PSA

[ashbet]

Correcting any misapprehensions, because it has come to my attention that some incorrect info is going around.

Josh did not cheat on me.

He made relationship choices that hurt me. He *betrayed* me, broke my trust, lied to me, rules-lawyered and attempted to radically renegotiate our relationship agreements on the fly. He hurt me very badly.

But I have been very careful to use the word "betrayed" rather than "cheated," because they have two different meanings.

I have corrected people when they have said he cheated. I have explained that there were specific circumstances that caused the term "betrayed" to be the appropriate one.

But I will not allow a dishonest, unfair interpretation of my words or his actions to stand -- so, no, for the record, Josh did not cheat on me.

Comments

[drcuriosity]

When my relationships ended after the quakes when the PTSD kicked up, I didn't act unfaithfully to my partners, but with the benefit of hindsight I don't feel I was acting in a way that was emotionally safe to be around, relationship-wise. Especially with the added complications of long distance.

In the end, Jana and Becca simply couldn't trust me to be the man they loved anymore. I wasn't competent to be a "me" at the time, let alone an "us", and I don't blame either for wanting to part ways. I regret that I failed their trust in me and hurt them, far more than I regret breaking in the first place :-(

[ashbet]

*big hugs*

I'm so sorry that *all* of it happened to you. :/

When you've been traumatized, it affects everything in your life -- and I don't believe that you were *deliberately* in an emotionally-unsafe state . . . but that doesn't mean that it wasn't hard on your partners. The ripples from those quakes damaged the foundations of more lives than those directly-affected by them.

It's a fair thing to regret -- but I hope there's not too much self-recrimination in it. You didn't choose to have your life shattered by a natural disaster, or to wind up with PTSD afterward.

You did the best you could to recover . . . but, yes, sometimes, when something truly terrible happens, *anyone* is going to need to focus on healing themselves first, even if that hurts others who love them.

<3<3<3

[drcuriosity]

Recriminations happened for a while after, but eventually I sorted my shit out, got over it (enough) and started to get on with life again.

A bunch of utterly terrible crap has happened since then - some of which I can't really talk about online because it's not my story to tell - but I've been able to roll with it since. So in a way, I guess falling apart and rebuilding myself has been an opportunity to grow more resilient, and get to the point where I can be properly supportive when I need to be.

Hell of a way to spur on personal growth, but you take the positives you can from disaster, wherever you can find them :-)

*skweesh* <3

[ashbet]

Developing resilience *sucks* as a process, because it means you have to deal with personal tragedy and develop some form of Cope, and then watch it all happen again.

You have my utmost sympathies for that one -- I think you're making the best of it that you possibly can, and that having resilience in the face of loss and adversity is a good quality to have . . . but WOW is it not fun to learn.

*squishesback* <3

[fallconsmate.livejournal.com]

i never thought he cheated.

i believed your EXACT words, which were that the two of you had expectations/rules of one another, and he broke those. that *could* mean cheated, but i always thought that if you MEANT cheated, you would have said so.

i always thought his actions cut you very deeply, and that is, indeed, the case.

[ashbet]

Thanks, hon. A mutual friend (who I hadn't spoken to since the breakup) had said something to Josh about me having said it (or something? I think they heard it secondhand?), and he was upset, justifiably.

I am still, and will to the end of my days, absolutely heartbroken that he chose to act the way he did for those three months when he was behaving unethically, to break my trust, to betray me, to lavish love on someone else while making it clear that he no longer wanted to share those things with me.

He's said a lot of things since the breakup, most recently yesterday, dissections of his motives and my supposed past transgressions (I asked him for things he agreed to, but he shouldn't have agreed and I shouldn't have asked, and also this was 5 years ago?), and to me, it feels like a lot of rewriting of history -- given that he didn't say those things to me *before* the breakup, and never gave me the opportunity to address them when it would have done any good.

But the fact remains -- whatever his reasons for ending the relationship, and no matter how badly I have been hurt by this, I'm not going to accuse him (or allow others to accuse him) of something that he didn't do.

-- A <3

[fallconsmate.livejournal.com]

no, badmouthing others never ends well if they didn't thoroughly deserve it. example, I can call my first husband a wife beating abusive ugly-spirited deadbeat dad who hasn't made time for his child since she was 15, and it's all true.

all I can accuse Chris of is being neglectful and thoughtless and not caring of his own mental health. he's basically a decent person, we just don't work as a couple. as friends, yes, but that took a couple of years.

you're doing what you can to take care of you and Kira. you're not badmouthing. and in the end, it's the best thing.

