I recently had the pleasure of hanging out with an intelligent and established colleague, Kenya K. Stevens of JujuMama, LLC, author of Change Your Man. As we talked, the subject of working together came up. We decided to start with piggy-backing on one another’s blogs. And so, I’m happy to offer my take on her next blogging topic: “How to Trust Your Man.”
Ladies, brace yourselves: you cannot trust your man. Gentlemen, don’t feel left out; substitute woman for man as you read this blog and the same ideas will hold true.
*You cannot trust your man. But this is not as bad as it might sound. What we are dealing with is a confusion in terms. The concept of trust generally is misused when it comes to intimate relationships. Trust (the verb) is defined as “to rely upon or place confidence in someone,” “to have confidence” or “hope.” Trust is not defined as doing any of the aforementioned “if someone does something to earn it.” We typically make that part up. To simplify, trust is the act of proceeding without evidence that a given result will ensue.
Typically, when we profess to trust our mate, we are either lying or misusing the term. Most likely we are lying with an intent to project some virtuous responsibility upon our mate, with the hope that s/he will continually protect our feelings and make us feel safe. The real truth of our self-deception typically arises when we believe that our “trust” has been broken: whenever the relationship or some dynamic within it, goes sour, and we say ruefully, “I trusted you,” or “You betrayed me.” Neither are true. The history between the parties (all the evidence we gathered in getting to know each other early on) that preceded the supposed betrayal of “trust” negate(s) its possibility. The only exception that I can see to this is if a person’s history is completely the opposite of that which would be considered evidence that supports the belief that s/he can perform the task successfully.
A real-life example illustrates this point. Alex is habitually late. Vickie knows this. When, for the umpteenth time, he shows up half an hour late for their date, she pouts and says, “I trusted you to be on time.” Who knows whether Vickie actually expected Alex to show up on time or not. Regardless, her understanding of his tendencies makes her implied accusation an effort to punish his tardiness with negative reinforcement. She has not, in actuality, been betrayed. There was never trust there.
The closest real-life example I can conceptualize of authentic trusting is when we profess to rely on God. Without real proof of God, or without proof that an appeal to God helps things work out the way we want them to, we place confidence in God that we will receive some kind of blessing anyway. This confidence without history, evidence or proof is akin to faith and defines “trust.”
I offer the following as examples of trust:
- I hand my infant to the next stranger that walks by. I then ask her/him to keep the child for the next hour, and return the baby to the exact location where we are standing at the end of that hour.
- I ask God to make sure that I live after jumping of the ledge at the top of a twenty-story building.
hggfhgfhgfhgjkkkkkkkkklk
You are probably saying that these examples are preposterous, “Why would I give my baby to a perfect stranger” or “Why would I expect to leap twenty stories and live?” If you are saying those things, I agree with you. I am not saying that you would or should do either. I am simply illustrating what trust is so that I can illustrate what it is not. Acting without history, evidence or some sort of vetting process may be something best reserved when discussing God or miracles, not everyday relations. If we profess to trust someone we know, we are probably mistaken, or misusing the term trust.
I am not saying that trust is impossible or absurd. Rather, it is something that requires more of us than we are generally willing to give. And because of what it takes to trust, we are generally being manipulative when we use the term. I would never give my baby to a stranger, nor leap off a building.
Instead of saying that we trust our mate, I offer that we “know” or “believe that we know” him/her. Saying that we “know” or “believe that we know” another person versus saying we “trust” him or her to be this or that is more honest and less of an attempt impose virtue, or our own ideals, onto someone else. Imagine using derivations of “believe/know” instead of “trust” in the following examples:
- “I have been married for 3 years now. I trust my spouse” versus “I have been married for 3 years now. I believe that I know my spouse.”
- “After completing an interview of a candidate, I have decided to hire him/her, because I trust they s/he will not steal from me” versus “After completing an interview of a candidate, I have decided to hire him/her, because I believe s/he will not steal from me.”
hgfhgfhgfhgfhgfhgfhgfhg
I suggest that knowing as much as we can about a person, and operating from that knowledge is much more reliable than deciding that we trust them. It is also a more responsible way of interacting with folks and whatever future we are working to build with them.
