The glaring inconsistency of the manosphere

[VikingKing]

You can believe in your boundary theory all you want. It won't be there for you when your woman leaves you.

I've seen many guys define their terms to a woman before the relationship.

The women happily agreed to the terms the men defined cause she liked him at that tiime.

After the women started losing interest the women began to see other men anyway even though the man defined "his terms".

The boundary was a thing of the past that wasn't taken seriously by her anymore cause she lost interest. She isn't still going to stay with him with no interest. Women have free will.

I was sleeping with a girl who hid me from her boyfriend. She put me in her phone as "Uncle Max" to camouflage her cheating from her boyfriend.

She told me all about him how he insecure he was. She didn't follow his terms of the past anymore. Later on she left him for another guy after we stopped hooking up.

So much for his boundary and the terms he defined to her before the relationship.

It was a waste of time.

Boundaries are useless.





It's funny how these guys repeat each others absurdities.


[/b]

Funny how "Mr. Coffee" The411 and Tictac use the same name to call me.

Coincidence or not?






Gotta love them 50's housewives!





Just because she requests exclusivity on her behalf doesn't mean that I want to be exclusive with her.

I make that decision on my own based on how she behaved and what I screened during the dating and fvking phase.

If she is a hor that I'm just fvkng for fun I'm not going to waste my time defining any terms to her or become exclusive with her.

That is reserved for classy women who has shown me through their own actions that they are suitable for an exclusive relationship.

Those women clearly defined to me that they understand what exclusivity is.

Therefore I don't need to tell them cause they are already on the same page as me.

High value men are able to decline women who don't fit the bill.

High Value men just don't accept "her request" of exclusivity defining terms to her automatically cause she wants it. They decide if she is worthy to be exclusive with. If she isn't they decline her request. That is the diffeence between high value and beta men. Beta men take what they can get hoping for the best with "their terms" or "expectations" when it's failed from the start.

Only betas do that cause women are scarce for them and that is all they can get. They accept her request trying to contain her to a boundary cause they feel inferior of her cheating. They don't want to lose her.

There is no big deal to it.

Defining terms to her in January is a waste of time if she is breaking them in November.

That's like washing your car right before it rains. It's a waste of time

She is only going to be with you as long as she has attraction.

When it's gone she is going to void the terms you defined in the past.

She will leave you whether or not you defined "your terms" to her or not.

Women only go by their feelings of the present not the feelings and your terms she agreed to in the past.

What she felt before is not what she is feeling now.

Therefore she will break your terms you defned cause they are useless to her now. She lost her interest and attraction.

Understand?

I guess you think as long as you defined "your terms of exclusivity" to her in the past she will still follow your terms even when her IL is at 0 in the present.

That is not how it works.

That is absurd!

That is the fallacy you believe in!

Crazy!




You are citing the same fallacy that you believe in and keep posting.

The women understand the definition just fine.

The women don't respect those men that much and don't feel they have enough value to be fully exclusive with. That's why those women need other men to fill the void.

If they were true alphas those women wouldn't need other men.

Even if they defined "their terms" to the woman she wouldn't follow the terms cause she doesn't care to follow them. She doesn't respect them enough to follow the terms.

Is that too difficult for you to understand?

If she is into you she won't want other men.

When she loses interest or isn't taking you seriously she will.

Setting your terms with women who don't care to follow won't work out too well.

Setting you terms with a woman who likes you becomes a waste of time when she loses interest later on cause she won't follow "your terms" anymore.

It's all about interest, attraction, and respect of the present.

Not your terms you defined in the past.

Got it?

50's housewives are great. They do laundry, cook, clean and respect the head of the house, and that is normal/ natural. Any other way is unnatural. (women behaved this way for 1,000's of years for a reason).

 

[jurry]

Danger, you may want to go back to school.

How did the 1920's and 30's work out for your perfect nuclear family? Wasnt until world war 2 that we got ourselves out of that economic nightmare. Show me the numbers and facts that support an economically significant (on the scale of a 17 trillion dollar economy) amount of money being transferred from men to women through divorce payments. People are still having plenty of happy, successful marriages despite your warped sense of reality. Less people do get married now, great! Who cares?

If the shift of feminism has taken place already and our culture is broken as you say, then those homeless men SHOULD be turning down work, it wouldnt be a future event. The reason it isnt happening is because your theory is completely false you just refuse to look at it.

