Boundaries

Urban-Boundaries-1-with-copyright1

The Mate Guarding topic of last week’s post made for some lively debate. It usually does because it’s this behavior, and the root motivators of it, that gets to the heart of dynamics such as an Alpha / Beta mindset, the Scarcity Mentality, Hypergamy, issues of morality and maybe an uncomfortable realization that your LTR has been subject to those motivators.

The purpose and approach men have with regard to mate guarding usually comes down to two positions.

The first being a moral high-ground idea that women do in fact have a moral or rational agency and thus have an obligation to keep their own Hypergamy in check. This may be from a religious perspective, but more often it’s based upon men’s idealistic equalist hopes that a woman can rationally be expected to parse her own investment in what men think should be Relational Equity.

Or in other words, women should know better, and be expected to cooperate with a male imperative by self-regulating their Hypergamous impulses as a matter of personal and social responsibility.

On a limbic level Hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity and openly appealing to a woman’s reason, rationality or sense of responsibility a man believes she should be beholden to is counterproductive in influencing her genuine desires. However, this is usually a self-guided hope that women will recognize and regulate those behaviors at the risk of being socially ostracized in an already feminine-primary social environment.

Again, this can be couched in a religious expectation, but in a secular-equalist sense it amounts to putting the burden of mate guarding on women by presuming their ‘equal rationality’ will result in women mate guarding themselves by policing their own Hypergamy in men’s best interests. Anything less either makes them convictionless or the nebulous “low quality woman” who wont play by the old-order rules and expectations.

The second approach is a proactive mate guarding based on the presumption that mate guarding is a ‘defense’ against mate poaching by other, presumably (but not necessarily) more Alpha men than the one doing the guarding.

Within that context it’s understandable why men would want to protect their personal investment in a woman. What woman wouldn’t be aroused by the prospect of being fought over by two men she perceives as Alpha rivals? It’s a strong affirmation of her desirability and SMV.

Where it turns into a Beta Tell is when a man’s lifestyle revolves around ‘keeping’ her in a possessive sense for fear of losing her because she’s his only viable option for sending his genetic material into the future. That kind of mate guarding is the kind inspired by a scarcity mentality, but it’s also due to long evolved, subconscious sensitivities to her behavioral inconsistencies at or around her time of ovulation.

This is what Dr. Hasselton was getting into in her studies – ovulatory shift in mate preferences created an evolved sensitivity of them in men which in turn produced contingency behaviors (mate guarding) to ensure he wasn’t wasting his parental investment efforts with a child that wasn’t his own.

An evolved mate guarding sensitivity and contingent strategy was basically insurance against men’s cuckoldry risks.

I would argue that a contingent mate guarding strategy evolved not as a direct response to Alpha (or even Beta) competition stresses, but rather due to women’s innate Hypergamy, their sexual pluralism and the potential for parental investment deception when women were left with their Hypergamy unchecked.

If a woman’s predominant perception of you is Alpha, if her mental point of origin is one in which she recognizes her own SMV as being subordinate to your own, she wont be asking your “permission” to go to Vegas with her girlfriends for a weekend because her desire for her Alpha will be stronger than her peers influence on her during her ovulation week.

In theory, no woman who sees you as her perceived Alpha and Hypergamous best interest will want to ‘cheat’ on you – so the idea wont even occur to her. I realize this sounds simplistic until you consider the readiness with which most men will similarly isolate themselves socially, putting off friends and family in preference to spending his time with what he believes is a high-value woman.

Demonstrate, Never Explicate

From The 48 Laws of Power

Law 9

Win through your Actions, Never through Argument

Any momentary triumph you think gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory:  The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion.  It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word.  Demonstrate, do not explicate.

There is no greater demonstration of higher value for a man than walking away from a woman. Even a woman’s strongest perception of higher value cannot compete with the self-certainty of value a man has when he disconnects himself from a woman who’s already accepted him for her intimacy.

While Dread (even passive dread) is a strong signal of a man’s higher value, removing your own intimate acceptance from a woman and confirming the value her Hypergamous nature questioned about you is the last word in DHV.