When we profess trust in someone, the responsibility or burden to live up to that “trust-worthy” standard is placed on the person being “trusted.” On the other hand, where knowledge takes precedence, expectations are honest and there is less opportunity for victimhood. I always recommend personal power and choice over playing the victim. Knowledge leaves room for external evidence and experience. It also leaves room for internal knowledge, such as using your intuition and trusting your “gut,” which is an appropriate place to put your trust. When we operate based on what we know we are powerful and responsible.
“How Can You Trust Your Man,” my colleague Mrs. Stevens asks. You can’t. You and your mate have history. You already know too much for “trust.” You can, however, commit to getting to know him and developing a certain set of beliefs about him. It is a natural progression that follows interaction and history. And based on this knowledge, your understanding of him may lead you to be correct about his intent and or behavior and even predict his actions. If you’re lucky, knowledge may lead to an affinity, or it may inspire disdain or something else, all of which may change over time. You may not be able to trust him, but you can rest assured that he will be himself.
I encourage you to cultivate your knowledge of your mate and to use your personal understanding of him/her as a means of staying true to yourself. Don’t let confusion around the concept of “trust” be another way to avoid responsibility for creating the love you want.
Keep Rising,
Frank Love
…and please do not multi-task when driving.
*On September 27, 2010 the paragraph below was replaced with the referenced paragraph above.
You cannot trust your man. But this is not as bad as it might sound. What we are dealing with is a confusion in terms. The concept of trust generally is misused when it comes to intimate relationships. Trust, as I define it, is the act of proceeding without evidence that a given result will ensue. Typically, when we profess to trust our mate, we are either lying or misusing the term. Most likely we are lying with an intent to project some virtuous responsibility upon our mate, with the hope that s/he will continually protect our feelings and make us feel safe. The real truth of our self-deception typically arises when we believe that our “trust” has been broken: whenever the relationship or some dynamic within it, goes sour, and we say ruefully, “I trusted you,” or “you betrayed me.” Neither are true. The history between the parties (all the evidence we gathered in getting to know each other early on) that preceded the supposed betrayal of “trust” negate(s) its possibility.
45 comments
Ebony
September 6, 2010 at 10:27 AM
I disagree with your definition of trust. Trust defined is: reliance: certainty based on past experience. There is PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE and experience in a certain area when you say you TRUST someone, just like we TRUST GOD. Those who TRUST… God know that God has worked it out before, and therefore they continue to TRUST. Your example of a person being late is a bad example because the girl was stupid to TRUST her boyfriend to be on time if he’s ALWAYS late. But if I have a friend and over the years he/she has proven him/herself worthy and that he/she can keep my secrets, then all of a sudden he/she becomes a blabbermouth, then that person did betray my TRUST. However, if I already knew the person was a blabbermouth it was my fault for telling him/her in the first place because he/she can’t be trusted with secrets.
Then when he gets down to the replace “trust” with “know” part, I totally disagree. People hardly KNOW themselves!
Just my opinion.
Melissa
September 6, 2010 at 12:29 PM
GREAT Post!
I learned this distinction some time ago. Ironically in a debate about the definition of the word TRUST. The distinction is very free-ing! Although maintaining this distinction in this everyday world (without desire for such a distinction) is an up hill battle… it is one worth keeping and living by. I find the word is used more to support an ego conversation (the one who wants to trust and the one that wants to be trusted) then anything else. AGAIN – great post!
Joanne Ritter
September 6, 2010 at 1:41 PM
There are factual reasons why the spouse is late. The waiting spouse creates a story about it ascribing meaning to the situation and then reacts to the story they, themselves created. For the conflict to resolve the two parties need to agree on a new story based on the facts or one/both need(s) to develop a new reaction to the story.Trusting someone can be a conclusion based on information at hand — whether it’s a first-time encounter (the job applicant came to the interview on time; they dressed appropriately; they answered interview questions skillfully; they had a good job record and strong references); or a long-term relationship (this is the reason why he has acted this way several times in the past, therefore, I’m reasonably certain he will follow the same pattern in the future). Trust can be broken when patterns of behavior are broken.
Dr. T
September 6, 2010 at 8:49 PM
It’s a lot of truth to your blog I will also say today is 50 50.
Raven Afrika Masterson
September 6, 2010 at 9:17 PM
I trust my man……not to protect my feelings…..but to be TOTALLY honest with me at all times, whether I like it or not.
If you trust yourself then you have no reason not to trust your mate. If things ‘stuff’ up along the way, that is meant to be!
I’m a big person now, and my mate doesn’t NEED to stuff up. We are both free to go at any time that we want to, without having to resort to doing untrustworthy things to make that happen.
