BF Wants to Take Long Weekend Trip with Female Friend

[hexaemeron]

Or Respect is "I'm not going to share this romantic experience with someone else because I would rather share it with you, my partner."

 

Heh. With all these restrictions, one wonders about the actual benefits of mutually agreed upon ownership.

[karvala]

Heh. With all these restrictions, one wonders about the actual benefits of mutually agreed upon ownership.

 

Fair enough; the restrictions may not be for everyone, as indeed even monogamy isn't for everyone. I wouldn't impose my boundaries on someone else; we would mutually agree them in advance because we are both happier reserving certain things for each other and no others. Something isn't special to me if it's offered to any casual acquaintance; I want to be more important to my partner than that, and I want him/her to feel more important to me too. But some people are happier spreading the love, and all power to them. I wouldn't say their lack of boundaries is due to weakness, and I hope they wouldn't say my choosing to operate boundaries is due to weakness either. It's a choice that works for me, that's all.

[Miss Firecracker]

Which is a healtheir monogamous relationship? Dating a guy who occasionally spends time with other women but never pursues them romantically, or dating a guy who is not allowed to spend time with other women but would (or might--it's impossible to know) pursue them if he was?

 

Because to be honest, I don't see how anyone could possibly find the latter at all satisfying.

 

Well, that doesn't bother me much. As long as WE are satisfied, that is really all that matters. And the way you put it doesn't describe the situation at all. In our world, this would be a disgrace to a marriage. And I don't expect you to understand that anymore than I can understand your view.

[Miss Firecracker]

I remember someone asking if people were so scared of being alone that they set boundaries to prevent it from happening. Looked back and couldn't find the comment.

 

If I were afraid of being alone, I would be more likely to want to go out with other men as "friends". That way I would have plenty of guys to call if my husband left me.

[FathomFear]

So if he got blind drunk, and picked up a chainsaw, presumably you wouldn't stop him, because you believe it's up to him to be careful, and you wouldn't want to limit his freedom even in a situation which is more hazardous than normal? Or do you believe that sometimes it is better to step in and minimise the chance of serious damage, even at the risk of temporarily limiting someone's freedom?

 

Oh I would definitely stop him--and probably use physical force in doing so. That's because getting hammered causes you to lose judgement, motor skills, etc. Fortunately none of those things are lost when going on a weekend trip to Spain. I think it's telling that you see the OP's scenario as inherently dangerous. But again, I think that says more about the person with the insecurity than it does about the person going on the trip.

 

But in any case that's all about cheating still, and I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about setting boundaries which define what a relationship with a partner is, and what a relationship with a friend is, and what the difference between those two is.

 

Well, we could talk about many theoretical differces. I'm more interested in the logic or rationale behind any proposed difference. ie, what is the underlying reason or rationale that would cause a guy to prevent his girlfriend from going on a trip with a gay guy but not a female friend. Or cause some woman to not want her boyfriend to go on a trip with a female friend. I do not think it is sufficient to be axiomatic and say "Two people of the opposite sex should only go on a vacation if they're in a relationship". To me, we need to be discussing whether this view has a solid grounding and whether it should be held at all.

 

You acknowledge that if you had a monogamous relationship with a partner, that involve boundaries; specifically that he couldn't have sex with other people.

 

To be clear--and I think this is important--I'm saying that a monogamous relationship is not built on "rules". My partner "could" have sex with anyone else at any time. I'm saying that in a successful monogamy he would decide not cheat on me. A successful monogamy is not me setting a rule or getting angry if he even put himself in a position to be in close quarters with another person.

 

You set that boundary because you want to distinguish the relationship from an ordinary friendship. My point to you is that many people have additional ways to distinguish those, i.e. further things that they wish to share only with their partner, something which to them is part of the definition of a romantic relationship. Why is it that one form of behaviour, sex, is okay to limit to partners alone, but not other forms of behaviour such as sharing a hotel room with a member of the opposite sex?