If you are seriously challenging the fact that we still live in a male dominated country, I have no interest in discussing anything further with you, sorry. 20% women in congress is an all time high. Only 5% of fortune 500 ceos are women. Men CLEARLY dominate the higher management levels of every company ive ever worked for. Am I complaining about this and crying about inequality? No, im pointing out REALITY. And by pointing out FACTS to you, you guys resort to telling me im a feminist. You just only look at the minority of instances where women screw some guy over take all his money and decide that this is what reality is for the majority.

Look, it doesnt bother me what you think of me or my argument. Im not the one with the problem whining all day about feminism and the end of civlization. Im trying to point out to you guys how distorted your views are, if you cant see it, eh not much else I can do. At the end of the day you're the one who has to live with it. Ill go bang the career woman that doesnt need your beta financial security any longer, and have her pay for my shît. Enjoy.

 

[Evan]

Now why is it then that popular manosphere sites like chateau heartiste (and many people on this forum) that preach sexual market value and how to improve as men are constantly whining about this transformation? If we are or becoming the high value men we set out to be, then we should be celebrating this change.

The defenders of this ideology will come out and say "no no we just feel bad for our beta friends (whoever they may be) and how hard it is for them now". More likely it is that these wise internet sages are in fact refusing to acknowledge the low value "beta" that is inside of them, and so have cunningly recrafted their argument to avoid facing this truth.

Because it's easier to complain about what is going on around you and be a victim than it is to take responsibility for your life and truly become a high value male. It's easier to say that I am high value male because I know and am aware of what is going on in modern male-female relationship dynamics than it is to actually be a real alpha male who is in the top 10%. So because men refuse to believe this you will never stop seeing men talk about how they need to always improve their SMV. While that's not a bad thing. Men who know and are aware of modern relationship dynamics are better off than men who don't know them but it still doesn't make them high SMV.

It's what they actually do with the information that determines it. It's never really been about how women control the marriage laws or about how women are the victims and get the benefit of the doubt. It's about you taking responsibility for yourself and controlling what you have control over. MRA and red pill men can talk about inequality in feminism all they want but that won't change things. What will change things is men being able to adapt and evolve in the world that is in front of them.

I agree with your above post. Just because the laws are not equal doesn't mean a man and women can't have a successful marriage. It's always been about you and her being a great fit for each other. And it's far easier to settle on a women who just wants your commitment than it is to actually find a women who fits into your life and you complement hers just as well. It takes time, lots of work, and lots of dating. Which men aren't willing to do. Most of all most men aren't willing to put the time into being a great man. They would rather be on a message board complaining about how the world is and why it's unfair.

 

[jurry]

I already understand economics quite well, which is why my viewpoints are borne out in reality. You are the one with no facts, no support, and throwing out nonsense like kondratiev waves to try and explain whats happening.

You just keep pushing empty phrases like "misandric court system" with no ability to support it. Doesnt it concern you that your theory is completely devoid of evidence? To say that because some men have experienced unfairness by women and the court system therefore our whole culture has been ruined by feminism is about as weak an argument I can imagine, yet that is actually what you are trying to put forth.

The sad thing is you are completely @ss backwards yet are utterly convinced that youre on the cutting edge of some "red-pill" movement that consists of about 100 omegas on internet forums whining about how evil women are and how horrible society is.

Thanks I will keep banging them, enjoy trying to lock a girl down with your financial security and boundary discussions.

 

[Soolaimon]

50's housewives are great. They do laundry, cook, clean and respect the head of the house, and that is normal/ natural. Any other way is unnatural. (women behaved this way for 1,000's of years for a reason).

I agree with you.

Why are you ignoring the rest of my points and only speaking of housewives?

The boundary guys have a problem with 50's housewives.

Did you even read that part?

They are scared to death to get married even with their boundary that is supposed to filter their woman having the same values as them.

Here they are still scared to death of a divorce court when they shouldn't be cause of their boundary.

That isn't power. That is weakness cause they are still terrified of losing their woman through divorce. It's all about fear to them.

A hilarious contradiction!

They are projecting their fears on to us saying we hate 50's housewives.

That is a bunch of crap!

The primary purpose of a boundary is to inform her of your expectations and the definition of exclusivity.

She must be reminded of this because a large number of women think they can date other men while being committed.

If she is too stupid to know what they are after, she is not worth committing to.

This amazing contradiction blows their whole boundary theory out of the water!

