Discussion:
Question: a relatioship scenario - lying or innocnet?
(too old to reply)
MamaYoda
2004-09-23 08:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Needs second opinion about relationship hiccup...

X [male] and Y [female] are an attractive, relatively successful
couple, and been together for a total of 8 years.

6 years ago, X had a short-lived affair with an unhappily-engaged
co-worker; trusting Y found out under shocking circumstances and
stormed out; a regretful and apologetic X ran after Y; Y gathered
enough strength and took X back.

The crisis taught both parties what/ who is important; they got back
together stronger than ever.

X & Y moved to a new city, constructed a new, better life together. 6
years later, their live-in relationship is considered very strong and
loving by their friends and co-workers, who view them a "happily
married" couple. But a shadow from the past looms under the
cheerfulness...

X never talked about why he had that by-most-account destructive
affair with anyone - not even his closest male buddy, or Y, or
possibly, even himself. In the following 6 years, X deliberately
avoided discussion of that episode; he reckons it's "better to just
move on from a past he is not particularly proud of", and "let's not
dwell on something that happened X years ago". Besides, X doesn't
generally talk about emotional matters.

Consequently, Y lives in fear of X's unexamined, hence to her,
menacing shadow self - "who may just drop another traumatic atom bomb
one of these fine days". People and settings - which may or may not
cause a repeat occurance of that traumatic incident - continue to
remind Y of such a potential. Y reckons X should face up to some of
his "darker side", in order to be truly free of its influence.

X complains that he "has no dark side", and Y is one "imaginative
paranoid" and "dwells too much in the past". He doesn't see how his
present work & social environment, or "mostly innocent" workplace,
post-work social flirtations can contribute to Y's occasional
distress. X insists that Y has nothing to worry about, and Y should
learn to trust and have faith in him the way he trusts her 300%.

Y insists she has tried her best to trust X, but X is not doing his
part. His "dismissive" attitude towards his past wrongs show "a lack
of honest self-reflection or sincere remorse", which - given the right
set of circumstances - can be fertile seeds for repeated incidents.
She feels as long as X refuses to own up to "the thing that motivated
his past destructive actions", he is not free from its control.

Basically, Y wants X to help her recover her peace of mind, by
"consciously taking account of his deeper motivations", but a
relunctant X feels he doesn't need such internal self-examination for
he's "free of demons", nor should he be required to "demonstrate
sincere remorse about something happened x years ago", and that Y
should "just get over it".

And then, something happened recently...

Context: Y has asked X a few times over the years if he has one-to-one
lunch or coffee breaks with female coworkers, and each time X has
insisted that with the exception of the top few female supervisors, he
doesn't have one-to-one lunch with single or attached female coworkers
as a rule. Y would've accepted it if X said he would not censor out
female coworkers for one-to-one lunch. But anyway, Y simply took X's
words as truth...

One day recently, Y found out coincidentally that X had a one-to-one
lunch date with a former, low-mid-level, just-divorced female
co-worker called S. The lunch date was apparently arranged a day in
advance. Though the couple were not at all close with S and husband, Y
met S many times, and X did mention to Y about S's recent divorce.
However, X did not tell Y before hius lunch date with S, nor the few
days afterwards, until Y found out accidentally.

Y, of course, freaked. After a long cut-the-crap confrontation, X
finally admitted that

[a] he intentionally kept Y from knowledge of the lunch appointment
with S [and could not provide any convincing enough reason to justify
his secretiveness other than "Y would freak the way she's freaking at
him right now"]
[b] he apparently had many such "spontaneous" non-work-related
one-to-one lunch and coffee breaks with single female co-workers over
the years, some of whom with notorious love-life reputations

Y is more distraught by X's dishonesty, and cares less about the
identity of the personalities involved.

The above relatively minor incident has put another major dent on
their relationship, and become the latest item on X's
"evade-ignore-better-leave-in-past list" and Y's "scary secretive
untrustworthy traits of X list".

