Trust and Relationships
- When one person doesn't trust another person, it hurts both people. The one who doesn't have trust for the other gets hurt because they become paranoid and think the other person is always hurting and betraying them. The person who is being mistrusted gets hurt because they don't have the ability to effect change. This sets up the creation of limits and boundaries.
For example, if a wife thinks her husband is cheating, she will always be fearful and hurt because he will always be betraying her trust (whether he is cheating or not). The husband will be hard pressed to prove that he is not cheating without putting himself into a situation where his wife can dictate what is and is not acceptable behavior in the form of limits or boundaries.
- When a person doesn't trust another person, it makes the person who is not being trusted fearful of the other person. The person who is not trusted will eventually and inevitably do all the things they would otherwise do in their idea of a trusting relationship because that is their right as an individual. However, they will be afraid of telling the distrusting person the truth. The person who is not trusted then begins to not tell the person who is not trusting them everything. This is the beginning of lies.
For example, a guy fears his boyfriend is up to no good because he's been spending lots of time partying. The guy starts to not trust his b/f. To appease the guy, his b/f will stop partying until he realizes that in a trusting relationship, he would be able to party with no problems. The b/f keeps partying, but it is done behind the guy's back. Had the guy trusted his b/f in partying, there would be no reason to go behind his back. However, because mistrust is present, the boyfriend begins to lie in order to cut a compromise between appeasing the guy and living his own life the way he thinks he should be able to.
- When one person places limits or boundaries on another, the other person is always under pressure to perform at a certain level. This sets up expectation for one person and makes that person a specimen that is always under observation. When a boundary is set, it not only breeds distrust, but it also makes the other person conform to a standard that is not their own. This, in turn, changes the chemistry of the original relationship into a dominant and recessive relationship: the dominant person having control and dealing the mistrust and the recessive person always trying to prove that they should be trusted.
For example, a girl tells her girlfriend that she shouldn't hang around her ex-g/f. The girl's g/f is now under pressure to not hang around her ex-g/f. The girl, after having set the boundary, might feel that her g/f is still betraying her trust, despite the boundary she set. The g/f always feels like she has to console the girl even though she is not doing anything wrong. The boundary has set up a dichotomy wherein the girl is demanding something and it is up to the g/f to deliver.
- When one person becomes dominant, and the other recessive, the recessive one is really the one in power. The dominant person sets up a standard that the recessive one must meet. However, the recessive person's only job is to stop playing into the standard, and the dominant person's world will collapse. The dominant person becomes and stays dominant on the premise that the recessive will stay and keep meeting the standards set for them by the dominant person.
For example, a man abuses his wife. The man's abuse depends on the wife staying abused. As soon as she asserts herself to the point where she will no longer tolerate her husband's abuse, the husband no longer has dominancy over his wife. However, as long as the wife keeps taking the abuse, she will always stay abused.
For example, if a wife thinks her husband is cheating, she will always be fearful and hurt because he will always be betraying her trust (whether he is cheating or not). The husband will be hard pressed to prove that he is not cheating without putting himself into a situation where his wife can dictate what is and is not acceptable behavior in the form of limits or boundaries.
- When a person doesn't trust another person, it makes the person who is not being trusted fearful of the other person. The person who is not trusted will eventually and inevitably do all the things they would otherwise do in their idea of a trusting relationship because that is their right as an individual. However, they will be afraid of telling the distrusting person the truth. The person who is not trusted then begins to not tell the person who is not trusting them everything. This is the beginning of lies.
For example, a guy fears his boyfriend is up to no good because he's been spending lots of time partying. The guy starts to not trust his b/f. To appease the guy, his b/f will stop partying until he realizes that in a trusting relationship, he would be able to party with no problems. The b/f keeps partying, but it is done behind the guy's back. Had the guy trusted his b/f in partying, there would be no reason to go behind his back. However, because mistrust is present, the boyfriend begins to lie in order to cut a compromise between appeasing the guy and living his own life the way he thinks he should be able to.
- When one person places limits or boundaries on another, the other person is always under pressure to perform at a certain level. This sets up expectation for one person and makes that person a specimen that is always under observation. When a boundary is set, it not only breeds distrust, but it also makes the other person conform to a standard that is not their own. This, in turn, changes the chemistry of the original relationship into a dominant and recessive relationship: the dominant person having control and dealing the mistrust and the recessive person always trying to prove that they should be trusted.
