What do you think about trust?

true dat! but once a cheater... sorry, people rarely change in that way!

 

Why are you thinking about giving people the rope to hang themselves if you have 100% trust in them?

 

nice one!

 

You can trust people will be inconsistent. You can trust your capacity to be equal to any situation.

The alternative to trust is suspicion at best, to viciousness at worst.

 

To earn his trust I told him I was willing to introduce him to my friends as my boyfriend, have a committed relationship, etc. He didn't make an effort to do those things. And I didn't expect him to trust me implicitly. I thought once we'd been seeing each other for a while we'd naturally become closer and develop a bond.

Please don't call me a fuckhat.

 

That sounds like a one-sided relationship, or rather, your level of the relationship was different than his. But then again, you have to account for the fact that you're talking about a relationship with a straight man. Typically, they're slower to commit. And that's my fact of the day.

You are not a fuckhat.

 

That's what I'm arguing, that people have a difference of opinion about that. Don't think that your way is the only way.

If you'd read my posts, you'd know I didn't think he was a cheater. I just didn't know that he wasn't trustworthy, because I didn't feel I'd known him long enough. Who said anything about cheating? There are plenty of other ways to betray someone's trust.

Oh I get it. You're one of those defensive guys I was talking about. Please don't call me or my way of thinking stupid, I was only looking for a polite discussion here.

 

The alternative to trust can be INDIFFERENCE - lack of concern!

Isn't gray sometimes better than black or white?

 

Exactly. And until someone does those things for me, I'm not willing to put my heart on the table. Of course I'll make small concessions when it's still just a casual relationship, but I'm not going to pour my feelings out on the first date and expect the guy to treat me with respect.

 

Lack of concern is a lack of opportunity to increase our appreciation.

Indifference is not on the same scale as trust. Lack of concern or suspicion implies acceptance.

I don't think gray is better than black or white being a combination of the two. However, being able to distinguish one thing from another is essential.

 

I beg to differ! Indifference when it comes to trust does NOT imply acceptance. There has to be a REASON for trust. If you don't trust someone, you have a reason. If you do, you have a reason. If you simply don't care about their trust, you're not accepting if they're trustworthy, you just don't care because you have no reason to!

 

i believe we are all innocent until proven guilty

you wouldn't tell someone

"i believe - until proven otherwise
you are a cold blooded killer"

and yet some people do turn out to be.

so by the same standard - why would i start any friendship/relationship

with the notion

i believe they are sinful?

sounds utterly redundant and completely hypocritical

i don't trust you're to be trusted? ... stupid say what to who now!??

it could be those who lack trust

are overly aware of their own capacity to be untrustworthy.

regardless

it's easier just to trust people - and to clarify a point

you give someone some rope

you are merely letting them make their own mistakes

allowing those mistakes

is precisely the negative consequence of trusting the wrong person.

just my thoughts.

 

Don't Trust Anyone

 

^^^

i don't have a gun to the head to those who are untrusting

not all of them anyways.

 

Innocent and guilty are not the only options though. I consider people unknown quantities, until I know something about their character. I don't assume anyone innocent OR guilty.

You're using this rope analogy, but it doesn't make sense because if someone betrays your trust, you get hurt more than that person does. If they don't care about your feelings, how are they using the rope to hurt themselves? How are they ever going to know they're doing something wrong if you always give them the benefit of the doubt?

There are many good people out there, and it's not like I trust NO ONE. But I've met so many untrustworthy people that it's just illogical to assume everyone I meet is going to treat me well. Isn't it better to nip the problem in the bud and not get your feelings involved?

 

Despite my very minimal and limited dealings with other people, I have witnessed enough two-facedness, backstabbing and dishonesty to make me wary of absolutely everyone that I meet. And honestly, whilst it may have been very negative experiences that have led to be this way, I also think it is a healthy attitude to have. I do believe in giving everyone the benefit of the doubt until they actually give you a reason to revoke that, but by the same token, I think it is wise to never trust anyone 100%. Even if only to minimise your own hurt as much as possible if somebody does turn out to be untrustworthy.

At the end of the day, the only person you can truly know inside out, is yourself.

 

you've missed the initial point.

 

i think you've missed what some of us are trying to say BEYOND the initial point...

 

you just proved what i was saying about indifference!!! there's no "wrong person" to trust.

i remain gray when it comes to people.

 

Well I think that's you missing the point. How do you know if someone's dishonest before you get to know them? You have to get to know them without putting your own feelings out there, and that's what I'm trying to say here.

A stranger wouldn't hurt your feelings, unless they want to be a dick, which sometimes happens. It's only once you put your heart on the table and they're no longer a stranger that you can get hurt, so I'm advocating not doing that.

Anyhow. I'm done hijacking my own thread.