-------

Questions:

1. If you were Y, would you trust X today?

2. Should any girlfriend/ wife trust X?

3. Which is more true: Y untrusting, or X untrustworthy?

4. What should X and/or Y do to remedy this long-term dilemma?
Society
2004-09-22 09:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by MamaYoda
Needs second opinion about relationship hiccup...
X [male] and Y [female] are an attractive,
relatively successful couple, and been together
for a total of 8 years.
6 years ago, X had a short-lived affair with
an unhappily-engaged co-worker; trusting
[that she 'owned' x] Y found out under
shocking circumstances and stormed out; [...]
Y [later] took X back.
The crisis taught both parties what/ who
is important; they got back together
stronger than ever. [...]
Yet they remain unmarried. 'Nuff said.
--
Masculism is the radical idea
that men are people too.
Kalen
2004-09-23 16:32:55 UTC
Permalink
does stronger than ever = strong enough to be married if the ever was very weak?
Mitchell Holman
2004-09-23 11:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by MamaYoda
Needs second opinion about relationship hiccup...
X [male] and Y [female] are an attractive, relatively successful
couple, and been together for a total of 8 years.
6 years ago, X had a short-lived affair with an unhappily-engaged
co-worker; trusting Y found out under shocking circumstances and
stormed out; a regretful and apologetic X ran after Y; Y gathered
enough strength and took X back.
The crisis taught both parties what/ who is important; they got back
together stronger than ever.
X & Y moved to a new city, constructed a new, better life together. 6
years later, their live-in relationship is considered very strong and
loving by their friends and co-workers, who view them a "happily
married" couple. But a shadow from the past looms under the
cheerfulness...
X never talked about why he had that by-most-account destructive
affair with anyone - not even his closest male buddy, or Y, or
possibly, even himself. In the following 6 years, X deliberately
avoided discussion of that episode; he reckons it's "better to just
move on from a past he is not particularly proud of", and "let's not
dwell on something that happened X years ago". Besides, X doesn't
generally talk about emotional matters.
Consequently, Y lives in fear of X's unexamined, hence to her,
menacing shadow self - "who may just drop another traumatic atom bomb
one of these fine days". People and settings - which may or may not
cause a repeat occurance of that traumatic incident - continue to
remind Y of such a potential. Y reckons X should face up to some of
his "darker side", in order to be truly free of its influence.
X complains that he "has no dark side", and Y is one "imaginative
paranoid" and "dwells too much in the past". He doesn't see how his
present work & social environment, or "mostly innocent" workplace,
post-work social flirtations can contribute to Y's occasional
distress. X insists that Y has nothing to worry about, and Y should
learn to trust and have faith in him the way he trusts her 300%.
Y insists she has tried her best to trust X, but X is not doing his
part. His "dismissive" attitude towards his past wrongs show "a lack
of honest self-reflection or sincere remorse", which - given the right
set of circumstances - can be fertile seeds for repeated incidents.
She feels as long as X refuses to own up to "the thing that motivated
his past destructive actions", he is not free from its control.
Basically, Y wants X to help her recover her peace of mind, by
"consciously taking account of his deeper motivations", but a
relunctant X feels he doesn't need such internal self-examination for
he's "free of demons", nor should he be required to "demonstrate
sincere remorse about something happened x years ago", and that Y
should "just get over it".
And then, something happened recently...
Context: Y has asked X a few times over the years if he has one-to-one
lunch or coffee breaks with female coworkers, and each time X has
insisted that with the exception of the top few female supervisors, he
doesn't have one-to-one lunch with single or attached female coworkers
as a rule. Y would've accepted it if X said he would not censor out
female coworkers for one-to-one lunch. But anyway, Y simply took X's
words as truth...
One day recently, Y found out coincidentally that X had a one-to-one
lunch date with a former, low-mid-level, just-divorced female
co-worker called S. The lunch date was apparently arranged a day in
advance. Though the couple were not at all close with S and husband, Y
met S many times, and X did mention to Y about S's recent divorce.
However, X did not tell Y before hius lunch date with S, nor the few
days afterwards, until Y found out accidentally.
Y, of course, freaked. After a long cut-the-crap confrontation, X
finally admitted that
[a] he intentionally kept Y from knowledge of the lunch appointment
with S [and could not provide any convincing enough reason to justify
his secretiveness other than "Y would freak the way she's freaking at
him right now"]
[b] he apparently had many such "spontaneous" non-work-related
one-to-one lunch and coffee breaks with single female co-workers over
the years, some of whom with notorious love-life reputations
Y is more distraught by X's dishonesty, and cares less about the
identity of the personalities involved.
The above relatively minor incident has put another major dent on
their relationship, and become the latest item on X's
"evade-ignore-better-leave-in-past list" and Y's "scary secretive
untrustworthy traits of X list".
-------
1. If you were Y, would you trust X today?
2. Should any girlfriend/ wife trust X?
3. Which is more true: Y untrusting, or X untrustworthy?
4. What should X and/or Y do to remedy this long-term dilemma?
Y is a control freak who is clearly not
offering X what he needs. X is clearly not
content with Y and is playing the field.

