A comment on the Iron Rule of Tomassi #4

[LeftyLoosey]

Please, someone convince me that it's possible to have a LTR with a live-in girlfriend/spouse AND maintain a healthy sex life WITHOUT threatening the woman.

 

[guru1000]

Please, someone convince me that it's possible to have a LTR with a live-in girlfriend/spouse AND maintain a healthy sex life WITHOUT threatening the woman.

This is the EPITOME of an AFC expression.

 

[LeftyLoosey]

This is the EPITOME of an AFC expression.

Please elaborate.

 

[Yahooey]

Sex is not a negotiable currency in the relationship. If it is brought up, treat it like the sh!t test it is. NEVER, EVER accept the frame that sex is a treat, or negotiable - this includes the slightly more subtle, I'll give you a BJ if you... Accepting that it is a currency is failing the test and makes you an AFC.

 

[decades]

Please, someone convince me that it's possible to have a LTR with a live-in girlfriend/spouse AND maintain a healthy sex life WITHOUT threatening the woman.

threatening the woman? what? what is threatening about having sex with your GF?

 

[guru1000]

Please elaborate.

An AFC will state "Setting Expectations" or "Boundary Implementation" is a threat to a woman.

The mentality that setting boundaries are "Threatening" is the foundation of AFC thinking. "Threatening" is a loaded word that an AFC will use to justify his inability to properly Direct a relationship.

A Don Juan understands that he comes first in his life. His principles, ambitions, goals and direction are of utmost importance. His Principles and Boundaries need to ALWAYS be respected.

A Don Juan KNOWS a lack of respect is a deal breaker. After all, if he stays with one who does not Respect him, he truly does not Respect himself.

One needs to make his boundaries unequivocally clear. No two people share identical thinking. The DO'S AND DONT's need to be on the table so there is accountability. Without accountability, how can one walk away?

Make no mistake. When boundaries are not OVERLTY expressed, there can be no consequence for breaking them. Without consequence, there is disrespect. In other words, the woman MUST know what is EXPECTED from the very beginning. If she cannot meet your wishes, she understands you will move on. The relationship is CONDITIONAL on mutual respect to each other's expectations.

An AFC internalizes this as an ultimatum or Threat. This is his justification card to not Direct. This justification is compensation for his lack of value and self respect. He as well knows he is not MAN enough to direct a relationship and RUN the show. So the AFC justifies his position instead of Taking Control.

Is it no wonder an AFC fails while a Don Juan succeeds.

Either Direct or Eject.

 

[Mr.Positive]

Ever use a seesaw (aka teeter totter) when you were a kid?

I think a healthy relationship is much like being on a seesaw. On your side, you have positive masculinity, (your attention), leadership, and her side she has her positive femininity. (respect, great sex, etc.)

You have to have some balance to keep the seesaw moving, however, it's the man's job to keep a little extra weight on his side to keep control of the movement of the seesaw. Leading. Not too much..to much requires a lot of work where you will be unhappy in the long run. (think high maitenance)

So...the relationship is moving when you have this kind of balance. When your seat comes down, you lead by pushing, keeping the seesaw moving. On her end, she's happy, enjoying the ride on your seesaw. Everything is great.

I think what happens when you move in with her, is that you take a chance on her by scooting forward on that seesaw. Like a fly willing flying into her web.

You are showing her you want to up the commitment in the relationship.

By doing so, the weight shifts. The healthy balance is tilted to her favor.

Ideally, she will reciprocate that closeness by scooting forward herself...not challenging your leadership, up her IL, respecting your boundaries, etc. You both win in this situation. You keep that essential balance, and the seesaw keeps moving....only, you are sitting closer together. Happy as clams on a high tide.

I think what happens a lot, is the woman doesn't scoot closer to the guy. The guy is left there with his feet dangling in the air wondering what the hell happened...

and meanwhile, the woman sits there, now all of a sudden completely in control, thinking this is great, I've got him right where I want him. The seesaw is no longer moving.

So, the guy has two choices..he either withdraws from her to balance things out again. OR he BEGS her to get closer to him...and when he begs (like a lot of guys do) the opposite happens. She loses respect, and starts withdrawing herself even more. She starts witholding sex, IL drops, etc.

Finally, she gets bored and gets angry that things aren't moving anymore. She directs her anger, towards the man. Then, it's only a matter of time before she finds another seesaw to swing to.

