Lads Holiday - Did he cheat?

pookie82 · 23-08-2008 12:03AM

humanji wrote: »

Or as some would call it, a "Loving Relationship".

OP, take all advice on here with a pinch of salt. In the end it's up to you as to what you do, just be aware of all the possibilities and the repercussions of your actions.

With regard to the loving relationship comment - you can be in a perfectly loving relationship and still have doubts, you know. It's a very common human characteristic (well, for most - there seem to be some super-humans on here who disregard any possibility for human weakness under any circumstance once true love is involved). In fact it fills most of these pages. Now I never said it's a good thing. Wouldn't we all love to live in a world where promises were gospel and we never ever had cause to doubt another's sincerity as long as we were in love with them. Wouldn't it be lovely to be assured that despite the person you love being human, with all of the temptations and imperfections that that entails, they will never, ever, ever deliberately hurt you or make a stupid mistake in a moment of madness. Unfortunately for most people that doesn't work. And even more unfortunately, there's usually (I say USUALLY, not ALWAYS) a good reason for suspicion when it does arise.

I've seen a good few problems on here in my time with people (usually guys, but often girls too) saying that they've cheated (be it a kiss or whatever) and that they feel absolutely awful, that they were drunk/bored/mad at their partner and it happened and they hate it and they love their OH so much they want to die over what they did. Were they not in a loving relationship before this happened? Did they not just make a mistake? Do their OH's sit at home in blissful ignorance thinking I trust my OH implicitly there's just no chance in a million years they'd cheat. If I get a hint of evidence to the contrary I'll butt out and ignore it for I am in love!

You'll also find that those people are told more often than not by a majority of posters to shut up and be nice to their OH from now on and appreciate them and don't do it again. Now that they've realised how much the said OH means to them. Cheating does not exclusively occur in non-loving relationships. Believe me, I wish that were the case.

I do agree with your last point though. there's nothing that we can tell the OP that will sort this out for her. At the end of the day none of us know him, she does. We can't weigh up the likelihood of him cheating fairly based on one bebo message. She has to decide whether to let this one lie, or confront him and decide whether she'll believe his answer.

K-9 · 23-08-2008 03:02AM

The Bebo message is open to interpretation. It's like a text message and as another poster said, it can be misconstrued.

My problem is the OP doesn't trust him. He said he didn't have a Bebo page. She went onto Bebo and searched his name, why? Because she was riddled with insecurity previous to Bebo!

As she said he rarely uses it. I have a facebook page but I'm not a user.

OP, you have been searching for some tiny bit of evidence. Now you think you have it!

Are you going to believe him from now on?

Dragan · 23-08-2008 08:47AM

pookie82 wrote: »

To be honest any girl who ever comes on here with suspicions about a guy's antics, be it seeing an ex or fooling around, there's a barrage of guys just dying to accuse her of being a paranoid psychotic maniac who deserves to be alone. You'll regularly get the whole "god if I were with you your ass would be DUMPED!!!". IMO they take it too far. They have no idea what the guy in question has put them through or what he's guilty of. There was a thread on here a while back by a girl who found her boyf's secret face book account, clearly set up to accommodate communication with an ex who it eventually appeared he was meeting up with and chatting to on msn constantly behind the girlf's back. (One who'd also offered him sex just to top it off). He then did the classic of blaming the girlf's insecurity's for him having to hide his horribly disloyal actions. Yet all the girl got was hassle from guys telling her to respect his privacy and leave him be etc.

It's unbelievable. It doesn't seem to matter how much evidence they may have for a guy being unfaithful or whatever he's up to - they're told to butt out and have implicit trust in all he says and does. it's silly. How many people would still be in relationships where their partner was cheating if they butted out of texts, ignored warning signs and unquestionably trusted him no matter what the evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying that the evidence in this particular case is infinitely damning but in general, the "trust your OH and don't ever ask questions" mafia come into play in any problem like this on here.

*grins* I love your interpretation of the male advice and input given.

The majority of questions that i can see were aimed at why him being away was such a bad week for the OP and why all these images came to her over the course of that week.

Has an ex cheated on her?
Has she cheated on an ex and worries about karma?
Is she normally a bit on the insecure and untrustworthy side?
Has the boyfriend given her ANY other reason to believe he might have cheated?

Look, while i appreciate your point that not many people can seem to develop an undoubting trust between each other i also think a lot of people are FAR too quick to jump to conclusions that people are cheating.

The most telling line in your post for me is that "they have no idea what the guy has put them through, or what he is quilty of".

Why does he have to have put them through anything? Why does he have to be guilty of something? It's basically the complete opposite of how you describe the male response to these threads. It's working off the assumption that simply because the OP has reason to doubt, the guy has done something.