Your whole boundary theory claim is that you need to define what exclusivity means to a woman cause she is too stupid to know what exclusive means.

Now you contradict yourself saying that if a woman is too stupid to know what exclusive means she is not worth committing to.



Why did you define "your terms" to your woman when you are now saying she is too stupid not to know and she isn't worth committing to?

How do explain that?




You argue for several threads with your b.s. and now you are saying the same thing I've been saying the whole time!

You don't even know what you're saying.

What a contradiction!

I was right all along and other posters agree as well.

 

[r0cky]

A male dominated, relatively monogomous culture (like the 1950's) is great for low value betas. They have the law and societal expectations and norms on their side, and a higher value woman is more likely to settle with a lower value man for financial security, start a family, etc.

A more equal (gender wise, but is still unquestionably male dominated), less monogomous culture like we have now is disastrous for low value men.. As women are able to do what they want and are less reliant on a man to provide her with financial security. This means they are free to pursue the men who truly make their vag's tingle and keep the world new and exciting for them. This is perfect for a high value man, who is now dealing with more sexually and culturally unbound women than ever before.

Now why is it then that popular manosphere sites like chateau heartiste (and many people on this forum) that preach sexual market value and how to improve as men are constantly whining about this transformation? If we are or becoming the high value men we set out to be, then we should be celebrating this change.

The defenders of this ideology will come out and say "no no we just feel bad for our beta friends (whoever they may be) and how hard it is for them now". More likely it is that these wise internet sages are in fact refusing to acknowledge the low value "beta" that is inside of them, and so have cunningly recrafted their argument to avoid facing this truth.

There are some interesting and attractive cultural changes that I see resulting from this kind of shift that is happening, but its a lot to write down so ill keep this shortish for now. The bottom line is this: embrace (celebrate if you have high smv) change and enjoy the world and its women around you.

Well said. I think many guys that are part of the manosphere tend to become unfocused after a while.

I'm noticing a lot discussions like yours lately. I hope its a sign of oncoming change.

 

[Soolaimon]

Here is a boundary scenario.


Woman: I think I want to be exclusive with Bob but still want other men to chill with.
Bob: You can't chill with other men in an exclusive relationship.
Woman: That means exclusive? You mean I can't chill with my guy friends?
Bob: That isn't what an exclusive relationship means.
Woman: Ok Bob I won't chill with them anymore.

A little while later the woman hangs out with Dlck.

Bob: Why are you hanging out with Dlck when I told you my terms of exclusivity?
Woman: Dlck is my friend and wanted to hang out with me. Is that a problem Bob?
Bob: You knew my terms I set. You can't hang out with other men.
Woman: I didn't know I couldn't hang out with my friends.


Yeah good luck with your boundaries when your woman is either too dumb, doesn't value you as a man, or wants to do what she wants when she has free will.

She ignored "your terms" and it was a waste of time.

The boundary was useless.

So now you are saying Peaks, Exception, LondonTowers are lower-value men, and backbreakers example is of another lower-value man.

I don't know who any of those people are and I assume you don't know them personally either to make that call.

How many real High Value alpha men do you know of that has their exclusive woman dating other men and allows it to go on?

Can't be much of a high value man right?

You cite your examples on thin information supporting your fallacy.

Why don't you cite some real High Value men instead?

It all depends on who the man is. There are men who are considered "High Value Men" cause of their power and wealth but still have wives and girlfriends using and cheating on them and those men still allow it to go on.

It takes a real man of value that a woman appreciates and respects not to have other men.

I can't say for the rest.

Now you are unsure of your thin claim you keep citing. You don't even know yourself.

That's what I keep telling you. You still want to argue with me.

You are wrong and you know it.

That's why you keep lying, projecting, shifting, and contradicting in each post.

And of course women will still leave you if you don't have a high enough value or keep their interest. That is irrelevant to defining exclusivity when she requests it. You still do not understand the purpose of this, which is why you keep erecting this same strawman argument.

How is it irrelevant? There is no straw man. You claim straw man after you have lost your useless argument. Claiming straw man is an easy term to throw out trying to save face. Anybody can do that. You can't argue your failed point so you claim straw man to avoid it.

Having value is what keeps your woman. Not "your terms" you set in the past when she thought you had value. You lost your value to her so "your terms" don't mean anything to her anymore.

Why can't you understand that after you are supposed to have all this "experience" with women?




So, you sit her down and define your terms to her that she is to have no other men to date while you are together.

