# Trust but verify?



## life101 (Nov 18, 2012)

I have a question which might seem silly to some. Apologies in advance. 

I sometimes read the phrase "Trust but verify" here on TAM. My question is, why should we? If we cannot trust our partners 100% (for me, verification means less than complete trust, I might be wrong though), then should we continue the relationship at all? I for sure wouldn't want to spend a single day (again) in a relationship where I cannot trust my partner 100%.

My sincere apologies if I misunderstood the phrase. Thanks for pitching in.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Trust but verify means keep spying on them from time to time to confirm that your trust is well-placed and to prove to yourself they are trustworthy. To me, that doesn't sound like trust, and it's not how I'd want to live my life.


----------



## badmemory (Jul 31, 2012)

life101 said:


> I have a question which might seem silly to some. Apologies in advance.
> 
> I sometimes read the phrase "Trust but verify" here on TAM. My question is, why should we? If we cannot trust our partners 100% (for me, verification means less than complete trust, I might be wrong though), then should we continue the relationship at all? I for sure wouldn't want to spend a single day (again) in a relationship where I cannot trust my partner 100%.
> 
> My sincere apologies if I misunderstood the phrase. Thanks for pitching in.


One thing I've learned as a BS, is that what you "think" you would do if your spouse cheats, in many cases, is not what you wind up doing. I used to be one of those that thought infidelity would be a deal breaker. I used to think like you - how can you be married to someone you don't trust?

I firmly believe that no matter how egregious the cheating, R is possible if the WS is remorseful and both parties work on the marriage. I say possible, not probable. So like me, if a BS wants to take that chance, I will respect their choice as long as the WS demonstrates remorse. As I will respect the choice of those BS's that simply refuse to even consider it.

If the choice for R is made, "trust but verify" is a must. It's a trust repairing tool for the BS and it's a needed consequence for the WS; especially for the first few years after the betrayal.

It's not a pleasant thing for the BS, but it's necessary.


----------



## Robsia (Mar 11, 2013)

The verification helps to buld the trust. When you ceck up on them and find nothing untoward, that they ar where they say they are, and they're doing what they said they were doing, then all is well, and there's another brick in the 'trust' wall.

Once trust has been totally restored, then verification should no longer be necessary, but it is part of the process of rebuilding.

Trust resets to zero after any D-day, any revelation of a lie, any new info that was previously deliberately hidden. It doesnt get instantly rebuilt; it is a gradual process. Verification and transparency are vital parts of that process.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Man, this is going to be a weird answer. I hope it gives you some thought on the whole subject of "trusting".

Do you really trust yourself completely? Does anyone ever trust anyone including themselves utterly and fully?

One place I worked, there was a rash of comics copied and passed around. I would take a look at them and laugh or ponder their hidden meaning. Some of the jokes proved to be thought provoking for me. I don't know if that was the intention. 

One read:

"Never trust anyone, not even yourself. Someday, you will fart and crap your pants."


----------



## wranglerman (May 12, 2013)

Speaking from the seat of a guy who caught his wife having an EA with a guy more than 250miles away and over the channel I am of the opinion once bitten then twice shy.

I also think it more a term used when R is in process and both parties should be working towards a better marriage, and as a BS I keep tabs on my wife to ensure that there are no further breaches of boundaries in our relationship, in order to trust someone you must let them do their own thing and prove they are trustworthy, now in order for you to do that it means of verification of her whereabouts and parties involved in events where you are not there to see what is going on, it can also be monitoring of the cell and internet usage.

Don't get me wrong, I wish I had never had to endure such events that altered the way I look at my wife, I think many here at TAM wish it had happened to some other guy, but when it happens to you and you and your wife want to R then the only way you will learn to trust them is by verifying situations and interactions with potential threats to your relationship.

Just think about all the potentials there are for a WS to cheat, and tell me that if you were trying to R with your WS you wouldn't want to verify that what she says is true, that interactions with others are not sinister in anyway.

It is knowing what is true and what omissions are made that makes or breaks the trust, it could be as simple as "yes honey I did log onto FB and chatted with some old friends" but the omission might be that he/she was actually busy on FB talking sleazey sex and sending other guys/girls inappropriate pictures, but they told you the truth and did not lie, but they did omit the finer details, and it is these finer details that are crossing boundaries!!!!