Also, i am not sure how much of PI you regularly read, but there have been plenty of threads from Male OP's describing doubts about their girlfriends and by and large it's the same guys giving the same reponses as they have hear.

You should trust your partner and you should be careful when you plan to accuse them of cheating.

Because thats what this is, and that is what asking them have they done it is as well.

I do like your Paragon of Loyalty description, i assume somewhere along the lines it was meant as a slight....because i too am male i assume in your mind i have done something to someone.

And indeed i have, but it was never and will never be cheating. Some blokes, in fact the majority, never will.

Fat Pie Lot · 23-08-2008 11:35AM

To the OP:

I think you should be looking more at yourself than your OH, to be perfectly honest. As other posters have mentioned, you appear to fairly insecure and have gone looking for evidence. The only evidence you have right now is a message left by a third party, one of your OH's friends. Not a girl and not a message left by your OH himself.

If you choose to bring this up with your OH, you will run the risk of the relationship breaking down, possibly to a point where it can't be rescued. He might well admit to cheating in which case what are you going to do? If he doesn't admit to cheating because a) you have no evidence or b) he didn't cheat, then what are you going to do? In the case of b), the trust has gone out of the window and from my experience of my own relationships and those of close friends, once the trust goes, that's it; it's nearly impossible to rebuild it again.

pookie82 · 23-08-2008 02:13PM

Dragan wrote: »

*grins* I love your interpretation of the male advice and input given.

The majority of questions that i can see were aimed at why him being away was such a bad week for the OP and why all these images came to her over the course of that week.

Has an ex cheated on her?
Has she cheated on an ex and worries about karma?
Is she normally a bit on the insecure and untrustworthy side?
Has the boyfriend given her ANY other reason to believe he might have cheated?

Look, while i appreciate your point that not many people can seem to develop an undoubting trust between each other i also think a lot of people are FAR too quick to jump to conclusions that people are cheating.

The most telling line in your post for me is that "they have no idea what the guy has put them through, or what he is quilty of".

Why does he have to have put them through anything? Why does he have to be guilty of something? It's basically the complete opposite of how you describe the male response to these threads. It's working off the assumption that simply because the OP has reason to doubt, the guy has done something.

Also, i am not sure how much of PI you regularly read, but there have been plenty of threads from Male OP's describing doubts about their girlfriends and by and large it's the same guys giving the same reponses as they have hear.

You should trust your partner and you should be careful when you plan to accuse them of cheating.

Because thats what this is, and that is what asking them have they done it is as well.

I do like your Paragon of Loyalty description, i assume somewhere along the lines it was meant as a slight....because i too am male i assume in your mind i have done something to someone.

And indeed i have, but it was never and will never be cheating. Some blokes, in fact the majority, never will.

Hey. First of all the paragon of loyalty comment (I looked back and found it, it wasn't in your quoted message) was not sarcastic. I realise it looked like that. I really meant it when I said "and that's great". Cos it is. To believe that the person you love would never ever cheat under any circumstance, to have that much trust, really is a great thing. I'm not being childish. I agree!!! But my point is that not everyone can have that. And some are persecuted for not having it. When it's understandable that some may find it very difficult to trust in the infinite goodness and loyalty of their (human) partner. I don't for a second think that because you're a bloke you'll automatically cheat. I'm sorry if it looks like I implied that somewhere. of course I know there are guys out there who never have and never will and I never suspected you of being guilty of it, just for the record.

The "they have no idea of what the guy put them through, or what he's guilty of" was in relation to the nature of probelms discussed on here. I'm saying that no one can tell you to trust someone implicitly and tell you that if you don't have that trust it's worth nothing etc. if they don't have the FULL story. I've seen from past experience that people come on here with a problem, get a few replies based on their OP, then come on again to slip in another detail that COMPLETELY changes the original post and shows how possible it is for the OP to be riddled with omissions.

Further up I made the point that no one on here can really give advice in this matter without knowing all of the answers to the questions you printed above. So why not get those answers before telling her she doesn't deserve a boyfriend without trust and if she were going out with people on here she'd automatically be ditched etc. Maybe she does have more reasons to mistrust him, maybe she doesn't. But we don't know the full story. My point was that I've seem people on here with stories that seem to reek of a guilty OH (not this one) being told to butt out and trust him or they don't deserve a BF. It's an issue that frequently arises and I just wanted to point out that it doesn't apply to every single loving relationship that it shall remain doubt-free forever. There's an attiude on here of "If you ask any questions, you don't deserve to be in a relationship". And that to me, is just silly.

Rosita · 23-08-2008 04:35PM

Originally Posted by humanji

You're the only person I've ever heard of who associates "tear it up" with sex.