Time to split the sheets.
Steenkin Man
2004-09-23 13:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by MamaYoda
1. If you were Y, would you trust X today?
Y is out of her mind.
Post by MamaYoda
2. Should any girlfriend/ wife trust X?
X sounds too clever to get married to some bitch who doesn't trust
him.
Post by MamaYoda
3. Which is more true: Y untrusting, or X untrustworthy?
Y untrusting.

In fact, her paranoid jealousy is going to kill this relationship with
a man she clearly doesn't deserve.
Post by MamaYoda
4. What should X and/or Y do to remedy this long-term dilemma?
X should ditch the bitch. He's put up with her for too long.

Y should go on a diet, take regular showers and generally try to make
herself attractive to the man in her life. "Men only stray when the
girl won't play."
--
num tibi mentireris?
ls
2004-09-23 16:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by MamaYoda
Needs second opinion about relationship hiccup...
X [male] and Y [female] are an attractive, relatively successful
couple, and been together for a total of 8 years.
6 years ago, X had a short-lived affair with an unhappily-engaged
co-worker; trusting Y found out under shocking circumstances and
stormed out; a regretful and apologetic X ran after Y; Y gathered
enough strength and took X back.
The crisis taught both parties what/ who is important; they got back
together stronger than ever.
X & Y moved to a new city, constructed a new, better life together. 6
years later, their live-in relationship is considered very strong and
loving by their friends and co-workers, who view them a "happily
married" couple. But a shadow from the past looms under the
cheerfulness...
X never talked about why he had that by-most-account destructive
affair with anyone - not even his closest male buddy, or Y, or
possibly, even himself. In the following 6 years, X deliberately
avoided discussion of that episode; he reckons it's "better to just
move on from a past he is not particularly proud of", and "let's not
dwell on something that happened X years ago". Besides, X doesn't
generally talk about emotional matters.
Consequently, Y lives in fear of X's unexamined, hence to her,
menacing shadow self - "who may just drop another traumatic atom bomb
one of these fine days". People and settings - which may or may not
cause a repeat occurance of that traumatic incident - continue to
remind Y of such a potential. Y reckons X should face up to some of
his "darker side", in order to be truly free of its influence.
X complains that he "has no dark side", and Y is one "imaginative
paranoid" and "dwells too much in the past". He doesn't see how his
present work & social environment, or "mostly innocent" workplace,
post-work social flirtations can contribute to Y's occasional
distress. X insists that Y has nothing to worry about, and Y should
learn to trust and have faith in him the way he trusts her 300%.
Y insists she has tried her best to trust X, but X is not doing his
part. His "dismissive" attitude towards his past wrongs show "a lack
of honest self-reflection or sincere remorse", which - given the right
set of circumstances - can be fertile seeds for repeated incidents.
She feels as long as X refuses to own up to "the thing that motivated
his past destructive actions", he is not free from its control.
Basically, Y wants X to help her recover her peace of mind, by
"consciously taking account of his deeper motivations", but a
relunctant X feels he doesn't need such internal self-examination for
he's "free of demons", nor should he be required to "demonstrate
sincere remorse about something happened x years ago", and that Y
should "just get over it".
And then, something happened recently...
Context: Y has asked X a few times over the years if he has one-to-one
lunch or coffee breaks with female coworkers, and each time X has
insisted that with the exception of the top few female supervisors, he
doesn't have one-to-one lunch with single or attached female coworkers
as a rule. Y would've accepted it if X said he would not censor out
female coworkers for one-to-one lunch. But anyway, Y simply took X's
words as truth...
One day recently, Y found out coincidentally that X had a one-to-one
lunch date with a former, low-mid-level, just-divorced female
co-worker called S. The lunch date was apparently arranged a day in
advance. Though the couple were not at all close with S and husband, Y
met S many times, and X did mention to Y about S's recent divorce.
However, X did not tell Y before hius lunch date with S, nor the few
days afterwards, until Y found out accidentally.
Y, of course, freaked. After a long cut-the-crap confrontation, X
finally admitted that
[a] he intentionally kept Y from knowledge of the lunch appointment
with S [and could not provide any convincing enough reason to justify
his secretiveness other than "Y would freak the way she's freaking at
him right now"]
[b] he apparently had many such "spontaneous" non-work-related
one-to-one lunch and coffee breaks with single female co-workers over
the years, some of whom with notorious love-life reputations
Y is more distraught by X's dishonesty, and cares less about the
identity of the personalities involved.
The above relatively minor incident has put another major dent on
their relationship, and become the latest item on X's
"evade-ignore-better-leave-in-past list" and Y's "scary secretive
untrustworthy traits of X list".
-------
1. If you were Y, would you trust X today?
No, he lied about the lunches. He didn't want her to know for a
reason.
But, after he explained himself and assured me it doesn't affect our
relationship he would re-gain my trust.
Post by MamaYoda
2. Should any girlfriend/ wife trust X?
Yes, trust can be gained again.
Post by MamaYoda
3. Which is more true: Y untrusting, or X untrustworthy?
In this particular situation both. Y sounds VERY insecure and WAY
overanalyzed X's past mistake, nagged and questioned him to death for
6 years! (my god!) She projected her reasoning onto him and expected
him to think/feel the same way as she. Such as saying, "His
"dismissive" attitude towards his past wrongs show "a lack of honest
self-reflection or sincere remorse","