She happily agrees to your terms.

5 months later she loses interest in you hanging out with another man.

She knew the terms you set and she broke your terms anyway cause she lost interest.

This will still happen whether you "defined terms" to her or not.

It's about her interest of the present. Not your terms of the past.

What good was defining "your terms" when she still broke them without caring?

That was useless.

Why can't you understand that?

The rest of your post is full of insults as usual with no coherent argument, just statements without supporting information. When you can make a coherent argument behind your statements, then you may have something worthy. Keep trying..

No coherent argument?

Are you saying that "your terms" of the past trumps the woman's feelings of the present?

If you believe that then you have no clue about women. Period!

I was right. It's all about "your terms" no matter what. You feel she will still follow "your terms" even when her IL is at 0. That is asinine!

Where are the insults at? There is none.

Nice way to shift and deflect.

You can't answer anything I stated and everybody can see that. So your only way to save face is to project that I am making no coherent statements.

Why don't you post a counter statement arguing against a woman's attraction, respect, and interest being what keeps her with her man?

You are saying that statement I made is incoherent.

What do you think keeps a woman attracted to a man if it isn't respect, attraction, interest, and value?

Let's see what you think drives a woman to be attracted staying with a man.

You have the floor!

 

[jurry]

Lol danger did you really just post pictures of your house and car? Sorry to piss u off that bad man, i think we'll just agree to disagree on this one.

Regarding the link, does it really surprise you that women (who end up with the child 90% of the time) are taking 90% of the child support money? The amounts are prettyyy similar between sexes (500$ or so) and all of those graphs are consistent levels for the past 20 years. So what is the point exactly? Where is this horribly unfair system that has developed with feminism? Where is the comparison to 50 years ago for context?

Nevermind that we were talking about divorce, but oh well. In any case, if its not worth it for a man to get married and have a kid, cool then dont do it. Many still do and have good marriages, raise kids etc. I just dont see the evidence anywhere to support a large scale breakdown of society based around a sexist court system and womens rights. You yourself dont want to get married and it appears you are working and doing well for yourself, so men are obviously not just giving up because they cant get married.

What I DO SEE is a society breaking down because of no jobs, stagnant wages, a megarich .01 percent that has bought incredible political influence, broken all kinds of markets (healthcare, finance, etc.), and brought about a level of wealth inequality not seen since the days of the robber barons, just before we got the great depression. Now THESE are real problems, and ones for which I would be happy to provide you mountains of evidence for.

 

[The411]

Funny how "Mr. Coffee" The411 and Tictac use the same name to call me.

Coincidence or not?

Mr.Coffee. LMAO

What does the Hebrew word Soolaimon mean?

Neil Diamond's song of that name is described as a variation of the word Salamah, meaning Hello and Welcome as well as Good-bye and peace be with you, in many languages."

It is the Arabic form of Solomon, derived from the semitic root slm, meaning "peace." In Hebrew it is "shalom".


Do you impress the ladies at the coffee shop meets ordering a decaf He-BREW Fooliamon? Or should I call you Bagel or Bialy Boy?

Do you say hello and the ladies say goodbye? Shalom old boy. :crackup:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VVir_GjEA4

 

[jimmy18]

http://www.toxicards.com/data/cards/arguing-on-the-internet-is-like-competing-in-the-special-olympics-even-if-you-win-you-re-still-retarded-384.png

 

[Soolaimon]

I see you still haven't answered what makes a woman stay with a man since you think it's not respect, interest, attraction, and value.

I wouldn't know, that hasn't happened to me at all.

Why are you making this about you?

Don't you think this will happen to other men besides you?

Your illustration starts with the premise that the definition of exclusivity is meant to change her behavior. As I have said a million times, it is meant to filter out women with different values as well as clarify the definition of exclusive.

You're shifting and contradicting yourself again.

No, my illustration is here to prove your boundary theory is full of crap with all the false claims that you and the 4 others keep repeating over and over.

The primary purpose of a boundary is to inform her of your expectations and the definition of exclusivity.

No, I am pointing out that women do not know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship. This is why you must give your definition of exclusivity when she asks it of you

According to your boundary theory that you repeat over and over Bob is doing what you are telling us to do.

Bob is informing the woman of his expectations and his definition of exclusivity to her.

The woman doesn't know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship according to you.

Bob is giving his definition of exclusivity when she asked for it.