That's odd, because I never associated that phrase with anything. They might have been referring to a beach-phone-book-tearing-up competition for all I know and maybe he is referring to their winning performance in the doubles. All I said was that in the context of the overall comments suspicions are not unreasonable. It might not be wildly off-topic to take "tear it up" as meaning something other than the phone book competition considering that in the sentence before was talking about riding and the one after about girls. The phrase is indeed open to interpretation but the context here suggests a certain interpretation.

The "girls just wanna have fun" line just alludes back to the friend shagging.

Only someone who knows what was going on in the head of the writer could possibly know that. It is merely your interpretation. The use of the word "we'd" suggests that more than the writer were participating. If he had written "I'm tried from all the riding, I told you I'd tear it up (rather than we'd) and girl just wanna have fun" then there'd be no issue. If some prat wants to brag that's fine.

To be honest, if I was the OP I'd worry more about my BF hanging around with him because he sounds like a twat, but that's just me.

Indeed. But why would you worry if the BF is absolutely beyond all suspicion?

You spoke earlier about the obvious explanation. The most obvious and simple explanation is that nothing happened. By taking alternative meanings to the message left, then you get a hint of possibly cheating.

I think this is misrepresenting it. I think you don't have to take a particularly wacky interpretation of it to get a hint of cheating. I think the fairly obvious interpretation is that they are bird of a feather and the message was left fully in the knowledge that its full meaning would be got. How someone could take "nothing happened" as the most obvious and simple explanation beats me.

Equally, you'll get the "all men are cheating bastards" brigade calling for his balls to be cut off.

The only people who have written that kind of stuff here are the men who seem to think that exaggerating and blowing it out of all proportion amounts to a defence. This is one situation on which we were invited to give an opinion and the opinion of a few is that there are grounds for some level of suspicion - no more, no less. The "all men are cheating bastards" is just some kind of coping mechanism it seems to me, and bears no relation to what has been written here by any females.

OP, take all advice on here with a pinch of salt. In the end it's up to you as to what you do, just be aware of all the possibilities and the repercussions of your actions.

If you give the OP credit for any intelligence, this goes without saying. The decison is ultimately hers, but clearly she decided to consider objective views on the matter in advance of that. The wisdom of that is another debate but if she is to comepltely ignore all comment here she is unlikey to have canvassed opinion in the first place.

[/QUOTE]

Rosita · 23-08-2008 04:36PM

Apologies for the bold writing by the way.

Rosita · 23-08-2008 04:45PM

Fat Pie Lot wrote: »

To the OP:

If you choose to bring this up with your OH, you will run the risk of the relationship breaking down, possibly to a point where it can't be rescued.

If they guy is innocent, surely he will be quite happy to field legitimate and reasonbly phrased questions? I would say if he reacts in a way that risks the relationship breaking down rather than in a way which is genuinely reassuring then he may be hiding something.

No reasonable person would argue but that the bebo comments, in these particular circumstances, are not slightly suspicious. And presumably an innocnet person would be happy to reassure. How the OP reacts to that is her own buisness obviously and presumably will be influenced by other factors in the relationship to which we are not privy.

Bu the contstant criticism of the OP for looking for evidence is a red herring. How was she to know what would be on his bebo website? It is perfectly normal and rational to put someone's name into a bebo search so that's hardly a capital offence, hardly a major invasion of privacy. Bebo is in the public domain. You cannot have a bebo site and then complain if someone sees it.

Fat Pie Lot · 23-08-2008 05:28PM

Rosita wrote: »

If they guy is innocent, surely he will be quite happy to field legitimate and reasonbly phrased questions? I would say if he reacts in a way that risks the relationship breaking down rather than in a way which is genuinely reassuring then he may be hiding something.

No reasonable person would argue but that the bebo comments, in these particular circumstances, are not slightly suspicious. And presumably an innocnet person would be happy to reassure. How the OP reacts to that is her own buisness obviously and presumably will be influenced by other factors in the relationship to which we are not privy.

Bu the contstant criticism of the OP for looking for evidence is a red herring. How was she to know what would be on his bebo website? It is perfectly normal and rational to put someone's name into a bebo search so that's hardly a capital offence, hardly a major invasion of privacy. Bebo is in the public domain. You cannot have a bebo site and then complain if someone sees it.

Irrespective of whether the guy is innocent or not, different people react in different ways to various stimuli. Being accused of cheating is one such example, even if phrased in a reasonable way. If someone were to approach me and accuse me of cheating based on a third party message that's vague at best, I might well get angry about it because I think it's ridiculous. The OP's OH might not. I have known both men and women to just quit at that point. It might not end my relationship, but I guess that all depends on circumstances.

