Question for all, but I addressed Melody since she usually says why would you trust an untrustworthy person.

But, when do you give a WS the benfit of the doubt. After reading several posts over the last year, I think many F/WS want the benefit of the doubt, like they had before D-Day. This seems to be a great relief to many WS. Maybe that's so they are free to continue an A, but also, for a FWS, its a signal that they are being successful at earning trust back.

Now, in reality, there is no way to truly know. For any BS, you can now imagine numerous ways to be decieved.

So how do you make the call between when a minor, inconsistincy is just that, versus when it's a WS being dishonest?

What turned the corner between suspecting everything versus normal occurences?

transperancy openness and honesty in everything. they earn trust not demand it. they don't keep secrets or secret email accounts you don't know about.

You can't really give the benefit of the doubt, but you don't have to automatically assume guilt, either.

A wait-and-see approach can work if you just keep watch for facts that will tend to support (or not) the FWS's position. Even if you don't solve everything, you will see a pattern emerge over time, either one of truthfulness, or deceit and evasion.

As you see a pattern of truthfulness in the things you can verify, it becomes easier with time to at least consider that the FWS might be telling the truth about things that cannot be verified.

But how do you know? You just hope to have reached a point of trust??

Editing: Just as I pressed "continue" for the original reply I read #7 on the "Your To-Don't List" in the June 2006 issue of Men's Health magazine which reads "Snoop through her e-mail, closets, or medicine chest. There's probably nothing there you need to worry about. But rest assured, you'll find something you don't want to see."

Frankly, I have found info in the e-mails, closets AND medicine chest.

The answer to this is: when they have EARNED back trust. I give the benefit of the doubt to trustworthy persons. And even still, I will never blindly trust anyone again. I occasionally still check on things 6 years later.

SFA wrote:
You check. And check, and check. And when you go for a long, long time and don't find anything, you check LESS. And the more time that goes on that you don't find anything strange, the more trust is built.

But it always comes back to this simple truth: never trust an untrustworthy person.

Trust takes a long time to regain. But people must understand that some attempt at living a normal life again must be established. Living with a judgemental and obsessive person can wreak the recovery of a FWS who is really being honest, making a change, and trying to right all of the wrongs. My spouse and I totally have openess with our email accounts and phone calls etc. Times of absences and checking in with our spouse to let them know where we are at different times during the day. Communicating constantly and openly has helped our marriage the most. But it takes 2 to make this marriage and trust issue work.

Texmex hit on what the WS has to do to EARN trust. But it is the WS who has to earn trust, the BS cannot do that for him. Being skeptical of an untrustworthy person is not being judgemental, it is simply the natural consequence of untrustworthy behavior. The BS will be obsessed with protecting himself for quite some time. As he should be.

It is up to the WS to open up his life and become as transparent as possible. The more transparent, the harder it is to cheat, and the faster trust is restored. But, it is up to the WS to earn trust, the BS cannot do that for him.

On second thought, maybe it is being judgmental. Which is a good thing. A person should judge that an untrustworthy person is not to be trusted.

I am an ex-cop. I have very good radar for lies. But, man was I ever deceived. Time and again I would fall for the lies and be blind sided.
When should you give the benefit of the doubt. Never. Learn to trust to an extent... but verify. Never make the assumption that something is a "minor inconsistency." You can TREAT something as though it were... and maybe it is... but verify. Because after most A's are discovered... all BS can look back with the perfect vision afforded to hindsight say... "well, now that makes sense" .. when looking at a slew of minor inconsistencies. A FWS has forever lost the right to "expect" that their words are to be believed without question or doubt. It just comes with the territory. There is not one FWS out there that deserves that amount of trust. You may give it at times... but it is not because it was earned.
So, trust... but verify. Remember that the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. The more time a FWS spends on the "right" side... the more their "pasts" will indicate that they are to be trusted... just not completely.

I don't think if there is a "minor inconsistency" I will ever give the befefit of a the doubt.

To me a "minor inconsistency" is a small lie. Whenever I speak to anyone in this world if there is a minor inconsistency I become suspicious.

When I tell my FWW something she can snoop 100 ways to sunday and not find an inconsistency because I don't lie to her. Well I do sometimes but what do you say when your wife tells you she loves the outfit she is wearing and you hate it and she asks if you like it too.(not an inconsistency a survival tactic for men)

I don't believe every minor consistency has anything to do with another A. I do believe it proves we do not have a relationship where we can be completely honest.

Dr Harley in Coping with Infidelity: Part 2
How Should Affairs End?


http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5060_qa.html

So one of the most common clues of an affair is an unwillingness to let a spouse investigate all aspects of life. If two lives are necessary for an affair, and if a spouse is curious enough, the secret second life is relatively easy to discover. Difficulty in getting a spouse to talk about events of the day can be a sign of trying to hide the second life.