Men and women think differently. Just because he didn't want to talk
about it (for 6 years!) certainly doesn't mean that he has not had
some self-reflection and/or sincere remorse. No man I know likes it
when his gf/wife brings up the past to overanalize, to "I told you
so", to nag and/or as a reference to something happening today. The
past is the past, and after 6 years, it's over.
Post by MamaYoda
4. What should X and/or Y do to remedy this long-term dilemma?
Y sounds very insecure. First she should let go of what happened 6
years ago. Stop nagging him about it. It's ridiculous to constantly
bring up the past like that. It's obviously why he didn't want to
tell her about going to lunch with female co-workers. Because she's
irrational and overanalyzes things.
Once Y stops overanalyzing things then maybe he can explain to her why
he lied about the lunches. If he's sincere and Y can be forgiving and
not question each minute detail then they should move on. It was just
lunch.

It's not just about X's past affair and lying about lunch. It's also
about Y's overanalyzing and projecting. She should stop expecting him
to think the same way she does, it just isn't going to happen.

The last paragrah says a lot about Y...
Post by MamaYoda
The above relatively minor incident has put another major dent on
their relationship, and become the latest item on X's
"evade-ignore-better-leave-in-past list" and Y's "scary secretive
untrustworthy traits of X list".
Both items are about X. Y doesn't see that she has issues too.
The lunches aren't about the past (6 years ago!). She should get over
that first.
Leaving things in the past is not an untrustworthy trait. It just
means he has gotten over it. Once Y gets over that then they should
deal with the lunches.
l***@mayaninvaders.com
2004-09-24 04:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ls
But, after he explained himself and assured me it doesn't affect our
relationship he would re-gain my trust.
Would he still have your trust if he mocked you by making you the "paranoid"
one? and telling you you're "freaking"?
Post by ls
Post by MamaYoda
2. Should any girlfriend/ wife trust X?
Yes, trust can be gained again.
With a lot of work.
Post by ls
Men and women think differently. Just because he didn't want to talk
about it (for 6 years!) certainly doesn't mean that he has not had
some self-reflection and/or sincere remorse. No man I know likes it
when his gf/wife brings up the past to overanalize, to "I told you
so", to nag and/or as a reference to something happening today. The
past is the past, and after 6 years, it's over.
It's obviously not as he makes a practice of lying to her...
Post by ls
Post by MamaYoda
4. What should X and/or Y do to remedy this long-term dilemma?
Y sounds very insecure. First she should let go of what happened 6
years ago. Stop nagging him about it. It's ridiculous to constantly
bring up the past like that. It's obviously why he didn't want to
tell her about going to lunch with female co-workers. Because she's
irrational and overanalyzes things.
I don't think it's irrational for these things to bother her. They need to
be honest with eachother. Otherwise, no matter what his intentions, he
sneaking around and women can sense that. No wonder she's paranoid.
Post by ls
It's not just about X's past affair and lying about lunch. It's also
about Y's overanalyzing and projecting. She should stop expecting him
to think the same way she does, it just isn't going to happen.
He should also stop being dismissive and they should both work on why
they're so mentally messed up.
Post by ls
Leaving things in the past is not an untrustworthy trait. It just
means he has gotten over it. Once Y gets over that then they should
deal with the lunches.
It's easy for the offender to get over the offense, I can see why Y would
have a tougher time doing that.
ls
2004-09-24 18:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@mayaninvaders.com
Post by ls
But, after he explained himself and assured me it doesn't affect our
relationship he would re-gain my trust.
Would he still have your trust if he mocked you by making you the "paranoid"
one? and telling you you're "freaking"?
Mocked her? I don't see it that way. In what was written I did see a
paranoid person freaking out. She assumes he hasn't examined his
actions and assumes he's going to do it again.
Post by l***@mayaninvaders.com
Post by ls
Post by MamaYoda
2. Should any girlfriend/ wife trust X?
Yes, trust can be gained again.
With a lot of work.
Post by ls
Men and women think differently. Just because he didn't want to talk
about it (for 6 years!) certainly doesn't mean that he has not had
some self-reflection and/or sincere remorse. No man I know likes it
when his gf/wife brings up the past to overanalize, to "I told you
so", to nag and/or as a reference to something happening today. The
past is the past, and after 6 years, it's over.
It's obviously not as he makes a practice of lying to her...
No, lying about going to lunch today has nothing to do with anything
that happened 6 years ago. People tell 'white lies' all the time to
not hurt people they care about. Whether it's right or wrong it
happens.
Post by l***@mayaninvaders.com
Post by ls
Post by MamaYoda
4. What should X and/or Y do to remedy this long-term dilemma?
Y sounds very insecure. First she should let go of what happened 6
years ago. Stop nagging him about it. It's ridiculous to constantly
bring up the past like that. It's obviously why he didn't want to
tell her about going to lunch with female co-workers. Because she's
irrational and overanalyzes things.
I don't think it's irrational for these things to bother her. They need to
be honest with eachother. Otherwise, no matter what his intentions, he
sneaking around and women can sense that. No wonder she's paranoid.
She wrote, The crisis taught both parties what/ who is important; they
got back
together stronger than ever.
She complains that he doesn't want to talk about the affair then she
says,
Besides, X doesn't generally talk about emotional matters.
Then she says, Consequently, Y lives in fear of X's unexamined, hence
to her,
menacing shadow self