I am in a funny position whereby although things seem fine it could only be a matter of time before she goes from EA to PA as she crossed the boundary and although I have reinforced it and we have talked our problems through and have made great progress, I just have a gut feeling that she has omissions that she wants to hold back, now what those omissions are I don't know, but it is knowing the truth in her actions at present that is of most importance and where this phrase "trust but verify" comes in to full play!!


----------



## Robsia (Mar 11, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Man, this is going to be a weird answer. I hope it gives you some thought on the whole subject of "trusting".
> 
> Do you really trust yourself completely? Does anyone ever trust anyone including themselves utterly and fully?
> 
> ...


I did trust my WH. I never trustred anyone in my life as fully as I trust him.

I have Asperger's and we tend to be trusting folk, naive and a little gullible. We don't tend to lie and we usually believe other folks are trustworthy. It hits us hard when we realise they aren't.

I was bullied at school and it was a horrific thing to realise that when the girls were nice to be and told me they wanted to be my friend, they were just lying to get me to trust them so they could go "Ha ha - you didn't really think we liked YOU, did you? Freak!"

So, even though I am gullible and trusting, I learned painfully that you can't trust everyone, and to be careful who you trust.

But in all my relationships, I never trusted anyone as much as I trusted my husband. I finally thought I'd found someone I COULD trust 100%, someone who wouldn't lie to me, who was honest and open.

Boy, did it hurt when I found out just how much [email protected] he'd fed me to my face over the last year.


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

In case this is helpful, it is a deliberately inconsistent statement. The political history, cold war, detente, and Reagan's gallant and unsubtle directness in being indirect are also helpful to understanding the phrase. It's kind of like "Yeah, of course I trust you. Why wouldn't I?"


----------



## Michelleinmichigan (Jun 26, 2013)

I personally do not trust anyone a 100%, and that is fine. People are human, imperfect, and make mistakes in life. Usually mistakes hurt other people. To me trusting anyone 100% is a recipe for disaster. God is the only one who will never disapoint us. To expect perfection in other people is unfair.

Trust, but verify, is valid to me. The opposite situation of bombarding our loved ones with suspicions and fears is unfair as expecting perfection.


----------



## badmemory (Jul 31, 2012)

"Trust but verify". Really a misnomer. 

If you trust, there is no need to verify.

Better said "Don't trust right now; verify".


----------



## Remains (Jan 24, 2012)

You can't trust anyone 100%....not anyone at all. That would be just pure silly! 

People do though, as have I, and it is wrong and misguided to do so. Very few on this planet can be trusted fully...and even 100% doesn't hit the mark of even the most trustworthy. There will always be a situation that can occur where that trust may be broken. 

And a cheater....well....if you wish to believe their remorse then there has to be a verification in there to be able to build that trust back up. I like the correction 'Don't trust and verify'. That is far more accurate.

If you wish for 100% trust in any relationship you have, you will be sadly disappointed. What you need to guide you is the level of trust. It needs to be high. But don't kid yourself, 100% trust is a fallacy. For anyone. Even your mother.


----------



## badbane (Jun 9, 2012)

Trusting someone and making sure that you aren't being taken advantage of don't mean that you don't love or trust someone. However after reading all of these stories the most common theme amoung BS is they got complacent. They stopped caring they stopped checking in on and making sure their WS was okay. They knew something was wrong but just didn't want to connect the dots. In the real messed up world the only real hard fact about humans is that anyone is capable of anything at anytime. So keep that in your head from time to time. If you feel your spidey sense go off don't ignore it or shove it away until you have proof you are being paranoid.


----------



## 2asdf2 (Jun 5, 2012)

badmemory said:


> "Trust but verify". Really a misnomer.
> 
> If you trust, there is no need to verify.
> 
> Better said "Don't trust right now; verify".





Harken Banks said:


> In case this is helpful, it is a deliberately inconsistent statement. The political history, cold war, detente, and Reagan's gallant and unsubtle directness in being indirect are also helpful to understanding the phrase. It's kind of like "Yeah, of course I trust you. Why wouldn't I?"


As HB pointed out, the phrase was originated by Ronald Reagan in regards to the USSR during the Cold War, at a time when no one expected the Soviets could -or should- be trusted.

At the time Reagan used it -8 December 1987- no explanation seemed to be needed.

This Wiki link gives an excellent account of its origins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_Verify


----------



## PamJ (Mar 22, 2013)

Many good responses here. I take the phrase not to mean blind trust, but working toward trust, or acting as if there was trust until proven otherwise.