Yes it took a long, long time of being alone to find this relationship. Never been happier 🙂
Carol Kappes
September 6, 2010 at 9:22 PM
Frank, very interesting perspectives! You are right that trust is hard to use for relationships, one thing because through the years things change so much in the world and people definitely change also. We all are aging and so does our thoughts, minds, hearts, and ideas. One does not stay young—
John King
September 6, 2010 at 9:28 PM
Where Trust is an issue, there is no Trust. Once violated, never recovered. Conditional Trust is not Trust, it is Risk Management.
Deirdre Quiery
September 6, 2010 at 9:35 PM
When we act from conditioning, we maybe are potentially untrustworthy but when we act from love (I suggest which is not an emotion but a pure unconditioned seeing) we are always trustworthy because we are unfixated, spontaneous and aligned with an Absolute which never contradicts itself even if it is not understood.
Jennifer Pratt, MS
September 6, 2010 at 9:37 PM
I would like to know if you would explain your definition of trust. The definition of trust that I find is, “confident expectation of something.” I believe that because your definition is opposing the definition of trust as others see it, you will say that when someone says they trust another they are lying. If we are to use the definition provided to us in the dictionary we are not lying. We have proof when we say we trust someone. When we are betrayed, we have proof not to trust that person any longer. When we are trying to rebuild trust, we have to give evidence to that individual that shows they can trust us again.
To give an example, if I were to determine that my definition of “love” is to not support someone then I would say that the majority of people do not love their family members. I can present my own argument to support my definition, but the majority of people are still going to believe in the dictionary definition.
It seems to me that you are replacing the definition of trust with faith. The dictionary definition of faith is “belief that is not based on proof” Therefore, the definition of faith is really your definition of trust.
GBJ
September 7, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Great Post!
Gordon
September 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM
I like this alot! It is also important the understand that relationships are dynamic. Your knowledge of your mate will change as time passes..
Carl D
September 7, 2010 at 5:31 PM
“You may not be able to trust him, but you can trust him to be himself.” – but the second half of this sentence is precisely based upon prior knowledge.
If you feel free to redefine the word “trust” from generally accepted usage, then I suppose you’re also free to disagree with the way people are using it. But most of us are comfortable with the idea that trust is built up over time based upon a pattern of behavior. Are you confusing “trust” with “pure faith”?
Debi Davis
September 8, 2010 at 6:30 AM
It’s interesting that words like trust and truth and being redefined. It’s my truth, your truth, their truth, instead of just “the truth.”
Here we have a change in the word trust, with an explanation that there really is no such thing, that one of the core pieces to a loving relationship is simply a manipulation on our part, perhaps even a figment of our imagination.
So if we are to believe this, we can never satisfy the human need for a trusting relationship where two people are accountable to each other.
And, if we opt into the thought that people buy from those they know, like and trust, how can we complete the transactions of those who must have the trust element in place before they hand over the money if trust is taken out of the equation?
Carole
September 8, 2010 at 6:14 PM
Frank, when I profess to trust my mate, I am neither lying nor misusing the term. Relative to human interactions, Trust, *as I define it* (along with Webster’s New World Dictionary and possibly most of the English-speaking population), is a faith or belief in the integrity, honesty, etc. of another person with an absence of suspicion.
You are free to define and interpret trust any way you like, but be prepared for people to disagree with your “different” perspective. Surely an educated man like you realized that people might take exception to your audacious title and generalization about lying.
I read your article. I still trust my mate.
Abdallah Al-Jurf
September 8, 2010 at 6:15 PM
I still trust my mate!
Marc Innegraeve
September 8, 2010 at 6:15 PM
You’ve put in your text 4 words that allow you to say anything you want about whatever subject you want and still be right about it: “as I define it”. Unfortunately, your definition of the word trust here is very personal, which is the opposite of the purpose of language. Trust is a ‘belief’, not an ‘act’ as you state it.
So the question that you should be asking yourself before you will rewrite this article is: “what is the word that people generally use to define ‘the act of proceeding without evidence that a given result will ensue’?” Many words could match here depending on what topic you are proceeding on … determination? stupidity? recklessness?
Chris
September 9, 2010 at 9:08 AM
Since you welcome comments from readers, I do agree with the tenet of the article. A great deal of our language is used to manipulate others, to “litmus test” the other person and to hold them against a vague, abstract standard of behavior. “Do you trust me?” is a great example–this is a well-delivered article.