So, they're back stronger than ever, he doesn't want to talk but she
reasons that he doesn't talk about emotional matters anyway and she
lives in fear.

And you don't think that's irrational???

What's irrational is re-hashing something that happened 6 years ago.
They've obviously have talked and talked and talked about it. He has
explained himself as best he could and she choose to stay with him.
It should be put to rest.
6 years later it still bothers her, he feels that it's in the past.
If she can't handle that then it's time to leave.
Post by l***@mayaninvaders.com
Post by ls
It's not just about X's past affair and lying about lunch. It's also
about Y's overanalyzing and projecting. She should stop expecting him
to think the same way she does, it just isn't going to happen.
He should also stop being dismissive and they should both work on why
they're so mentally messed up.
But he may have been dismissive because it was only lunch. She may
assume it meant more to him but to him it was just lunch.
I think they simply can't communicate with each other. And, neither
one seems to want to understand what the other is thinking and why.
Post by l***@mayaninvaders.com
Post by ls
Leaving things in the past is not an untrustworthy trait. It just
means he has gotten over it. Once Y gets over that then they should
deal with the lunches.
It's easy for the offender to get over the offense, I can see why Y would
have a tougher time doing that.
But if he cheated on her 6 years ago and she stayed with him then that
was her choice. She choose to accept his mistake for what ever
reason. If 6 over the last 6 years she can't deal with that choice
she can only blame herself. She's can't torture him over her decision
to stay.

If she's been dragging that out for the last 6 years I completely
understand why he lied about going to lunch with a co-worker.

In the end I think they just can't communicate and with that there
it's over.
l***@mayaninvaders.com
2004-09-24 04:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by MamaYoda
Context: Y has asked X a few times over the years if he has one-to-one
lunch or coffee breaks with female coworkers, and each time X has
insisted that with the exception of the top few female supervisors, he
doesn't have one-to-one lunch with single or attached female coworkers
as a rule. Y would've accepted it if X said he would not censor out
female coworkers for one-to-one lunch. But anyway, Y simply took X's
words as truth...
So he's lied to her AGAIN...old habits die hard.
Post by MamaYoda
[a] he intentionally kept Y from knowledge of the lunch appointment
with S [and could not provide any convincing enough reason to justify
his secretiveness other than "Y would freak the way she's freaking at
him right now"]
and as he's obviously proven she is justified in doing.
Post by MamaYoda
[b] he apparently had many such "spontaneous" non-work-related
one-to-one lunch and coffee breaks with single female co-workers over
the years, some of whom with notorious love-life reputations
and never told her about it. If it was ok and above board why hide it? If he
was afraid she'd "freak" why not put her mind at ease by addressing her
concerns? Or building enough trust where she wouldn't worry about it?
Post by MamaYoda
The above relatively minor incident has put another major dent on
their relationship, and become the latest item on X's
"evade-ignore-better-leave-in-past list" and Y's "scary secretive
untrustworthy traits of X list".
You can't evade and ignore when you've been discovered as a chronic liar.
Post by MamaYoda
1. If you were Y, would you trust X today?
Not if he didn't show any sort of remorse or make any effort to regain trust.
And especially not if he was lying to me about ANYTHING, no matter how minor.
Post by MamaYoda
2. Should any girlfriend/ wife trust X?
Nope, he doesn't deserve it.
Post by MamaYoda
3. Which is more true: Y untrusting, or X untrustworthy?
X untrustworthy/proven in past & present. OBVIOUSLY!!!
Post by MamaYoda
4. What should X and/or Y do to remedy this long-term dilemma?
Throw all the cards on the table, he has to decide if this relationship
means enough to work at rebuilding trust. He has to be mature enough to tell
the truth even if he feels "she'll freak" and he needs to bend over
backwards to make sure she can trust him again. Otherwise what's the point?
Even if there were no romantic inklings on any of his outings, HE LIED, he
messed up and he needs to convince her beyond a shadow of a doubt that he
can be trusted - that means pull out all the stops. Do what it takes because
anything worth having is worth the work.