For the first half of their lives, even the most mediocre of women become accustomed to men qualifying for their attention, intimacy and sexual access. Women quickly learn the utility of their first, best, agency with men – the power of sexual control.

So when that agency is proven useless with a man, that control is eliminated and she begins to question her capacity for that control. By removing himself from dependency on that agency he confirms that his SMV is more valuable than her own.

A lot of men report that their unprompted disinterest in sex with a woman, a wife, a girlfriend, often provokes a woman’s imagination with regard to her control and/or inspires a greater sexual determination to please him in order to reestablish this control when they next engage in sex.

There’s precious little that’s more effective at reestablishing Frame for a man than the demonstration of higher value walking away from a woman’s accepted intimacy represents. Some of the best sex you’ll have in your life will come after a reunited breakup.

Now, the reason I’ve detailed this is because the foundations of a man maintaining Frame within a relationship are rooted in limiting or removing this sexual agency and demonstrating higher value as part of that process.

Establishing Boundaries

London Towers on the SoSuave forum started a fairly contentious debate on how a man ought to establish boundaries within a relationship last week:

In my last LTR I never set boundaries, let her hang with her ex, guys, never got jealous, just didn’t give a fuck…because my life was going well and I had no insecurity she wouldn’t do anything because I was the shit. She even wanted her ex to hang with us, just so she could show me off. This actually seemed to work for me as I had some natural alpha state for the first 1 year due to life success and she could feel this, thus other guys were just orbiters. I would even joke to her about who she found attractive in the bar, that’s how self confident I was. This would actually make her want me more.

Then cracks in my game came out, I was going through a rough patch with life and suddenly the game shifted. She would start to compare me to other guys including her ex in a negative way. I suddenly became insecure because I didn’t feel Alpha anymore due to life not going well and suddenly started enforcing boundaries which she would constantly test because she knew I lost my game unlike when I was Alpha and didn’t give a shit. Enforcing boundaries was actually coming from an insecure place and I don’t think your words mean shit if you ain’t got your game tight.

Now, I’m not too sure how I would handle my next LTR. I’m in the process of becoming alpha again, but now truly alpha as in my inner game this time. But would I now still have the not give a sh1t attitude if my girl still hung out with her ex/guys?

Part of me thinks if my game is tight, I give her great sex, pluck at her emotional spectrum, she rides on the magic carpet of my exciting life (which comes from knowing my life mission) she will be hooked on me in a multiple of ways and if she knew I would drop her cold and can easily replace her if she doesn’t provide me with the affection/sex that I need.. she will enforce her own boundaries.

This is the only true boundary I can provide. A girls attention will drop if she starts even emotionally to involve someone else. At that point you just freeze immediately. So the only boundary you can ever enforce is through your attention and her subtle awareness you have options and will walk away with ease at the very beginning of her not providing for your needs. That loss is something she could not deal with.

I’d encourage readers to take the time to read through that discussion and the various approaches to establishing boundaries within a relationship (or even non-exclusive plates you may be spinning). After picking through the differing perspectives I made the connection between establishing boundaries and men’s natural predilection for mate guarding behaviors.

Most of the expressed perspectives tend to side with either of the two mate guarding approaches I mentioned at the beginning of today’s post; one, in which women are rationally expected to police their own Hypergamous impulses, and the other, where an active (and equally reasoned) explicating of boundaries are overtly declared as an ultimatum in an effort to protect a man against the parental investment risks of being cuckolded by a woman he knows can’t be expected not to otherwise succumb to her Hypergamous impulses.

If you notice how London Towers’ story unfolds here he essentially proceeded by demonstrating his higher value, secure in the confidence of it, only to have that DHV eroded due to his life’s circumstance.

This is when the boundary of Alpha indifference he’d organically set (albeit unknowingly), based upon his value, was challenged in his drop of status and esteem. I’ve elaborated in the past about a man’s burden of performance or how women’s concept of ‘love’ is based on a passive opportunism of what a man is (rather than who he is), but you get the picture illustrated for you here.

Next, commenter Soolaimon picks up the opposite end of the extreme:

These boundary guys have it ass backwards.

They are judging women by their words instead of judging them by their actions.

Judge women by their actions and not their words.