For example, a girl tells her girlfriend that she shouldn't hang around her ex-g/f. The girl's g/f is now under pressure to not hang around her ex-g/f. The girl, after having set the boundary, might feel that her g/f is still betraying her trust, despite the boundary she set. The g/f always feels like she has to console the girl even though she is not doing anything wrong. The boundary has set up a dichotomy wherein the girl is demanding something and it is up to the g/f to deliver.
- When one person becomes dominant, and the other recessive, the recessive one is really the one in power. The dominant person sets up a standard that the recessive one must meet. However, the recessive person's only job is to stop playing into the standard, and the dominant person's world will collapse. The dominant person becomes and stays dominant on the premise that the recessive will stay and keep meeting the standards set for them by the dominant person.
For example, a man abuses his wife. The man's abuse depends on the wife staying abused. As soon as she asserts herself to the point where she will no longer tolerate her husband's abuse, the husband no longer has dominancy over his wife. However, as long as the wife keeps taking the abuse, she will always stay abused.
posted by Quyen @ 8:36 AM
17 Comments:
At 9:51 AM ,
Kis Lee said...
i agree with you on most points, except the last paragraph. for some women, it's not a matter of asserting yourself or allowing abuse to occur. some women (or men) are unable to leave because of the lack of resources.
for example, a woman is more likely to stay in an abusive situation where her partner is the sole provider of income. domestic violence organizations do provide temporary relief in the form of shelters and what not, but too few provide resources like job training/placement. also, some abused women are immigrants who are married to citizens and they are afraid of deportation. some women are afraid their spouse will take away their children. there are many reasons why a woman would think she has no choice but to stay in the situation.
anyway i don't mean to ramble. i've seen too many women become trapped in abusive relationships. unless you've been in that position, it's hard to identify the why factor, i.e. why does she stay?
At 11:17 AM ,
Quyen said...
Little Eyes, I only meant the last proof as a description of how the dominant is only in a place of power because they have convinced the recessive that the dominant has control or power. The real power lies in the hands of the recessive because all the recessive has to do is not let themselves be swayed by the influence the dominant has over them.
The abusive relationship was an example of how dominants keep recessive people down... It was not a commentary on how or why they get out of relationships. This model could also be applied to the working class (peasants) and ruling class (rich) and the fact that the only reason the rich are in control is because the peasants believe the rich are in control. When a peasant asserts itself (through revolution, perhaps) then the rich are no longer in power. The power lies in the peasants (recessive).
At 12:52 PM ,
Chris said...
Good blog, but you manage to avoid addressing that when someone has breached the bonds of trust, it is their responsibility to cease doing what caused that breach in the first place. Although this creates a situation in which boundaries are placed, I think most people would agree that boundaries aren't always a negative thing. For example, when a wife has caught her husband cheating on him multiple times, it is fully within her rights to establish a boundary that states: you are not to cheat again, or you are not to go out with those women again. The husband has done nothing to prove that this boundary should not be established. Rather, the wife is doing her best to keep the relationship together and see whether or not the husband will care enough about her to abide by the boundary until he has proved himself trustworthy oncemore.
You say lying leads to boundaries, but is it necessarily always lies that lead to them? What if someone cheats, but doesn't tell his wife about it? Is that a lie, or an omission of the truth. And can we really break things down to the point where we establish whether it is the lies or the acts themselves that lead to the formation of boundaries? In any case, boundaries are necessary when someone has broken the trust.
Now Quyen, you would have me believe that bondaries are a problem - that they're at the core of what will destroy a relationship. I would say otherwise. Just as in the case of the wife who was cheated on, the boundary has to be established if there's any hope of the husband ever earning her trust back. Now, you may call me foolish, but I don't think going out, late at night, with women you've cheated with, or coming home smelling of beers and girls, is the right way to go about regaining trust.
I do agree with you that boundaries create a strange situation where one person has to go through fire to prove they're trustworthy again, but that's their fault. They broke the trust, they fix it. Is it hard work? It sure is, but if rebuilding that trust means something to them, then they put in the effort needed to regain it. I don't think it's our job to feel pity for the person who violated the trust. If a man cheats, it's his fault his wife or girlfriend doesn't trust him. If a woman lies to her boyfriend without rhyme or reason, it's his fault he can't trust her. If a friend tells you they have feelings for you, that they're crying from the happiness of discovering you also like them, and that they want to date you, but then decide to have sex the next night with a random person, it's their fault you can't trust that they care for you.
