Boundary Implementation

[guru1000]

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.

Hehe, this happened to me twice before I married. Mid-convo, girl starts texting. I didn't even wait for the check. Just got up, left two 20s on the table, and said "Have a nice day."

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

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.

I skipped through some of these posts here, I'm in the middle of something, I'll revisit, but this one caught my eye.

Think about people YOU respect IRL? Some of them "Command" it, some of them, like bosses so to say, rule with an Iron Fist. Well, they're respected! However, once that boss starts telling you that you HAVE to work two more hours every day, or comes to you on Friday and tells you you're now working the weekend. What happens? You may still RESPECT him, however, you're not going to like him, and you're probably going to go start looking for other jobs.

But what would happen if this guy were a great motivator? What would happen if he's such a great leader that you WANT to work that over time, you want to impress him...... you WANT to follow him into Hell (Tony Soprano reference).

Two different ways of dealing with people. You can ORDER them around, or you can LEAD them....


"Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because (s)he wants to do it." -Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

^^ 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.

It seems a lot of these points you're making guru have come up in previous discussions on this topic. No big deal, however, it seems to me that the "boundary guys" all come from a different mind set. "Set boundaries, Alpha's don't let their women hang out with other men, that's disrespectful for her to do so, she doesn't know it's disrespectful." And then this: "You guys don't set boundaries because you FEAR setting them."

There is no fear....at all. Setting boundaries is just not me, it's not me to tell ANYONE who they can or can't hang out with. It's just not my way. And it's not weakness.....

I'd rather guide, lead, teach, and educate. If that doesn't work, and she still insists on hanging out with some guy that's "just a friend", who is obviously someone that tingles her vag, then I'm going to back off from the relationship. This chick is not invested into this relationship as much as I am, she may be giving 51%, but that is not enough.

A lot of guys talk on here about NOT marrying chicks, NOT going monogamous with a chick....and how it's a lose/lose situation. Okay, it CAN be a lose/lose. So why then, would you EVER get into an exclusive relationship with a chick that insists on hanging out with guys that are threats to the relationship? And, if it's because "she doesn't understand" then guess what, there's going to be a lot more $hit she doesn't understand as well. You can't watch them 24/7. If you're going to give up YOUR exclusivity, then it SHOULD be with a chick that you feel can stay faithful. Just don't give it up to some chick who, after meeting you, is STILL displaying red flags. It's about character. She can hide her faulty character when you OVERTLY tell her she needs to cut other dudes out. She can play into your perfect image of a "girlfriend" by ACTING her way through the honeymoon phase. Or you can sit back and WATCH what she does. And, if all lights are green, then you can contently move forward with the relationship. If not, oh well, she'll probably make a good plate that you can hang out with every once in a while.

 

[jc_80]

This is a really interesting topic the more I think about it. On one hand, exclusivity is a boundary itself and self explanatory. So any attempt to add to it could be interpreted as a sign of insecurity and controlling behavior. Essentially, you're saying, "I'm not sure yet if I can trust you". If you don't trust the person enough to use common sense to honor the commitment, then why bother being exclusive? On the other hand, many relationships fail because of incompatibility about boundaries, and this may have been discovered or prevented earlier if a good discussion about boundaries was discussed when exclusivity was asked for.

My solution to discussing boundaries without appearing insecure is to ask her why she wants to be exclusive and what she expects of me to make her feel respected and secure in knowing I'm honoring the exclusivity agreement. If she omits issues that I might have, then I ask her how she would feel if I did this or that. If she is uncomfortable with it, then I say fair enough I won't do it and expect that you won't either because relationships don't work with double standards. This approach forces her to reveal her insecurities and willingness to be fair. If you don't like what you hear, then decline the offer. If you like what you hear, then time will tell if you're compatible. And when you catch her violating the agreement, you can say hey what happened to the agreement rather than hey I said you couldn't do that or I assumed you wouldn't do that. What happens at that point is another issue.

 

[guru1000]

Think about people YOU respect IRL? Some of them "Command" it, some of them, like bosses so to say, rule with an Iron Fist. Well, they're respected! However, once that boss starts telling you that you HAVE to work two more hours every day, or comes to you on Friday and tells you you're now working the weekend. What happens? You may still RESPECT him, however, you're not going to like him, and you're probably going to go start looking for other jobs.

