Does trust need to be earned? Or innocent until proven guilty?

[Hopeful30]

I don't entirely trust a man until months into a relationship. I don't assume he is deceiving, but I don't believe his heart to be true either.

 

My man is of the opinion that unless you have a reason NOT to trust someone, you should. Almost all the men I've dated believe in the 'innocent until proven guilty' analogy. I find that women are generally more cautious, while men (once they've decided on a woman) jump right in and adjust their trust afterwards.

 

Do you think this difference in approach is gender-related? How do you decide if you can/cannot trust someone when in a new relationship?

[carhill]

I have a feeling his comments are qualified. Or he hasn't been injured or ripped off enough. Lucky him.

 

Trust, but verify. Life can be a harsh teacher to even the most trusting among us.

[Hopeful30]

I have a feeling his comments are qualified. Or he hasn't been injured or ripped off enough. Lucky him.

 

Can't cancel the comment so nevermind

[Ami1uwant]

It's about respect...innocent until proven guilty.

[RecentChange]

I am of the trusting camp.

 

Maybe it's the way I am wired, but I have always been. I don't remember not trusting any of my boy friends. Hell, for all I know I could have been cheated on and didn't realize I suppose (there was that fishy, "it's not you it's me" break up).

 

Annnnnd my husband cheated on me. It was a good number of years ago now, and I can honestly say I totally trust him these days. It took me a little while, probably a year before I stopped snooping his phone etc.

[Hopeful30]

I am of the trusting camp.

 

Maybe it's the way I am wired, but I have always been. I don't remember not trusting any of my boy friends. Hell, for all I know I could have been cheated on and didn't realize I suppose (there was that fishy, "it's not you it's me" break up).

 

Annnnnd my husband cheated on me. It was a good number of years ago now, and I can honestly say I totally trust him these days. It took me a little while, probably a year before I stopped snooping his phone etc.

 

I would be crushed. If I may ask, did you have a healthy and trusting chlidhood relationship with your parents? That's a big precursor as to how trusting a person is.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Hopeful30

[RecentChange]

I have a very close, and 100% trusting relationship with my father.

 

My mom was a bit more flaky. I was raised by my divorced father - and I do recognize how that relationship has influenced my romantic ones.

 

He really built me up. I have a pretty healthy sense of self, and I am quite independent. I think that is part of the reason I don't have as much trust issues. My identity and security isn't wrapped up in another person.

 

Plus to this day I remember him saying "kiddo, never count on a man to take care of you, if you are your own capable person, no one can take that away from you"

 

I am not going to say cheating didn't affect me, but I wasn't devisated.

 

To me, a lack of trust is a reflection of insecurity. Sure it might not be SMART but for me, I rather be hurt by having my trust broken, than live in a state of insecurity and without trust.

[Miss Spider]

Good question. For me, it is both. I make an assessment of how much I can trust someone upon meeting them(The way they look, their behavior, the circumstance, etc.)and each experience with them can cause me to gain or lose trust in them. It's also situational. I automatically trust a woman alone with a female child before a man because of things I've heard about. It's not that I generally think women are more trustworthy. There are a lot of variables.

[gorf]

I don't entirely trust a man until months into a relationship. I don't assume he is deceiving, but I don't believe his heart to be true either.

 

My man is of the opinion that unless you have a reason NOT to trust someone, you should. Almost all the men I've dated believe in the 'innocent until proven guilty' analogy. I find that women are generally more cautious, while men (once they've decided on a woman) jump right in and adjust their trust afterwards.

 

Do you think this difference in approach is gender-related? How do you decide if you can/cannot trust someone when in a new relationship?

 

I think its natural not to fully trust someone until time passes. Trust is not a flip of a switch, it has layers. Time and trials reveal layers that you either accept or reject in that person (ex, decide they cannot be trusted, and stop the relationship from going any further). I do not think it is gender related, maybe a little, but for different reasons of course and not enough to make a big enough difference.

 

I would also like to add on a side note, I do not believe true trust and commitment can be attained through long-distance so called "relationship's" as it is impossible without constant physical face to face contact to reveal the layers of trust. Again, its not a flip of a switch on/off. Trust is earned, and in a relationship, its the personal physical evaluation of the person you are dating that reveal whether they can be trusted or not.

Edited October 12, 2016 by gorf

[basil67]

I was always pretty trusting when I was dating.

[RecentChange]

I suppose I am further interested in what kind of trust are we talking about?

 

I automatically assumed fidelity.

 

I have had non monogamous relationships where I didn't expect it. I have had monogamous relationships where - I trusted.