I should point out that I interpret the phrase “tear it up” to mean a general good time that could mean long days, short nights, booze, nightclubs, possibly drugs and, yes, sex. The fact the friend used “we” rather than “I” just indicates to me that the OP's OH was involved with his friends. If they were off shagging girls, the OP's OH might have been nothing more than a wingman. I really can't see that there's any justification for suspicion here.

Anyway, the relationship is six months old. The OP's OH might think that if this is what happens after six months, maybe he'd be better cutting his losses now and splitting? If the OP tells her OH that his week away wasn't a good week for her because she was picturing him in strip clubs or surrounded by a bevvy of scantily-clad beauties on the beach, he might well think that the OH is paranoid or too high maintenance or doesn't trust him.

I'm not saying that the OP's OH will do/think these these things, but just that I have seen this circumstance happen before (i.e. accusation with no actual evidence) and it has resulted in the end of the relationships. If the OP wants to address the holiday with her OH, then she must at least consider, however pessimistically that is, that it could mean the end of the relationship.

Rosita · 23-08-2008 06:09PM

Fat Pie Lot wrote: »

I should point out that I interpret the phrase “tear it up” to mean a general good time that could mean long days, short nights, booze, nightclubs, possibly drugs and, yes, sex. The fact the friend used “we” rather than “I” just indicates to me that the OP's OH was involved with his friends. If they were off shagging girls, the OP's OH might have been nothing more than a wingman. I really can't see that there's any justification for suspicion here.

It is strange that you cannot see the justification for suspicion considering you made the case for it in the first two sentences.

People can criticise the method by which the sliver of evidence was stumbled upon but the suspicion - and that is all it is - is reasonable.

It gets difficult after that. If she tries to look for information in other ways rather than asking him it seems "she's insecure". If she askes him directly apparently "she's high-maintenance".

But the problems with moving the situation on do not suddenly make the initail suspicion unreasonable. The guy may indeed have been "nothing more than a wingman", but the possibility that he got laid is obviously higher in that company than if he was elsewhere.

Fat Pie Lot · 23-08-2008 06:41PM

Rosita wrote: »

It is strange that you cannot see the justification for suspicion considering you made the case for it in the first two sentences.

People can criticise the method by which the sliver of evidence was stumbled upon but the suspicion - and that is all it is - is reasonable.

It gets difficult after that. If she tries to look for information in other ways rather than asking him it seems "she's insecure". If she askes him directly apparently "she's high-maintenance".

But the problems with moving the situation on do not suddenly make the initail suspicion unreasonable. The guy may indeed have been "nothing more than a wingman", but the possibility that he got laid is obviously higher in that company than if he was elsewhere.

I'm not making the case for anything. I'm just pointing out that if the OP takes these suspicions to her OH based on the information in the original post, then there's a chance (I don't know how big) that this act alone could end the relationship, even if the OH is innocent. I've seen this happen before and in the majority of cases that I'm aware of (through friends etc.) the OH feels there is no trust in the relationship and is forced to end it.

As I've already stated, I don't believe that the message on Bebo is evidence of any wrong doing on the part of the OP's OH. You can analyse the message all you want, but there's nothing there to suggest any cheating. As I've said “tear it up” is a general term for having a good time. It's a slang term, but I've never heard it used to refer to sex alone.

I'm making no judgements on whether the OP's OH is innocent or guilty and taking no sides in that matter because I don't have enough information. I'm merely pointing out possible outcomes if she goes to the OH on the basis of that first post.

If someone came to me in the early days of a relationship and accused me of cheating based on a message left by a mate on a website and admitted that she'd been having mental images of me going to strip clubs and being surrounded by babes on the beach, I'd consider her high maintenance. I'd wonder if I could ever go away with my mates again without this raising its head. Would I ever be able to arrange a holiday with my mates without it turning into an argument because she had a bad time while I was away at my previous holiday? These are all valid points that could become a reality if she chooses to confront the OH now based on this non-evidence.

If the OP trusted her OH, this wouldn't be an issue because she wouldn't be reading anything into a vague sentence. To paraphrase the OP, she clearly doesn't trust her OH.

Rosita · 23-08-2008 07:23PM

Fat Pie Lot wrote: »

As I've already stated, I don't believe that the message on Bebo is evidence of any wrong doing on the part of the OP's OH. You can analyse the message all you want, but there's nothing there to suggest any cheating. As I've said “tear it up” is a general term for having a good time. It's a slang term, but I've never heard it used to refer to sex alone.

But you accepted in your last post the term "tear it up" might include sex.
It seems inconsistent to hold that view, while at the same time saying there's nothing there [in the bebo message] to suggest any cheating.
Surely it suggests it especially when taken in context i.e. sandwiched between a reference to "tired from riding" and "girls just wanna have fun" - while did he not reference the other activities that might be included in "tearing it up".