 

If two people decided to build a relationship on certain distinctions, that's fine. If you and I were a couple, for example, and mutually decided that bowling was an activity that must remain within the confines of our relationship and not be done with other people, it would be completely within our power to do that. It might be crazy and illogical and ultimately achieve nothing in the real world, though, but that wouldn't matter--it would still be our right to choose that path. I'm not debating that.

 

Unfortunately, that's not the situation here. The activity in the OP's situation--going on a weekend trip to Spain--is not something the OP's boyfriend believes is any activity that needs to be held within the confines of a relationship. His reasoning? He believes he is capable of going on the trip with her as a friend, presumably just as he would be capable of doing so with a male friend. I'm saying that to disagree with him, to say that he must remain home, would be an admission that he cannot be trusted, that he doesn't know his own mind and is not able to judge how he will be able to conduct himself.

[FathomFear]

Or Respect is "I'm not going to share this romantic experience with someone else because I would rather share it with you, my partner."

 

By continuously referring to the trip to Spain as a "romantic experience" I think we're already assuming the OP's boyfriend will fail at what he said he's capable of doing, to keep it at the level of friends. Or do you honestly believe that the OP's boyfriend would conduct himself in an indentical manner if he were on the trip with his girlfriend? Because that is what you're indicating in the above comment.

[hexaemeron]

By continuously referring to the trip to Spain as a "romantic experience" I think we're already assuming the OP's boyfriend will fail at what he said he's capable of doing, to keep it at the level of friends. Or do you honestly believe that the OP's boyfriend would conduct himself in an indentical manner if he were on the trip with his girlfriend? Because that is what you're indicating in the above comment.

 

I think he means travelling to another country = romance.

[DN]

It is not controlling to let a partner know that a behaviour is not acceptable to you. They are still free to do what they want but then have to accept the consequences.

 

Arguing about whether it is reasonable or not is bootless because people will have different standards and values. One will say the scenario described here, another will say 'not trying as hard as you can in your endeavours". Most of these things are subjective, sometimes the objection will be shared by a majority, sometimes not. But the objection is real to the person who objects.

 

If the objection is so out of the mainstream that few people, if any, would agree to forgo the behaviour then that person may have to either get over their objection or settle for the fact they may spend their life alone.

 

As we can see from all of the foregoing posts - no one has changed their mind.

[FathomFear]

It is not controlling to let a partner know that a behaviour is not acceptable to you. They are still free to do what they want but then have to accept the consequences.

 

No disagreements there. My point is more that if you express that a behavior is not acceptable that you need to be in a position to defend it. Otherwise, we open up the possibility of asking for things which aren't necessarily rational and instead born from our own insecurities or idiosyncracies.

[NightLily]

Still though, I think if you were an extremely insecure person you should not control of try to change your SO but perhaps find somebody who suits you as a whole package. Issues and all.

 

An example of how this could go in different terms would be if I had weight issues it might be best if instead of dating a guy who always will want unhealthy food and try to change him to find somebody who is into healthy eating.

[greywolf]

Actually, respectfully, that's not at all what it means. Trust is one thing, boundaries are something completely separate. Even if the OP were 100% confident that her bf were not going to cheat, that still wouldn't automatically make his proposed trip okay. Some people, including myself and I suspect the poster you replied to, think that things like sharing a bedroom on a romantic trip should be reserved for your partner only, as a special experience, regardless of whether or not cheating will take place. Not everything has to be turned into a test case for trust just to show your liberal credentials. Sometimes boundaries can be a positive thing.

 

I do see your point, however, I'm not saying that it should be done in a test. In a scenario you described before, you said something about leaving money around to 'test' someone to see if they'd take it.

 

If I left money around it'd be because I trust the person not to take it, not because I'm trying to test them. So when I said I wouldn't really want to be with someone who hadn't had cheated on me just because they hadn't been given an opportunity, I didn't mean that they should be given the opportunity so that I could 'test' whether they remained faithful or not.

