# either you trust each other or you don't



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

There's something about that statement that I don't like.

anyone else who agrees with me and can articulate, please have a go.

Anyone who thinks that statement reflects a lot of relationship wisdom, please help me to see why.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

Just like there is hope and false hope, so is there trust and blind trust. What I suspect the statement of your thread implies is blind trust and that is bad.

Blind trust relies on denial, trust does not.
Blind trust accepts secrecy, trust does not.
Blind trust accepts bad behavior, trust does not.

Lastly, trust is gained through consistently positive actions, blind trust does not.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I've found the statement "flippant" -depending.....it's generally given from the perspective of one who thinks the other is insecure for questioning something that may have some validity ..I don't find the comment very helpful when given in this context....

It is attempting to overlook another's behavior...that "*blind trusting*" Morituri spoke of.


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

In God we trust, all others must sign. 

Everyone can be trusted. That is the reality. It's our expectations that tend to cause the disconnect. Everyone can be trusted to do what they believe to be in their best interest. 

A person must decide for themselves, if the interest of the other is in line with their own. If it is in line, then all is good. If its not, then you must move on. 

I believe that many of the relationship trust issues are born of fear. A man or woman doesn't trust their spouse to remain faithful...they let their fear of loss cloud their ability to do what is in their own interest. 

F**k fear. Lose the fear, gain the ability to trust...gain the ability to know.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

> either you trust each other or you don't


Problems I have with that statement:

- it lacks knowledge and maturity
Ex.: Those who have lived a little, know that some folks can be trusted every time with a loan. Those same folks may not be trusted to keep a secret. 

-Trust is earned over time and can only be given fully when a person proves themselves over a period of time and a multitude of circumstances. 

-As humans, we all have different boundaries and those have different levels of desired compliance to be broken. 

-Absolutes by their very nature are generally untrue where humans are concerned. 
Ex.: One person may say they will never reconcile after being betrayed, and then attempt it, depending on specific circumstances within their relationship and new knowledge.

-My opinion is, it's impossible to fully and completely trust anyone, including myself. 

-In general, we can trust that most folks will have some compassion and ability to forgive.

-In general, we can trust that intentions are good.

-In general, we can trust that others want to understand us.

Even with the above general beliefs, many have been disappointed. We are all individuals. There is no way to trust fully. Those we trust most are usually those we hold dearest in our lives. Even they disappoint us sometimes. 

This is where forgiveness, empathy and understanding come into play. We don't have to trust others fully, as long as we can trust them generally and in most circumstances, while having a large capacity to understand and forgive. 

We can't even know the capacity of others to forgive. We don't know our own capacity many times. 

Those who say we can trust fully, may not be considering all that simple statement covers with respect to ourselves and others.

Edit: I do realize I am reading that statement as an absolute. Ex.: Either we fully trust or we do not fully trust.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

To be sexually faithful to me, I trust my husband 100%.

To remember to take out the recycling . . . iffy.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

It's a false dichotomy. There are degrees of trust, and areas of trust (which can also have degrees).

And there is the famous: trust, but verify.


----------



## meson (May 19, 2011)

NextTimeAround said:


> There's something about that statement that I don't like.
> 
> anyone else who agrees with me and can articulate, please have a go.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that statement reflects a lot of relationship wisdom, please help me to see why.


I don't like that statement either. As Mori and SA indicated, it's couple with the attitude of one should never check or inquire because then that's evidence of lack of trust. 

I trust my climbing partner because we always checkup on each other. The rate of mistakes is very low and reliability high but not always perfect. Because of this if he is building an anchor or something I can't see I will trust my life to it. There are people I don't trust and don't climb with anymore because they failed consistently when checked. This checking is essential forthe safety of both. Anyone can make a mistake or start a behavior that increases risk. Checking can identify potential mistakes and nullify them.

The same is true with relationships. The checking and verification you obtain through transparency is what establishes trust just as Mori said. It's not about not trusting it's about protecting the relationship and in the case of marriage, protecting the marriage.

To adopt the notion that either you trust or you don't really implies that protecting the marriage is not the spouses business. I firmly disagree with this. My spouse trusted me but yet saw that I was developing an EA and she brought it up and protected our marriage for which I am grateful. She trusts me as much now as then and we each have each others back in our marriage. We live one life together as a team not independent lives for parts that they are prevented from joining in.


----------



## Kitt (Jun 3, 2015)

jld said:


> To be sexually faithful to me, I trust my husband 100%.
> 
> To remember to take out the recycling . . . iffy.


:rofl:


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

At what point does verification become nuisance or worse? 

While I agree with what Meson posted. I noticed a similarity in the amount of verification depending on the serious nature of the situation. 

Life threatening situations where one must rely on another's work seems expected and desired because both will rely on the effectiveness of an anchor. 

I suppose a life-long commitment to be similar to a life-threatening situation, but my gut tells me there is a limit to how much verification will be tolerated within a marriage, and most verify less than they think. 

I do not know what is generally acceptable and don't think absolutes apply in marriage, either. Constant verification would be taxing on the relationship and give off a feeling of too much doubt. 

There is a balance that is not really addressed in this thread.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

If I trust someone, they earned it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

Trust is built up over time. And there are different areas and types of trust. Depending on the type of trust, timelines to build up to 100% trust vary. I trust my wife to always buy the best in coffee - didn't take me long to build up that trust to 100%. I trust my wife to always make the right financial decisions - this is going to take longer to reach 100%.

So in relationships, trust is built up over time. And is very easily set backwards (or downwards in %) by wrong or bad actions.

So blind trust is not the way. Built up trust is. And trust is built up by verifying certain things along the way.


