Whatever you restrict becomes the object of desire. Let me counter with an empirical analogy regarding a low carbohydrate diet. In an effort to lose body fat, I restricted calories by eating no/low carbs for six months. That is, restricting bread, rice, pasta, and grain intake. The first 2-4 weeks, I craved carbs tremendously; carbs predominated my daily thoughts, even dreams, lol. It was difficult indeed. Just around the 30th day, those cravings began to dissipate. Two months into it, I no longer craved carbs.

Okay, so what would have happened if someone else told you you needed to cut out carbs when you weren't really ready to, or even thinking about doing it in the first place? What if you didn't even WANT to? How much harder would it have been to cut out carbs in that scenario?

 

[guru1000]

Okay, so what would have happened if someone else told you you needed to cut out carbs when you weren't really ready to, or even thinking about doing it in the first place? What if you didn't even WANT to? How much harder would it have been to cut out carbs in that scenario?

Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. I wouldn’t cut carbs unless committing to such an act provided an equal or greater reward. In my case, the greater reward was lower bodyfat.

In the context of:

Plate relations: “Hey Plate, remember the other day when you ... I didn’t appreciate your angry outburst.” Reward for discontinuance of outbursts: Continue dating ME.

Exclusivity discussion: “Hey Plate, exclusivity is a tall order for me. If you want exclusivity, here are my expectations … ” Reward for compliance: Commitment to ME.

Marriage discussion: “Hey, marriage is a tall order for me. If you want marriage, here are my expectations …” Reward for compliance: Marriage to ME.

Post-marriage: “Hey wife, I don’t appreciate when you …. ” Reward for discontinuance of undesirable behavior: Stay married to ME.

Notice the consistent keyword “ME”--the prize to be won. That’s the reward: My not walking away. I'm not afraid to walk away from any relation; what about you, my fellow Don Juan? However, it would injudicious for any DJ to walk away from objectionable behavior if the "rules of play" are obscure.

 

[G_Govan]

Boundaries are definitely important, but I'm in more agreement with P&V.

I have no problem with boundaries outside of negotiating how a woman should behave toward you, that to me is non-negotiable.

You won't be able to tame all women, that's a given and I wouldn't even try. However, women aren't stupid. They "knowingly" push boundaries to see how you react. Meaning, they know what behaviors are more appropriate than others but they feel a nagging urge to sh-t test you anyway.

Jealousy games never work on me because I know how to react to them, not a word spoken. If she hangs out with other men I'm not going to tell her not to, but she also won't get any commitment from me and will be relegated to FWB, etc.

Overt communication about certain things puts you as a man at a disadvantage in sexual relationships. The one thing I will always overtly handle is "disrespect." Rules of the house is probably another, but it all depends on context. There comes a point where she isn't trainable and you're better off cutting her loose.

 

[Kailex]

The fact that this thread even exists is proof and testament to how much things have changed in the last 50-60 years. Do you really think this was something that was discussed ad nauseum before the feminist movement?

The reason boundaries are challenged are because of the ongoing slew of ****e tests launched at us consistently. It's come to a point where they WILL test our boundaries and they WILL see how far we can go. They know better than to do that thing we don't like them to do, but in a day and age where the world is a much smaller place... it's easier for them to do. They work now, they are independent women, they hear songs about putting rings on their fingers, they can just swipe to the right for the next guy, etc, etc, etc.

I've noticed a huge shift in my relationships and dating patterns because of this. Coming from a hispanic background, even as early as (circa) 2005, I saw a disturbing pattern of women who just decided they wanted to spread their wings and do whatever they want and push boundaries.

People are worried about the zombie apocalypse? This could be worse (added for dramatic effect). More often than not, I've been that guy who stood up mid-date because of the red flags perceived and that set me apart from most guys who were willing to sit there and take it. They WILL push, but it's up to each and every one of us out there to decide what we will and will not accept. As soon as men realize that they have the ULTIMATE power (To walk away), maybe these threads would cease to exist.

 

[zekko]

Okay, so what would have happened if someone else told you you needed to cut out carbs when you weren't really ready to, or even thinking about doing it in the first place? What if you didn't even WANT to? How much harder would it have been to cut out carbs in that scenario?

If I am looking for a woman who does not eat carbs, the only relevant thing is whether or not she is willing to cut out the carbs. If I want a woman who doesn't eat carbs, why would I keep it a secret? That way, when we go to the restaurant, and she orders the breaksticks and spaghetti, there won't be any confusion about why I dumped her after the dinner. Why should she have to guess whether or not I tolerate her eating carbs?