[Miss Firecracker]

I can't imagine a man, given a few weeks off per year, choosing to spend a big part of that with another woman. See you and the kids next week, honey. I'll be in Spain, save me some pot roast.

 

Maybe when he gets back, she will say, "Honey, while you were in Spain I called Homer from the office. He and I have plans to go to Greece next month!"

[penelope13]

By continuously referring to the trip to Spain as a "romantic experience" I think we're already assuming the OP's boyfriend will fail at what he said he's capable of doing, to keep it at the level of friends. Or do you honestly believe that the OP's boyfriend would conduct himself in an indentical manner if he were on the trip with his girlfriend? Because that is what you're indicating in the above comment.

 

I agree, there are different ideas here on this thread what constitutes a 'romantic trip/ experience'. Many people seem to believe that a traveling to a foreign country, a different city etc automatically needs to be considered romantic and thus reserved for your SO.

 

However, for me no location, situation, activity etc is romantic unless I would do it with my SO and we are in a romantic mood. The romantic aspect gets created by my interaction with my partner - and that could be anywhere in the world any given time, no red roses, or Paris by moonlight required for this.

 

The other issue here is spending alone/ fun time with someone of the opposite sex who is not your partner' - for some this is acceptable, for others it's not. And you simply have to find a partner who is on the same page with you on this one. Once you are starting on the path to say "it's ok under those circumstances, but not those..." you are always risking that you forget to think of circumstances/ scenarios that might be uncomfortable to you, thus you have not communicated this to your partner, thus your partner might not be aware that he/ she has done something that will upset you and you might run into trouble. So once you say that it's ok for your partner to spend time alone with someone from the opposite sex, then it's really out of your hand, and you are left with trust, because (at least in my books) any situation could turn romantic and I have to believe that my partner will not choose to act in a manner to be disrespectful to me no matter what might occur.

 

The last issue here is 'what is appropriate/ what isn't' - having lived in different countries/ cultures I have experienced that there is nothing such as a universal definition of appropriate. Yes there are cultural norms everywhere, but by being dogmatic about these, anyone who doesn't want to/ can't follow those norms risks emotional agony on one side and being ostracized on the other side. Thus the argument "you can't do this, because it's not appropriate" is a form of manipulation to get the other person to do what is essentially your personal belief. Of course you should and can say: 'I am not comfortable with this', but don't use the pressure of society to solve your relationship conflicts. Any matter of difference of opinion between two people in a relationship should be resolved by communicating both your individual preferences and then finding a mutual compromise (I realize this is the most idealistic scenario), rather than bringing outside point of views in as well.

 

I think my mantra is quite simple: I expect my partner not to do anything with someone else, that I can and will do with him. - If I don't have the opportunity to go traveling with my partner (no vacation days, or because I am afraid of planes), I don't want him to miss out because of that. But if I have the time/ funds/ opportunity, then of course I would expect him to want to share this with me rather than with anyone.

[incognito25]

I just wanted to butt in here after I've read the first dozen pages and say that Hexaemeron, you sound just like my ex; confusing subservience with respect. Being in a relationship does not mean you should feel constrained, oppressed, or as you said "like a songbird kept in a cage." In a healthy relationship, sometimes you compromise some of the things you desire because you respect your partner and what you want might end up hurting them. You do this out of respect, out of your own volition, not because they forced you to choose. Obviously, FORCING anyone to do anything would result in them feeling subordinate, which is what it sounds like you're accusing the OP of doing. It sounds like you need to take your time and reconsider what you define as a relationship.

 

To the OP, I'm very sorry for your situation, but like some of the other posters have said, I think your relationship might be coming to a close. The minute he had a problem with you, having a problem with the trip, just shows where you stand in his mind and heart. Granted, he might have just been really excited about the trip initially without thinking first, but this has been on going and he's made his choice. He might have finally agreed to not go, but if it took that long, then he's not worth it. And for him to continue a friendship with a woman that is obviously no friend to you makes him either really naive or just as awful as that woman.