 

I have had casual relationships where I knew they were full of S**** but I never deluded myself and had fun while it lasted.

 

Gonna sell me car? Want to me to sign a contract? Entrust you with a responsibility? Generally I will trust someone as "far as I can throw them". That sort of trust requires earning.

 

My heart? I guess I am a bit more will to risk it, but I certainly do not hand it over to anyone. I will trust someone WAY before I will love someone.

[basil67]

Trust is earned. I stay neutral until I've seen actions that match words. Anything less is unwise.

 

It's not a matter of not trusting... It's a matter of someone showing they are trustworthy.

 

Good point. I was trusting. But the people I trusted acted in a trustworthy manner.

[Gaeta]

I don't entirely trust a man until months into a relationship. I don't assume he is deceiving, but I don't believe his heart to be true either.

 

My man is of the opinion that unless you have a reason NOT to trust someone, you should. Almost all the men I've dated believe in the 'innocent until proven guilty' analogy. I find that women are generally more cautious, while men (once they've decided on a woman) jump right in and adjust their trust afterwards.

 

Do you think this difference in approach is gender-related? How do you decide if you can/cannot trust someone when in a new relationship?

 

I won't believe what a man says before exclusivity. All this flirting, the compliments, the promises of being genuine is worth nothing to me until he offers me exclusivity.

 

From exclusivity I watch his behavior and build some trust based on that. Does he keep his word, is he considerate, does he make himself available, is he an open book. All these aspects will slowly have me build trust in him.

 

After the first 3 months of exclusivity I usually have build a good trust base for a man. If not, if after 3 months I don't feel I can trust him, I don't feel he has my best interest at heart, than I don't see the point of continuing.

[Formerfiveo]

The problem with "innocent unless proven guilty"* is that the burden of proof is on you - not the SO. If he/she is a pathological liar and manipulator, you may never get concrete evidence.

 

Also, if you are the type to not be able to recognize lies or gaslighting, or if you're unable to look at the totality of the circumstances due to naivete, being blinded by love, stupidity, etc, you will never believe the SO is anything but trustworthy.

 

The amount of trust you have matters less than the object of your trust. Let them earn it and then give it freely.

 

*In a court of law, it's not "innocent until proven guilty" - it's "innocent UNLESS proven guilty."

 

"Until" assumes guilt from the get go.

"Unless" puts the burden of proof on you and assumes innocence without proof.

 

Sorry, one of my pet peeves as a retired cop.

 

Carry on.

[beatcuff]

i lean towards trust but do not turn a blind eye to what i see. then i need to determine if it is a personality quirk or a hint into the future. this applies to ALL relationships including 'buds'.

 

NOTE: the following is for new relationships only --- i see 'trust but verify' a lot on this board and now on this thread. that is NOT trust at all. trust is accepting what is said at face value. so exactly how do you verify without showing how insecure you are. so we have been dating say 4 months. i say i am going out with the guys tonight. do you 'show up' to spy? the next day do you call one of my friends? seriously how would you.

[cocorico]

My trust must be earned. My H is the opposite, which is why he landed up in a toxic M for decades.

[Hopeful30]

 

My heart? I guess I am a bit more will to risk it, but I certainly do not hand it over to anyone. I will trust someone WAY before I will love someone.

 

Hmm...now that I think about it, I'm not quite sure which comes first to me. I suppose I don't consider how trustworthy a man is until I develop feelings for him. If I don't have feelings for him, it wouldn't matter if he is trustworthy or not. I'm not as risk of getting hurt.

 

Once the heart starts getting involved though, that's when I start to consider if I can trust him. That's not a good approach I'm realizing...because you might end up investing in someone who may not be worth it. At least knowing he is trustworthy beforehand will make it easier to give him your heart.

 

I honestly believe that unless a man genuinely wants to be with you, he will see no reason to be reliable, faithful or worthy of your trust.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Hopeful30

[gorf]

 

If he/she is a pathological liar and manipulator, you may never get concrete evidence.

 

*In a court of law, it's not "innocent until proven guilty" - it's "innocent UNLESS proven guilty."

 

"Until" assumes guilt from the get go.

"Unless" puts the burden of proof on you and assumes innocence without proof.

 

 

And in the court of law, if there is a pathological liar and manipulator bending truth etc, there is also such a thing as basing decisions on circumstantial evidence. Same with the person you are dating. Maybe they are lying their heads off and never ever give you a honest answer. At some point, you know it and can base your decision off of what you see.