In order to function as a married couple , as a BS, I cannot go around everyday questioning him , accusing him, I am acting in good faith as he seems to be doing his best to regain my trust. When that happens, when he continues to do the right things, he earns back a little more trust. It just happens. 

As someone said above, every time you check, and there is nothing new found, he also gets a little more trust from me. His reward for being honest, remorseful and sincere. 

But I am not pretending that someday it will be forever erased from my mind. It can never be exactly what it was, but neither are we as individuals either. 

It is still what I choose to do, to be with him because as of right now, the good outweighs the bad and we can build on that.


----------



## hopefulgirl (Feb 12, 2013)

Some of the experts in infidelity and recovering from it - Glass, Harley in particular - have written about how cheating can happen even in GOOD marriages. So being aware of each others' whereabouts at all times, checking in with each other frequently, knowing all passwords and account information, and yes, even checking up on each other is a good idea for all marriages, but especially after infidelity.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

life101 said:


> I have a question which might seem silly to some. Apologies in advance.
> 
> I sometimes read the phrase "Trust but verify" here on TAM. My question is, why should we? If we cannot trust our partners 100% (for me, verification means less than complete trust, I might be wrong though), then should we continue the relationship at all? I for sure wouldn't want to spend a single day (again) in a relationship where I cannot trust my partner 100%.
> 
> My sincere apologies if I misunderstood the phrase. Thanks for pitching in.


I think you understand the phrase. My thoughts is we pay attention to our environment and it's that simple. When people say "trust but verify" I think what they really mean is for people to be capable of noticing if their partner does act suspicious.

Also it's easy to say we'd kick um to the curb without blind trust but it usually doesn't work out that way. Most long term relationships have been at least a little bit vulnerable at some point where the perfect storm of events could make one or the other slip up. Just my thoughts on it.


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

Robsia said:


> I did trust my WH. I never trustred anyone in my life as fully as I trust him.
> 
> I have Asperger's and we tend to be trusting folk, naive and a little gullible. We don't tend to lie and we usually believe other folks are trustworthy. It hits us hard when we realise they aren't.
> 
> ...


The bullying thing makes me feel sad, imagining at the time of discovery you felt a bit of that come back, as if you'd been bullied and your H was helping this time.. how horrific for you.


----------



## Remains (Jan 24, 2012)

PamJ said:


> Many good responses here. I take the phrase not to mean blind trust, but working toward trust, or acting as if there was trust until proven otherwise.
> 
> In order to function as a married couple , as a BS, I cannot go around everyday questioning him , accusing him, I am acting in good faith as he seems to be doing his best to regain my trust. When that happens, when he continues to do the right things, he earns back a little more trust. It just happens.
> 
> ...


A great answer!


----------



## couple (Nov 6, 2010)

This motto was designed to rationalize and justify snooping, questioning and other acts of 'verification'.

The logical problem with snooping, questioning, suspicion is that it suggests you don't trust. It's common belief that a good relationship must have trust. Therefore snooping and questioning means you have a weak marriage according to this logic.

this kind of catch phrase is a rationalization technique that attempts to get around this logic problem.

I have a different view on trust. Cheating and other transgressions are very common and victims often never saw it coming. They often think that it's someone else's problem. A wise person will always keep his guard up. i think a good marriage requires a 'sufficient' level of trust. There is nothing wrong with being on guard and looking into anything that is suspicious or even a little poking around now and again.

I don't need a little catch phrase to make myself or others feel it's OK.


----------



## HarryDoyle (Jan 19, 2013)

Random thoughts: 74% of men would cheat if they new they wouldn't get caught (and some say the other 25% are lying). The statistic for women is 68%… So who do you trust?

It's not my WW' s underwear I'm worried about, it's her lack of underwear that worries me! (I m not sure the OM ever even saw her undewear, if he did it wasn't for long.)


----------



## 2asdf2 (Jun 5, 2012)

HarryDoyle said:


> Random thoughts: 74% of men would cheat if they new they wouldn't get caught (and some say the other 25% are lying). The statistic for women is 68%… So who do you trust?
> 
> It's not my WW' s underwear I'm worried about, it's her lack of underwear that worries me! (I m not sure the OM ever even saw her undewear, if he did it wasn't for long.)


Could I claim to be the in the remaining 1%?


----------



## Brokenshadow (May 3, 2013)

2asdf2 said:


> Could I claim to be the in the remaining 1%?