But what would happen if this guy were a great motivator? What would happen if he's such a great leader that you WANT to work that over time, you want to impress him...... you WANT to follow him into Hell (Tony Soprano reference).

Two different ways of dealing with people. You can ORDER them around, or you can LEAD them....

I am an employer. Accordingly, quite a relevant analogy you describe. When hiring new employees, I meet with them for 30 minutes, specifically to delineate their job duties, or shall we say my expectations. Following, I peruse the employee handbook with them, which repetitively outlines the same expectations I had just narrated. The new employee must execute the employee handbook. The handbook is a preemptive measure, as to deter the potential excuse that the employee was not properly apprised of his/her duties.

I have a team of a dozen loyal employees. I have also had employees who didn’t perform their duties. Accordingly, as explained in the handbook, violation of duty results in termination. NYS law also supports my termination, under the doctrine of “employment at will.” But, I don’t fire them right away. Once an employee fails to perform, I advertise for a new employee, a replacement. Once I secure an adequate replacement, I fire the old employee. Delineating my expectations from the onset of employment is a necessity: When the employee violates my expectation, I’m put on alert to find a replacement, as I know it’s a question of time before the violator will quit or sabotage my business.

The same applies with DJ boundary implementation. If a woman violates an overt boundary, this would be your cue to branch swing or start recruiting new plates for a harem, as your woman is on her way out. Ergo, you will never be blindsided. Make sense?

A lot of guys talk on here about NOT marrying chicks, NOT going monogamous with a chick....and how it's a lose/lose situation. Okay, it CAN be a lose/lose. So why then, would you EVER get into an exclusive relationship with a chick that insists on hanging out with guys that are threats to the relationship? And, if it's because "she doesn't understand" then guess what, there's going to be a lot more $hit she doesn't understand as well. You can't watch them 24/7. If you're going to give up YOUR exclusivity, then it SHOULD be with a chick that you feel can stay faithful. Just don't give it up to some chick who, after meeting you, is STILL displaying red flags. It's about character. She can hide her faulty character when you OVERTLY tell her she needs to cut other dudes out. She can play into your perfect image of a "girlfriend" by ACTING her way through the honeymoon phase. Or you can sit back and WATCH what she does. And, if all lights are green, then you can contently move forward with the relationship. If not, oh well, she'll probably make a good plate that you can hang out with every once in a while.

I agree with this. The confusion is what constitutes a violation which merits Boundary Implementation.

Violations can be bifurcated into two categories: (1) Capital offenses, which merit no boundaries; (2) Subtleties, which should be overtly disclosed to maintain good relations.

Capital offenses are ubiquitously known relationship breakers: Cheating, male companions or orbiters, whorish behavior, etc. These offenses need not be forewarned, as the woman is damaged, thus automatically disqualified from long-term intimacy. Never implement boundaries to a broken woman. I have always preached to qualify your woman extensively; I spoke more about this topic here.

Subtleties are not capital offenses; but notwithstanding critical to overtly disclose as a myriad violations of these seemly insignificant subtleties could collapse any relation. My subtleties include carrying a respectful tone during a disagreement, maintaining a clean household (if living together), maintaining a level of respect for and time to spend with each other’s families (assuming exclusive relations), no texting during OUR time, etc. There is no right or wrong subtlety; it is individual-based--simply an outline of what will make/keep you happy and the relation respectful.

 

[zekko]

And when you catch her violating the agreement, you can say hey what happened to the agreement rather than hey I said you couldn't do that or I assumed you wouldn't do that. What happens at that point is another issue.

This is pretty much what most of us are saying. I don't think anyone here is saying to ORDER any girl what to do (as far as boundaries go). It's more like saying "This is what I expect of a girlfriend, if you are wanting to fill the position". And this is only done AFTER she starts pushing for exclusivity.

 

[Die Hard]

So let's say you meet a girl, start dating her and on the third date you find out she has a 'guy friend' who sometimes comes over to her house to watch a movie or something similar to that. You probe some more and she tells you she doesn't see him "that way", there is no physical contact between them whatsoever, he's more like a brother to her blah blah.

Aside from this 'guy friend' matter, she seems like a good catch and you can imagine yourself becoming exclusive with her in a possible future, IF she'd accept your boundary and make an end to those meetings with the guy friend.

So what's the smartest course of playing this out?