Carole
September 9, 2010 at 9:52 AM
I am wondering. Have you ever really loved someone? To trust and believe in them completely, with no reservations.
I was with my husband for sixteen years and married for twelve years. I was going to the library. He got on the bus (going to work). It was an ordinary Wed, until that night, when I got a voice mail from him. He had some “things to figure out.” Oh yes, he has sent emails and messages since. It was cold and cruel, and truly is heart breaking. That being said, I have gone through many changes, how I dress, where I live, and how I think. Except one thing, I have got to believe in someone, otherwise it is nothing. Do you understand what I am trying to explain to you?
Coming and Going
September 10, 2010 at 5:20 PM
You have a unique definition of “trust,” perhaps different than I would use! However, I agree that you should be honest with yourself about the traits of the person you are with, rather than what you wish that person would be.
Oh, thanks for attending the meetup; hope you got something out of it. Keep up the good work–you’re already succeeding!
Patriarchal dominance destroys relationships
September 12, 2010 at 7:50 PM
If everyone did what made them happy then no one would work, we would all shoot our bosses for not giving us a raise, and there would be complete anarchy. happiness is relative. it makes me unhappy to work with competitive, racist, cut throat people where i always have to watch my back. but i choose to endure it because i want to keep driving a bmw and live in my house. hence, marriage is the same way. Freda Kalors father said that no one has ever enraged him more than her mother, but that he would die without her. that is life. the things that are good for you taste bad. happiness is relative, at the end of a long life filled with trust, commitment to the marriage and family, sucessful children and equity a cush life is worth enduring the ups, downs, sacrifice, rewards and losses of loving the same person no matter the struggle to stay together. so many give up on relationships but stick with a failing business until it is turned around. think about it.
Kelle Sparta
September 14, 2010 at 12:40 AM
Your problem here isn’t your point, which is simply that you are saying that “trust” is a term given to something/one that you have no prior actual experience of and that the rest is an expectation of future actions based on past actions. The problem you’re having here is that you’ve said it in such dense terms and so late in your article that people are missing the point entirely.
Controversy is one thing, being completely misunderstood is another. You may want to rewrite stating your full premise at the beginning of the article rather than the end.
Just my two cents worth.
David Weil
September 14, 2010 at 12:42 AM
“Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
Lyric from “The Boxer” by Paul Simon of Simon & Garfunkle
Love is blind. And people hear what they want to hear. The definition of Trust–One in which confidence is placed.
“You may not be able to trust him, but you can trust him to be himself.”–The title of your article is misleading, when you say “You cannot trust your man”–Perhaps it should have been titled ” Trust Your Spouse To Be Thyself”
“To be trusted is a greater compliment than being loved.”
“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you”
“We’re never so vulnerable than when we trust someone – but paradoxically, if we cannot trust, neither can we find love or joy”
Carol Gore Dorn
September 14, 2010 at 12:43 AM
Thank you David!
the last line of your comment was the point of my comment!
“We’re never so vulnerable than when we trust someone – but paradoxically, if we cannot trust, neither can we find love or joy”
Nancy G. R.
September 14, 2010 at 12:45 AM
Frank,
I find this comment interesting to open up a conversation ~ Professing “trust” of our mate can be on many levels.
You do mention “typically” which I would say falls into the category of a mate who thinks they “own” their mates body and “control” with the implied pressure of “doing the right thing.”
“Trusting our mate to be forthcoming or honest with us when they are feeling an attraction.” is one level of committed relationship.
“Trusting our mate to talk with us first before acting upon an attraction is the foundation of a more polyamourous agreement between both partners.
Curious, Frank from your perspective how do you build safety and trust with your mate?
FrankLove
September 16, 2010 at 8:19 PM
Nancy:
I will avoid using the term “trust” in my answer. But I think that I will address the heart of your question.
The most assured way to build “safety” with your partner is to accept that each day, when you wake, that your partner may not wish to continue in a relationship with you, and to lay the ground work for them to have the same understanding(s) of you. The beauty of this is that people change, and the more we embrace the potential for change, the more we embrace people. We all want to be accepted for who we are, everyday. There are few greater feelings. A question becomes “are we willing to accept others as much as we want to be accepted.” Most of us are not. We are able to veil our intolerance by acting as though we do not have any “weird” or “off” thoughts like “they” do.
Nancy G. R.
