hexaemeron Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 So I've been going back through a lot of threads that talk about the idea and concept of trust. It seems like there are two prevailing schools of thought on what exactly trust is. School A says that trust is a spectrum, upon which one gives trust until a boundary is reached and then trust seems to simply melt away into nothingness. In essence, the currency of trust has absolutely no long-term absolute value because when the time for trust is reached, it's removed and invalidated. School B says that trust is absolute. One either trusts completely, or does not trust at all. When the time comes for this currency to be spent, it's used accordingly. In essence, if you are trusted than any situation one might find himself in is okay because this person is trusted. Which school do you personally belong to, and why? Link to comment
lapse Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Definitely trust on a spectrum. You can trust someone not to do anything to deliberately hurt you, for example, while also not trusting them to understand you well enough to have your best interest at heart. Link to comment
hexaemeron Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 Definitely trust on a spectrum. You can trust someone not to do anything to deliberately hurt you, for example, while also not trusting them to understand you well enough to have your best interest at heart. But see, that doesn't sound like trust to me. That sounds like "enough rope by which to hang yourself" to me. Link to comment
lapse Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I can kinda see what you are saying, hex. But if it's not a spectrum, what exactly do you mean by the second option? What exactly do you trust them with? Link to comment
tattoobunnie Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I'm believe I'm in School B expectations...such as, "I trust that that person is an idiot, hence I would not select him to guard a million dollars, but would find his knock-knock jokes hysterical. Link to comment
DrKitten Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I can kinda see what you are saying, hex. But if it's not a spectrum, what exactly do you mean by the second option? What exactly do you trust them with? He means trusting someone even in the most "suspicious" situations. ie: Someone is at a party without their partner and the party becomes a crazy, drunk orgy. The partner at homes trusts them not to join in and cheat. Kind of an extreme example but that's idea. Link to comment
dangletsbang Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I just posted about trust in my journal, ironic..lol. you can read it if you want, i'm not going to get as in depth as I did there. Trust is something that I give..until you show me you are not worthy of it. I DO trust my parents, family, boyfriend, friends..to a certain extent. I absolutely cannot trust anyone 100% to not lie to me. I don't know if it's because I don't trust myself..or the fact I used to be a pathological liar..or the fact that i've been lied to so much in the past..but there is no exception..there is not one person I know who I feel would not lie to me. Lies are so common, I don't see how anyone could trust anyone. Link to comment
RedDress Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I guess I fall into category B. Kinda. To me, trust is a choice. BUT - (and maybe this is where I differ) - there are also different areas of trust - it isn't absolute. For example, I have a friend "John". Now... I trust John physically but I don't trust him with my possessions. In other words, I would walk down a dark alley late at night, trust that he won't hurt me and even trust him to defend me if something were to happen! But... funnily enough, I won't leave my purse open around him. He WILL take my money. So... you can have different trust levels in different "areas". But within ONE area, it's absolute - you have to make a choice. So - in terms of relationship fidelity, either you are trusted or you are not. If I trust you, you can go to strip clubs or whatever the heck you want, because I trust you. If I don't trust you - then we break up. I think the "compartmentalization" is important. Otherwise, you get into a lot of grey areas. Link to comment
LoveMySon Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 In that situation, trust would be that the person would leave the party if it became a crazy, drunk orgy. Even if the person has never done anything to violate your trust before, there is no reason for them to stay at that party if they weren't going to join in or whatever. That's just how it is. How I see it anyway. You can't just sit in the bathroom at the party and wait for them to be done with their orgy haha. That just doesn't happen. Link to comment
hexaemeron Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 In that situation, trust would be that the person would leave the party if it became a crazy, drunk orgy. Even if the person has never done anything to violate your trust before, there is no reason for them to stay at that party if they weren't going to join in or whatever. That's just how it is. How I see it anyway. You can't just sit in the bathroom at the party and wait for them to be done with their orgy haha. That just doesn't happen. So you would say that would be outside of your boundaries. But shouldn't you truly trust your partner no matter what, if that person has always shown he or she is trustworthy? That's what I'm getting at. If you only trust when there's no possibility of that trust ever being tested, then it's pointless/worthless. Link to comment
RedDress Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 In that situation, trust would be that the person would leave the party if it became a crazy, drunk orgy. Even if the person has never done anything to violate your trust before, there is no reason for them to stay at that party if they weren't going to join in or whatever. That's just how it is. How I see it anyway. You can't just sit in the bathroom at the party and wait for them to be done with their orgy haha. That just doesn't happen. They can't watch? If not, that's not absolute trust. Link to comment