It could well be construed as a knowing reference to someone who was well up for it and thoroughly involved.

Jack B. Badd · 23-08-2008 07:44PM

Rosita wrote: »

If they guy is innocent, surely he will be quite happy to field legitimate and reasonbly phrased questions? I would say if he reacts in a way that risks the relationship breaking down rather than in a way which is genuinely reassuring then he may be hiding something.

Most people are hiding something from someone, even from their OH. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're cheating. You can be in a loving, trusting relationship without disclosing everything to your OH. You're not obliged to give up your privacy just because you enter into a relationship. In fact, a certain level of privacy is healthy.
The "if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear" argument doesn't hold weight because people aren't designed to live with every aspect of their lives open to scrutiny.

Fat Pie Lot · 23-08-2008 07:55PM

Rosita wrote: »

But you accepted in your last post the term "tear it up" might include sex.
It seems inconsistent to hold that view, while at the same time saying there's nothing there [in the bebo message] to suggest any cheating.
Surely it suggests it especially when taken in context i.e. sandwiched between a reference to "tired from riding" and "girls just wanna have fun" - while did he not reference the other activities that might be included in "tearing it up".

It could well be construed as a knowing reference to someone who was well up for it and thoroughly involved.

It might include sex. But then again, the definition that I suggested in that post could equally contain any combination of long days, short nights, booze, nightclubs, possibly drugs or sex. I never mentioned scooting about on mopeds or having pedalo battles in the sea or eating vast quantities of ice lollies, but they might equally apply to a sun and beach holiday. It was only to give an idea of what the phrase means and to point out that it doesn't necessarily mean sex.

If you want to read that the OH was cheating into the bebo message, then you go for it. Personally, I don't see anything of the sort and it's certainly not “evidence” of any wrongdoing by the OP's OH. It's circumstantial or interpretation, not fact. If she wants to accuse her OH of cheating based on that, she can. Based on my experiences of similar situations, the relationship will be over before the end of the night, either way.

K-9 · 23-08-2008 08:11PM

Rosita wrote: »

It is strange that you cannot see the justification for suspicion considering you made the case for it in the first two sentences.

People can criticise the method by which the sliver of evidence was stumbled upon but the suspicion - and that is all it is - is reasonable.

It gets difficult after that. If she tries to look for information in other ways rather than asking him it seems "she's insecure". If she askes him directly apparently "she's high-maintenance".

But the problems with moving the situation on do not suddenly make the initail suspicion unreasonable. The guy may indeed have been "nothing more than a wingman", but the possibility that he got laid is obviously higher in that company than if he was elsewhere.

The trust issues seem to predate the Bebo message, that's the point!

The OP was insecure about him going away previous to all this. It's as if she's looking for something to prove herself right.

Edit: The problem at the bottom of all of this is she doesn't trust him to go away on a lads holiday.

Rosita · 23-08-2008 11:01PM

Fat Pie Lot wrote: »

1) It might include sex. But then again, the definition that I suggested in that post could equally contain any combination of long days, short nights, booze, nightclubs, possibly drugs or sex. I never mentioned scooting about on mopeds or having pedalo battles in the sea or eating vast quantities of ice lollies, but they might equally apply to a sun and beach holiday. It was only to give an idea of what the phrase means and to point out that it doesn't necessarily mean sex.

2) If you want to read that the OH was cheating into the bebo message, then you go for it. Personally, I don't see anything of the sort and it's certainly not “evidence” of any wrongdoing by the OP's OH. It's circumstantial or interpretation, not fact. If she wants to accuse her OH of cheating based on that, she can. Based on my experiences of similar situations, the relationship will be over before the end of the night, either way.

1) This doesn't change one iota what you originally said i.e. that it might include sex.

2) It is evidence. It is not compelling. It is not on its own indicative of anything other than that there might be some kind of case to answer. But it is enough to render the suspicions of the OP, perhaps not correct ultimately, but reasonable in the first instance.

I didn't read into the bebo message that the guy was cheating. I read into it that a question was raised. I have no idea what he was at, so that's what I'll "go for".

I will not choose to advise the OP on her next move but the idea that you must ignore everything bar the most absolutely incontrovertible evidence of infidelity in case a row is caused is laughable.

pookie82 · 23-08-2008 11:15PM

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

Most people are hiding something from someone, even from their OH. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're cheating. You can be in a loving, trusting relationship without disclosing everything to your OH. You're not obliged to give up your privacy just because you enter into a relationship. In fact, a certain level of privacy is healthy.
The "if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear" argument doesn't hold weight because people aren't designed to live with every aspect of their lives open to scrutiny.