----------



## meson (May 19, 2011)

2ntnuf said:


> At what point does verification become nuisance or worse?
> 
> While I agree with what Meson posted. I noticed a similarity in the amount of verification depending on the serious nature of the situation.
> 
> ...


It depends on the form of verification. If one has a daily inspection with interrogation then that is certainly oppressive. This kind of checking occurs as if one expects to find or prevent something.

The checking I refer to is constant and happens mostly through transparency. One can check just by the day to day following of your spouses activities. This is done not because something might happen that we are looking for but rather because we are interested in keeping up with each other is doing because we want to be a part of each others life. We do things for each other and use each others devices as is convenient which is another form of transparency. One can tell if there are signs of something not disclosed as part of the day to day interaction or if something become suddenly more important. This kind of checking is consistency checking and happens in the background and is generally invisible and therefore not intrusive. 

We know most of the time where everyone in the family is mostly for logistical reasons. We demand of each other and our kids to let us know where we are going and when we will be there or come back. This way each of us can make decisions about how to accommodate a change in the schedule that doesn't screw someone else's plans. The point is that by knowing each others schedules and plans we can more easily accommodate them and respect them. Our kids have caught on that it's not really about control and that we are more likely to assist them if we know about it and it's context. As a result we know more about what our teenagers are doing than most parents. This is transparency. This transparency requires talking email or text about what's going on and is really not an inconvenience. And here checking is passive because is generally easy to figure out where and when someone should be someplace. Holes become easy to spot. 

This kind of consistency checking builds trust. If there is a deviation and it's always backed by a good explanation then trust is built. This works for us and is not intrusive and doesn't give us the feeling that we are being untrusted.

I can say that there have been less than a hand full of times where something didn't add up, in our 25+ year marriage, and I proactively checked on the situation or event. Each time I've done so it was silently done and I indepentantly verified it. This I think is a balanced approach and strengthens our marriage without being accusatory or intrusive.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

It's too bad I wasted my life believing deceptive women who told me I was controlling by wanting and asking for those very things. I've believed too many lies for way too long. I've put up with more than anyone should. I was duped and for what? Am I better for it? Did what happened to me help another? What a horrible waste. I was a good man. Now, I'm tired. I've had enough of this world.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I go to the gym, workout for an hour - lame workout. Stop at grocery store on the way home. Walk in the door put away the groceries.

M2 asks how my workout was. I say it was fine. She asks why my shirt isn't sweaty.

Is that 'distrust of me' or a valid question based on conflicting data. My shirt is always wet with sweat after a workout. 

1. It was a valid question
2. I explained about my lame workout combined with the groc store air conditioning

Then we had a short reassurance chat. 

I thought her questions were fair. Her tone was puzzled, not accusatory. And she relaxed when I reinforced the message that I am not hunting....




NextTimeAround said:


> There's something about that statement that I don't like.
> 
> anyone else who agrees with me and can articulate, please have a go.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that statement reflects a lot of relationship wisdom, please help me to see why.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> I go to the gym, workout for an hour - lame workout. Stop at grocery store on the way home. Walk in the door put away the groceries.
> 
> M2 asks how my workout was. I say it was fine. She asks why my shirt isn't sweaty.
> 
> ...



One of the early warning signals that my ex-husband was having an affair was that he came home 1) later than usual from his Friday night pub meetup with his coworkers; 2) he didn't smell like beer on that occasion; 3) I had called him a couple of times that evening and his phone went straight to voicemail. We had been burgled just a week before that so I was feeling a bit insecure.

It didn't take me long to figure it out.,


----------



## saubryn (May 12, 2015)

I can see both sides to the statement in that I understand what I think most people mean when they make it, but that I think it vastly over-simplifies the situation.

If a couple have been married/dating for absolutely years and there's never been any possible hint of infidelity, for example, then something happens that is weird/out of character or looks really bad but the partner says "It's not what it looks like, this is what's going on" and gives an unlikely but possible explanation, then in that case "Either you trust each other or you don't" could apply in my opinion.

There's never been any other warning signs, you trust your spouse - for that one off occasion maybe the unlikely explanation really is true.

The problem is the "either you trust each other or you don't" rapidly falls down when there's a PATTERN of weird behavior or if trust has been broken once. That's where I think the whole "trust but verify" thing comes in.

That's just my thoughts.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening.
Trust depends on the topic. My wife can not trust me to remember a chore, but she can trust me never to intentinoally act in a way to harm her. 

I think trust (on a topic) is absolute. If you are verifying, then there is no trust. Right now my wife could divorce me and leave with 90% of our assets (due to the way we are treating some inheritance money). If she did so, I would learn an important (but expensive) lesson about life.

I tend to trust people in general, and surprisingly I have very rarely been betrayed in even a small way, and never in a big way. 

I think though that very few people are able to trust.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

The word trust takes a on a different meaning once you have been betrayed. It opens your eyes that when you put faith into someone it doesn't mean they are going to follow through on thier end. Blind trust can be the worst because you won't see what is so obvious to everyone else. This particular statement haunts me because in premarital counseling, which I still do believe in, this is what they advocated. Trust in yourself you have made the right choice, trust in your partner to prove you right. Foolish at best as some people aren't trustworthy at all.

I think it's ok to have trust in your partner. But never blind 100% trust.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Trust? Or predictability? There are probably things you can and can never trust your own spouse with. That's how they're wired. On the other hand people are far more predictable than trustworthy. I could never trust my wife to be anywhere on time, ever. I rely on her predictability to always be late. Always. I put my faith in predictability not trust.


----------