It seems strange to me that you would argue against this cycle of boundaries. How else do you propose the offender prove he or she is worthy of trust once more? Am I supposed to feel bad when I hear that someone is being forced to go earn something they thought was okay to throw away in the first place? As for the cycles, although the cycle repeats itself in terms of boundaries, and the presence of a dominant and recessive party, the cycle itself can be broken and changes with each repetition.
The first time through, the mistrust is based directly upon what the offender has done to their partner. It is based on the continuation of those activities. When the man continues to cheat on his wife, even after she has been kind enough to trust him and place no boundaries, boundaries like no other are born, boundaries designed to make him pay for destroying the olive branch extended to him and the unbelievable trust that was placed in him. Similarly, when someone has been lied to, or betrayed in any such other way, over and over again, boundaries are established. Contrary to what was said about the cycle, boundaries do not always spring up after the initial breach of trust. Some, among us, choose to suspend our disbelief and continue offering chances until we can no longer tell ourselves that our partner is going to change on their own.
The second time around, mistrust exists in the hearts and minds of the betrayed because they are struggling to forget the pain they have been dragged through, because they find it hard to place their faith once more in someone who has so many times shown their unwillingness to change, their lack of concern for the relationship or the trust they once shared with their partner. Quyen, you know about this, because you still deal with the pain caused when some of your ex's cheated on you. You remember waking them up late at night to make lists of the girls they knew, remember interrogating them about their every activity, following them everywhere they went. You remember the screaming and punching and crying (on your part). What suddenly makes it wrong to place boundaries? Is it changing the roles? How can someone trust their partner when their partner continues to do the very things that breached the trust in the first place? How can they bring themselves to believe their partner even cares about having their trust?
However, unlike this post, I definitely believe this cycle can be broken. Unfortunately, it requires that both people care sufficiently enough about the relationship to want to fix it. Yes, there are going to be boundaries, but the mistrusted must realize this is of his or her own doing and accept that there are going to be things he or she has to do to regain the lost trust. This seems simple enough in theory, but how often does someone who seriously breaks your trust care enough to go through the hard job of rebuilding it? How often do they complain and moan that it's not fair - that they shouldn't have to pay for what's in the past? How fair was it when they hurt their partner!? We know what the Lifetime Channel thinks about this.
On the other hand, if the mistrusted actually takes it upon themselves to take responsibility for what they did, the problem still remains: will their partner ever be able to trust them again, what kinds of hoops will they have to endure to regain that trust? Have they scarred their partner so deeply that the partner may never fully regain their trust and live in absolute paranoia? People who've been cheated on know just how hard and sometimes impossible it may seem to ever recover and rebuild that trust. How about when the mistrusted makes good, but goes back to their old ways again just as their partner's trust was beginning its slow, but gradual and fragile growth? What happens when the mistrusted makes a genuine attempt to make good for what they did, but their acts were too awful to forgive?
This is why it takes two strong people to break out of the cycle of mistrust. No one can do it alone. I believe this is also why so many people are never able to beat the cycle. Many find it easier to keep doing what they've always done, or give up entirely and call it a loss. Many say it's just too hard; there are too many issues to handle, or that the relationship is starting off again from an unbalanced and unhealthy place of hurt. To that I would say that's exactly right. What did the mistrusted person expect when they chose to consistently destroy the trust that was placed in them? Seriously. Did they expect that things would stay fine and dandy? Did they think they wouldn't bring about pain and destruction? If the relationship started off at Cloud 9, it's now been grounded on the Earth's crust, and it's both people's job to make sure it doesn't shoot straight down to hell, to a place neither of them wants to go.
By the way, as a pre-emptive response, yes, I'm the one who's trust was broached. My response to the comments on "Why Chris doesn't let me drink" is just the smallest of examples.
At 3:28 PM ,
Anonymous said...
My fucking brain is fried now...
At 3:31 PM ,
Anonymous said...