One of the most common smoke-screens used by unfaithful spouses is to express shock that their spouse would be so distrusting as to ask questions about their secret second life. They try to make it seem as if such questions are an affront to their dignity, and a sign of incredible disrespect. They figure that the best defense is a good offense, and so they try to make their spouses feel guilty about asking too many questions.

I am a firm believer in letting each spouse do as much snooping around as they want. Nothing should be kept secret in marriage, and no questions should be left unanswered. If a spouse objects to such scrutiny, what might he or she be hiding?

More from the same article. Dr. Harley:

Anything that takes one spouse away from the other overnight is an invitation for an affair. But when an opposite-sex co-worker tends to join a spouse on business trips, red flags should be flying in all directions. Any evidence that this relationship is anything more than pure business is, from my perspective, a gigantic clue that an affair might be in progress. That's also the case if a spouse and opposite-sex co-worker spend a great deal of time working together.

We are all wired to have an affair. We can all fall in love with someone of the opposite sex if that person meets one of our emotional needs. If you don't think it can happen to you because of your conviction or will-power, you are particularly vulnerable to an affair. And if you think your spouse would never have an affair, you are also vulnerable.

Look what happened to poor Kathy Lee Gifford. She stated publicly and wrote in one of her books that she trusted her husband completely, that he would never cheat on her. But she should not have trusted her husband. If she would have taken the steps she is now taking to help him avoid another affair, the first would never have taken place, and she would have avoided all its pain and embarrassment. I don't trust my wife completely and she doesn't trust me, and that's why neither of us have ever had an affair. Lack of trust does not make spouses paranoid and miserable, it makes their marriages safe.

I understand trust and verify, earning trust, etc.

But even Harley's quite says trust completely. That infers there is some "blind trust".

When I say minor inconsistencies, I don't mean WS stories. I mean, sometimes traffice is bad, sometimes you really don't hear your cell phone, etc.

I guess, the way feel is that I made some mistakes in my M. I dearly don't want the rest of my actions, the rest of my M to be tainted by my past.

I would assume that a WS wants the same thing. Also, at some point it wears you down to be accused of lying when you are actually telling the truth.

I guess, I think at some point both partners have to start going on faith with some things. Give each other the benefit of the doubt.

So what is the process or timeline on trust. Six months of no trust, then six months of verifying the big things, etc. Is there no timeline? Is it, I'll know it when I see it?

Hierarchical evidence.

That is what it is about..this trust in the small arena stuff.

Honestly..trying to verify EVERYTHING for the rest of your life is just not feasable.

Did she really have tuna salad for lunch..or was it egg?

Was she twenty minutes late because of traffic..or a secret meeting?

Sometimes you just don't have the intel or a reasonable [and by reasonable I am talking about not being CONSUMED by trying to fact find] method of checking up.

At this time you act on an assumption [don't worry..everyone does and all the time..the question is whether the assumption holds water in the face of facts..for example..I just sat in this chair and expected it to hold my weight..if I hit the ground I would have assumed incorrectly]] that she is not trustworthy and build your responses from there.

If and when she has created enough history of honest and trustworthy behavior you are likely to upgrade that assumption.

There are several things she can do to encourage this process..and they basically involve bringing the intel to you along with evidence. If she carries the weight of transparency and accountability she will travel more ground than if you try to do it for her.

Harley says DON'T EVER trust completely. He said: "I don't trust my wife completely and she doesn't trust me, and that's why neither of us have ever had an affair."


Trust is restored when trust is restored. It is restored - to a degree - after a long pattern of demonstrated trustworthy behavior. And even then, you shouldn't ever completely trust her.

Like Harley says: "Lack of trust does not make spouses paranoid and miserable, it makes their marriages safe."


It should be tainted by an affair though. Your marriage will always have the taint of an affair. That is what you signed up for when you chose to stay in this marriage. However, positive actions can overcome that taint if she ever tries to restore trust. But she has not done that yet, so the taint is not only there, but grows with each new discovery of her untrustworthiness.

in my work

I ask

"is there any possibility you might be pregnant?"

even when the answer is a solid "no way"

I always verify that their response is not just wishful thinking... I ask

"How do you know you could not be pregnant"

depending on
1. that response
and
2. what else is going on (abdominal pain? bleeding? vomiting?)
or
3. what medications I am about to give

I often run a quick pregnancy test anyway
no matter ~what~ her reasoning/contraception/history

so

when to give the benifit of the doubt?

it's actually easier for me to respond in the negative ....

do NOT give the benifit of the doubt when something of great importance or something of great potential danger hangs in the balance

accept the response, then follow up with facts you gather

Pep