[FathomFear]

n a healthy relationship, sometimes you compromise some of the things you desire because you respect your partner and what you want might end up hurting them. You do this out of respect, out of your own volition, not because they forced you to choose.

 

The topic of the thread, though, and the majority of the debate has been in regards to whether it's respectable or reasonable to be "hurt" by that.

 

For example, if we were in a relationship would it be reasonable for you to be "hurt" if I decided to include bananas in my diet? Why should I respect such a position?

 

I think it goes without saying that you do not want to hurt or upset a partner. That doesn't mean, however, that you should blindly live your life by any imaginable criteria that a partner might have that would result in the person getting "hurt"--especially when the criteria are fundamentally based on a lack of trust and respect.

[hexaemeron]

I can't imagine a man, given a few weeks off per year, choosing to spend a big part of that with another woman. See you and the kids next week, honey. I'll be in Spain, save me some pot roast.

 

Maybe when he gets back, she will say, "Honey, while you were in Spain I called Homer from the office. He and I have plans to go to Greece next month!"

 

See, I think that sounds fun. People get to stay independent as far as their own interests and passions go, and can still come together and share lives and feelings.

 

That's perfect!

[IphigeniaSaysHi]

See, I think that sounds fun. People get to stay independent as far as their own interests and passions go, and can still come together and share lives and feelings.

 

That's perfect!

 

For you!

It is a good set up for many, but not all. Just like it isn't fair to expect someone to restrict their happiness for a partner, it isn't entirely fair to expect someone who feels strongly about something to just compromise and deal, like they are the bad guy in the relationship. No one is, it is just that the compatibility isn't there.

[hexaemeron]

For you!

It is a good set up for many, but not all. Just like it isn't fair to expect someone to restrict their happiness for a partner, it isn't entirely fair to expect someone who feels strongly about something to just compromise and deal, like they are the bad guy in the relationship. No one is, it is just that the compatibility isn't there.

 

No no, I understand there are no villains in this piece, for sure. I guess after reading all this, I think the flaw, if there is one, is parents and society selling unrealistic expectations in relationships and telling people they'll still be able to be happy when most people can't be in these situations and then feel awful about themselves because they must be defective if "other" people can make these situations work.

[DN]

No no, I understand there are no villains in this piece, for sure. I guess after reading all this, I think the flaw, if there is one, is parents and society selling unrealistic expectations in relationships and telling people they'll still be able to be happy when most people can't be in these situations and then feel awful about themselves because they must be defective if "other" people can make these situations work.

Well, as I said before - what is unrealistic to one person isn't to another. For instance, I think it is much more unrealistic to expect a partner to always try their utmost in everything they do and that expectation is setting a relationship up for failure. I would never impose that expectation on a partner.

[jbrooklyn]

This is such bullcrap. I know he would love for you to come home and say you are going to hang out with a married man for two weeks in a hotel while he is at home pulling on his yankie thinking about what you doing. This is crazy.

[Curious_Girl]

To the OP

 

I've "only" read the first five pages of replies, but here is what bothers me:

 

1 - His dimissal of your concerns - this demonstrates a lack of caring for YOU and lack of respect. What matter to me isn't even so much what he wanted to do, but his dismissal of you.

 

2 - His taking the woman's side against you - same idea as above. He should have your back, not be discussing what a b***h you are with someone else.

 

3 - The woman's troubled marriage - I could be wrong, but I see her as manipulative and him as an easy partner in that manipulation. I would be very surprised if she didn't have other intentions here or why would she be trying to come btwn the two of you, telling him that you're unreasonable?

 

Aside from the whole morality or immorality, wisdom or foolishness of going, the fact that he is disrespecting you is huge to me. I was married to man like this and it was extremely toxic to me. Granted, I am biased and could be wrong. But this is my perspective. I don't see this R ending well for you.