Why do you have a problem with the illustration that supports your theory?

How do you explain that?

The primary purpose of a boundary is to inform her of your expectations and the definition of exclusivity.

No, I am pointing out that women do not know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship. This is why you must give your definition of exclusivity when she asks it of you

She must be reminded of this because a large number of women think they can date other men while being committed..

Women need to be taught what is respectful for a relationship.

Most girls have never been taught was is respectful in a relationship.

She doesn't know any better so when the time comes that she wants to, she will engage in behavior unacceptable for a committed relationship

No, I am pointing out that women do not know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship. This is why you must give your definition of exclusivity when she asks it of you

How will she know what is and isn't acceptable when she has been conditioned by beta's to do as she pleases?

Because nobody had the discussion with them on what exclusivity means.

So YES, these need to take place because she simply does not know any better.

In a world bombarded by media creating AFC's and masculine women, what on earth makes you think she will automatically know what is expected of her?

It needs to be defined because so many women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

If she is too stupid to know what they are after, she is not worth committing to.

Your many contradictions.

Bob did clarify the definition of "exclusive" to her after she requested exclusivity.

Bob is trying to teach his woman what is respectful for an exclusive relationship according to you.

Teaching a woman what is respectful is changing her behavior you idiot.

If she is engaging in unacceptable behavior in her previous relationships your are changing her behavior teaching her what is acceptable in yours.

You don't even know what you are saying.

Then at the very end in bold you contradict your entire boundary claim that she is not worth committing to when she is too stupid not to know what exclusive means.

Your entire boundary claim is that you need to teach her.

You have no clue!

Can't you guys see it too?

So your alleged scenario is useless. And of course, I would just dump her rather than ask her why she hung out with some guy. But again, it shows how useless your analysis is.

She must be reminded of this because a large number of women think they can date other men while being committed..

More contradicting, shifting, projecting, and lying.

Not according to your analysis you keep repeating. You need to remind her of what exclusivity means according to you.

Another amazing contradiction!

My scenario is not useless cause it illustrates what you claim with your own boundary theory.

Your boundary is what is useless and the scenario shows that.

Lastly,

I see you are avoiding this mis-step quoted below. I wonder why? Because it ruins your already demolished credibility.

You are projecting again!

How is my credibility demolished when you demolished your own credibility with your own contradictions that everybody can now see?

It's pathetic that you have to quote another posters words saying my credibility is demolished.

Who cares what he thinks when I'm in support of marriage and you are scared of it.

Hilarious!

So Solly, why do you feel the need to make up lies when your anti-boundary buddy jury is the one who hates the 50's housewives?.

Who cares what his personal opinion on housewives is.

You are scared of housewives cause you are terrified of making your woman a housewife.

That makes you a hypocrite when you are attacking another person who holds the same views.

You call marriage garbage and it appears he doesn't like it either.

That is what I was pointing out to you but you are too dumb to understand anything logically.

Is that all you got? Quoting another posters personal beliefs?

LMFAO!

 

[jurry]

Danger, I dont think it is fair to read that far into the charts. The women is likely getting the child by default because the man has left her, or doesnt want to raise the kid. Should she not receive support for this? Or they may have mutually decided that its better or easier for the child to live with the mother, who in turn will need food clothes etc for the child. Theres no way to determine that from the data.

Regarding marriage, there are many reasons men are not manning up. Not being able to find a job is certainly one, fear of divorce payments is certainly another (though id bet its much further down the list). But many still are getting married. I really dont see the problem.

The main issue I have with your prediction is that it deals only with absolutes. Either men have the control, or its women. Why does it have to be one of the extremes? My prediction is that the pendulum swings a bit further back towards women (similar to nordic countries or australia) and then stays pretty constant for awhile. Im not interested in matriarchy or patriarchy, just a peaceful, relatively equal world where one group does not have all the power over the other.

Also, i dont know why the boundary discussion has moved onto this thread..

 

[( . )( . )]

Im not interested in matriarchy or patriarchy, just a peaceful, relatively equal world where one group does not have all the power over the other.

Is that more bullsh!t cultural Marxist "coz eqwaaaality" agitprop I smell there sugar tits?

Secondly, how would you even know what a legit patriarchy is? Have you spent some time with the Kalahari bushmen?

Thirdly, can you imagine if a young noob took your gynocentric feeeelz good poz to heart and stated he wants to be a chicks equal? I believe the agenda you're trying to push here is quite selfish and damaging for anyone unfortunate enough to take it seriously.