Agreeing to a boundary is only her words that these guys think will keep her from cheating.

Women who cut out other men from their lives on their own is a woman who understands what an exclusive relationship is.

Those are her actions you judge her on.

Not useless words she can go back on at any moment.

[…]

Smart classy intelligent women already know what exclusivity means they don’t need to have it defined when they are defining it for you by removing other men on their own.

Women do that for Alphas and not betas who need to set a boundary out of fear.

Women that are really into you will agree to what you want with no problem.

When they lose interest they will still cheat on you making your boundary useless.

If your woman knows what exclusivity means and has the same values as you why are you so terrified to put a ring on her finger and marry her?

There’s a lot to consider when you establish boundaries with a woman. Essentially those boundaries men wish to establish and have respected by a woman really just amount to a codified form of mate guarding.

When you think about it, this is what (at least in an old social order) the marriage contract was meant to insure from a male-beneficial perspective – an assurance of fidelity, but also a contractual insurance against Hypergamy.

Considering the contemporary risks involved, in the current social environment there are any number of reasons men are wary of marrying a woman, but what marriage has become is really a challenge to what a man believes about mate guarding and his confidence in controlling a woman’s Hypergamous nature based upon his degree of desirability to her.

Though I don’t disagree in principle, Soolaimon’s exaggeration is founded on the idea that there’s always going to be a bigger fish; another AMOG to seize your woman’s interest should your combination of Game, material and emotional provisioning, or ambition for such be lacking.

Like most absolutists, he does little to contextualize the preconceptions a woman may have with a particular man they’re already involved with. A woman may fantasize about sex with a more Alpha male during her ovulatory phase, but that doesn’t mean she has the opportunity to realize it – even for “smart classy independent women”.

That said, and after London Towers’ example, it’s impossible not to come to a conclusion that implied, demonstrated boundaries – ones that have actionable consequences of intimate and invested loss (i.e. Dread) – are preferable to explicated, but ultimately appealed-reason declarations of boundaries that are negotiated insurance policies to limit her Hypergamy.

While I do believe boundaries are a necessary part of a relationship, it’s far better for women to discover them for what they are, and the consequences of them, by demonstration rather than overt explanation.

The hand burned by the stove teaches better than any warning.

The only person who’s behavior you can control is your own, but that behavior can have a significant impact on the behaviors of others.

 

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

Speak your mind

183 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Flip
Flip
6 years ago

“When you think about it, this is what (at least in an old social order) the marriage contract was meant to insure from a male-beneficial perspective – an assurance of fidelity, but also a contractual insurance against Hypergamy.” I think this is the basis of western civilization. The productive betas can be assured of paternity and not having to constantly be worried about losing their wife to more charismatic, sexier non-productive alphas and therefore have an incentive to produce and have a stake in society. Given easy contraception/abortion and divorce, we are approaching a pre-civilized state of nature now. The… Read more »

sfcton
6 years ago

lol yea Gamer a man shouldn’t be but so subtle on these things. I’m thinking of a friend of mine, literally the baddest mother fucker breathing(as rated in by his peers in my old outfit) but he is shy, shy, shy and therefore does poorly in the SMP. Otherwise there is no reason for his failures, but he’d rather get jerked off by rusty pliers then draw attention to himself

If you are in an ltr and out of balance the all alpha no beta is the way you want to tilt

The Burninator
The Burninator
6 years ago

@Rollo “I think a lot of more insecure guys like to rationalize mate guarding as protecting or guarding their mate from a subjectively more Alpha guy than themselves.” So you’re saying you wouldn’t fend off an actual assault on your wife by another man. Not a sexual advance, but an actual assault where she was pulling herself out of it but couldn’t (men are, last check, stronger than women)? Also, how does protecting others square with your sexual dynamics, when a man who would guard a woman against physical assault would also do the same for a small child or… Read more »

The Burninator
The Burninator
6 years ago

Or were you directing that elsewhere? Looking at it now, that seems to be the case, it was just that your post was near mine so I thought it was directed towards me. Since I don’t advocate mate guarding (except dread and except as protection from actual assault), I’m probably mistaken.

