Am I being Paranoid??

I posted a question earlier, but low and behold after I log out this question pops in my head so please forgive me. I'm so tired of being called crazy, paranoid, and stupid for asking myself and others if this is ok or right so I'm gonna ask u guys and I'd love to hear ur opinions. If you've been married for 23yrs and ur husband has had many affairs during that time, is it ok for ur husband to go to other women's homes to hang out? Even if he says they're just friends? He knows how insecure I am bcuz he made me that way. He thinks that bcuz he hasn't cheated(that I know of) in 8yrs that I should trust him. Please know that I won't get offended by anyone's answers. I'm here for from the heart truth and opinions. Thank u all!

he has broken your trust so many times, it's natural that you feel that way. do not feel guilty about your feelings. here's a trick which should work, without causing much commotion from your husband and his friends. for the time being, you can open up to your husband's women friends and frequently invite them over to your house for hangouts. once they are friends with you, your husband shouldn't have a problem (if he's rereally honest and doesn't intend to cheat again) when you go for a hangout to your now "mutual" friends' place along with him. and meanwhile, i would suggest couple's counselling for trust and insecurity issues.

In a relationship, personally, I think anyone should have the freedom to do what they want within a relationship. A relationship is an addition to life and shouldn't come with restrictions, within reason of course. I.e cheating, getting with someone else etc. Therefore stopping him going to other females houses would be wrong. He didn't *make* you that way. You developed this, on your own, by his past/what he did previously. Therefore you shouldn't punish him for your own insecurities. You should try and fix them, this can be done by concentrating on yourself primarily. Doing things to get your mind off of thinking he's off cheating and realizing that this guy is with you and not them for a reason. When you find solid evidence of cheating, perhaps then you should start with this suspicion. As of right now, I don't think it's benefiting you very much. Another way you can look at it is, if he's going to cheat, then what's the point of stopping him going to other women's houses? It's not like that's going to stop him, if he wants to cheat and most likely the restriction won't make him happy and he'll be more likely to leave the relationship because of it, if gets too strict anyway. The bottom line is, you'll never really know if he's cheating or not, same with him. You could have been cheating this entire time too from his perspective, the only way to really know if he or you haven't been cheating is to literally follow them and be with them 24/7. I'm pretty sure no relationship like that is particularly ideal. It's where the faith in relationships come from, you need to have faith he's not cheating, that's all you can really do. In conclusion, stopping him from going to other women's houses is pointless, if he has intent to cheat, you can never know if he cheats or not, therefore you should have faith in him and try not to worry about it. Unless you find some sort of hard evidence he has been cheating. Hope that helped, I hope you have a wonderful day :)

I really appreciate ur responses. I'm actually getting to the point where I'm thinking it might be better to just walk away. I'm miserable all the time and he was doing this back when he was cheating.So again thank u all u really helped me with this.

I should also state, another situation where effectively telling him to see them less is more reasonable, is if he never really spends that much time with you. Since that's a big problem, since he shouldn't really neglect you and should want to spend time with you. Therefore asking him to spend more time with you would be reasonable, if that's a reason you're feeling miserable that is. If you haven't already, I'd tell him why you're miserable in the relationship. Think of some ways it could be solved which are reasonable and not too restrictive, then sit down with him and discuss the issue. You should discuss exactly what they problem is, how it makes you feel and what you think he could do to try and fix it/remedy it a bit. To the point you get happier in the relationship. If at that point it doesn't really change, or if he evidently is not putting much effort into actually changing and making the relationship better, then I'd consider walking away. You being miserable all the time is a big issue and should be resolved or remedied to some degree, as the relationship shouldn't continue like that for too long. When a relationship brings more sadness than happiness, that's a point when to consider walking away, as you are. The best approach is to try to the issues by communicating them, then if that doesn't work then walk away. If you haven't already tried to discuss them with him already that is. Good luck with your problem, I hope you have a happy outcome!