I'll fully read the dissertation later. I understand your frustration Chris, but I only have an 8 hour workday and I'm expected to do *something*. However, both sides of the passive agressive argument was interesting to read. You could see that Chris was the one who felt trust was broken, simply because of his side of the argument. Same thing goes for Quyen.
Therefore, opting to take the role of Sweden is none other than your good friend Anonymous.
So what do I think? Well, you know how I feel about honor. Let's see if we can pull the truth out of Chris and Quyen's analysis.
First, a person's boundaries are always present. There's no such thing as agape (purely selfless love)unless you're God (and since I'm an athiest, there's no such thing as agape in my world).
When we trust someone, we tend to push those boundaries out for that person. That's what it means to "let someone in"; to expand your boundaries to include this person.
A person feels a breach of trust tends to retract boundaries to places where they feel safe. In an effort to keep their ego from crumbling they pull their boundaries tighter around themselves.
This displacement of boundaries is a way for the slighted person to make it clear that "This is not OK", to the other person.
So much of this problem comes from the other person immediately accepting this change in boundaries, then realizing later it was a manipulative change they're not happy with.
Now, normally, I would state that once you have given your word, your are bound by it. However, even Confucius says that promises made under duress are not valid. If you're being abused, promise whatever it takes to get the person to stop, then take the appropriate action without guilt.
So what about relationships that aren't violent? Are they covered as 'Under Duress'? No. A person there should stick to their word.
So as much as it pains me to admit it, it looks like I might be agreeing with Chris :P
However, Quyen's problem was that she'll feel railroaded into this decision. That it was made under duress and now perhaps she's feeling stifled by that promise. She should have renegotiated before accepting Chris' offer carte blanc.
So the real problem is determining when to accept a change in boundaries, when to continue to negotiate, when to renegotiate, and when to walk away.
Why would you want to agree?
You may agree the current requirements were too restrictive/loose, and their new compromise is acceptable.
Why would you want to renegotiate?
Because you may agree that the current requirements were too restrictive/loose, but you don't feel comfortable displacing those boundaries that far. Maybe a resonable agreement can be made.
Why would you want to State,wait,walk away?
Because this is a deal-break issue for you. Be prepared to walk away if you get to this point.
**Do not use this because you like to renegotiate "on the edge". It's not only manipulative, but it's a form of manipulation that is prone to backfire and/or being see through.
**Do not try and drudge up old conversations and use a guilt trip. If you can't get what you want honestly, it wasn't meant to be. If someone is using a guilt trip on you, simply walk away. It sounds harsh, but will save you heartache in the long run.
Right now, if it's really a problem for Quyen, she should either renegotiate or walk away.
It would be perfectly okay for Quyen to go to Chris and say, 'I tried to not drink for you. I don't like doing not drinking. I know you want to protect me, but I want you to trust me to make the right decisions, even while inebriated. I want to be able to go with my friends and have a marguarita without coming home to a fight or hiding it.'
Chris has three options:
Agree
Renegotiate
State Deal-Breaker, Wait, Walk Away
That's my 2c.
At 3:49 PM ,
grace said...
i wasn't going to really comment on this... but just a little unsolicited advice for chris...
your comments are really, really long. but, even though anon's comment was long, i could actually sit through it and read it.
i think the difference might be that you might want to break your paragraphs up a little more. they tend to just go on and on, thereby losing your readership.
you might have good things to say, but if no one can get through it, it's all in vain. no?
At 9:50 PM ,
MomMega: mothersmilkblog.com said...
First of all, I think Chris needs his own Blog.
Second, Q, you let me know when and I will buy you a beer (or two) and wax philisophical about cheating and trust (*winking with an evil grin*).
At 10:25 PM ,
Kis Lee said...
Chris, are you in the social sciences field? You should pursue a PhD; you're extremely prolific.
Quyen, I understand what you are saying. thanks for the clarification.
At 6:06 AM ,
peachy said...
Why do you want to hash this all out in writings? I think you two need to call each other, or discuss it next time you see each other. There is a lot going on between you two, and I don't know that this is the best way to discuss the issues (using hypotheticals and examples), and solv the problem. Every situation is different. Wish you two the best.
At 6:48 AM ,
Mike said...