What an idiotic, selfish jerk he is if he doesn't do all he can. There are
men out there who will...Is any person worth this kind of anguish?
Steenkin Man
2004-09-24 10:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@mayaninvaders.com
What an idiotic, selfish jerk he is if he doesn't do all he can. There are
men out there who will...Is any person worth this kind of anguish?
What the hell are you talking about? He's in an abusive relationship
with a controlling, paranoid cow. For all we know, she may be
physically violent to him as well. (Females are more likely than men
to be violent in the home but men tend not to complain to the
authorities.)

If she cared for him, she wouldn't question who he sees for lunch. Her
concerns about who he eats with are for her own selfish reasons. She
*must* have control - or else.

It's time he got himself away from the bitch. It's a mystery why he
hasn't gone sooner. Maybe he doesn't want to leave his children with a
vicious female. That's often the case with men because the law usually
denies them custody.

This cow is a very dangerous person. Her life appears to revolve
around who the man sees and why he sees them. He should leave her now
before she kills him in his sleep and then pleads the "battered
female" story to the judge.
--
num tibi mentireris?
geminii2
2004-09-25 01:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by MamaYoda
Needs second opinion about relationship hiccup...
X [male] and Y [female] are an attractive, relatively successful
couple, and been together for a total of 8 years.
6 years ago, X had a short-lived affair with an unhappily-engaged
co-worker; trusting Y found out under shocking circumstances and
stormed out; a regretful and apologetic X ran after Y; Y gathered
enough strength and took X back.
The crisis taught both parties what/ who is important; they got back
together stronger than ever.
X & Y moved to a new city, constructed a new, better life together. 6
years later, their live-in relationship is considered very strong and
loving by their friends and co-workers, who view them a "happily
married" couple. But a shadow from the past looms under the
cheerfulness...
X never talked about why he had that by-most-account destructive
affair with anyone - not even his closest male buddy, or Y, or
possibly, even himself. In the following 6 years, X deliberately
avoided discussion of that episode; he reckons it's "better to just
move on from a past he is not particularly proud of", and "let's not
dwell on something that happened X years ago". Besides, X doesn't
generally talk about emotional matters.
Consequently, Y lives in fear of X's unexamined, hence to her,
menacing shadow self - "who may just drop another traumatic atom bomb
one of these fine days". People and settings - which may or may not
cause a repeat occurance of that traumatic incident - continue to
remind Y of such a potential. Y reckons X should face up to some of
his "darker side", in order to be truly free of its influence.
Y sounds irrational. Just because X does not discuss the
events of 6 years ago does not mean he has not "examined" them. And
how would Y know if X discussed it with his best friend...Y should be
offended if he had. Y is the one who fears a repeat of the "dark"
occurance and very likely gives X the impression that that is the
expectation she has for him. Men or women rarely respond well to low
expectations from someone who supposedly loves them. Why try to be
better than who your lover says you are? How could X free himself of
a dark influence when Y never fails to remind him of it?
Post by MamaYoda
X complains that he "has no dark side", and Y is one "imaginative
paranoid" and "dwells too much in the past". He doesn't see how his
present work & social environment, or "mostly innocent" workplace,
post-work social flirtations can contribute to Y's occasional
distress. X insists that Y has nothing to worry about, and Y should
learn to trust and have faith in him the way he trusts her 300%.
I think X shows tremendous insensitivity towards Y and he is
literally "flirting with disaster" in his worktime forays. Even if
these interactions are innocent, he shouldn't require those types of
strokes outside his relationship with Y. X knows it matters to Y and
she shouldn't have to mention it. By the same token, Y's constant
focus on these flirtatioms probably drive X to commit more of them. I
didn't say it was logical, just human. Also, X SHOULD trust Y
300%...she earned it. X should not expect Y to fully trust him until
his behavior becomes trustworthy.
Post by MamaYoda
Y insists she has tried her best to trust X, but X is not doing his
part. His "dismissive" attitude towards his past wrongs show "a lack
of honest self-reflection or sincere remorse", which - given the right
set of circumstances - can be fertile seeds for repeated incidents.
She feels as long as X refuses to own up to "the thing that motivated
his past destructive actions", he is not free from its control.
What does X have to "own up" to? He was caught in the act.
Being dismissive about the event neither confirms or denies his
remorse. All that counts is how he treats Y today. Actions and
gestures matter.
Post by MamaYoda