I say let her know the expected behavior, and if she can't meet those expectations, or finds it "unattractive" that I won't tolerate carbs, so much the better. That way I know not to waste any more time on her, because she's not what I am looking for.

Overt boundaries do not put you at a disadvantage at all, as long as you truly mean it and will walk away at a moment's notice.

Agreed, women want a man who is in control of his life and knows what he wants. I've never agreed with any of these ideas where you can't overtly say something, or you might lose attraction. Why should any man be afraid to speak his mind? Why should any man be afraid to plainly state what he wants and expects?

 

[zekko]

The greatest irony is, by being a man and laying out your expectations, it doesn't reduce attraction at all, but makes you more attractive. Sure there are women who will b1tch and moan and some will be downright violent about it. But most actually agree and follow, the rest are worthless for relationships anyways.

It's true that being upfront is more of a long term mating strategy, I guess. That may be one reason why Peaks is against setting boundaries - he's younger, and closer to the short term strategies and casual dating practices. Although regardless, I still see no shame in a man openly declaring what he wants.

I've been reading Kezia Noble's "15 Steps to Becoming a Master Seducer" because I saw it on the recommended books list on RSD. She says that the main thing that a woman wants from a man is Strength. This wasn't just her opinion, it was based on a study. So being in control, being strong in your convictions and expectations, being able to lead the relationship, and being unwavering and unapologetic in your views and yourself should be attractive.

To get off topic a little, this is also why many older men succeed with younger women. As a man matures, he becomes more manly, and less boyish in his look and style. And who communicates strength more, a man or a boy?

 

[Kailex]

I have to agree with the last few posts.
Example being a woman I went out with a week or two ago. The first time I went out with her, she never brought her phone out, AT ALL. This is a rarity. Usually if you sit at a bar, they will leave it up there and as the notifications come in, they will at least glance.

During that date, I did indeed leave to use the restroom and upon my return, lo and behold, she was still not on the phone nor had she brought it out.

I told her right off the bat, that I was surprised that she hadn't done that and how much it peeves me because it's rude to just pick up a phone and text. I let her know I was old-fashioned and it was impressive to see that in this day and age.

We've gone out multiple times since, I honestly don't know what her phone looks like but she knows not to do it anytime I am with her in a dating environment.


On the flip side, I did go out with someone just last night who in the middle of the "date", AS I WAS TALKING, she picked up her phone and started texting her best friend. As soon as she put down the phone, she began talking about the person she just texted. She completely missed a good 3-4 sentences of what I had said. Now we've had this conversation before and she is older than me. As the bartender came over, I motioned to the woman to excuse me and I asked the bartender for the check.

The woman opened her eyes wide and asked why I was doing this. I very calmly and collected stated that it seemed that she had more important matters to tend to at the time than an ongoing conversation with me, so I would leave her to her phone and be done for the night. Her first reaction was disbelief and slight. The check came and I paid for my drinks, got up and left.

My phone has been going next level bonkers with messages from her. It went from disbelief, anger, and now apologies. She knew better, she tested me, I got up and left. There is no need for me to sit there and take it but sadly there are many men out there that would never had just asked for the check. Do you know how many men I see now just glancing up blankly at the TV screen at a baseball game they don't even care about because his girlfriend is just Facebooking away?

And this is just a microcosm of the very many other things that men just let slip through the cracks. If you are going to implement boundaries, it's not just about setting them up, it's about following through with them. Realize that not ALL women are going to break your "rules" but you don't have to mold your boundaries based on whoever you are seeing just because you value the box in between your legs.

At the end, it's all about self-respect and what you are happy with within your life.

 

[guru1000]

Why should any man be afraid to speak his mind? Why should any man be afraid to plainly state what he wants and expects?

^^ This. The other camp's position of not speaking their mind is grounded in the fear of loss:

• The fear of looking like a chump, which could prompt her exit.
• The fear of losing attraction, which could prompt her exit.
• The fear of exhibiting beta behavior, which could prompt her exit .
• The fear of walking away, a definite possibility, as the woman is now accountable.

They may posit that Boundary Implementation is an act of fear, as why should a DJ, even incidentally, refrain undesirable behavior if he is confident in himself? This counterclaim fails it overlooks that a DJ's superlative principle is self-respect. Restraining undesirable behavior is an overt declaration that "Hey, these are my rules of respect. Now you know. Respect ME or I'M gone." The underlying impetus, here, is respect, not fear.

In any context, the "act" itself holds little relevance. The "motivation" behind the act is paramount.