 

[LeftyLoosey]

One needs to make his boundaries unequivocally clear. No two people share identical thinking. The DO'S AND DONT's need to be on the table so there is accountability. Without accountability, how can one walk away?

Make no mistake. When boundaries are not OVERLTY expressed, there can be no consequence for breaking them. Without consequence, there is disrespect. In other words, the woman MUST know what is EXPECTED from the very beginning. If she cannot meet your wishes, she understands you will move on. The relationship is CONDITIONAL on mutual respect to each other's expectations.

Either Direct or Eject.

I completely disagree that you need to set overt boundaries in order to achieve accountability. I can use my own marriage as a specific example, where I was completely dissatisfied on many levels and still felt justified in walking even though I never set overt boundaries about respect.

My wife knew what the boundaries were, just as every woman knows, because they're instinctual. A woman knows exactly what her role is supposed to be in a relationship because when her role changes and she finds herself playing the dominant male, she loses respect for her man and as a result loses interest and restricts sex.

No words ever need to be spoken about respect or boundaries, they are inherently present. When I asked my wife why she thought I was leaving, she told me outright "because I don't respect you." I never said a word to her about disrespecting me but she knew she had violated my unspoken boundaries. She didn't respect me not because I neglected to tell her outright "you shall not disrespect me," but because I lost her respect on a daily basis by letting her get away with things. I should have just called her out on her sh!t tests, but there never would have been a requirement to overtly say "you shall not disrespect me!" That would've made me look like a scared little girl. Imagine you're in high school and your friends are bugging you and you scream "you shall not disrespect me!" They will LAUGH at you, not respect you.

As others have stated in this thread, the moment you set the boundary by stating outright "if you refuse to satisfy me sexually on my terms, I will leave," you are giving her the power. You are telling her that her pu*sy is so powerful that with it alone she can manipulate you into staying and then satisfy whatever covert agenda she has of her own. My wife knew that this boundary existed and used sex to keep me around. Whenever I asked for it, I got it. Fortunately I was smart enough to realize that unless your wife/girlfriend is INITIATING, she is only doing it to manipulate and the interest is not actually there. Women can only put on a show (initiate) for so long with a partner she doesn't respect before they get sick of it, so they'll just wait until you initiate and assume that that is sufficient to keep you satisfied.

An AFC is the one who needs to set overt boundaries because he feels that it's the only way to maintain his partner's interest. Like a cornered snake hissing at you, the AFC realizes that his only option is to threaten because he has lost total control of the situation. The snake threatens out of fear.

DJs never fear their women.

 

[Yahooey]

As others have stated in this thread, the moment you set the boundary by stating outright "if you refuse to satisfy me sexually on my terms, I will leave,"

I want to be sure that I am not included in this group. When I state it is not a negotiable currency, I mean that it is not a subject for negotiation. I will not discuss it in relation to another subject. It is not a prize and it is not the price keeping me around. It is monopoly money, it has no value unless you are playing monopoly. If there is a boundary that I am setting, it is that I won't allow it to be used as pawn.

This does not mean sex cannot be discussed. Mood, preferences, fantasies are all acceptable subjects of discussion (not negotiation). It means that if we are talking about sex, it is the subject.

The distinction I am making is that my sticking around is not based on my terms for sexual satisfaction being applied. For me, a lack of sexual satisfaction would be the symptom indicating that I should perhaps leave and not the cause. STR8UP's comment about how the sex was good until just before the end illustrates my point (BTW: I am not trying to put words in his mouth, just give an example).

 

[LeftyLoosey]

I want to be sure that I am not included in this group. When I state it is not a negotiable currency, I mean that it is not a subject for negotiation. I will not discuss it in relation to another subject. It is not a prize and it is not the price keeping me around. It is monopoly money, it has no value unless you are playing monopoly. If there is a boundary that I am setting, it is that I won't allow it to be used as pawn.

This does not mean sex cannot be discussed. Mood, preferences, fantasies are all acceptable subjects of discussion (not negotiation). It means that if we are talking about sex, it is the subject.

The distinction I am making is that my sticking around is not based on my terms for sexual satisfaction being applied. For me, a lack of sexual satisfaction would be the symptom indicating that I should perhaps leave and not the cause. STR8UP's comment about how the sex was good until just before the end illustrates my point (BTW: I am not trying to put words in his mouth, just give an example).

And this is exactly why it can never be stated "overtly," because the moment you do, it becomes a negotiation tactic. This does nothing to enhance your lover's interest in you. In fact, it would probably breed resentment. Let's just say, if it's your last available tactic for obtaining sexual intimacy, you should already be leaving.