September 16, 2010 at 8:20 PM
Frank, I see why you have the last name you do.
After my marriage, a 8 year relationship and several shorter term relationships, I realized this very same awareness. For me to be in a committed or long term
relationship, we both have the freedom to choose each day if we want to continue “being” together. To know we each can choose each day to be together or not is so liberating to be exactly who we truly are with one another!
Also, apply this same principle to lovemaking. Caressing, kissing or touching my beloved in a conscious way each moment, not in a programmed way of pressing this to get that.
Creatively & spontaneously loving someone as if it is the first time each time we make love because in this moment we are brand new and can express this each time we accept from the lightness in our heart how our current partner is showing up in the moment and playfully love one another.
Tell me why you avoided using the term “trust” in your response.
How can we trust another to tell us what they truly feel each morning?
Can we trust their “yes” if they never or rarely say “no” to us?
How do we trust their “no” and simply let go and move on?
FrankLove
September 16, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Nancy:
Well my avoidance of the term trust has to do with the way I view its definition (as I have outlined in this post). I am basically saying that we can’t “trust” people that we know.
How can we trust another to tell us what they truly feel each morning?
– I don’t think that it is possible. All we can do is lay the groundwork for a person to feel comfortable doing so.
Can we trust their “yes” if they never or rarely say “no” to us?
– I am not sure. People can avoid saying “no” but regularly negotiate to a “yes.” That can be a wonderful type of partnership.
How do we trust their “no” and simply let go and move on?
– You realize the importance of yourself doing it. If you realize that it is important that you say “no,” and you determine that you wish to live in peace, you would have trouble getting around accepting that someone else may need to do it also.
Ivan R.
September 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM
Your definition of trust is more like “have blind faith in.” I just looked on webster’s and not one definition of trust incorporated the idea of not having any knowledge of a persons character. What he has done is slightly change the definition of the word trust to suit his argument and went from there. If one uses the actual definitions than one can trust some other people.
R.R.
September 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM
I have been giving thought to my own definition of trust since reading that article, too. I agree with your point that we generally misuse the word. I also agree with your point that we are often looking to deflect responsibility and accountability when we “trust” others. We make ourselves “right” and others “wrong,” thereby giving ourselves the right to blame others for pain we feel.
The question I continue to contemplate is this: what, if any, expectations can we place on others and hold them accountable for? The answer may very well be “nothing.” I am still thinking this one through.
Ivan R.
September 16, 2010 at 7:52 PM
Is a relationship without expectations really worth anything?
R.R.
September 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM
Ivan, Yes!!! It may be the only relationship worth anything. In a literal sense, I’m saying that we can ask for what we want and we may or may not get it. We can also support and challenge each other to live our best lives or fulfill our dreams. We can even be clear about what treatment we will accept and what treatment we won’t accept. However, demanding that we get what we want is a different matter all-together. Holding another person accountable for our happiness quickly becomes a slippery slope. Besides, our relationships can be so much simpler if we “expect” our partners to be themselves.
Kathleen G.
September 22, 2010 at 10:47 AM
There is the issue of trust and then one of expectations. If we know someone has certain behaviors and we are surprised when they act out that behavior is it our trust has been betrayed or they have simply done what they do. Trust is something that doesn’t need to be spoken. It either is or isn’t.
Codruta
September 22, 2010 at 7:49 PM
Very nice twist to it – trust ourselves. Thank you Frank.
Raven
September 22, 2010 at 7:50 PM
Sounds most like 2 peeps sharing space. I would hate to be the one who was lying with an intent to project some virtuous responsibility upon our mate, with the hope that s/he will continually protect our feelings and make us feel safe.
I find it even abhorrent to use the term relationship to describe such a state. Any time manipulative behavior comes into peoples lives there are control issues at hand…..run for your life is some good advice to take.
H. Ford
September 22, 2010 at 7:55 PM
I read the article and it is safe to assume that you speak from no knowledge except your own limited experience.
Jim
September 22, 2010 at 7:57 PM
I absolutely agree- there is an important semantic distinction that needs to be acknowledged. I’ve written several times on people’s interpretations of the word “respect.” You’ve taken a similar course here by focusing on the difference between trust and knowledge of another and/or his or her behavior.
Wonderful article and I’ll add- let’s all make sure we read it!
Best thoughts!
Michael P.
