A girl's perspective on boundaries

[guru1000]

Of course, silence. The "anti-boundary" crew can't rebut the above. As stated earlier, their continued communications with women who entertain orbiters are buffers to unconsciously support their compromised relations.

The foregoing even further supports overt boundary implementation, as laying down the law demonstrates genuine insouciance, which the "anti-boundary-ers" could only hope to demonstrate through manipulation. Though, as manipulation is not genuine, instead of strength, women see weakness due to their unwillingness, and thus cowardice, to impose their will upon anyone.

"Oh, no, you can't control people" is the best strawman they could contrive.

Bottom line, women respect and crave balls--which the anti-boundary-ers" lack.

I want each of you girlie-men, a/k/a anti-boundary-ers, to take your hands, place them between your legs. Now ... do you have chickpeas or watermelons?

 

[jurry]

We have a difference of opinion, relax bro. Do you want to go on for ten more pages or continue on with our lives?

 

[guru1000]

Not directed at you Jurry, but instead to all the yellow-bellies who allow their exclusive gfs to entertain and even hang out with orbiters, and who don't have the mental fortitude, a/k/a balls, to dump them.

Notice, at least in this thread, that most "DJs" who oppose boundaries comprise the younger generation. Many young men have been castrated by the feminine imperative, and lack the balls to impose their will upon life.

The principle is rudimentary. Either you have the balls to engage life solely by YOUR terms or you don't.

Grab your balls gentlemen and be men.

 

[:-)]

Either you have the balls to engage life solely by YOUR terms or you don't..

If a guy doesn't want to set boundaries and chooses not to isn't that already engaging life on his terms? If he suddenly took your advice would he not be engaging life on your terms?

 

[RangerMIke]

Just what we needed another multi-page thread on boundries.

A woman does something you don't like, dump her, or walk away. There... end of debate.

When you start laying out what behavior of hers is acceptable and un-acceptable to you, you are telling her that what she does effects you. That is WEAK behavior.

 

[guru1000]

If a guy doesn't want to set boundaries and chooses not to isn't that already engaging life on his terms? If he suddenly took your advice would he not be engaging life on your terms?

The act of setting boundaries is an imposition of your will upon another, and the antithetical failure to set boundaries, then, is others' (including life's) will imposed upon you. Your will comprises your inherent desires. Accordingly, if your choice belies your desires, then you are subjugated to others' terms, not your own.

 

[:-)]

The act of setting boundaries is an imposition of your will upon another, and the antithetical failure to set boundaries, then, is others' (including life's) will imposed upon you. Your will comprises your inherent desires. Accordingly, if your choice belies your desires, then you are subjugated to others' terms, not your own.

But what if it is their will to be at her will? Is this not engaging life on their terms still?

 

[guru1000]

A woman does something you don't like, dump her, or walk away. There... end of debate.

Perhaps you should qualify this statement, or rethink your philosophy. If your exclusive girl of 3 yrs, all of a sudden, starts appearing 20 min late to your dates, will you immediately dump her--or--would you discuss the issue first and should she appear late thereafter, then dump her.

 

[guru1000]

But what if it is their will to be at her will? Is this not engaging life on their terms still?

A man whose will is solely governed, set, and subjugated by the will of another is worse than a man who has a will but has no balls to act on it. Herein lies a deeper psychological issue than balls. But such a man does not exist, as one's will--comprising all desires-- will never be 100% congruent with anothers'.

 

[:-)]

A man whose will is solely governed, set, and subjugated by the will of another is worse than a man who has a will but has no balls to act on it. Herein lies a deeper psychological issue than balls. But such a man does not exist, as one's will--comprising all desires-- will never be 100% congruent with anothers'.

What if it was OP's will to bait and engage you in a ten page argument on boundaries for his own amusement? Would this mean that your will (even though you thought you had free will) is governed, set and subjugated by OP for as long as you continue to post on this thread?

 

[guru1000]

Not if my will had a different agenda, such as in creating a 20-page thread comprising points and counterpoints to influence and shape the young minds of SoSuave to impose their terms upon life in anyway THEY see fit. Then in this scenario, your, :cough: I mean Sylvester's, will complemented mine.

 

[:-)]

Not if my will had a different agenda, such as in creating a 20-page thread

Ah, but you didn't, did you? OP created it. Therefore your will is subject to OP's for as long as you post here.

 

[guru1000]

Ah, but you didn't, did you? OP created it. Therefore your will is subject to OP's for as long as you post here.

Non-sequitor. Your creation and mine are not mutually exclusive.

 

[:-)]

Non-sequitor. Your creation and mine are not mutually exclusive.

Your will was squashed out of you as soon as you were born. When the English language was introduced to you as well as your particular society's norms and customs. Continue your fantasy about living life only on your terms however.

 

[guru1000]

Your will was squashed out of you as soon as you were born. When the English language was introduced to you as well as your particular societal norms and customs. Continue your fantasy about living life only on your terms however.

Non-sequitor again. Conditioning and will can be mutually exclusive, dependent upon one's consciousness that their decisions/desires are a byproduct of their conditioning and an iron will to supersede those conditioned behavioral patterns.

I was conditioned to fail in business pursuits, but I superseded my programming. You, on the other hand, were also conditioned the same, but remained a stagnant product of your environment--at least from what I can extrapolate from your previously failed solicitation venture, backwards rationalizing your shortcomings.

 

[:-)]

Non-sequitor again. Conditioning and will can be mutually exclusive, dependent upon one's consciousness that their decisions are a byproduct of their conditioning and an iron will to supersede those conditioned behavioral patterns.

I was conditioned to fail in business pursuits, but I superseded my programming. You on the other hand were also conditioned the same, but you remained a product of your environment--at least from what I can extrapolate from your previous solicitation venture, backwards rationalizing your shortcomings.

Only because it was on your terms. I'm doing things on my terms now. I had the balls to question you. You didn't like that.

 

[guru1000]

Only because it was on your terms. I'm doing things on my terms now. I had the balls to question you. You didn't like that.

Good for you, only if your terms are based in strength and not fear.

 

[RangerMIke]

Perhaps you should qualify this statement, or rethink your philosophy. If your exclusive girl of 3 yrs, all of a sudden, starts appearing 20 min late to your dates, will you immediately dump her--or--would you discuss the issue first and should she appear late thereafter, then dump her.

If she does something I can't live with sure... you have to let her go. You surrender your flexibility when spell out clearly defined acceptable behavior. If I dumped women for being late for dates I would never date.

 

[:-)]

Good for you, only if your terms are based in strength and not fear.

How would one set terms based on fear?

 

[guru1000]

If she does something I can't live with sure... you have to let her go. You surrender your flexibility when spell out clearly defined acceptable behavior. If I dumped women for being late for dates I would never date.

You obfuscate and divert the matter at hand to support an illogical conclusion. If your exclusive gf of 3 years starts to appear 20 min late with each meeting and such behavior bothers you, do you (a) dump her/disappear with no explanation; (b) discuss the lateness with her, and then dump her if behavior continues, or (c) stay with her and say nothing.

How would one set terms based on fear?

In the same manner you set your terms to reject the venture, based on your "inadequacies."