Now that the non-boundary brigade got annihilated and made no logical counter-arguments, let’s qualify “boundaries” a little better to make it more understandable for the mainstream and undecided.
What Constitutes a Violation which Merits Boundary Implementation?
Violations can be bifurcated into two categories: (a) Capital offenses, which merit no boundaries; (b) Subtleties, which require overt boundary implementation to maintain good relations.
Capital offenses are ubiquitously known relationship breakers: Cheating, whorish behavior, or any extremely disrespectful deal-breakers which warrant immediate dismissal. 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 discuss with contenders 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.
Many of our debates are not on “boundaries,” but rather whether to place “male companions or orbiters” under “Capital offenses” or “Subtleties.” I’ve always taken the position that male companions/orbiters are grounds for immediate disqualification from exclusivity, thus subsumed under “Capital Offenses.” But, there are exceptions to this rule: What if the male companion, as an example, were a godfather or gay. Thus, you cannot apply binary rules in classifying “Capital offenses,” as myriad exceptions/distinctions may arise.
Reconciliation of “Boundaries” and “Building vs. Buying a Relationship”
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.