I'm confused by this statement. There are loads of things I don't tell my OH on a daily basis. Things I'll probably never tell him. But if he decided to read every single thing in my e-mail account now (I don't have soc. networking pages so that's all he could read) and my texts, he'd find absolutely nothing incriminating. There's big difference between not telling someone you e-mailed your old pen pal in France the other day because it just didn't happen to come up, and in HIDING something from your OH that they'd flip if they found out about. I think the if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear statement is perfectly valid. There are things you might not mention, there should not be things you HIDE. Big difference.

I don't get the hoo ha about people saying if their OH asked if they'd cheated they'd be really angry and ditch them. Why??? Not allowed to ask a question in a healthy relationship now?? Not allowed to have any doubt ever enter your mind due to circumstance or past events?? I was never aware of these rules. If my OH asks if I've cheated because a comment on bebo made it look like I might have, I'd assure him that I hadn't. i wouldn't flip out and tell him that he's supposed to implicitly trust me at ALL times regardless of what ever might happen in the future to make him think otherwise for a moment. That's far more crippling to me than a relationship which allows for open communication and a share of concerns without threats of instant dumping.

Jack B. Badd · 24-08-2008 12:38AM

pookie82 wrote: »

I'm confused by this statement. There are loads of things I don't tell my OH on a daily basis. Things I'll probably never tell him. But if he decided to read every single thing in my e-mail account now (I don't have soc. networking pages so that's all he could read) and my texts, he'd find absolutely nothing incriminating. There's big difference between not telling someone you e-mailed your old pen pal in France the other day because it just didn't happen to come up, and in HIDING something from your OH that they'd flip if they found out about. I think the if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear statement is perfectly valid. There are things you might not mention, there should not be things you HIDE. Big difference.

This indicates that you consider yourself obliged to disclose information of any nature to your partner if they question you regarding it.

Fysh · 24-08-2008 12:44AM

pookie82 wrote: »

I don't get the hoo ha about people saying if their OH asked if they'd cheated they'd be really angry and ditch them. Why??? Not allowed to ask a question in a healthy relationship now?? Not allowed to have any doubt ever enter your mind due to circumstance or past events?? I was never aware of these rules. If my OH asks if I've cheated because a comment on bebo made it look like I might have, I'd assure him that I hadn't. i wouldn't flip out and tell him that he's supposed to implicitly trust me at ALL times regardless of what ever might happen in the future to make him think otherwise for a moment. That's far more crippling to me than a relationship which allows for open communication and a share of concerns without threats of instant dumping.

If you have doubts about your relationship with your partner, you should discuss them to try and eliminate their source. If the source of your doubts is the suspicion that your partner will, when given a chance, hop the nearest person of their chosen gender, then maybe you shouldn't be in a relationship. Trusting someone is about choosing to believe that they will do right by you in the absence of any knowledge of whether they actually do so or not. Trust implicitly involves making yourself vulnerable to someone; thus, checking up on someone implies not trusting them, whether or not the checking up takes the form of asking whether they cheated on you or sneakily checking their email/texts/etc. Whether or not that works within the framework of your relationship depends on the two individuals involved, but there are numerous people who would consider the breach of trust involved in being asked if they have cheated to be a significant sign of problems in the relationship.

On a separate note, if you distrust a partner enough to suspect they've cheated, why trust that they'd give you an honest answer when asked in the first place?

Karen_* · 24-08-2008 01:01AM

Well the OP hasn't posted anything else and who can blame her? I really don't get why when anyone posts in PI that they have to be lambasted that they're insecure and have issues. Yes they do have issues and thats why they're posting here. To get advice. In an advice forum.

It was quite reasonable that it would cross her mind that he OH would cheat since she doesn't know him that long and he's going on a boozy holiday with the lads. A little insecure? Aren't we all? But she wasn't being a little insecure for no reason.

Google and bebo and the like are in the public domain. And are and have search facilities. I assume so that people can search for people they know. And I might be the only one in Ireland to do it but I'd google someone if I started going out with them. I google Prince and other celebs too. Is that ok?

She could be totally obsessed too with finding something and maybe runs searches all day every day and checks texts messages. Well then maybe she has trust issues. But she didn't say she did that. She looked for him on bebo. big deal.