 

[guru1000]

Lefty,

There are so many INJUSTICES (to yourself) in your post, it makes my skin crawl.

Perhaps I will address when I have some more time.

 

[Scaramouche]

Well what a great thread,read,digest and appreciate you young fellahs who are just starting out...Appreciate that the contributors in general be they learned Academics,bitter graduates from the University of hard knocks,or the inevitable cynical wiseacres are singing from the same prayer Book...The Mantra...Unless you are prepared to father children,Why bother to move in ...Well you say some guys on this site are dedicated to a life that seems to centre around in one case Sailing,Friends of mine have moved in with a lady for the shared appreciation of music,another lives for Chess...Down the line though can come a time of debility and dependance,hard to go dancing when you are in a wheelchair....Then and only then sure if you can find a nice kind Motherly partner move in but only with a clearly written contract on what happens IF you break up....Group living is Fun I have two late twenties guys living with me,lifes a hoot...The bread they put in my Jar keeps the Wolf from the Door...I would also comment on STR8UP's great contribution..
"That said......never, ever, EVER live with a woman unless you are planning on marrying her. On the flip side, you MUST live with a woman BEFORE YOU DO marry her."Well Said,but I wander how many bitter expensive pills you swallowed before working that out....On Ultimatums...Oh Rollo good advice...Never Never give them,pride and often sheer lack of a good response will usually cause the recipiant to defy the issuer,but useful to use when you want an impression to be created that she is leaving a relationship with dignity,this is even more useful where the two of you share a wide range of social friends...(Other ladies will always sympathise with a Sister in distress,you become an Ogre)...Whilst on this topic,Never back out of a relationship with"benefits" without another berth to run to,receive an Ultimatum?smother your pride,but remember...As to Sex Oh there seems an inevitability about their declining interest,from a long though not exhaustive even if these days a bit exhausting life with the Ladies,could I say the best way to kill your Sex life is to move in with them,familiarity breeds contempt...But even here they all lose interest eventually so treat life as a Cruise ship with long journeys between Destinations,being sure like all good Sailors that you have another Lady in every Port...always be sure in the guise of having private time to yourself that at least two days a week are for you,spin plates,try the bread from every Oven,you are a long time looking at the lid....

 

[edger]

ULTIMATUMS. I don't see ultimatums as a "declaration of powerlessness". How is it showing powerlessness if you tell her, "If you don't do or follow X, then I'm out. You're showing you're willing to WALK AWAY if your needs aren't met. That shows backbone, so how is that powerlessness?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Ultimatums are declarations of powerlessness because you are resorting to a direct threat to get someone to do what you want them to, and in doing so you OVERTLY confess your weak position. If you were in a genuine position of control it wouldn't be necessary to resort to an ultimatum; you'd simply use that control. There are many ways to effect a change in another person, but ultimatums will never prompt a genuine change. If they change behavior it's prompted by the threat, not unprompted desire.

Now you might say that an ultimatum is implied in how you stated this it to her, or the context it was in. If this was your intent, you are still in a position of powerlessness since you are still trying to get this person to do what you want. It's not what you can do to her (i.e. withdrawing your attentions) that's the power issue, but what you want her to do.

I should also add that ultimatums are, ultimately, self-defeating. You can keep your dog from running off by chaining him in the yard, but that dog still wants to run off. You cannot effect a genuine change of desire with an ultimatum as your relationship will be founded on that threat. And this is the real power issue; that you'd want a person to conform to your desire so badly that you'd use a threat to effect it inspite of the foreknowledge that it can never be a genuine conformation because they didn't orginate it and did so only under duress.

So from your standpoint, yes you do have the power to affect your own actions (like walking away), but you are powerless to force her to do what you want (prompt a genuine desire in her), thus you resort to an ultimatum and only illustrate this OVERTLY.

 

[guru1000]

Ultimatums or let us say "Setting Boundaries" or "Overt/Covert Disclosures" are all of the same family .

You are saying overtly "I expect xxxxxx" and covertly " Or I will walk away". Whether or nor "Walking Away" is disclosed overtly or covertly, it is still a suggested RESULT which defines it as an ultimatum.

What determines whether you are coming from a position of strength or powerlessness is the frame from which you are EXPECTING.

In other words a Woman is a Reflection of who the Man is. If the woman is a complimentary partner than she must have similar standards to uphold.