*hugs and hugs and hugs*

[elialshadowpine]

(I asked him for things he agreed to, but he shouldn't have agreed and I shouldn't have asked, and also this was 5 years ago?)

Hm.. I can't totally agree here, in that I'm of the opinion that you can ask for whatever you feel is best for you in a relationship. I think I've commented to the effect that what you feel would be best for you wouldn't be something I'd be able to agree to for me and would be bad for me if I did because I wouldn't be able to hold to it, because it's not something that's okay for me and not something I can do.., but that doesn't mean you don't have valid reasons for asking it or that it should be a bad thing for you to ask for. If he feels he shouldn't have agreed to it and he did, that's really on him and a sad, complicated situation all around.

If he does think it would have been bad of him, for him, to agree, that's totally different than you being bad for asking it. Argh. Like I said, complicated. I know now that it's not something I could do, but in the past, I might not have been conscious of that I can't, and it wouldn't be on my partners to know things I'm not able to do when I'm not aware of that I can't. I don't think that it's on you to have been aware that he couldn't have done it, and it's a mess all around that resulted in both of you being hurt... and that's not bad of you, for either of you. :-\

*hugs you both*

[ashbet]

He felt I did not have the right to ask for/negotiate the thing that I asked for and he agreed to.

(I asked him to wait about a month to have intercourse with a specific person, for a specific reason. He agreed, the month passed, they had sex, everything was cool.)

He told me (five years later!) that I shouldn't have asked, because *he* didn't count the transition from a one-month specifically-nonsexual kink relationship to a sexual/dating relationship to be a "new partner," and I did -- because it was a transition from no-risk activities to activities involving risk.

We had agreed that we could air concerns or negotiate involving new partners, but that no one would exercise veto power. He told me (now) that I was breaking our agreement bc she wasn't a new partner and asking for a short delay constituted exercise of veto.

I didn't in any way prevent him from pursuing the relationship (which he did!) or having sex (which they did!), I had a request involving timing because I was moving to TX in a month, and he had just been through *two* ugly breakups a few months before, and I *asked* if he would be willing to wait (not for all sexual activity, just intercourse) until I'd finished my move, since there had been so much stress and drama regarding his two recent exes, and the new partner was *best friends* with his most recent ex, so it felt like a powder keg.

It's the one time I ever made such a request, and I honored my commitment to be totally okay with it in a month's time.

(It sounds dumb now, but the two breakups included his then-current partner cheating on him with MY other partner [my partner was unaware that she was cheating], and the whole thing had been ugly and stressful, and I just needed a short break to move cross-country without him starting up something New Shiny in that *one* 30-day period.)

And if he had said no, I would have respected it. I just wanted us to have a little breathing room so that I could haul my life cross-country to be with him.

-- A <3

[elialshadowpine]

..... ouch ouch ouch that this was based on a different interpretation and assumptions from that which are logical from either standpoint. I can see both. And go ouch. Because if either of you had thought to double check, and again, I can see from a logical standpoint why neither of you did, this might have been fixed. If I'm understanding right, it sounds like you were talking about a specific person and he was talking about the relationship and you both talked past each other. Which... especially since what he was really wanting was something you would have been a not preferred but not a no either, makes this all the more sad. :(

[ashbet]

He had other things that he bitched me out about (mostly that I had "violated our agreement not to be hierarchical" when my needs changed after I became more disabled and we *started living together*, so his actions with other partners (specifically, related to finances, since we shared finances) affected me directly.

His other partner (the co-primary, not the person he betrayed me with) was making six figures and had substantial savings, and wanted to take lavish trips to Europe, with each of them paying 50%.

Josh had come off 18 months of unemployment (during part of which I was supporting him financially), we were living together, he had taken a substantial salary cut for his new job (like a $20K cut), we were struggling to pay for medical bills, etc., and I told him that we could not afford for him to do that, unless she paid an amount commensurate to the difference in their salaries.

Not forever, but for a time. They both objected to that, so they took mostly local trips -- but they were also saving up to go to Spain after another year had passed, and I was fine with that. (She eventually ended the relationship because she had begun to want monogamy and she hated that Josh's schedule was opposite from hers -- she worked weeks, he worked weekends -- but they would have gone on that trip, if they'd stayed together.)