 

[zekko]

Has your economic prowess bought you an 8 acre custom home with 2 private ponds?

Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4

Has your economic prowess purchased you a Porsche Boxster?

Pic 1
Pic 2

Come back when it has. Until then you are just another idiot with grandiose claims about his economic knowledge.

Now hold on here, Danger, I think that's a little bit unfair. I'm sure you are aware that a lot of millionaires actually live very frugal lives, living in very simple homes and driving old cars. In fact, that's part of the process that allows some of them to accumulate so much.

That said, I have a pretty nice house myself, and I have to admit that the tendency for most people is that the more they make, the more they spend (the higher the lifestyle they live). I've often thought about simplifying down to a more meager existence, however. I think that can be spiritually healthy.

 

[sylvester the cat]

never mind.

 

[Soolaimon]

Woman thinking: I think I want to be exclusive with Bob but I still want other men to chill with.

Conversation begins.

Woman: Bob I want to be exclusive with you.

Bob sets his boundary with the woman.

Bob: You can't chill with other men in an exclusive relationship.

Woman: That means exclusive? You mean I can't chill with my guy friends anymore?

Bob defines his terms of exclusivity teaching his woman what is acceptable for an exclusive relationship.

Bob: That isn't what an exclusive relationship means. It means you can't hang out with other men. You can only hang out with me. I won't tolerate it if you hang out with other men. You will be dumped if I find out.

Woman: Ok Bob I won't chill with them anymore. I agree to yours terms of an exclusive relationship.

A little while later the woman loses interest in Bob and hangs out with Dlck. Bob finds out but doesn't know she had Dlck's Dlck inside her. Bob felt his boundary would stick even with low interest from his woman.

Bob: Why are you hanging out with Dlck when I told you my terms of exclusivity?

Woman: Dlck is my friend and wanted to hang out with me. Is that a problem Bob?

Bob:You knew my terms I set.

Woman: I didn't know I couldn't hang out with my friends.



This is why the boundary theory is useless. You are wasting your time trying to teach a woman what is acceptable for a relationship cause she still might not understand or won't care to follow your terms when she loses interest.

This is exactly how women cheated with me on their insecure boyfriends who set boundaries. They chose not to follow the boundaries even though the boyfriend set them months before. The women lost interest and cheated on them with me.

That will happen no matter if you set boundaries or not. It's about interest, attraction, respect, and value. That's how it will always be. Not terms of an useless boundary of the past that she no longer feels is important.

Find a classy woman that already knows what an exclusive relationship means. You won't have to waste your time with this crap holding her to an insecure boundary cause you are terrified of other men.

Your illustration starts with the premise that the definition of exclusivity is meant to change her behavior. As I have said a million times, it is meant to filter out women with different values as well as clarify the definition of exclusive..

Women need to be taught what is respectful for a relationship.

women do not know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship.

She must be reminded of this because a large number of women think they can date other men while being committed.

women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

More contradictions!

You are not filtering her out when you are trying to teach her what is respectful for a relationship.

That means you are keeping her trying to change her behavior from how she normally behaves.

She feels it is ok to have other men in a committed relationship when she doesn't know what is acceptable.

You feel she shouldn't have other men in a committed relationship.

Those are having different values.

You are still committing to her not filtering her out trying to teach her what is acceptable and respectful for a relationship.

You don't even know what you are saying.

How many more contradictions are you going to make?

High Value men don't waste their time trying to teach a woman values with on the job training. Only betas do that cause they don't have any other women.

Experienced men don't even waste their time committing to a women like that.

I would just dump her rather than ask her why she hung out with some guy.

So you would dump her for breaking "your terms" of your own boundary that she chose not to follow because she didn't care to follow it cause she has free will.

That makes "your terms" and your boundary useless and a waste of time after she broke it to hang out with another guy.

That is exactly what I've been telling you and the 4 other guys in over 4 threads now.

In your own words and all your contradictions you have proven your own boundary theory to be useless and full of crap.

Thanks for proving me right!

 

[jurry]

Is that more bullsh!t cultural Marxist "coz eqwaaaality" agitprop I smell there sugar tits?

Secondly, how would you even know what a legit patriarchy is? Have you spent some time with the Kalahari bushmen?