Hmmm...1% that would cheat knowing they'd be caught? 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## krismimo (Jan 26, 2011)

I did the whole trust but verify thing and it is not for everyone. I got tired of it and frankly I got tired of "looking" when you look you are looking to find something or not.... I was cheated on before but I will never tell someone to NEVER trust anyone else again 100% I think it is sad it's like saying the WS or ex they won. The one thing I learned from it is that when I did the snooping, gps, phone, calling work, checking credit card bills, and the list goes on and on. The one thing I learned was I can't live with someone I don't trust and I refuse to keep checking up on someone to make myself feel better. I think that is the worst kind of torture.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

life101 said:


> I have a question which might seem silly to some. Apologies in advance.
> 
> I sometimes read the phrase "Trust but verify" here on TAM. My question is, why should we? If we cannot trust our partners 100% (for me, verification means less than complete trust, I might be wrong though), then should we continue the relationship at all? I for sure wouldn't want to spend a single day (again) in a relationship where I cannot trust my partner 100%.
> 
> My sincere apologies if I misunderstood the phrase. Thanks for pitching in.


If I must trust my partner 100% then I cannot have a partner.

I trust no one 100%.
I've been screwed by family, life long friends, years long lovers.

Humans cannot be trusted without verification.

It's like faith for me.
I have to have some evidence she's worthy of it before I can give it and I never give it all.

"Giving" 100% complete trust to any human is a fools game.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

I take it to mean that while I trust my partner, he will behave in trustworthy ways as I will do with him. Internet accounts should not be closed and password protected; I can pick up his cellphone when it's ringing. He reassures me that if I ever want to go to his weekly darts game with him, just come on.

I can't be exclusive with someone who is not going to make transparency a part of the relationship.


----------



## life101 (Nov 18, 2012)

Interesting discussion so far. So some people believe that there can never be 100% trust and some level of guard should always be up. Then there are the others who believe a relationship is not worth with without 100% trust.


----------



## Mavash. (Jan 26, 2012)

I've been with my husband for half my life (24 years). I trust him 100% but he EARNED IT.

Trust but verify means someone has done something distrustful. You're willing to give them another chance but you're aware of their humanity so you verify until trust is restored or you get sick of snooping whichever comes first.

Verify is for the betrayed. It gives them some level of comfort and security while they heal. 

Only problem is it's not fool proof. How many affairs go underground? How many false R's are there?

On this I'm with Tacoma if I can't trust you then you can't be my partner. 

Disclaimer: I've never to my knowledge been cheated on so obviously my view doesn't mean a whole lot in this forum.


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

life101 said:


> I have a question which might seem silly to some. Apologies in advance.
> 
> I sometimes read the phrase "Trust but verify" here on TAM. My question is, why should we? If we cannot trust our partners 100% (for me, verification means less than complete trust, I might be wrong though), then should we continue the relationship at all? I for sure wouldn't want to spend a single day (again) in a relationship where I cannot trust my partner 100%.
> 
> My sincere apologies if I misunderstood the phrase. Thanks for pitching in.


I didn't read the thread but just wanted to agree. 

Trust to me is the knowledge that my spouse will never, never place themselves in a position to betray and if they want to they will have the decency to tell me first and then we can divorce.


----------



## Will_Kane (Feb 26, 2012)

life101 said:


> I have a question which might seem silly to some. Apologies in advance.
> 
> I sometimes read the phrase "Trust but verify" here on TAM. My question is, why should we? If we cannot trust our partners 100% (for me, verification means less than complete trust, I might be wrong though), then should we continue the relationship at all? I for sure wouldn't want to spend a single day (again) in a relationship where I cannot trust my partner 100%.
> 
> My sincere apologies if I misunderstood the phrase. Thanks for pitching in.


"Trust but verify" means "don't trust." If you trusted, you would not have to verify. That's what it means. You have not misunderstood, "trust but verify" means you "don't trust." I think "trust but verify" connotes a positive outlook that the cheating has ended, but that trust has not yet fully returned.

Before you were cheated on, you never checked up on your spouse because you trusted them. Now that you've caught your spouse cheating, you do check up on your spouse, because you don't trust them.

When the betrayed asks the cheater, "is it raining outside?," and the cheater says, "yes," the betrayed never feels the need to verify, because the betrayed trusts blindly that the cheater is telling the truth about the weather. 

But when the betrayed asks the cheater "did you have any contact with your affair partner?," and the cheater says, "no," the betrayed verifies because the betrayed really doesn't fully trust the cheater to tell the truth about anything affair-related.


----------