 

CG

[Curious_Girl]

Which is a healtheir monogamous relationship? Dating a guy who occasionally spends time with other women but never pursues them romantically, or dating a guy who is not allowed to spend time with other women but would (or might--it's impossible to know) pursue them if he was?

 

Because to be honest, I don't see how anyone could possibly find the latter at all satisfying.

 

I trusted my ex-husband 100% (because I am trustworthy, I guess). He went out frequently without me, 2-3 times a week, leaving me at home with the kids. I won't delve deeply into my marriage b/c it's not relevant here. The point is, there were often women around, one in particular who he told me was his idea of perfect partner!! And yes, he cheated. More than once. Had a long-term affair plus other flings. (I didn't know this.) He ended up leaving me for someone else. Believe it or not, I was devastated at the time.

 

My point is that even if you trust someone, they may still not deserve that trust. He may say "Of course I won't cheat on you," yet have every intention of doing just that. Or he may genuinely think that he won't but he does.

 

My ex is a consummate liar - he looked me in the eyes and told me he was faithful, while he was making plans to leave. I'm not saying that all men are like my ex - I sure hope not! - but I just want to point out to you and the others saying that you have to trust, that trust is not always rewarded.

[Lucius]

I just want to point out to you and the others saying that you have to trust, that trust is not always rewarded.

 

Of course trust is not always rewarded. Trusting isn't the same thing as knowing - and it doesn't need to be. The point is, if someone is going to behave in an untrustworthy manner (like your ex did), then the sooner you know that about them the better. It's not about "testing" people - it's about living free from fear. If someone consistently displays trustworthy behaviour, and I trust them as a result, I have not "tested" them to reach that conclusion - and the same goes for untrustworthy behaviour.

 

Ultimately, I would far rather trust and be betrayed, than not trust and remain 'safe' with a person who would let me down given the chance. Voluntary unconditional loyalty, or nothing at all. I'm not going to fret over and micro-manage my partner's behaviour; it doesn't serve either of us. If I honestly felt she'd let me down if given such freedom, then I'd not be with her in the first place.

[Curious_Girl]

Of course trust is not always rewarded. Trusting isn't the same thing as knowing - and it doesn't need to be. The point is, if someone is going to behave in an untrustworthy manner (like your ex did), then the sooner you know that about them the better.

 

But then are you assuming that he will tell her if he cheats? Yes, the sooner you know the better, but I didn't know for literally years.

 

 

If I honestly felt she'd let me down if given such freedom, then I'd not be with her in the first place.

 

I agree. But we all have our insecurities. I don't intend to micromanage a new partner - I already have kids! - but even if I trust him, I expect that it will always be in the back of mind that it could happen again.

 

Or maybe not. Maybe when I meet the right guy, it won't be.

[FarthestEdge]

But then are you assuming that he will tell her if he cheats? Yes, the sooner you know the better, but I didn't know for literally years.

 

...

I agree. But we all have our insecurities. I don't intend to micromanage a new partner - I already have kids! - but even if I trust him, I expect that it will always be in the back of mind that it could happen again.

 

Or maybe not. Maybe when I meet the right guy, it won't be.

 

I am so sorry for what your ex did. But the thing is, we are ALL going on faith and trust. The risk you take on for the rewards of love, is the risk you could get hurt. IMO the more you try to 'mitigate' those risks through control, the less free you are to enjoy the kind of love that says "'I believe in you, and I believe in us" I've been on the "I trust you, I just don't trust women/my own judgement..." ride before. It's exhausting and didn't add to my relationship in any way. And it almost spiralled out of control before I got my head on straight.

 

Will my husband cheat? Is he now? My honest belief is 'no', but I cannot deny that it COULD happen. It's a chance I will take to enjoy my relationship as it is now.

 

Someday, it may come out that my trust was mis-placed. I'll cross that bridge **IF** I ever come to it. But in the meantime, I'm not going to miss the beauty of this journey, because I've got my nose buried in the map, looking for that damned ugly bridge....