Sorry you guys broke up. It was always fun reading Quyen's opinions and then reading all the ways she's dead fucking wrong. It's soooo romantic and sexy. I sure hope that Chris doesn't stop voicing his unsolicited opinions just because you two are through. He makes such a good martyr. If only I had the intellectual capacity to understand his genius.
These exchanges remind me of university coffee shop talks. You know, the little groups that get together over cappucinos to plagiarize the brand new theories and terms they just learned in PSY101 and PHI102. The problem with it is that it's all completely useless in the real world. People who wax on like this nonstop never actually do anything. They just keep trying to prove how their professor can beat up their opponent's professor. Eventually, you learn to stop trying to convince people of anything.
No offense Quyen, but when I come to your blog it's because I want to read what YOU think. Fuck everyone else. I mean where do the balls come from to just up and say somebody's wrong on their own fucking blog? I hope you can get control of this again soon. I miss your quirky little thoughts. How's the composition going, by the way?
At 9:10 AM ,
Chris said...
Well Mike, I'd love to sit here and waste my time writing a well-thought out response, but you probably wouldn't get it right? And you'd still have something insulting to say because, as your own blog claims, you're an asshole.
As for your allegations that I'm ALWAYS posting comments contrary to what Quyen says, they're baseless. If you had actually paid attention the past few weeks, you would've noticed I was the first person to respond to anon's attacks on her, as well as others. And what of the conversations she and I had as to the merits, and points of disagreement over anon's comments? It would seem you assume anyone you don't like, or who voices an opinion instinctually contary to your own, is wrong about everything else in life. At the end of the day, what do you know besides your own mean-sprited assumptions?
Although 'anonymous' and I don't see eye to eye on everything, he has both the intellectual capacity and honor to discuss the merits of an argument, whether heated or not, rather than throw out blanket insults. I respect him and his integrity. I guess; however, that insults are the province of those unwilling or unable to understand an issue and formulate their own opinions.
Or perhaps you're incensed because you take issue with the possibility that people can be wrong on their own blog, as though a blog made every tom, dick, and jane out there a fucking genius - with no possibility of error. You are not a god Mike, not even on your own blog. Stop stumping on the platform of blogger's inalienable rights.
Don't moan about wanting to read Quyen's ideas when they're still there. Whether you choose to read the comments section is your own choice. If you do; however choose to read them, deal with the consequences, grow up and be a man. You may call me a martyr all you like, but you are the one complaining about comments you read of your own volition. And as far as unsolicited opinions go, I think telling everyone else to fuck off takes the cake.
At 9:51 AM ,
grace said...
chris, don't take everything mike says to heart. why do you even care what he has to say, anyway? he is an asshole. and that's why i love him.
also, i'm going to have to disagree with you... on your own blog, you are your own god. if you don't like what it has to say, start your own blog.
QUYEN... i'm with mel - i'll buy you a beer too... xox
At 10:21 AM ,
Oddgirl said...
Q: Dealing with a break-up is always difficult for one reason or another. It always hurts when you invest yourself in someone and things don't turn out the way you planned. I am sorry you are feeling this.
Unfortunately you're not alone...
Chris: I have been enlightened by your wisdom, honesty, and rational. After ten years together, almost seven married, I have decided to leave Michael. He's just too much of an asshole. He always is contradicting me and I just can't handle that anymore.
Thank You! :)
At 10:30 AM ,
Mike said...
Alas, it seems I have been the architect of my own destruction. After all these years of my arrogance and assumed piety I have lost my one true love. Had I the foresight and wisdom of Chris I might have discovered Nina's growing attration and budding relationship with Grace soon enough to salvage our relationship.
Chris, you have set me straight in a way I had previously thought impossible. I can see now that it is my own intellectual, emotional, and mental failings that have created this doom. Had I listened to you more openly I might have taken the opportunity to change, thus saving my marriage. I apologize for my offenses and pray that I have done no irrevocable damage.
I can only hope that in time I will grow up, be a man, and take steps to earn that which I had taken for granted.
At 10:36 AM ,
Kis Lee said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 10:39 AM ,
Kis Lee said...
ack, i mis-worded my last comment.
anyway, i didn't realize a break-up had occurred. Quyen, i'd buy a beer or two or whatever you need.
At 11:28 AM ,
Quyen said...
Thanks everyone for your support! :) Also, I want all this senseless arguing to stop. Thanks.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home