tattoobunnie Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 You know...after some thought...you can trust someone completely that they have the best intentions always. But it doesn't necessary mean they'll always know the right thing to do or say. Like some mugger is scoping out someone you know. You don't trust that they would recognize it, even though you believe they are quite competent and capable, so you tell them. I dunno, I trust very easily and give trust, and am highly trusted. And for the most part, if someone betrayed my trust, and some have in the past, my life still goes on. Other times, I just forgive. And trust again. Others, I just completely leave them behind in my life, and will never trust again. Like the other poster said, "It's a choice." I also find that if you aren't shady yourself, it's very easy to trust others. When you anticipation a betrayal, at times it represents the concept of an act of betrayal you can see yourself doing or have done before. Link to comment
-Sanguine- Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 At this point in my life, I would definitely consider myself being part of "school B". It's really all or nothing for me now. Either I will trust someone completely or I won't trust them at all... and if there is no trust, there is nothing. If my boyfriend goes out with the guys for a night and is drinking, I trust him and I'm not going to punish him by mistrusting him. He hasn't done anything to lose my trust and until that happens he has 100% of it. If he ever does something to lose my trust, such as lie to me about something important or cheat on me... well, I would like to say that I would end things with him. I never want to be in a trustless relationship, ever again. My ex cheated on me. I stayed with him. I was worried he was going to leave ME after he cheated. Our relationship was ruined after that and the trust was gone. One of my personal pet peeves is when people say "I trust you, but I don't trust him/her.. so I don't want you going to that party" or whatever is going on. Either you trust someone or you don't. It doesn't matter if you don't trust the people they are with... because if you trust your partner and trust that they wouldn't do anything to hurt you then the other person who would wrongly persuade them to do anything against your trust would not have any affect on them whatsoever. That's how I see it anyway. Link to comment
-Sanguine- Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I also find that if you aren't shady yourself, it's very easy to trust others. When you anticipation a betrayal, at times it represents the concept of an act of betrayal you can see yourself doing or have done before. I agree with this definitely. My ex constantly accused me of cheating on him. I am not exaggerating when I say I was the most loyal girlfriend and I wouldn't have done anything to betray him. I never put myself in situations where anything could happen and even if I did, it wouldn't. He could've trusted me 100% but he didn't. He was the one cheating on me. Link to comment
dangletsbang Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I also find that if you aren't shady yourself, it's very easy to trust others. When you anticipation a betrayal, at times it represents the concept of an act of betrayal you can see yourself doing or have done before. I agree with this 100% and I think this is where my inability to trust someone not to lie to me comes from...what i've done in my past. Link to comment
LoveMySon Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 If they stayed at the orgy it would be outside boundries. Link to comment
LoveMySon Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 watching something like that in person is cheating in my book. I guess it depends on the person because everybody's book is different. And your partner should respect that if they want you to trust them. Link to comment
LoveMySon Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 The test would be if he left or stayed and watched. Link to comment
LoveMySon Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Am I replying to these comments correctly? Link to comment
hexaemeron Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 Am I replying to these comments correctly? You want to hit the "Reply from Quote" button instead. No worries, we understood. Link to comment
LoveMySon Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 You want to hit the "Reply from Quote" button instead. No worries, we understood. Like this? haha Link to comment
LoveMySon Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Like this? haha Thank you!! Link to comment
LoveMySon Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 They can't watch? If not, that's not absolute trust. watching something like that in person is cheating in my book. I guess it depends on the person because everybody's book is different. And your partner should respect that if they want you to trust them Link to comment
hexaemeron Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 watching something like that in person is cheating in my book. I guess it depends on the person because everybody's book is different. And your partner should respect that if they want you to trust them May I ask why that's cheating if he's not touching anyone, or engaging himself watching them? Link to comment
Glowguy Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I'm not sure I understand the difference between A and B. With A, once your boundary is crossed the trust is gone. With B once a boundary is crossed, complete trust turns to no trust. I'll take school C. Trust is earned through a dating period by observation of your partner's action. It continues as long as their behavior remains trustworthy. If their behavior changes drastically and lines are crossed then the trust is gone. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.