 

Crappy as it sounds: dating is more like an elaborate job interview than it is an elaborate court hearing

[Sunkissedpatio]

I'd say a bit of both. I'd never go into trusting someone the way you would after knowing them for over a year or so, just because "I'll trust you until you give me reason to otherwise" everyone WILL give you reason to "otherwise" sooner or later.

 

I believe trust is earned through consistent actions and predictability. I don't believe that because you just met someone new that automatically makes them a perfect candidate to trust them blindly until they screw up. They're going to screw up, I'm going to screw up. It's human nature. Trust doesn't need to be broken over that.

 

The key to earning trust is to not break dealbreakers, most other mistakes can be worked through.

[newheart]

Despite a lousy upbringing and an unfaithful spouse, I somehow allowed myself to work on this enough that I think I became fairly trusting, regardless of some anxiety issues. I did not think for a second that my most recent partner would have been (or was) unfaithful or not worthy of my trust.

 

But I guess trust is not only about being faithful, it is about trusting them to take care of your heart and do the right thing, too. Now I am not sure how I will proceed next time - it is like one step forward, two steps back.

 

It is hard to trust blindly when people always seem to prove you wrong, but I hope I am able to do that again.

[Redhead14]

Trust gets built on or torn down. There should be a "baseline" level of trust which either gets reinforced or undermined. The healthy way to manage trust is to start everyone with a clean slate/level start point and observe and listen, etc.

 

If you go into new relationships carrying past hurt and trust issues, projecting, anticipating, etc., you undermine it from the very start in ways you don't even realize.

 

People who have the thinking you're presenting are jaded and carrying around proverbial baggage and they often end up sabotaging relationships rather than weighing a relationship on it's own merits. They've lost objectivity.

[Hopeful30]

 

People who have the thinking you're presenting are jaded and carrying around proverbial baggage and they often end up sabotaging relationships rather than weighing a relationship on it's own merits. They've lost objectivity.

 

Great point, but in all fairness objectivity doesn't exist. We all enter new relationships with a level of past experience that have shaped us to be the way we are.

 

There are some behaviours that in the past meant your man was cheating (for example), but just because your current man is behaving simlarly, it doesn't necessarily mean he is cheating. Something like say, disappearing for a night and not answering his phone. To one man that means 'f*ck the world I need to be alone right now' while to another it might mean he has an opportunity to cheat.

 

It's very hard to be objective, because your experiences basically build the knowledge you have about relationships. At the end of the day, that's all we can go on, really.

[Redhead14]

Great point, but in all fairness objectivity doesn't exist. We all enter new relationships with a level of past experience that have shaped us to be the way we are.

 

If a person has been shaped into being jaded, they have a compromised ego/esteem system. Yes, life experiences shape us -- they make us smarter, stronger, etc. There is healthy "shaping" and unhealthy "shaping". Becoming jaded and distrustful of everyone or men or women means that a person has allowed themselves to be shaped in an unhealthy way.

[pteromom]

BOTH!

 

Innocent until proven guilty, but you don't hand your heart to someone on a silver platter until trust is earned.

 

You start with small things. Can you trust him to respond to you when you reach out? Can you trust him to be there when he says he will? Can you trust him to do what he says he will do? Do the things he tell you check out as truth?

 

Once he's proven himself in the basics, you start being vulnerable. Can you trust him not to throw your fears and pain back in your face during arguments? Can you trust him to protect your secrets? Can you trust him to open up to you as well?

 

Then you keep getting deeper and deeper. The more he is trustworthy, the more trust you extend.

[katiegrl]

The problem with "innocent unless proven guilty"* is that the burden of proof is on you - not the SO. If he/she is a pathological liar and manipulator, you may never get concrete evidence.

 

Also, if you are the type to not be able to recognize lies or gaslighting, or if you're unable to look at the totality of the circumstances due to naivete, being blinded by love, stupidity, etc, you will never believe the SO is anything but trustworthy.

 

The amount of trust you have matters less than the object of your trust. Let them earn it and then give it freely.

 

*In a court of law, it's not "innocent until proven guilty" - it's "innocent UNLESS proven guilty."

 

"Until" assumes guilt from the get go.

"Unless" puts the burden of proof on you and assumes innocence without proof.

 

 

Hmmm.... actually I work as a litigation paralegal, and until/unless essentially mean the same thing, except the proper phrasing is "innocent UNTIL proven guilty."

 

The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' is a legal concept which guarantees that the guilt of an accused person cannot be presumed.

Edited October 12, 2016 by katiegrl