The Burninator
The Burninator
6 years ago

Agree with you completely on the restraining hypergamous impulses. Still not seeing it in protecting her from physical assault. If you care for a person, whether it’s your girl or your child or your father in a wheelchair, you’re going to protect them from physical assault if you have even a shred of a soul. That’s not beta/alpha/gamma, that’s just human decency in helping the weaker. Innate to men? Likely, yes, but not exclusively because of hypergamy. If I defend my aged father from a street thug, it’s not because I’m restraining my wife’s, or his, hypergamy (I know he… Read more »

WaterUnderTheFridge
WaterUnderTheFridge
6 years ago

@TinderMaster “Also, women aren’t driven by a desire to cheat just for the sake of it, they only do so when their hypergamy assesses that the man she’s with is of lower value. ” I think that even that is a comforting fairy-tale. Just because a woman believes she is currently seeing an alpha man, or even the best man avaialble to her doesn’t rule out her cheating for reasons like: Boredom Spite Variety Drunkeness Him being out of town Flexing her empowerment Validation and many other things No alpha Gris-Gris will truely protect you “when bitches get scandalous and… Read more »

redlight
redlight
6 years ago

luv the weekend posts

Ariana Grande & The Weeknd:
“So what would I do if I can’t figure it out?
I’m gonna leave, leave, leave again”

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

re: weekend questions.

I like.

New Yorker
New Yorker
6 years ago

@ads gamer

What does women’s physiology have to do with individual personalities? One woman’s alpha is another woman’s bore. Alpha frame is about living your life the way that you want. You still have to choose a woman who wants to live in that world. Otherwise, she will cheat or leave. Basic stuff.

Hobbes
Hobbes
6 years ago

@newyorker- I like what you wrote above. I conforms with my experience which is why I said earlier that women will cheat on anybody, alpha or beta and yes, thoroughly enjoy it. Maybe crave was too strong a word for it, but not really. Once a woman changes her ideation of what she wants or needs, in that moment she will feel it. They are emotionally lead creatures, after all.

Hobbes
Hobbes
6 years ago

As per the weekend question.. I think it was great

theasdgamer
6 years ago

@ New Yorker

What does women’s physiology have to do with individual personalities?

Obviously, if she’s already in a LTR with you, personalities has nothing to do with it. There’s no cheating or dominance-compatibility going on then.

I was objecting to your dominance-compatibility idea as an explanation for why women cheat.

Mostly it’s because they won’t mateguard themselves which in part comes from physiologically-based dissatisfaction (ethics play into this too, obviously–some women have none). Maybe not enough comfort or not getting drama when they need it.

xsplat
6 years ago

I believe the opinion was voiced here before that gayness was largely or completely due to nurture. An article on newscientist points to genetic some genetic markers associated with being gay: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-genes.html#.VG1nmo_2–M

New Yorker
New Yorker
6 years ago

Women mateguard themselves when they are being dominated in a way that is compatible with what they want. If they are with an alpha whose frame does not make them feel secure or loved then they will gradually stop mateguarding themselves. Like it or not, the woman has agency to the degree that her preference for domination styles can evolve over time. That is why it is very important to understand her underlying psychological profile, strengths, vulnerabilities, etc. so that one understands what she could become and want. There is no substitute for looking hard and asking the difficult questions.… Read more »

SelfAbsorbingJunior
SelfAbsorbingJunior
6 years ago

Rollo this ties in nicely with your last piece (Point of Origin). Why do some woman respond favorably to jealous/possessive alpha partners yet unfavorably to insecure/possesive beta ones? Why do some woman seek security from beta orbiters when alphas don’t commit and seek excitement from alpha orbiters when betas give too much attention? The difference is rooted in the point of origin of the man. The boundaries themselves are meaningless. What carries weight is if the woman believes those boundaries would hypothetically be ENFORCED by her man. The insecure beta is always the one who ends up rationalizing a woman’s… Read more »

