is there truly such a thing as a mutual breakup?

[Ordinaryday]

I hear this phrase used a lot and I never really believed it. in my experience, even in breakups where they claim it was 'mutual' one party was usually more 'mutual' than the other, ie there was an instigator and an agree-er, which I dont really consider to be 'mutual'.

 

is there such a thing as a 100% mutual breakup where both parties wanted out to an equal extent?? has anyone ever been through one? or is one side always more 'mutual' than the otherr?"

[TheyCallMeOx]

To me, deciding on whether it was "mutual" or not can only be differentiated between two extremes. On one extreme, the relationship was pretty much like a drunk decision for the both of you. You both just kind of out-of-thin air decided to get into a relationship without knowing anything about each other and there was never anything there. No one bothered to call each other, no one spent time with each other, and it was almost like there was no point of commitment. Both parties felt nothing for each other, didn't even feel like they were in a relationship. At that point, it's safe to assume that it was mutual because they didn't lose anything from it.

 

That's an extreme example, so it's far from the average. I hope, at least. On average, there is no such thing as a "mutual" breakup. On either side of the breakup, you've developed a bias and you're fed a limited amount of information. You don't know what's going on in their mind so you'll never truly know whether they feel the same way you do or not. You can assume that when they say "oh, I'm fine," but if someone sat down and kept track of what goes on in both sides of breakup, there may be some kind of difference. The question is...if the instigator never initiated, would the agree-er have become the instigator? If the agree-er only agrees with the instigator, but didn't feel ready to end the relationship, there is an imbalance. In that situation, the instigator would've gained the upperhand, and it wouldn't have been mutual. Breaking up is a lot like finding a relationship; it's all kind of like a chance kind of thing. There's a lot of variables to consider and the things that go on in life are not always consistent. If the instigator and agree-er felt the same exact thing at the same exact time, it would've been mutual. However, the instigator is the one who gets the ball rolling; if the agree-er isn't already prepared to break up, then it wouldn't be mutual. Sometimes, you can't predict the future, so that would mean the agree-er has to put in a certain amount of effort to bring themselves to agree upon a breakup.

 

For me, when and if I break up with a woman, I never really want to call it mutual even if she claims it is. I don't want to hurt people, and I think it's good to continually remind myself that no one deserves to go through a breakup, and I should do my best to prevent myself from initating a breakup in the first place. Believing that I hurt a woman is a reminder to myself of what happens when I'm not fully aware of what's around me.

[todreaminblue]

to me a mutual break up is where it is agreed that it isnt working for whatever reason and whoever initiated the "talk" or instigated the break up isnt important only importance is........ that it isnt working and needs to end however sad that may be for one or both it needs to close....all my break ups have been mutual....

 

 

 

they had to end there was no choice and it was mutually agreed upon....and i was sad at every relationship ending...I havent fought at the talk at the end of a relationship....i have had disagreements after due to responsibilities to my children and i feel that should always be mutual too....i have full custody uncontested but they need to look after the chidlren they fathered and i enforce that at one point i let it slide....no longer would i..... i do compromise though and again its a mutual agreement.... ......eventually ....my exes saw the light...and we are all on speaking terms..mutual break ups to me again are break ups where both parties know it has to end ....deb

[Els]

Just because someone 'started' the talk doesn't mean that it wasn't mutual... I mean, when you go out with someone, one of you asks the other out, right? If the other person agrees, does that mean that your R isn't 'truly mutual'?

 

I had a mutual breakup with an ex. I started the conversation but it was clear that he agreed it was for the best. We broke up on good terms and have been decent acquaintances since. It's been about 7 years.

[newmoon]

i think there is such a thing. in one instance, we both stopped calling, stopped setting up dates, etc. after a year together we just started to not go out together as much and drifted apart. there was no break-up per se, just a fading away by both people. i consider that a mutual end. no tears, no talk, just kind of too busy for one another, which meant not interested on both ends.

[CarrieT]

Absolutely.

 

I lived with a guy for 2 1/2 years. We were great friends and lived well together. But I admit that I longed to hear him say the "L" word. He kept asking me for patience...

 

Around September/October, we started talking about giving our relationship "six more months" and when we both realized it wasn't going to happen, we started the process of separating.

 

We spent Thanksgiving and Christmas going to our mutual family holiday celebrations together and telling them that we were splitting up. In January, he found a new job across country and I found a new place to live.

 

I even drove across country with him to help him move before flying home to start my new life.

 

That was 25 years ago and we are still great friends so much so that last month, while visiting the resort area where his father lives, I was able to go and visit my Ex's Dad and catch up. It was great.