1. Do you wait for her to bring up 'exclusivity' and only THEN tell her about your boundary, that you can't be exclusive with a girl who does what she does with her guy friend?
2. Do you mention your boundary BEFORE 'exclusivity' is brought up?

See, my idea would be that the second option is better coz she'll have some time to prepare and adjust to it. However, when it comes to discussing exclusivity, we all know that SHE has to bring the subject up, right? Coz if you let her know that you want to be exclusive before she does, you put yourself in a very weak position and all that.
Well, when you tell her about your boundary and communicate that you could never be exclusive with someone who watches movies with guy friends, you are basically bringing the exclusivity subject up!
It makes her think: "Aha, the simple fact that he tells me what he expects in an exclusive relationship, reveals that he is interested in an exclusive relationship with me..." and she'll use this indirect "revelation" of yours against you.

So what are your thoughts about this? Bring up the boundary BEFORE exclusivity is mentioned (gives her some time to prepare and adjust to it) or WHEN exclusivity is mentioned? (which raises the possibility of her accepting coz she never could "prepare" for it"her

 

[BeDJ]

I've noticed a lot of Red Pill responses in this thread, it's an absolutely valid insight. It would be naive of me to ignore other ways to make a woman respect, at the same time, affectionate with you.

It's not a 'power struggle' as some SoSuavers think, it's much more than that. Every action has a reaction. At the end of the day, how we can control women is through psychological manipulation. Comp anxiety, dread, submissiveness, fear of abandonment, etc. I'm not denying the effectiveness of these tactic. Walk away, right? Absolutely, if she does not co-op with those tactics, you should walk away.

This will not lead to a healthy relationship. Ever. It's manipulation. I'm not giving any judgments or hailmary's, but I will say I have been in a lot of shoes in the past couple of years.

 

[guru1000]

Great responses, gentlemen. Every robust organization incorporates a modus operandi. Why shouldn’t we?

Die Hard, Danger is on the money. Intimate guy friend is subsumed under “Capital Offenses,” described in Post 36.

 

[Die Hard]

Okay, that doesn't change the general principle, guys. Imagine it being something else, not a guy friend she watches movies with or another capital offence. Just something else that you need to set boundaries with but which isn't a reason to Next her , I don't care, make something up in your mind.

Have something in your mind? Great! Now can you answer my question?

 

[guru1000]

Re: Subtleties

Originally Posted by Anti-Dump
You should be free as a bird, flapping around, singing, full of joy with life. Women want to trap the bird and throw it in a cage (cage = commitment). When birds try to fly into the cage, wouldn't you think something is wrong with that bird? After all, who wants a bird that WANTS to be in the cage? No, women want the birds that are FREE, WILD, and BEAUTIFUL. They want A GOOD CATCH. Good Catches do not fly into cages. Only wounded or needy birds do.

Damaged birds fly into cages. Why? Men want sex; women want commitment. Exclusivity is her benefit; not yours. Accordingly, never initiate discussion of exclusivity or boundaries relating to exclusive relations.

If she requests exclusivity, that’s a tall order: She is asking you to sacrifice your harem. What exchange of value would merit compliance to such a demand … your boundaries.

 

[Die Hard]

Exclusivity is her benefit; not yours. Accordingly, never initiate discussion of exclusivity or boundaries relating to exclusive relations.

Looking at the underlined part, you seem to imply that there are two types of boundaries:

1. "normal" boundaries, which you could/should discuss or implement in the phase BEFORE exclusivity.
2. "exclusivity" boundaries, which you could/should only discuss and implement when she brings up exclusivity.

Is my assumption correct?

 

[Zunder]

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:

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

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.

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

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!

The mistake hollywood men make often is to marry someone just as famous, a fellow actress. Better to marry a hot 'commoner' then there would be no 80% divorce rate.

 

[guru1000]

Looking at the underlined part, you seem to imply that there are two types of boundaries:

1. "normal" boundaries, which you could/should discuss or implement in the phase BEFORE exclusivity.
2. "exclusivity" boundaries, which you could/should only discuss and implement when she brings up exclusivity.

Is my assumption correct?

The best way to gauge the efficacy of boundary implementation is analyzing the trade-off. You are delineating your “rules” of play, but what value does she receive in exchange?

Exclusivity boundary (EB): Her exclusivity request is an appeal to abdicate your harem. In return, she will acquiesce to your exclusive boundaries.