GRUMPYBEAR3, this is one of those seemingly grey, subjective versus objective areas so I'm going to wade in with my bottom-line levellers which take personal and universal viewpoints into account both. Not least for future reference and articulation purposes (which I hope you'll never again face). The Lover: Someone who genuinely loves you enough to last long term or even a lifetime should, by that definition, care about your welfare and happiness level above and beyond anything or anyone else's, past/present/future, in the WORLD, and at least equal to his own. Someone who genuinely loves you, etc., should do everything in their power to cease doing or remedy anything that clearly makes you uncomfortable when aware that their actions are OR EVEN COULD BE the sole cause of your discomfort; that causing it is reasonably avoidable; that without their actions present or past you wouldn't be experiencing it. Because, someone who truly loves you should, by and during the process of having attained that supposedly mutual state, have experienced the dawning of the existential fact that if one partner in a two-person team is not happy then neither can be the other (aside from very fleetingly). Someone who loves you, etc., shouldn't gain any satisfaction whatsoever from making you uncomfortable and unhappy for one minute longer than avoidably necessary. Quite the opposite. PS: If there's smoke (insecurity) without fire, you need counselling. If there's smoke with present fire or even past fire that hasn't had ample time to completely die out and cease producing fumes/smoke, yet you're told you qualify for counselling - *the teller* needs counselling. The Platonic Friend: A *true* platonic friend has the natural, instinctual motivation to use their intelligence in realising that this specie of ours wouldn't/couldn't have existed this long to begin with were it not for lovers ideally being sufficiently healthily hard- and soft-programmed to allot one another top priority by a huge degree over anyone and anything else in this life (aside from own small children). Said mere friend(s) should [a] know their place or [b] (if they pre-dated the romance) know their newly demoted place and act or make the necessary downward adjustment(s) accordingly. (PS: Dating sites outnumber friend making sites by miles. No-one sends you a card to congratulate you every time you make a new platonic friend. Neither do you get a card congratulating you on being or still being or having newly become single. You do the math.) Genuine Bondedness/Marriage (legal or informal): We don't have a relationship in order to hunt (earn food & drink), sleep and play, it's the other way around. Nature and history both natural and man-made and recorded says so in no uncertain terms. The simple, logical reason is, because the relationship needs to last as long or (ideally) longer than it takes for our offspring to reach OPTIMALLY HEALTHY maturity and independence (as inclusively demands good role modelling). If the relationship meanwhile breaks down, the offspring's chances of survival lessen dramatically (I'm talking evolutionarily, obviously, albeit this primitive wiring is still in full and sole operation today as now dictates emotional survival plus material prosperity rather than actual base survival). Our primary relationship (and mini primary relationship(s)) is therefore not some garnish. It's the main dish. Everything ELSE (save for very basic food and shelter) is just enhancement/padding and should be treated accordingly. Including mere friendships. Trust: Trust is just another word for conditioned thinking and projecting/extrapolating. By behaving repeatedly in certain ways, consistently over a long enough period, each partner's mind can begin to anticipate actions and responses in their lover, including how s/he would or might overly likely react within any given or potential circumstance under a wide variety of conditions both psychological and environmental. Hence, with enough time and repetition, you get this: "I *know* her/him, s/he would never lower her/himself enough to cheat on anyone, let alone me of all people!". Damage or outright break a pattern drastically enough (via an amassed collection of data-containing 'drips' or just one significant mass) and predictability goes out of the window (hence why the insane, aka THE UNPREDICTABLE, unnerve us so). The drip-drip establishment mechanism of predictability either has to begin all over again or the lost portion replaced enough to cancel out/overlay to point of relative invisibility the negative quantum. Failure to do so leaves the natural, healthy insecurity/fear intact. Going further by repeating negative, even mere associative behaviour, just ADDS to that sense. PS: If one has an entirely innocent friend, one tends to prove that by WANTING to introduce ones lover to them at the very first available or self-created opportunity (because one wants acceptance as requires knowledge as includes *all* knowable facets). If you have to even ask to be introduced - ask yourself why. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. However, never mind repeating behaviours that in the past got firmly associated with infidelity. The questionable element here, GRUMPYBEAR, is why, when he wantonly poo-ed all over his first chance to stay and make amends for his affair, he got to have a SECOND affair then a THIRD affair then a FOURTH and-and-and... "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME". If after the second cheating episode you'd reacted to a befitting/healthy level of self-worth *OR, alternatively* had come to better terms mentally with whatever it was that had held you back from more self-respecting action, then whom AND IN WHAT FASHION he happened to be (cough!) friends with wouldn't any longer be bothering you one jot. Because you'd either be divorced already *or* he'd have finally taken you seriously enough to permanently change his ways - including *him* since then being the paranoid one as rendered him not touching female one-to-one (cough!) friendships WITH A BARGEPOLE FOR FEAR OF WHAT IT COULD DO TO HIS ALREADY HIGHLY JEOPARDISED, STILL PRECARIOUS, PRECIOUS MARRIAGE. He is protecting his relationship with these women whilst NOT protecting his (supposedly far greater) relationship with YOU. DAMN right he 'made you insecure'! And of COURSE he calls you crazy, stupid and paranoid. That's exactly how he likes you! EVIDENTLY!! So what does that make HIM, then? My greatest reason for wading in, however, was seeing this: "I'm actually getting to the point where I'm thinking it might be better to just walk away." Getting. Thinking. Might. (You forgot 'maybe'.) Hopefully, then, my input might have helped tip you over that healthier edge to 'definitely'?

Wow, u all have some wonderful input and I don't know if I could ever thank u enough. Unfortunately the problem has been getting worse and I've noticed that it seems like I'm glossing over the things he's doing or has done, to try and not realize it's that real and true. I've been fooling myself and I'm so humiliated that I wasted so much of my life living like this. Again, thank u all so much.

Hi again! It's called minimising. It's a mental survival mechanism that kicks in when the victim believes there's no way out, meaning, try to see the best in it (and ignore or twist the bad bits) or go fruit loopy. It can eventually lead to Stockholm Syndrome. However, in a marital context, and when there are children involved, I call it, Self-Sacrifice. This is laudible but actually unnecessary because, fact, if mum (or the no. 1 caregiver) is sorted and happy then so are the kids, in the same way that mums teach their kids via own repetitious behaviour whether to scream at the sight of an housespider before squishing it/running away, or to calmly scoop it up in a glass and chuck it out of the window. That simple - complex but not complicated, not rocket science. I do hope your sentiments mean you've finally dared to waken up and are going to get out as well as (just in case there's still hope) be seen to be? Trust me, life is too short and too precious to deny yourself your perfectly attainable top priority right and opportunity to live life against the major backdrop of an in-all-senses HEALTHY relationship that via mutual learning and customising just grows stronger and more life-enhancing every day, week, month, year, decade..., whereby (an not a lotta people know this) all the positive feelings usually only experienced during the Honeymoon Period DO NOT, aside from brief lulls here and there as and when To-Do-List necessary - END. (And try saying that little lot after 10 pints! LOL) But you have to be 'fit' and ready to qualify for one. The first step, however, is surprisingly simple, and is called, "I AIN'T BLOODY 'AVIN' IT!!!! WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS?! More to the point - WHO DOES HE THINK *I* AM?!" Scream it with me, Grumpybear. And don't stop screaming it until you *are* it. It's not just misery that loves company, you know; so does huge happiness. :-) (Keep us posted.)