New Yorker
New Yorker
6 years ago

Boundaries are important insofar as they help a woman naturally keep herself bonded when she acknowledges you as her dominator of choice….but not if she has already decided that you are not the man for her. Inasmuch as game and frame are important, the central message is really self-improvement, living for yoursef, and…..being yourself. This is where Rollo’s points of game internalization are lost on people. Game is not a tool. It is a state of mind which positions you as the central architect of all things in your life. As far as women are concerned, if an LTR is… Read more »

theasdgamer
6 years ago

@ New Yorker

If they are with an alpha whose frame does not make them feel secure or loved

See, this is all nonsense. Do they need comfort or validation or tingles or drama? Then you give it to them. Frame is irrelevant. Did you even read my fakking post about it????

theasdgamer
6 years ago

@ New Yorker

Game is not a tool. It is a state of mind which positions you as the central architect of all things in your life

More nonsense. Game is Inner Frame (a masculine state of mind) and Outer Frame (the tools of sales).

theasdgamer
6 years ago

By the way, I’m not an armchair theorist. I prove my ideas in clubs and at home.

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

DIYDDIYD. In any kind of any LTR with any degree of any sort of commitment, you have to put up some boundaries. Boundaries are in the definition of commitment, the same way that expectations are. It used to be, in stories, that girls were said to flirt with other guys in order to force the hand of their boyfriend, to make him man up and commit i.e. so she would stop flirting with others. I’m not sure I’ve ever actually seen this behavior in the wild, although I suspect one or two girls might have doneit (not to me) because… Read more »

theasdgamer
6 years ago

@ jf12

you have to put up some boundaries

Boundaries need to be understood. However, that doesn’t mean that the man should be in the role of imposing them on the woman. Better if the woman takes that job on herself.

New Yorker
New Yorker
6 years ago

@ads gamer

No one is stealing your thunder…..but you do realize that inner frame + outer frame = being the architect of your life in every form?

theasdgamer
6 years ago

@ NewYorker

“No one is stealing your thunder”

Why should you think I’d worry about what you think?

but you do realize that inner frame + outer frame = being the architect of your life in every form?

Why don’t you stick with the point I was addressing–that you erred in saying that Game isn’t a tool? The tools of sales are very much a part of Game. Why won’t you admit your error? Why are you doing this reframing ego-dominance bullsh1t?

New Yorker
New Yorker
6 years ago

Game is something you internalize through dominance of every part of your life based on what you want out of it….everyone’s definition of dominance is different….plenty of tight-lipped strong, silent types doing very well in every sphere of life without worrying about sales tactics…..let me put it this way….you are a beta as long as you subconsciously think about anything other than dominating everything in your life….your relationship with your woman should only reflect your relationship to everything else….see, master, dominate, repeat….then, she can feel your implicit strength and naturally submit to a superior man who accurately represents who he… Read more »

WaterUnderTheFridge
WaterUnderTheFridge
6 years ago

@new yorker
“you are a beta as long as you subconsciously think about anything other than dominating everything in your life”

You’ve gone round the bend. It is good to recognize sexual relationships function better with a dominant male. It is good to be aware that in many other areas of life ( like business ) dominance is very helpful, but hopefully you can go to the super-market without dominating the kid who bags your groceries.

New Yorker
New Yorker
6 years ago

Dominance is about self-control and always moving toward the life that you want to live whatever it may be. Has nothing to do with being a raging dickhead to people who work at checkout counters.

theasdgamer
6 years ago

@ New Yorker, Water

Dominance is about telling/asking other people to do stuff or doing stuff to other people. Self-control is irrelevant.

JM
JM
6 years ago

Not a regular, and just found this site the other day. However, I have noticed something off in a lot of hypergamy/Game theory. That being that the woman has the higher sexual worth at a younger age based off of the hypergamy/rational hamster principles. I think this is why men have such a hard time swallowing the red pill. Here is my take on Hypergamy and a LTR. This is why the two points in a man’s favor on SMV is critical if a man wants a LTR. From my vast observations of women, I have come to a conclusion… Read more »

eon
eon
6 years ago

New Yorker: “Dominance is about self-control and always moving toward the life that you want to live whatever it may be. Has nothing to do with being a raging dickhead to people who work at checkout counters.” theasdgamer: “Dominance is about telling/asking other people to do stuff or doing stuff to other people. Self-control is irrelevant.” New Yorker has had valuable comments in this thread. For a male, being a bully with a female mentality (self-control < cute shoes) works only until the first time he comes up against a serious man with the discipline to achieve self-control. Also, domineering… Read more »

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

@JM, the concept you’re expressing is familiar and is called the apex fallacy.

