Master Don Juan
- Aug 6, 2007
- Reaction score
Solly,Soolaimon said:You are the one who thinks 1950's feminine, nurturing housewives are "icky" cause you are terrified of making your woman a 1950's housewife yourself.
Why don't you put a ring on your woman's finger and marry her since you like 1950's housewives so much?
I haven't even responded to your other shaming post and here you are, making a SECOND post attacking me. What if find hilarious is that guru1000 answered all of your points (which have been addressed over and over again). But, you insist on attacking people instead of addressing the topics, as this so clearly demonstrates.
I would be more than happy to put a ring on her finger when the State removes it's misandric court system from the process.
What you are too stupid to understand is that the boundary isn't mean to prevent her from cheating or changing, it is meant to make sure you are committing to a girl who has the same values as you, and to clearly communicate your expectations.
This makes your marriage argument irrelevant. But of course, you know that. You are just too much of a pu$$y to address the arguments and instead only attack people.
The real issue is why you are so frightened to verbalize your expectations? What about this scares you so much?
You would commit to a woman without her even knowing what exclusivity means. Yet we have Peaks, Exception, Backbreaker and LondonTowers ALL with examples of fiancés hanging out with other men.
By your definition they are all low value. Of course, we all know that is bull$hit, but because you are too scared to talk about those cases it keeps getting left out of your posts in preference of your usual feminist agenda.....attacking people instead of the argument. Coward on.
Here is guru's take on the matter, which is absolutely excellent. We ALL have boundaries, your issue is only in the communicating of them. Why are you so terrified of communicating your expectations? Have you always been afraid of telling women what you expect of them if they are to be admitted into your life?
guru1000 said:The boundary argument is misplaced. All DJs set boundaries: whether overt or covert such as takeaways, walking away, detracting attention for poor behavior, rewarding for good behavior, or any action in response to her action. The foregoing, although covert, are boundaries.
If a contender:
- leaves the light as she exits the bathroom in your house; if she sees you irritated as you get up to shut the light off—that’s a boundary. She understands you don’t like that behavior.
- shows up 15 min late, and sees an irritated expression on your face as she enters your car; that's a boundary.
- texts at the dinner table, and you respond by leaving her at the table to take a one-hour sh*t; that's a boundary.
- fails to say "Thank you" after you pay for a drink/dinner; and you takeaway in response, that's a boundary.
Guess what, the aforementioned behavior may not bother you, but you will run into myriads of contexts where a contender behaves in ways that will irritate you. You cannot elude the simple fact that you will be irritated sooner or later; when you do--and you react/respond--that's a boundary.
Accordingly, the central tenet is not whether to set boundaries as we all do, most often unconsciously; rather, it is whether to set boundaries OVERTLY or COVERTLY. An effective DJ employs both dependent on the context.
Danger’s position is simple. If a girl makes an OVERT request for exclusivity, if you wish to and before you accede, you OVERTLY respond by stating your expectations. She wants to trap you in a cage and capitulate your harem. But in surrendering your harem, what value do you get in return? Think about it. It’s a bad proposition. But at least Danger has the gonads to demand compliance to ALL his expectations should he elect to make that sacrifice. And as Danger is a seasoned vet of higher value, I guarantee that his contender's IL will remain high, and that she will accede to all his boundaries without the grievance of disheveled misunderstandings/confusion as she was "unaware" of his idiosyncrasies.
My OVERT boundaries in ALL my past relations have never been violated. The contenders have always complied; and when I grew uninterested, they were dumped.
The counterclaim that a contender won’t respect boundaries if she has low interest belies the rudimentary premise that if a girl requests exclusivity of her own accord, she already holds high IL. The boundaries are imposed to alleviate all ambiguity in quotidian interactions as not to waste future time reacting/responding every time the contender behaves in manners in which you don't appreciate.
The counterclaim that boundaries are useless ignores that a DJ’s expectations, whether overt or covert, will be known sooner or later, irrespectively, as you spend more time with the contender.
The counterclaim that a contender should already know and comply to your expectations else you walk away is laughable. We are all idiosyncratic; accordingly, we have disparate expectations.