September 22, 2010 at 7:59 PM
What is an affair? It’s a broken promise. It s a lie. It is adultery. It is wrong in the eyes of God (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and others). Not sure how anyone can justify that. If you make a covenant or even a legally binding promise, keep it or talk to the party you made that promise to and seek professional help or break up. Affairs… sorry. I cannot support lies, deceit, adultery, exposing your partner without his/her knowledge to diseases all in the name of ‘it’s just a part of society today… the way it is.’ 1 in 3 women in the USA will be raped in her lifetime. (FBI Statistic) That is ‘just the way it is. I still will not accept rape as a norm or say it is okay. It is not. Affairs are not okay either.
David S.
September 22, 2010 at 8:06 PM
Since trust is the cornerstone of most relationships, I think you raise an interesting, and actually, very good point. In couples and family therapy, we often discuss trust and talk about how it is broken and steps for re-establishing it: 1) be predictable; 2) talk about what is occurring when your behavior becomes unpredictable (as you mature or change your mind about things); 3) your behavior should match your words; 4) be aware and careful of which secrets are kept; 5) let who you are be unequivocally known and understood, etc., etc. All of these steps are actually a behavioral road-map to establish “evidence” of trustworthiness, as such, “trust” as you define it, is based on evidence and not feelings alone.
It seems to me that Jennifer, in her critique of your article and your “lack of definition,” inadvertently supports your fundamental premise with her observation: “If we are to use the definition provided to us in the dictionary we are not lying. We have proof when we say we trust someone. When we are betrayed, we have proof not to trust that person any longer. When we are trying to rebuild trust, we have to give evidence to that individual that shows they can trust us again. ” This doesn’t seem to be all that much different than what your article on trust is suggesting. No one else had a substantive response, except to simply undercut your article (and you personally), which is disconcerting.
As an aside, it’s interesting to me that your credentials are requisites to your credibility– it’s as if a credential is an automatic ticket or indicator of wisdom, insight, knowledge, relevant experience, or capacity to have something important or meaningful to say. I hope my socially constructed credentials never place me in a position where I falsely believe that the only people who can teach me or whom I can learn from are those whose credentials are equal to or above mine!
Mei Loa
October 6, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon!
Marshall Roye
October 12, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Just want to say what a good blog you got here! I’ve been around for quite plenty of time, but now decided to show my appreciation of your work!
Thumbs up, and keep it going!
Regards
Susie Johnson
October 26, 2010 at 5:43 PM
This Frank Love character obviously has a very poor view of self and therefore relationships. To make such statements is a direct reflection on who he is as a man – one who is obviously very broken emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. In order to love and respect someone you must first love and respect yourself. Infidelity and all of the other nonsense seen in relationship is a symptom of this love of lack of love and respect for self.
I had an INCREDIBLE father – a man of honor and integrity who loved his wife and children and took great pride in being the best person he could be. I, also, had eight brothers. So I can tell you that men come in a broad spectrum. My brothers are all generally good men, but as any individual they have their “ways”. They are all extremely protective of our mother and their sisters. But, there are the one’s that I would not wish upon my worst enemy in terms of a relationship. Then there is the one or two that if I could clone them, I would be married tomorrow. Even with the one’s with the most difficult of personalities, when they fall in love it is as if they morph into this better person. True love inspires you to be your best self – not perfect, just best.
Rather than insulting all of the men of true honor with this dribble, he should spend time fixing himself. He is the last person that should be giving advise or commentaries on relationships. This is utter nonsense and his attempt to justfy his poor conduct against his mate in his relationships.
Susie Johnson
October 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM
All your title and comments show is that you have a very unhealthy view of relationships. This is not a view that needs to be advocated. The real meaning in your blog is that your woman can not trust you or men like you. Those in healthy relationships can indeed love, respect and trust each other, because they have first come to love, trust, and respect themselves.
Simon Raybould
October 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM
Wow. Glad I’m not your mate, nor are you a mate of mine! To be honest, being able to trust someone is an absolute pre-requisite of “mate-dom” for me.
Laurie Arnold
October 26, 2010 at 5:48 PM
Frank, that is YOUR TRUTH…however, this statement can be a paraphrase. Actions always speak louder then words. With commitment, comes continual, consistent action. A learned and adored behavior. I know of one such man in my case who demonstrates this this everyday.
Sheila Steptoe
October 26, 2010 at 5:49 PM
I find this a really sad statement to make and as Laurie says this is YOUR truth. Certainly not everyone’s thankfully