For example, I personally do not go to strip clubs. I find to tip a girl for getting naked says a lot about myself. With this in mind, I EXPECT my woman not to go to strip clubs as well. Now most women might understand this without disclosure. However there are some that have grown to go with some friends once in a blue moon. By OVERTLY disclosing "A woman of respect does not go to strip clubs" , I am indirectly presenting her with an ultimatum. I am covertly saying" If you go, I will walk away". The OVERT discloure is different yet the meaning is the same.

Now a Man who does not set expectations for himself and chooses to live without standards is POWERLESS.

I EXPECT a lot from my partner. After all, I EXPECT a lot from myself. My partner KNOWS she has to step up to the plate and live up to my standards otherwise she is not of such VALUE to me.

Successful relationships are built on mutual respect to each other's expectations. These expectations MUST be disclosed to understand each other's WANTS and NEEDS.

Lefty's situation is the IDEAL example of one who did express his boundaries. Lefty did not set High Standards for himself, thus expressed no Boundaries to his partner. He was the emotional tampon and pin cushion of abuse. Once respect is lost, the relationship is compromised.

Niccolò Machiavelli said it best, "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both". The fear of walking away which comes from a position of Power not Weakness is the relationship GLUE.

 

[guru1000]

Ultimatums are declarations of powerlessness because you are resorting to a direct threat to get someone to do what you want them to, and in doing so you OVERTLY confess your weak position. If you were in a genuine position of control it wouldn't be necessary to resort to an ultimatum; you'd simply use that control. There are many ways to effect a change in another person, but ultimatums will never prompt a genuine change. If they change behavior it's prompted by the threat, not unprompted desire.

Now you might say that an ultimatum is implied in how you stated this it to her, or the context it was in. If this was your intent, you are still in a position of powerlessness since you are still trying to get this person to do what you want. It's not what you can do to her (i.e. withdrawing your attentions) that's the power issue, but what you want her to do.

I should also add that ultimatums are, ultimately, self-defeating. You can keep your dog from running off by chaining him in the yard, but that dog still wants to run off. You cannot effect a genuine change of desire with an ultimatum as your relationship will be founded on that threat. And this is the real power issue; that you'd want a person to conform to your desire so badly that you'd use a threat to effect it inspite of the foreknowledge that it can never be a genuine conformation because they didn't orginate it and did so only under duress.

So from your standpoint, yes you do have the power to affect your own actions (like walking away), but you are powerless to force her to do what you want (prompt a genuine desire in her), thus you resort to an ultimatum and only illustrate this OVERTLY.

Originally Posted by Rollo Tomassi
Heh, after reading your phone hang up post it reminded me of an experience I had early on with my own wife. I was once at a convention back in the day when I didn't have a cell phone. She looked up the center's phone number, called me up all pissed off about my taking so long or some such sh!t and I was right in the middle of an award ceremony, so I wasn't going ANYWHERE. She got really worked up and hung up on me. Now, prior to getting together with her I had been in a 4.5 year living hell of an LTR where the psychotic b!tch had a penchant for hanging up on me, so this incident left a VERY bad taste in my mouth. When I did get home she was there sulking and I very calmly and very firmly told her "If you ever hang up the phone on me again it will be the last time you ever speak with me again." I never had the sack to tell the psycho this, but I sure as hell wouldn't live with it from my wife. This was an important precident for me, because I was dead serious. I didn't know it at the time, but I was setting the frame for our marriage and I broadcast this to her loud and clear with this event. To this day she has never hung up on me again, no matter how heated we've ever been. That's a rule I made.

Hey Rollo, Hmm, no ultimatums?

Your contradiction helps prove my point. :yes:

 

[Colossus]

From my cardinal rules:

8. Have a firm set of NEGOTIABLES and NON-NEGOTIABLES. Only you can set these. Make sure they are reasonable and are not based in spite for something that someone else has done to you in the past.

and additionally:

4. Realize that the most powerful weapon you have, next to self-mastery, is your ability to walk away. You always have the ability to walk. That being said, be careful not to get yourself into a position where you have no other options to go to. To use a climbing analogy, don’t climb yourself into a position you can’t climb out of. It may look inviting, but sometimes that ‘ledge’ can become a trap. Always have your bases covered. It’s your ass.