He resented that I was (he tells me now) being "controlling" about that. But, FFS, I was in charge of the household budget, and *I* wasn't able to take trips to go see my partners in the UK during that period, either (I had to wait two years between visits.)

FWIW, with ALL my partners, when I've had resources and they haven't, I've paid for things so that we could have wonderful experiences together -- Ade and Lucy and I wouldn't have been able to make our trips to Whitby if I hadn't paid for the majority of the expenses, for example. And that's fine -- it was worth spending the money to be able to share the experience with them.

(And when Josh came to Whitby with us, I paid for the majority of the trips, because I had more money at the time.)

But, yeah -- we had two instances where the transition from "non-sexual kink-only partner without emotional involvement" to "sexual and dating partner" wound up causing issues . . . the first time, I thought we resolved it amicably. I *do* think that the transition from a casual kink partner to a sexual/dating partner does require some amount of discussion, because it changes the risks involved.

The second time, he had no business dating her or being sexually involved with her because of her health/relationship status -- he was breaking our relationship agreements (and lying to me, and breaking our fluid bond, and treating me like shit.)

The thing is -- he only *initiated* two relationships during the time we were together!! He had a third long-distance friend who he'd started flirting with and had discussed having sex with (which I *agreed to!*), but then she was diagnosed with an aggressive HPV-caused cancer, so it didn't go anywhere.

That is IT, during our relationship. So, this idea that I was somehow cock-blocking him when it came to poly was absolutely untrue -- he didn't START anything with anyone else. Nor was he interested in doing so.

But, yes, I do think the transition from "kink play partner only" to "sexual/dating partner" is something that, under my circumstances, does require some discussion/negotiation (specifically, involving testing and an agreement on the part of that new partner that they will not have sex with anyone else who hasn't been tested.)

I didn't choose to be immune-compromised, but Josh chose to get into a relationship with me, knowing full well that sex with other people could be a danger to me . . . and he agreed to safety boundaries to protect my health.

Which he then blew off as soon as he met New Shiny, but at that point, I think we were sunk.

-- A :/

[crankygirlie.livejournal.com]

While obviously I absolutely respect and agree with everything you've said, one thing popped into my head as I read this. A long time ago, when I was seeing other people, one of my close friends "found out" that I wasn't divorced from Matthew (we were separated, but not divorced) and tried to rip into me about "cheating". He had the worst time wrapping his head around the idea that Matthew was completely aware of all my activities and approved of them instead of being outraged. I told him that the difference between cheating and not (in this case) was lying.

Not trying to disagree with what you've stated about your situation, but I can pretty clearly see how someone may come away with "cheated" if they weren't really putting a lot of thought into it. It's not right, but it's understandable.

[ashbet]

Yeah, I totally agree with you (and, wow, PRESUMPTUOUS MUCH, on the part of that friend??!?)

In this case, the specific circumstances (which I'm not going to go into) justified the term "betrayal" and not "cheating."

There was lying, but he wasn't concealing his involvement with his other partner. His physical actions were boundary-crossing for me, but because he felt like there was ambiguity, I'm not going to use the word "cheating." I *am* going to say that he rules-lawyered the hell out of me and pushed my comfort zone way past the point where I was comfortable.

But he did honor some agreements about the level of physical interaction, so . . . I'm using a word that feels right, and that is one that he *admits* to, rather than having a giant fight about whether or not _x_ action counted as cheating -- and I don't think it went all the way there.

Since we're the ones who set the boundaries and know exactly what happened, we're the ones who get to define the words we use, in this case. He'll cop to betrayal, so that's the word I'm using.

-- A <3

P.S. Not saying you're arguing with me in this, just . . . I get annoyed when other people step in and try to redefine issues that happened in *my* relationship, just as you were annoyed for the same reason.

<3!

[crankygirlie.livejournal.com]

Oh, totally. I get it all the way. You have every right to ask for others to respect the facts as you give them instead of constructing their own narrative based on their own frames of reference.

My friend, god bless him... he was freaking out over his own shit, not mine, and I knew that already so it was easy not to take it personally. But it sure was an interesting conversation to have. Where "interesting" is more like "pretty sure someone's hair caught on fire at some point".