Jack B. Badd · 24-08-2008 01:05AM

As an aside, trusting your partner does not mean that you never experience insecurities. However, in my experience it's quite possible to discuss insecurities with your OH as the irrational emotions that they usually are. Acknowledging that you have irrational insecurities does not equate to accusing your partner of cheating or asking them outright if they have - not exactly a world apart from each other. The OP being insecure is not her boyfriend's fault. She can acknowledge these insecurities as her problem to work through (with his help if he's willing) but projecting them onto him probably isn't going to be well received. Asking him if he has cheated may very well be taken as an accusation - in the same way that asking him if he has stolen 50 quid from her handbag would probably be taken as an accusation of theft.

scorpioishere · 24-08-2008 09:40AM

Am sure he did have sex there. I've known many friends who cheat on their bf and gf as well. Nowadays their's no trust in a relationship. I've seen lots happenning and am talking about experience.

Seth Brundle · 24-08-2008 10:05AM

scorpioishere wrote: »

Am sure he did have sex there. I've known many friends who cheat on their bf and gf as well. Nowadays their's no trust in a relationship. I've seen lots happenning and am talking about experience.

Thats a really silly comment.
You cannot assume that the thousands of relationships out there are all based on infidelity because of a few personal experiences.
As for the OP; she doesn't trust her partner and it really looks like she wants to believe that he was unfaithful. Whether or not he was unfaithful, I don't give the relationship much hope given the OPs lack of trust.

Fat Pie Lot · 24-08-2008 10:38AM

Rosita wrote: »

1) This doesn't change one iota what you originally said i.e. that it might include sex.

It also doesn't change that my definition of "tearing it up" might include 100 different things and yet you will still focus on "sex".

Rosita wrote: »

2) It is evidence. It is not compelling. It is not on its own indicative of anything other than that there might be some kind of case to answer. But it is enough to render the suspicions of the OP, perhaps not correct ultimately, but reasonable in the first instance.

No. The OP was already suspicious of her OH, based on her own thoughts about the OH during his week away. This tainted her opinion when she read the message. Had she trusted the OH completely, I reckon she would have not had suspicious thoughts when reading that message (though, she would never have been on Bebo to begin with). This is a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the OP.

Rosita wrote: »

I will not choose to advise the OP on her next move but the idea that you must ignore everything bar the most absolutely incontrovertible evidence of infidelity in case a row is caused is laughable.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if the OP wants to tackle her OH about this (as she's said herself) based on the flimsiest of reasons, that's her call. If someone were to accuse me of cheating (or anything else, really), I'd want them to have something more than paranoia and a throwaway comment on a social networking site. Depending on the OH, this could easily result in the end of their relationship even if the OH hasn't been cheating.

K-9 · 24-08-2008 11:25AM

kbannon wrote: »

T
As for the OP; she doesn't trust her partner and it really looks like she wants to believe that he was unfaithful. Whether or not he was unfaithful, I don't give the relationship much hope given the OPs lack of trust.

You got it in one! Will this insecurity now spread to his nights out? Let's face it, if he'll cheat on a week away he can cheat at anytime! The OP has to learn to deal with that and it isn't by checking his Bebo etc., texts etc!

pookie82 · 24-08-2008 11:53AM

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

This indicates that you consider yourself obliged to disclose information of any nature to your partner if they question you regarding it.

I don't consider myself obliged - I just do it!! Why wouldn't I? I'm in love. I'm sharing my entire life with them - that means all of it. Unless I have something to hide of course. I don't tell my OH everything as I wouldn't have enough hours in the day for every detail - but if he asks me anything I'll tell him unless I'm desperately guilty and have something to hide.

This is genuinely amusing me. To assume that you have the right to keep all sorts from your partner if you wish but that they have to trust you implicitly, never doubt your word or deed and never ask questions, or they'll get their insecure asses dumped.

Healthy.

pookie82 · 24-08-2008 12:08PM

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

The OP being insecure is not her boyfriend's fault.

For the record, we don't know that. The OP may not have given us enough information on that. She gave us the latest story, and maybe that's all there is. But if there's a history of suspicious antics on his part or a history of him messing around before then it's not entirely and solely her own fault.

This was the point earlier about making statements like this. We don't know what he has or hasn't done in the past. Past OP's have proven that in many cases the original post doesn't always contain every nugget of relevant information. So until the OP answers the questions that Dragan posted earlier, statements like that are jumping the gun.

Fysh · 24-08-2008 01:06PM

pookie82 wrote: »

For the record, we don't know that. The OP may not have given us enough information on that. She gave us the latest story, and maybe that's all there is. But if there's a history of suspicious antics on his part or a history of him messing around before then it's not entirely and solely her own fault.