You’re welcome.

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

The Chesterton Fence of nigh universal early marriage in lifelong monogamy having been already been torn down, there is nothing *real* that keeps the dog in his own yard. There is no shock collar, no invisible electrified fence. There is merely habit, merely guilt from half-remembered training and scolding, merely laziness from reliable mealtimes.

What, precisely, is stopping you? I know what is stopping me.

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

@Rollo re: arousal vs attraction discussion elsewhere. Deti correctly ‘splained that a man who is willing to have sex almost necessarily also (99.99% of the time) wants to have sex (it’s a hunger; being willing to eat dinner almost necessarily means you want to eat dinner).

A woman who is willing to have commitment from you almost necessarily also wants to have commitment from you.

Badpainter
Badpainter
6 years ago

jf12 – “A woman who is willing to have commitment from you almost necessarily also wants to have commitment from you.”

Seems a bit optimistic for me. More like should read:

A woman who is willing to have commitment from you almost necessarily also wants to have commitment from someone and you’ll do for now.

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

re: “There is no greater demonstration of higher value for a man than walking away from a woman.”

Yes, but it would then follow that hypergamy doesn’t care about commitment, or rather that actual commitment is *always* a display of lower value. Hence it is the *necessarily* false promise of commitment that women respond to, instead of the attaining of commitment.

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

@Badpainter, yes, but is also true that, nonoptimistically:
A man who is willing to have sex from a particular woman almost necessarily also wants to have sex from some woman and she’ll do for now.

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

Because I am such a top shelf beta, I never mate guarded. I made the too-common assumption that women’s experience of being in love was like men’s experience of being in love.

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

re: “Even within commitment … hypergamy is still asking, doubting, a man’s real value”

Ok, so does a beta’s commitment provide hypergamous supply, or not?

Hobbes
Hobbes
6 years ago

Sometimes I get confused thinking on the RP knowledge I’ve gained over last few years- wondering what it means in terms of my lifes choices, my future path and it’s effective application in the present to get me what I want. And I get to thinking I must be dense, or something, to struggle as I do with it at times. But then I come to this forum and read all the comments by very smart people, and I see the disagreements and the wide variations of interpretation, and I feel better. This is more of an art than a… Read more »

JM
JM
6 years ago

Hobbes”I really appreciate the comments here as much as I do Rollos posts. Man I wish I had this twenty years ago when I could have really capitalized on it.” Unless your 60+ or married your missing the point, and don’t want action. Men become the standard around 30+. The above quote is the exact self-depreciating attitude that would prevent you from picking up girls 20+ years younger. The inner-ego is what needs to be adjusted. I am not a PUA and have been married for years. However, I would suggest looking into dialectical behavior modification or mindfulness to truly… Read more »

JM
JM
6 years ago

@jf12 Looked into Apex theory and it seems slightly different. My main point difference is that Women recognize and submit readily to their version of the perfect guy. Hence, it is a true power differential for women IF they meet the “perfect” man at the right point in their lives. As women are talking about potential mates when talking about suitors. The only men she is referring to are potential perfect men as she is entitled to a perfect man. Therefore this power differential always exist for any woman with any man she would deem worthy of dating. A woman… Read more »

theasdgamer
6 years ago

@ eon

I’m not saying that self-control is unimportant. It’s just irrelevant to dominance. And your comment about domineering is also irrelevant. There are plenty of self-controlled subservient betas out there.

theasdgamer
6 years ago

Field Report on mateguarding

I was dancing at the studio last night and saw beta mateguarding. I asked a 30-ish girl to dance twice in a row. Apparently she had some understanding/relationship with another guy and he looked put out when I turned her over to him. First time I asked her the other guy was standing nearby and he deferred to me.