Ultimatums and boundaries are the same in principle; but they are not identical. An ultimatum (and this is just my definition) is imposing a do-or-die situation on the relationship. In my experience, ultimatums are usually NOT a good idea, unless you are fully 100% ready to bounce if she violates your terms. You have to be DEAD SERIOUS about it. If you hesitate, or try to negotiate with her about it, she will lose all respect for you and your frame is gone with the wind.

A boundary, on the other hand, is a line that is clearly laid out from the beginning. It has to be set from the beginning. You cant just start implementing boundaries when you are months into a relationship. She is not going to take it seriously. A boundary is not an ultimatum. An ultimatum is saying "either you accept my terms, or it is OVER." A boundary is a line that, if crossed, will warrant consequences--not necessarily leaving her, but consequences nonetheless. Boundaries are territories of RESPECT. Ultimatums are statements made out of desperation, anger, or exhaustion of other avenues. They are a last resort.

That is why I say every Man should have negotiables and non-negotiables. Some issues can be worked out. Some things warrant immediate dismissal of the relationship.

Saying to your woman "either you give me regular, intense sex or I am OUT" is a bold move, but frankly one that is destined to fail. This may work with women who are considerably less attractive than you or women with low self-esteem, but why would would want either of those anyway? She knows that you want that sex so bad that you are willing to issue an ultimatum (which you wouldnt have if you had other options), and she will see this and turn it right back around on you. Women are fully cognizant of their sexual leverage, and they are often very crafty with it.

As we say here: You cannot negotiate desire.

 

[guru1000]

As we say here: You cannot negotiate desire.

True, you cannot or SHOULD not negotiate desire. Injecting interest or desire is a PUA tactic which is not fruitful for the LT.

However, you can EXPECT or in my case DEMAND Respect. Part of this respect whether it is Overtly or Covertly disclosured is being happy in a sexually satisfying relationship.

If she cannot meet your expectation, walk away.

Sex is not negotiated. If it is not there especially after Expectations are in place, the relationship is compromised. In a damaged CONTEXT, your best option is to say "Have A Nice Day".

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I fail to see how this is at all a contradiction or in any way proves a point (yours or my own). I've never stated that I myself haven't issued an ultimatum, nor did I anywhere say they can't be effective - I only stressed the importance of the root motivations of an ultimatum. Hell, 98% of AFCs are living with a woman who's firmly in control of the frame of their relationship BECAUSE ultimatums work. And as I stated, I didn't have the balls enough to tell my psycho ex this, so yes the ultimatum I issued Mrs. Tomassi was borne out of a position of powerlessness.



Just for the record, whenever you think "aha! I got him!", always bear in mind that I am where I am today not because I got everything right, but rather because I got it all wrong at some point.

 

[jophil28]

Ultimatums are declarations of powerlessness because you are resorting to a direct threat to get someone to do what you want them to, and in doing so you OVERTLY confess your weak position.

I disagree that an ultimatum is a statement of powerlessness,This is somewhat confused thinking. You appear to believe that only desire effects legitimate change in behavior . In other words the other person has to WANT to do what you want them to do . I have heard this put recently in this way " There can be no compliance without ownership " Nonsense !. THis is current faddish thinking in early education .

The LAW creats countless ultimatums and we comply because we assess the punishment to be too painful to risk infringement.

In my state there is a $150 fine for running a red light. Many times i just want to drive right through BUT I stop because of the consequences. Do you think that the law makers care that I have no DESIRE to stop ?

Countless millions of men and women go to the office every day with NO desire to do so. They go because of the implied (and explicit) ultimatum in their contract that will bring about their dismissal if they do not show up.
They go to the office because they want the paycheck more that they want to stay at home.
Secondly their employer is hardly acting from a position of powerlessness,. He is stating the terms of employment - turn up for work or be fired. He has the POWER to hire and fire and HE is acting from a position of that power.

Unfortunately, a personal ultimatum is necessary sometimes when a situation has spiralled downwards in an LTR . To say that we should not have allowed it is happen because we have not exercised our control is fanciful nonsense.
WE are talking about human interactions and the myriad ways in which it can become conflicted and problematic. NO man has "control " every hour of every day .

Sometimes we find ourselves in a situation in whch one person has not met our expectations, or perhaps broken trust repeatedly. THis is the time for an ultimatum, or, if the circumstance is grave enough, then walking away is called for.

Agreed, an ultimatum IS a threat - an an OVERT one, and IN many situations such a threat is exactly what is needed to spell out the comsequences of further noncompliance. The perpetrator may not WANT to change their behavior but hopefully they do so to avoid the repercussions that such an ultimatum lays out.