We know that she wasn't happy about him going away and had trust issues because her original post contained the following:

"I trust him but boys will be boys on these trips and the old 'what happens on the road, stays on the road' rule usually applies"
"I kept picturing him on beaches surrounded by beautiful women, in strip clubs etc"

Which says that either she has insecurities (perfectly understandable but something that is not the boyfriend's fault, although he may be able to help her work through them if she talks to him about it) or she actually doesn't trust him. Whether or not there's a history on his part that has made her suspicious, or a history on her part of being insecure about her partner's fidelity, we don't know. But based on the above we can say that she either doesn't trust him and is trying to pretend she does, or that her trust is compromised by insecurity.

Someone else summarised my personal opinion on these matters in another thread like this a while back, and the sentiment was something along the lines of "If I'm in love with someone, it doesn't matter if I suddenly find myself knee-deep in naked nymphomaniacs, because whatever they are they're not the person I love". That to me is the kind of trust that underpins a succesful relationship. It's not necessarily easy to trust someone to that point, but it's what people should aim for, and I find it very strange when people decide instead to believe that such a trust is impossible therefore they'll spy on their partner instead, as though suspicion and supervision are healthier fundamentals for a relationship. Of course, that's all my personal view on it, which isn't really that useful here in the context of the OP's situation.

The fundamental issue, however, is one of trust. If she didn't trust him to go away on a lad's holiday, she should have that conversation with him. Some people are comfortable in relationships while maintaining a degree of independent existence, others are happy sharing everything with their partners. Regardless of your personal preference, the important thing is to establish how your preference matches up with your partner, because if you have differing views on privacy you'll run into trust problems sooner or later. Which means the OP needs to sit down, talk to the boyfriend about how she feels regarding him going away on a lad's holiday, and some of his friends that she doesn't like. If she wants to really clear the air and sort everything out, she should also tell him about looking for his Bebo page and explain why she was worried. Whatever happens from there, at least they'll actually have some communication going on.

pookie82 · 24-08-2008 02:37PM

Fysh wrote: »

The fundamental issue, however, is one of trust. If she didn't trust him to go away on a lad's holiday, she should have that conversation with him. Some people are comfortable in relationships while maintaining a degree of independent existence, others are happy sharing everything with their partners. Regardless of your personal preference, the important thing is to establish how your preference matches up with your partner, because if you have differing views on privacy you'll run into trust problems sooner or later. Which means the OP needs to sit down, talk to the boyfriend about how she feels regarding him going away on a lad's holiday, and some of his friends that she doesn't like. If she wants to really clear the air and sort everything out, she should also tell him about looking for his Bebo page and explain why she was worried. Whatever happens from there, at least they'll actually have some communication going on.

I completely agree with this. There are differing levels of privacy and trust in different relationships. Over in a another thread there's a girl whose BF has started hiding his phone from her when previously she could read his texts anytime with ease. A couple of people came on and said that shouldn't go on, that it's an invasion of privacy etc but that's not for them to decide. All couples are different. I just don't think there should be any case in a relationship where you develop an insecurity or a trust issue due to some ambiguous actions/comments/feelings and you can't share them cos you're at risk of being dumped on the spot for having doubts. The OP should be able to share her concerns. It's up to her Bf to decide if her trust issues and bebo "snooping" are out of order based on how their relationship is. It's ridiculous to assume that she's automatically wrong to suspect anything and should prepare for a break up on the spot if she admits that she does.

On the being knee deep in nymphos and being in love comment though - Of course it's possible to be that faithful and that committed to someone else and that unshakable in your love for someone. But it's all very easy to make promises as long as you remain untested. If any guy here has been knee deep in naked hot chicks and hasn't touched a hair on their head due to the fact that he's in love, fair enough. But there are a lot (of men AND women) who would swear faithfulness and succumb later in a moment of weakness. Even if they are in love. It's an unfortunate fact of life. Most cheaters don't give a sh*t about their OH but you'll also find a few who do it DESPITE being in love.

I don't have a problem with anyone saying that despite being in a room with naked available models or whatever they'd remain faithful to the ones they love. That's great. I'm not suspecting that they're lying either. But I do want to point out that not all cheaters are hideously awful people who don't love their OH. Some make mistakes because they're human.

[I just realised that it probably sounds like I've cheated on someone I love or have taken back a cheater or something.... I haven't! It's just the way I feel about what I see around me all the time].

K-9 · 24-08-2008 03:13PM

OK, it isn't a crime to put your partners name in Bebo and search it, however the OP then clearly believes he cheated from that message.

Her insecurity over the holiday, which is understandable, has now led her to view that message as evidence that he cheated.

I'd need a lot more evidence which the OP hasn't mentioned, because 2+2 could well = 5 at this stage.

Instead of thinking it's probably a mate (who she admits she doesn't like) messing, she now assumes he has cheated!

It's too little evidence for somebody to assume that and she needs to be aware of that for this relationship and for any others, if that maybe!

Lads Holiday - Did he cheat?

Comments