New Yorker
New Yorker
6 years ago

Self-control is the knowledge and ability to control your actions to accomplish whatever goals you want. What betas have is not self-control but a confidence crisis that prevents them from acting on their true desires and achieving their potential. Mastering martial arts requires significant self-control…….putting up with disrespect from your wife is just self-paralysis that betas reframe as self-control.

JM
JM
6 years ago

@New Yorker
“Self-control is the knowledge and ability to control your actions to accomplish whatever goals you want”

Very well put, but it is missing an element. That element being a person that has self-control will also recognize the inherent challenges in those goals and be self-aware of the needed effort/plausibility of achieving those goals. Without this component the risk of Dark Triad is much higher. Which is not inherently a bad thing, but ignorantly embracing these traits would be an unhealthy choice.

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

@tasdg, re: “There are plenty of self-controlled subservient betas out there.”

Yes there are. And I too think that the quasi-Buddhistic “dominate yourself!” advice is desperately flawed.

sfcton
6 years ago

what does self control have to do with pulling ass? It’s good for man to have but is neither here nor there in the SMP

all things are tools. Game is a tool. A hammer is a tool. A car is a tool. A gun is a tool. Diner is a tool. Everything in life is a tool or an objective

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

@sfcton re: self-control

As you and I have agreed before, exhibiting irrational violence is a great tactic for scoring chicks. Women are specifically aroused by a man’s (apparent) lack of self-control when it comes to violence.

But I think it’s best to pretend to lack some self-control, to keep it to the minimal effective level.

theasdgamer
6 years ago

@ jf12, ton

I was beta last night. During the dance lesson while the instructor was talking and we weren’t dancing, I pulled out my Speiderco Delica folding knife to open a pack of gum and I gave a piece to my dance partner.

But I think it’s best to pretend to lack some self-control, to keep it to the minimal effective level.

I flayed that gum package, lol. Panties were dropping all over the dance floor.

(Stupid Wrigleys wraps their pack so tight with plastic that you can’t get a grip with your nails.)

theasdgamer
6 years ago

Oh, my knife has a black blade. Looks wicked.

jf12
jf12
6 years ago

@tasdg re: knife.

My new ceramic pocket knife, best in the business for properly cleaving silica capillaries and optical fibers, unfortunately shows up in metal detectors so I can’t carry through like the older ones.

New Yorker
New Yorker
6 years ago

Self-control is doing what you want to do unbound by outside influences. Has nothing to do with monastic devotion. Men who succeed in SMP lead life the way that they want it…..or at least show glimpses of that.

sfcton
6 years ago

agreed JF12…. when some local urban diversity tried to culturally enrich me I showed near uncontrollable rage etc yet everything was calculated for maxuim effect

eon
eon
6 years ago

Ton, “what does self control have to do with pulling ass?” Not much, and it can easily be counterproductive, since women are drawn to the opposite side of that spectrum, in that phase. However, if it turns out to be more than a pump and dump, the dominance and leadership necessary for a stable long-term relationship also requires self-control, because a woman needs to follow a man who is above her. A lack of self-control would bring him down to her level and induce a different response, just as a child will respond differently to a benevolent and calm, but… Read more »

eon
eon
6 years ago

@ theasdgamer “I’m not saying that self-control is unimportant. It’s just irrelevant to dominance. And your comment about domineering is also irrelevant. There are plenty of self-controlled subservient betas out there.” If you do not agree with my reply (above) to Ton, perhaps we are taking about different things. What do you mean by “dominance” and “self-control”, and how would you establish dominance in a relationship? Then, how would a lack of self-control enhance, or at least be neutral, with respect to dominance and leadership, in a relationship? (New Yorker has already provided an excellent answer to the second part.)… Read more »

trackback

[…] And comments on the next post http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/17/boundaries/ […]

trackback

[…] was going to write a post on these 3 topics about 2 months ago, and then Rollo had 3 posts on boundaries, intimacy, and vulnerability a month or so ago that pushed me to think about them more. So I […]

Ramsey
Ramsey
5 years ago

Test comment.