Basically, Y wants X to help her recover her peace of mind, by
"consciously taking account of his deeper motivations", but a
relunctant X feels he doesn't need such internal self-examination for
he's "free of demons", nor should he be required to "demonstrate
sincere remorse about something happened x years ago", and that Y
should "just get over it".
Basically Y wants guarantees. X isn't interested in offering any
other than mouthing the words. X doesn't sound like he is concerned
with assuring Y as evidenced by his current workplace dalliances.
Post by MamaYoda
And then, something happened recently...
Context: Y has asked X a few times over the years if he has one-to-one
lunch or coffee breaks with female coworkers, and each time X has
insisted that with the exception of the top few female supervisors, he
doesn't have one-to-one lunch with single or attached female coworkers
as a rule. Y would've accepted it if X said he would not censor out
female coworkers for one-to-one lunch. But anyway, Y simply took X's
words as truth...
Let me guess...he lied. Well, to my way of thinking, the fact
that Y ever asked X this question indicates that she still did not
trust him alone with other women. That speaks volumes to X and should
also say something to Y herself.
Post by MamaYoda
One day recently, Y found out coincidentally that X had a one-to-one
lunch date with a former, low-mid-level, just-divorced female
co-worker called S. The lunch date was apparently arranged a day in
advance. Though the couple were not at all close with S and husband, Y
met S many times, and X did mention to Y about S's recent divorce.
However, X did not tell Y before hius lunch date with S, nor the few
days afterwards, until Y found out accidentally.
Y, of course, freaked. After a long cut-the-crap confrontation, X
finally admitted that
[a] he intentionally kept Y from knowledge of the lunch appointment
with S [and could not provide any convincing enough reason to justify
his secretiveness other than "Y would freak the way she's freaking at
him right now"]
While I am not defending X's decision to wine and dine other
women (or are these really just lunches together in the office
lunchroom?), Y should have told X clearly that those interactions were
off-limits in their relationship. Y says she did not censor the
meetings but then turns around and says that it was X's dishonesty
that disturbed her rather than being honest with herself and admitting
that she didn't want X around other women.
X was wrong to lie. Men and women lie in relationships to
protect themselves and their own self-interests, not because they want
to avoid hurting their partner. only openness and honesty can create
a real relationship.
The fact that Y would "freak out" if she knew X was fooling
around with other women - even innocently - should be a reason for X
to avoid that perception altogether. X is using Y's potential "freak
out" as an excuse to proceed with meeting with any number of women and
then lie abot it.
Post by MamaYoda
b] he apparently had many such "spontaneous" non-work-related
one-to-one lunch and coffee breaks with single female co-workers over
the years, some of whom with notorious love-life reputations
Y is more distraught by X's dishonesty, and cares less about the
identity of the personalities involved.
The above relatively minor incident has put another major dent on
their relationship, and become the latest item on X's
"evade-ignore-better-leave-in-past list" and Y's "scary secretive
untrustworthy traits of X list".
Dishonesty as an ongoing mechanism of behavior makes any
item on either list seem rather minor. Y's underlying distrust of X
apparently exists because X never gave Y much to believe in regarding
himself. If Y could believe in a "better X" then I suspect X would try
to live up to that role or expectation.
Post by MamaYoda
-------
1. If you were Y, would you trust X today?
Since X recently admitted to Y that he lied to her, my response
would be "no".
Post by MamaYoda
2. Should any girlfriend/ wife trust X?
If X didn't lie to another GF/W or demonstate behavior that was
non-trustworthy, then that woman should trust him. Just because X
can't be trusted to be honest to Y now does not mean that that is a
permanent condition. OTOH, X may be someone who finds lying to be the
easiest way to avoid confrontation or "unpleasantness". He stupidly
believes that the truth will be forever hidden..
Post by MamaYoda
3. Which is more true: Y untrusting, or X untrustworthy?
"More or less true" is irrelevant in this situation. What is
relevant is that 6 years after a damaging event, Y is incapable of
completely forgiving X or of letting him move past it. OTOH, X has
demonstrated that he would have been unworthy of that forgiveness due
to his ongoing dishonesty.
Post by MamaYoda
4. What should X and/or Y do to remedy this long-term dilemma?
X and Y have to do what they said they did 6 years ago. They
need to forgive and forget...move on together or move out. Both X and
Y need to assure their partner via their actions that they are worthy
and deserving of trust.
W.E.Cole
2004-09-25 03:59:29 UTC
Permalink
There are a lot of issues here, so I'll limit myself to one theory, one fact
and one opinion -