Thirdly, can you imagine if a young noob took your gynocentric feeeelz good poz to heart and stated he wants to be a chicks equal? I believe the agenda you're trying to push here is quite selfish and damaging for anyone unfortunate enough to take it seriously.

Hoping for a peaceful, equal world is selfish and damaging? What would happen if the "young noob" said this?

 

[sylvester the cat]

Woman thinking: I think I want to be exclusive with Bob but I still want other men to chill with.

Conversation begins.

Woman: Bob I want to be exclusive with you.

Bob sets his boundary with the woman.

Bob: You can't chill with other men in an exclusive relationship.

Woman: That means exclusive? You mean I can't chill with my guy friends anymore?

Bob defines his terms of exclusivity teaching his woman what is acceptable for an exclusive relationship.

Bob: That isn't what an exclusive relationship means. It means you can't hang out with other men. You can only hang out with me. I won't tolerate it if you hang out with other men. You will be dumped if I find out.

Woman: Ok Bob I won't chill with them anymore. I agree to yours terms of an exclusive relationship.

A little while later the woman loses interest in Bob and hangs out with Dlck. Bob finds out but doesn't know she had Dlck's Dlck inside her. Bob felt his boundary would stick even with low interest from his woman.

Bob: Why are you hanging out with Dlck when I told you my terms of exclusivity?

Woman: Dlck is my friend and wanted to hang out with me. Is that a problem Bob?

Bob:You knew my terms I set.

Woman: I didn't know I couldn't hang out with my friends.



This is why the boundary theory is useless. You are wasting your time trying to teach a woman what is acceptable for a relationship cause she still might not understand or won't care to follow your terms when she loses interest.

This is exactly how women cheated with me on their insecure boyfriends who set boundaries. They chose not to follow the boundaries even though the boyfriend set them months before. The women lost interest and cheated on them with me.

That will happen no matter if you set boundaries or not. It's about interest, attraction, respect, and value. That's how it will always be. Not terms of an useless boundary of the past that she no longer feels is important.

Find a classy woman that already knows what an exclusive relationship means. You won't have to waste your time with this crap holding her to an insecure boundary cause you are terrified of other men.











More contradictions!

You are not filtering her out when you are trying to teach her what is respectful for a relationship.

That means you are keeping her trying to change her behavior from how she normally behaves.

She feels it is ok to have other men in a committed relationship when she doesn't know what is acceptable.

You feel she shouldn't have other men in a committed relationship.

Those are having different values.

You are still committing to her not filtering her out trying to teach her what is acceptable and respectful for a relationship.

You don't even know what you are saying.

How many more contradictions are you going to make?

High Value men don't waste their time trying to teach a woman values with on the job training. Only betas do that cause they don't have any other women.

Experienced men don't even waste their time committing to a women like that.







So you would dump her for breaking "your terms" of your own boundary that she chose not to follow because she didn't care to follow it cause she has free will.

That makes "your terms" and your boundary useless and a waste of time after she broke it to hang out with another guy.

That is exactly what I've been telling you and the 4 other guys in over 4 threads now.

In your own words and all your contradictions you have proven your own boundary theory to be useless and full of crap.

Thanks for proving me right!

That boundary example you use showed how useful having boundaries are. As soon as she lost interest in Bob she wanted to hang with d1ck thus telling Bob indirectly that she had lost interest and giving Bob the heads up to dump her.

Had he not laid down boundaries Bob would have been none the wiser to her loss of interest until it was too late.

 

[zekko]

Look, PlayHerMan`s got his coloring crayons out again!

That boundary example you use showed how useful having boundaries are. As soon as she lost interest in Bob she wanted to hang with d1ck thus telling Bob indirectly that she had lost interest and giving Bob the heads up to dump her.

Had he not laid down boundaries Bob would have been none the wiser to her loss of interest until it was too late.

Good point, Sylvester. As has been said, one of the uses of boundaries is that it makes it more difficult for her to camouflage her behavior. She can`t say "I`m just seeing a friend".

 

[( . )( . )]

Hoping for a peaceful, equal world is selfish and damaging? What would happen if the "young noob" said this?

Just what the Western world needs. Another mewling mangina pretending the fictitious patweeearchy is real declaring his "equalness" to an already statistically overly depressed and overly medicated sex.

Honestly, what are you even doing here? Every time you post you have like half a dozen fellas call your gyno nonsense out. You seem to be at odds with game. You most certainly don't help any of the newer members out with your continual stream of pozzed tripe so what are you actually doing here?