Post-exclusivity boundary (PEB): With PEBs, Condition One, preferably both dependent upon the nature of the request, must be present: (1) She holds high IL, thus your not walking away is the value exchanged; and (2) You provide something of equal or greater value, if a tall request (i.e., a trip, a cruise, a night out, etc.)

Plate boundary (PB): I have used PBs successfully regarding lateness, inflexibility, disrespectful tone, and cease/desist the constant requests for exclusivity. For effective PB implementation, the plate must hold high IL. The value of her acquiescence is ensconcing her position in your harem. Be mindful not to impose EBs on plates, as such an act may be construed as an appeal to exclusivity.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Re: Subtleties

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti-Dump
You should be free as a bird, flapping around, singing, full of joy with life. Women want to trap the bird and throw it in a cage (cage = commitment). When birds try to fly into the cage, wouldn't you think something is wrong with that bird? After all, who wants a bird that WANTS to be in the cage? No, women want the birds that are FREE, WILD, and BEAUTIFUL. They want A GOOD CATCH. Good Catches do not fly into cages. Only wounded or needy birds do.

Damaged birds fly into cages. Why? Men want sex; women want commitment. Exclusivity is her benefit; not yours. Accordingly, never initiate discussion of exclusivity or boundaries relating to exclusive relations.

If she requests exclusivity, that’s a tall order: She is asking you to sacrifice your harem. What exchange of value would merit compliance to such a demand … your boundaries.

Doesn't Anti-Dump talk about about BUYING a relationship vs. BUILDING one?

What does he mean by BUYING a relationship?

Doesn't he mean you should agree to go into a relationship with a women while taking her AS IS.... Which means, you shouldn't go into one expecting her to change?

"well, I'm asking her to change BEFORE we go exclusive. That's my Price!"

For her to change what she WANTS to do, in order to be with you? Well, sorry to say, I feel that's under the BUILDING a relationship category.

Theories cannot be tested unless opposed.

FYI: I've never set boundaries in my 37 years, and it's worked out just fine so far So, in that sense, this isn't a theory for me. It's not something I'm saying that SHOULD work. It's not: "Well, this is how my perfect relationship UTOPIA would be." No, I get chicks on my nuts by NOT setting boundaries. By not giving a fvck what do or they don't do. OUTCOME INDEPENDENCE. If they pass MY tests, and prove their worth to me, then I'll consider making them my GF, but only then.

 

[guru1000]

Doesn't Anti-Dump talk about about BUYING a relationship vs. BUILDING one?

Couple years ago, I bought a property. It was an incredibly built Village Russet-brick house located on the water; it also was spacious at 4000 sq. ft., and in an ideal neighborhood. The house possessed all the baseline, non-negotiable attributes that I coveted. Notwithstanding this great “catch,” it wasn’t perfect. I needed to effect subtle changes: I updated the bathrooms and kitchen with European style, granite/marble, installed new cherry wood hard floors, baseboards, and furnishings. At completion, the house was “perfect,” at least in accordance with my standards.

Granted I would not have effected “subtle” changes if the house were devoid of my non-negotiable attributes, specifically exterior aesthetic appeal, size, and location. I also knew after actively looking 7-8 years and maybe 100 houses later that a house of aesthetic appeal, size, and location already pre-finished with cherry wood floors as well as kitchen/bathroom immersed in European-style decorum with granite/marble, all in accordance with my standards, did not exist. I would not find the “perfect” house, but I can buy one with the baseline, non-negotiable characteristics I desired and contour the incidentals to make it “perfect.”

You will never find the “perfect” girl. That’s another myth propagated by AFCs to validate their scarcity. But you can definitely find a compatible contender, and implement boundaries to condition the incidentals.

 

[zekko]

Doesn't Anti-Dump talk about about BUYING a relationship vs. BUILDING one?

I find that some women are able to buy into your frame and your point of view, and some are not. When you're talking about friends of the opposite sex, society tells them that they should have them. Some women can see that spending time with opposite sex friends can cause trouble in a relationship, but some of them think that MEN insist on having them, so that becomes part of their belief system. Some of them are quite relieved to change that opinion, and many of them are actually returning to what they originally believed in the first place, but society had changed.

I have a (male) friend for instance, who insists on having female friends. Or as he puts it, "I don't like being told who I can see". This habit has caused him some problems from time to time in his relationships, but he's always lived a fairly reckless lifestyle.