Ramsey
Ramsey
5 years ago

Do I marry, or do I Next her? I want to get married. She is does everything a high interest level woman does except for one thing that gives me doubts. I consider myself pretty adept at game but this girl is confusing the hell out of me. First I will provide some preliminary information describing this conundrum. She is an HP8-9. 36, separated with kids. I am an HP8. Separated with kids. I got my shit together. We had sex on our first date. She wants sex from me every day since day one for the last 1.5 years… Read more »

kfg
kfg
5 years ago

The short version: “Things are going well for me, but there are some major red flags that make me uncomfortable about the long term viability of the relationship.” “– Do I marry, or do I Next her?” My advice: Trust your gut and don’t fix what ain’t broke. Keep on keeping on, but keep your ass well covered so she can’t take you down. Consulting a lawyer, right now, on how to do this is highly advisable. “– Why is she shit testing me while behaving she has high interest?” You don’t need to know. All you need to know… Read more »

Ramsey
Ramsey
5 years ago

To kfg, Thanks for your reply and being concise with me. It just seems so hard to tell between a shit test and a lack of interest. My gut tells me that her low self esteem (especially during menstruation) is governing her behavior. Especially as she comes to terms that she is no longer that hot 23 year old she used to be. She has no career, her looks are fading and her inability to be task oriented results in her letting people down (and her people pleasing personality hates that). She needs validation and has always gotten it by… Read more »

Chump No More
Chump No More
5 years ago

1st: Rollo already told you in this post what you need to know. You setting overt boundaries with her is a sign of insecurity and a DLV. If you truly had your shit together, and your frame was fully internalized, you would be confident in your ability to hold her through passive dread. Anything else and you’ve ‘lost the war’… maybe not today, tomorrow or a year form now, but it’s a done deal. From all the alpha tells you claim you’re getting, I don’t see her checking out other men as a red flag. Hypergamy is routed in doubt.… Read more »

SJF
SJF
5 years ago

@ Ramsey “I want to get married. She is does everything a high interest level woman does except for one thing that gives me doubts. I consider myself pretty adept at game but this girl is confusing the hell out of me.” When I would read the entirety of what you wrote, it should not be confusing to you at all. She is attracted to tall handsome men. You can’t take that out of her. You have to accept that that is who she is. She is an alpha widow many times over (she pines for the alpha males she’s… Read more »

Ramsey
Ramsey
5 years ago

Chump no More, You are right. I should not have set the boundaries explicitly. I used to subscribe to the philosophy that women needed to be led and trained and my job was to set the boundaries (reasonable or not) they are mine. After reading this blog I now know better i.e. be demonstrative. In hopes of providing my brothers with better clarity, when I say I am alpha, I don’t mean in terms of absolutes. I have my low points too. I’ve lost my way in the past and have been Beta (last relationship). Your quote “Hypergamy is routed… Read more »

Ramsey
Ramsey
5 years ago

My post on Dec 4th was my first on any such forum. With the well thought out response I am getting I want to be efficient in just saying this once. Thank you all for the help I am getting and thanks in the future for the support. A forum for men helping men. What a concept!

IAS
IAS
5 years ago

@ Ramsey: 1. don’t marry her. Not with the legal system as it is. What benefit can you possibly get from that? 2. if you really must marry her, wait it out for a bit longer to see if all the stuff she is doing now is just an act. As a “single mom” it is conceivable that, even if she has genuine desire for you (which it sounds she does), she is still keeping up her best game to lure you into commitment. You don’t have any guarantees she will keep at that level after she gets the commitment.… Read more »

Forge the Sky
Forge the Sky
5 years ago

@Ramsey Good replies already. Just two things I’d add. First, an eventual ultimatum from her is possible. Be very clear with yourself about what you want and what your best interests are before that happens, or you might vacillate for no other reason than that marrying seems less risky and dramatic than breaking up. Second, it’s already been mentioned that making your boundaries explicit was a mistake, but I’ll expand on that a bit. Setting an explicit boundary not only demonstrates a lack of confidence, it also deprives you of opportunities to qualify her. To my thinking, if I’m with… Read more »

trackback

[…] How do you command respect? By setting firm, unbreakable boundaries.  […]

private
private
1 year ago

Thank you Sir for this thorough explanation and definitions of both boundaries and marriage too surprisingly.
Pleasure to read; keep up the good work.

183
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: