asking for advice on monogamous relationship - acceptable here?

Do you love him enough after 9 months to be willing to go through this journey with him, knowing that a relapse is possible?
A good question. I would also ask, "If Present Peter is a man you feel you love deeply, will you still love Future Peter who has freed himself from his old errors?"

ANY given change can drive people apart just as easily as it can pull them together. If it's a big change, then one (or more) of the people is a different person & the relationship is also different.

I say this not to be mean, but because I've seen it happen where a guy married a woman with a debilitating chronic illness. He was a truly devoted husband, & pretty much built his life around her. Everyone (including her) found it remarkable how happy he was. A few years down the road, a new drug was released, & it changed her life -- she quickly became healthy. Her husband suddenly had no fulltime patient, & became depressed & resentful. Meanwhile, she was back in good shape, & decided she really didn't want to waste time dealing with that nonsense.
 
I'm sorry, I didn't go through all the posts. I'd just like to echo this:
Game-playing is a tough habit to break. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's an addiction, more attractive to some. All those underhanded tricks give a feeling of power over others, even if (as you describe) nobody's really surprised.
Manipulation/dishonesty sure can be a soft addiction, or at least has a similar appeal. Even if he's trying hard, I'd expect some back-sliding.
 
Yes, it often is "a female social thing". Are you familiar with the concept of The missing stair in a social group? Everyone knows about them, but they're just part of the scenery. The only warning a newcomer gets is a discrete warning from someone 'in the know".

Thank you! The "missing stair" is EXACTLY the concept I'd been trying to explain in my earlier post. I don't at all feel that Peter is a missing stair, but the guy who'd been assaulting women for years certainly was one, and gained legitimacy through association with honest, moral people. He also preyed on newcomers, who may not have had a chance to hear stories about him.

I've personally witnessed behaviors in others that make me feel wary & unsafe - a deep feeling of NO. But those behaviors aren't egregious enough to publicly denounce them & call for exclusion. If I shared those feelings with another woman, I wouldn't consider that gossip. It's a finer distinction than Marcus' post indicates, and yes: it's largely gendered. I say this factually, not emotionally: men are often the last to know (or heed warnings about) about the unsafe men in their midst.

There's a large group in the bike community that meets for weekly rides; the core group considers themselves "family." There's been a growing conversation about the balance between welcoming everyone, and ensuring the safety & comfort of all. Some core members have recently formed a sort of safety patrol, something which was sorely needed.
 
If I shared those feelings with another woman, I wouldn't consider that gossip.
I would, though. To me, "not gossip" would be speaking to the person directly, & possibly publicly: "dude, what's this I hear about...?"

Bad enough if the gossip flies around from many mouths. But beware of the Gatekeepers who LOVE to dish dirt about others slyly yet (as we used to say) wouldn't say SH!T if they had a mouthful. ;)
men are often the last to know (or heed warnings about) about the unsafe men in their midst.
I disagree. Men will ignore toxicity out of territorial respect, & will instead gunnysack their irritation. IME, women will avoid mentioning male toxicity when they find the guy attractive or when someone they like (or are trying to impress) seems to like him. (I've seen women misinterpret a guy's tense tolerance of an abject jerk as "liking" him. :eek:)
There's been a growing conversation about the balance between welcoming everyone, and ensuring the safety & comfort of all. Some core members have recently formed a sort of safety patrol, something which was sorely needed.
That's great: there can be NO actual community until the people involved have the ability to control its citizens & their actions.

However, grain of salt: it only takes a few toxic people to start using the safety patrol as a means to power. And if called out on such behavior, they can raise a fuss & get the "disrupter" banished.
 
The answers here aren't only for him to do some major work, but for you to recognize what's going on for yourself. Why are you drawn to this situation and why can't you walk away? You don't have to answer, but consider why this extremely troubled man is so very attractive to you.

Do you love him enough after 9 months to be willing to go through this journey with him, knowing that a relapse is possible? I ask the question kindly but the words I type somehow don't show the kindness I know I'm feeling in my heart as I type it, with apologies.

A good question. I would also ask, "If Present Peter is a man you feel you love deeply, will you still love Future Peter who has freed himself from his old errors?"

These questions are welcome, and ones which I have spent quite some time chewing on. Introspection & personal accountability are the foundations of healthy relating!

Having examined my motives, I feel I can honestly say that it's not the damage I'm drawn to. I spent some time in my early-mid 30s ignoring my issues related to untreated ADD. I was ashamed of my "flaws" & hid them from others. This avoidance of self-work, coupled with PTSD from Beast's abandonment, led me to choose either emotionally unavailable men, or men who were also flawed/avoidant. I didn't trust declarations of love, I didn't trust anyone not to leave me, and I didn't feel I could partner with someone truly healthy, as they would "see" me, and find me lacking. At the same time, my strong moral center and previous experience with healthy relationships led me to rail against shitty treatment. I knew it felt wrong, but I stayed anyway. I chose a LOT of hurt for myself, for many years.

When I finally chose counseling (and ultimately, medication), I shed those unhealthy choices. This is also why I was alone for so long; I had work to do, and I needed to find my center again. Like everyone, I'm still a work in progress, but I'm proud of myself and the changes I've made.

Side note: Beast reconnected with me last year, seeking to reestablish a friendship. He couldn't accept accountability for his choices, and so I regretfully severed connection. (Our friendship stretched back to 1999; there was a lot of history & love before shock & awe.) So, I do feel quite capable of walking away from untenable situations.

What attracts me to Peter? There are three major attractors. One, the feeling of being desired and appreciated as a whole person (not just for sex or what I can offer him). I feel loved, listened to, and (largely) understood. I'm honest about my struggles & challenges, and feel supported through them. This is part of what draws me to support him as he does HIS work; I understand what it's like to seek and make positive change in oneself.

Two, the understanding that everything's on the table. What I read was terrifying, but it wasn't new information. He's not hiding, or lying, or making excuses. His willingness to be vulnerable & share intimacy with me invites my trust. In recent days, he's revealed that he still struggles with "ugly" feelings (his label), though those feelings have largely dissipated. He wants to work through this stuff in counseling, and has repeatedly expressed a desire to be a healthy person, and to have a healthy "us." This is a marked contrast to the attitudes of many other men I've dated, who could not bear the idea of examining their own shit. I was clear with him from the beginning: I will not partner with someone who will not do self-work. I suppose the attraction to vulnerability could read as an attraction to damage, but I've turned it over & looked at it from many angles. I honestly don't believe that's a factor.

Three, the connection we are currently sharing is pretty damn good. From the start, it has felt natural, fun, hot, safe, and sweet. My fears are all past-and-possible-future fears, untethered to the present. We both really value the relationship we're sharing. If he / ex-lovers hadn't revealed his past, I wouldn't have known it based on his treatment of me. I DO feel invested, though I'm aware of the sunk-cost fallacy; I won't keep investing if it starts to feel shitty.

Karen, "Why CAN'T you leave" doesn't feel like quite the right question here - it doesn't feel as though there's yet a REASON to leave. Does that make sense?

Ravenscroft: Ooh, that's a good one. My ex-"husband's" brother dated a girl in high school who was a nasty piece of work. Plot twist: she had a brain tumor. Once it was removed, she was a lovely, kind young woman. He dumped her. :p

I think: yes. Future Peter who's done years of work & made changes will be different from Current Peter. I look forward to meeting that person, and imagine I will be Future Me, as well. All evidence points to two people who wish to change and grow individually, as well as together.
 
... "When I posted about a rapist in a community I belonged to"

You're the second person who rationalized the gossip by comparing it to warning of sexual assault. Did this guy sexually assault these women? I may very well have just skimmed past it. I thought he was just being dishonest and disrespectful.

I have been on these boards for five years. The only thing that really bugs me here is that some people are quick to slap a label on someone, based only on a poster's narrative, and call it a day. This is irresponsible.

People sure love to label someone a villain. The bigger and scarier the label the better.
 
I would, though. To me, "not gossip" would be speaking to the person directly, & possibly publicly: "dude, what's this I hear about...?"

Bad enough if the gossip flies around from many mouths. But beware of the Gatekeepers who LOVE to dish dirt about others slyly yet (as we used to say) wouldn't say SH!T if they had a mouthful. ;)


As someone who has NO problem being assertive with those exhibiting bad behavior, I have to disagree.

I saw someone at a group ride behaving in a manner that really concerned me. Twenty other people saw it, too. Only one other guy cared. We confronted Jackhole together. When I talked to him, he COMPLETELY dismissed me, not even looking at me when he replied. Realizing I wasn't going to get anywhere with him, I mentioned my unease to others who'd witnessed what he'd done.

Consensus? "He's not so bad." Outcome? None.

When I mentioned this to other trusted male friends, they said "oh, yeah. I never liked that guy. I don't like the way he talks about women."

So... why is he tolerated in the group? These are not teenagers. And this is far from my first experience with this sort of thing.

When Jackhole's behavior escalates to the point at which it can't be ignored? THAT'S when the men in the group will step up and say something. Their voices will carry more weight than mine, or those of other women. I don't mention this to invoke gender politics - it's simply a fact.

Sure, there's high school bullshit gossip, which should be ignored. But THIS is why women talk to each other. I know that guy's not safe. He has no plans to change his behavior, and it's being ignored by the group as a whole. So I'll warn other women.
 
Last edited:
You're the second person who rationalized the gossip by comparing it to warning of sexual assault. Did this guy sexually assault these women? I may very well have just skimmed past it. I thought he was just being dishonest and disrespectful.

People sure love to label someone a villain. The bigger and scarier the label the better.


These are two separate discussions. I want to be clear that Peter has NEVER sexually assaulted anyone. Emm & I are talking about the larger picture, about WHY women talk to other women in a way that's often labeled as "gossip." Sometimes it's petty crap, sometimes it's vital information. I pay more attention to "gossip" because of my life experiences as a woman.

I also realized I didn't address the labeling. I, too, am uncomfortable with second-hand internet diagnosis. I would prefer erring on the side of caution and knowable facts, rather than speculation.
 
Oh, I have been very guilty of posting the opinion that someone was engaging in bad BEHAVIOR (I'm not going to be a hypocrite and state that I never post anything negative), but I wouldn't go so far as to stick a DSM-5 diagnosis on anyone. If I was trained to do that, I wouldn't be driving around in a 2007 minivan.

I have also noticed the diagnosis of Asperger's being tossed about a lot. I take all that internet psychiatry with a grain of salt. I actually used to work as a nurse in the psychiatric wing of a hospital. I think I lost my taste for labels then, as it just didn't really matter; I was tending to the person, not the diagnosis.
 
Last edited:
Shaya, I'm ashamed that it took me this long to recognize your avatar as the Dead Milkmen logo. I believe in swordfish!

*we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming*
 
Emm & I are talking about the larger picture, about WHY women talk to other women in a way that's often labeled as "gossip." ... I pay more attention to "gossip" because of my life experiences as a woman.
I missed that part. When did this start straying toward sexism? Not that I care, really. ;)

IME, it's got little enough to do with gender, except as reflects the actual power status of male/female -- in the tiny piece of the world around me, men seem to resort to sub rosa chatter as much as women. It might be couched in faux gruffness, but pretty much the same stuff in a different box.

Here's an easy diagnosis, highly accurate too, with no need to use two-dollar DSM words --
  • People who feel a simple sense of empowerment have little reason to engage in whispering campaigns -- at best, those are terribly inefficient. People who possess strength don't casually waste effort.
  • If a group has an established need for "gossip," then its interpersonal communications SUCK.
  • And if most of the "gossips" are female, then it sure looks like the group has placed women in a secondary role to males.
I stand by my thought that the group enviroment may be toxic -- emotionally, mentally, psychologically.
 
Here's an easy diagnosis, highly accurate too, with no need to use two-dollar DSM words --
  • People who feel a simple sense of empowerment have little reason to engage in whispering campaigns -- at best, those are terribly inefficient. People who possess strength don't casually waste effort.
  • If a group has an established need for "gossip," then its interpersonal communications SUCK.
  • And if most of the "gossips" are female, then it sure looks like the group has placed women in a secondary role to males.
I stand by my thought that the group enviroment may be toxic -- emotionally, mentally, psychologically.

There is so much I wish to say about this! I feel this topic is a derailment of the original question, though, which has largely been examined (though I am open to other insights).

Briefly, then, I'd just say that "women in a secondary role to males" is a very easy dynamic to slip into. If the ratio is 6:1, male voices tend to dominate, unless there is a conscious choice to do otherwise.

Also, I agree that this enormous community of "bike fun" people has toxic sub-groups. I like group rides, I have some dear friends who also enjoy group rides, and I do my best to avoid social situations with some of the shitty people who also attend these group rides. My core crew of bike friends do group rides and socialize together outside of those events; we've known each other for a decade. I trust them, and the group dynamic there is healthy & fun.

I've chosen not to attend certain rides any more. There's no price of admission - you show up on your bike, and that's it, which means literally anyone can join. The larger the group, the more difficult it is for newcomer A to know about problematic person B, who'd been kicked out of group ride C to hang out with group ride D, who maybe doesn't know about their past bad behavior. The issue of information sharing & community policing is actively being discussed, and is an issue without an easy solution.

Some people have chosen to lead women-only, or people-of-color-only rides. Those are necessary, and it's also necessary to address the underlying sexism & racism that make some of the larger rides unwelcoming.

And now you know WAY more about my local bike scene than you ever wanted to. :p
 
You're the second person who rationalized the gossip by comparing it to warning of sexual assault.
Sexual assault warnings are one type of info transmitted this way, but so are generalised douchebag warnings, domestic abuser warnings, serial cheater warnings, etc.

Anything that is considered (by the men in the group) to be too minor to cause a guy to be ostracized or too major to be dealt with without a copy of the police report and sworn testimony of two male witnesses is transmitted between women via word of mouth. If you don't want that to happen in your communities then you need to ensure that the people you accept in your communities don't require those sort of warnings.
 
sexual assault warnings are one type of info transmitted this way, but so are generalised douchebag warnings, domestic abuser warnings, serial cheater warnings, etc.

Anything that is considered (by the men in the group) to be too minor to cause a guy to be ostracized or too major to be dealt with without a copy of the police report and sworn testimony of two male witnesses is transmitted between women via word of mouth. If you don't want that to happen in your communities then you need to ensure that the people you accept in your communities don't require those sort of warnings.

I could not have said it better.
 
I disagree. Men will ignore toxicity out of territorial respect, & will instead gunnysack their irritation. IME, women will avoid mentioning male toxicity when they find the guy attractive or when someone they like (or are trying to impress) seems to like him. (I've seen women misinterpret a guy's tense tolerance of an abject jerk as "liking" him. :eek:)

This is not meant to challenge you explicitly, but more of a general question: why tolerate abject jerks, tensely or otherwise? Why ignore toxicity? Why not help create welcoming environments for everyone?

My example of seeing bad behavior, addressing it directly, being ignored, addressing it to the group, and being dismissed, again? That is the norm. Not the norm in my subculture of bike funnists, but the American cultural norm. People are afraid of conflict or upsetting someone that they have fun times with, even when they are presented with clear evidence of unsafe behavior. Sure, I'll avoid Jackhole from now on. Then I might avoid the rides he's on. Other women might avoid those rides. Soon, there aren't any women on the group rides. Meanwhile, Jackhole is "tolerated." Then the dudes start asking: "how do we get more women to come on rides?"

Simple. Help create safe spaces, and take concerns seriously. When I share concerns with someone, it is because I trust them to take me seriously. If I'm dismissed, I no longer believe they'll have my back if something else happens.
 
Again, I'm not sure why we are labeling someone with a pathology, when we are no experts, and we don't even know the man? I don't think that should even be the main focus; the OP is just asking if his past behavior is an absolute guarantee that he will continue this behavior. She didn't ask, "Do you think my boyfriend in a narcissist? Do you think he has borderline personality disorder?"

Clearly, there have been major issues with him in the past. NONE of us are in a position to determine exactly what is "wrong" with him. I'm not saying that those behaviors won't rear their ugly heads in the future; I'm just trying to say that people can and do change, if they are willing to do the work.

I have been on these boards for five years. The only thing that really bugs me here is that some people are quick to slap a label on someone, based only on a poster's narrative, and call it a day. This is irresponsible.

Hi powerpuff. I am sorry I hurt your feelings. My words about the red flags of narcissism obviously hit a nerve with you. You a free of your former "bad" behavior, and in a "good boring" marriage now. That's great.

I didn't mean to "slap a label and call it a day." I spent a goodly amount of time on my posts. I wasn't just "slapping a label."

If I seemed to jump to conclusions about mostlymono's bf, it is because I was in a relationship with a narcissist for 2.5 years, and as a polyamorous woman, who dates, I need to protect myself by being aware of behaviors and words that are red flags that I'm dealing with a narcissist/sociopath/psychopath. Research shows us that narcissts/sociopaths of this type make up 6% of the general population. They are everywhere. So it is a valid thing to warn against, imo.

I was trying to be helpful to mostlymono (as the women in her biking club were), since she seemed very concerned with Peter's former behavior, and the damning words in Peter's journal about his behaviors, and how he didn't "give a shit" about the feelings of the women he hurt. Lack of empathy is a big red flag for narcissists/psychopaths.

If Peter turns out to just have been on a bad road, and can heal himself by doing the hard work you did, I am all for it. I just didn't want mostlymono to be taken in by her soft feelings for Peter. I didn't want her to waste her time with someone who can't change. If you read over on the Psychopath Free forum, as I did extensively, you will see countless women who think they can help a narcissist heal and change. And they've wasted years or decades and all their self-respect, self esteem and dignity in trying to do so.
 
Last edited:
I just think it's irresponsible to attach a clinical pathology to someone, if you don't 1) have the education and training to do so and 2) you haven't actually EVALUATED the person in question.

You don't need to tell me that there are sociopaths everywhere. My sister met an ex-convict who she fell in love with. She waited for him three years while he sat in prison for violating release conditions. When he got out, he killed her two weeks later.

I am FULLY aware that there are many women who believe they can "heal" a man. I had begged and pleaded with my sister to not do something so foolish; to not waste precious time waiting for someone who was so damaged. She just dug her heels in further. My sister was murdered in 1999, and my mother still has to take Xanax every day to maintain some level of functioning. So, don't tell me that I don't know there are dangerous people out there.

Aside from being a drug addict, there is clearly something wrong with the guy who killed my sister but, since I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm not going to pretend I know something I don't and assign him a specific pathology.
 
PowerPuffGrl, I'm so very sorry to hear about your sister; there are no words large enough to describe how terrible that is. Much love to you. (I hope that comes off as sincere, and not trite. I don't know you, but I have enormous empathy for your pain and loss.)

Mags, I am listening to your warnings, and taking them to heart. Thank you for sharing your experience.

Karen, I love what you said about anxiety & jealousy being early warning systems. I am keeping my eyes open, and will heed any future alarms.

Thank you all for the time, attention, and wisdom you've brought to my question. Your input has been helpful, and much appreciated.
 
Sexual assault warnings are one type of info transmitted this way, but so are generalised douchebag warnings, domestic abuser warnings, serial cheater warnings, etc.

Anything that is considered (by the men in the group) to be too minor to cause a guy to be ostracized or too major to be dealt with without a copy of the police report and sworn testimony of two male witnesses is transmitted between women via word of mouth. If you don't want that to happen in your communities then you need to ensure that the people you accept in your communities don't require those sort of warnings.

A-fucking-(wo)men!

This is something that is so frustrating to me with Dude that MrS understands completely.

Women, consciously or not, are taught to always be on guard and "watch out for" men acting suspiciously. That we are targets and if we don't "watch out" then bad things can happen. And unfortunately that happens all too often - the woman who wore a short skirt and didn't "watch out", the woman who got too drunk and didn't "watch out", the woman who had the gall to get gas at a convenience store at 2 am and didn't "watch out", the woman who lost her group(herd, ie. got separated from her friends) and didn't "watch out".

So, we herd together (cause, yeah, we all have to pee at the same time, in the club with the creepy rape hallway...) and we share "red flags"(gossip) that we have seen or heard. Cause why? By the time "he" is assaulting you, it is too late...there is not always one of you "knights in shining armour" to ride to the rescue at just the moment that he is PROVING to be the menace that we thought he was all along. Yeah, it would be nice if we were all kick-ass black-belts in Judo that can kick a guy's ass like in the movies. But, let's face it, I am 5 foot 3 and 43 years old - the number of hours that would take is more than I have left over after working 10-12 hour days.

None of us wants to be the test case that proves the creep is actually a criminal. We are trying to AVOID that outcome, not testify for the prosecution after the fact. So maybe he is "only" a groper, a GF/wife beater, a user who steals from you and dumps you - it still sucks and we wouldn't wish it on anyone else.

PS. Don't worry - we recognize that there are bitter ex-GF's and lying drama-queens, etc. - women "gossip" about each other too.

PPS. I like the "trust starts at zero" part that someone mentioned above - how someone treats ME is vastly more influential than what some random chick (or guy) says, and if I note that what I observe doesn't jive with what I am told? Well, then, the individual who provided the "information" may have an agenda of their own.
 
Last edited:
JaneQSmythe, I wish I could "like" your post, more than once. This is a concept that has to be explained to men that women implicitly understand. We understand the difference between gossip & warnings, but we LISTEN.
 
Back
Top