Theory: The man might not want to talk about the affair because he is
ashamed/embarassed by it. When I was in my teens I was once caught
shoplifting. I never talk about it (except in vague terms like now). It's
not something I want to be reminded of or even think about. Maybe this guy
feels the same, maybe not. It's just one possibility. Ask him.

Fact: Hiding things from your mate, regardless of how big or small, will
eventually harm the relationship. BOTH parties need to lay out the rules and
stick to them. Don't assume the rules - come right out and talk about them,
agree to them and agree up front what the concequences will be for breaking
each rule. Give a "get out of jail free" opportunity to come clean when you
have that talk so you can move forward with a clean slate.

Opinion: My impression from reading the original post is that the man
screwed up and is now worried about the woman over-reacted to any situation
involing a female co-worker. On the other hand, the woman was hurt and once
burned, twice shy. Who could blame her? The problem is that although it
sounds like they got back together, they never fully addressed the situation
by agreeing on the rules of their relationship and the concequences of
breaking them. It also sounds like there are more issues going on in this
relationship than what was posted to the newsgroup, so any advice has to be
taken with a grain of salt.

~WEC
Post by MamaYoda
Needs second opinion about relationship hiccup...
X [male] and Y [female] are an attractive, relatively successful
couple, and been together for a total of 8 years.
6 years ago, X had a short-lived affair with an unhappily-engaged
co-worker; trusting Y found out under shocking circumstances and
stormed out; a regretful and apologetic X ran after Y; Y gathered
enough strength and took X back.
<snip>
l***@mayaninvaders.com
2004-09-26 04:57:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by W.E.Cole
Fact: Hiding things from your mate, regardless of how big or small, will
eventually harm the relationship. BOTH parties need to lay out the rules and
stick to them. Don't assume the rules - come right out and talk about them,
agree to them and agree up front what the concequences will be for breaking
each rule. Give a "get out of jail free" opportunity to come clean when you
have that talk so you can move forward with a clean slate.
How dare you be reasonable?
Post by W.E.Cole
Opinion: My impression from reading the original post is that the man
screwed up and is now worried about the woman over-reacted to any situation
involing a female co-worker. On the other hand, the woman was hurt and once
burned, twice shy. Who could blame her? The problem is that although it
sounds like they got back together, they never fully addressed the situation
by agreeing on the rules of their relationship and the concequences of
breaking them. It also sounds like there are more issues going on in this
relationship than what was posted to the newsgroup, so any advice has to be
taken with a grain of salt.
I guess if they're both interested ins taying in the relationship and
actually having it work, it's in their best interest to lay it all out on
the table and stop pussyfooting....
Post by W.E.Cole
~WEC
Post by MamaYoda
Needs second opinion about relationship hiccup...
X [male] and Y [female] are an attractive, relatively successful
couple, and been together for a total of 8 years.
6 years ago, X had a short-lived affair with an unhappily-engaged
co-worker; trusting Y found out under shocking circumstances and
stormed out; a regretful and apologetic X ran after Y; Y gathered
enough strength and took X back.
<snip>
ci+
2004-09-26 02:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by MamaYoda
Y gathered
enough strength and took X back.
Y would rather stay with a guy she's learned can't be trusted to keep
fewer than 2 women, than take a chance on a guy with 0 women ...
RC CHASIE
2004-10-06 20:44:00 UTC
Permalink
I have a solution, meet a new couple, talk out those problems, and maybe you'll
find some new friends in the process.

Loading...