Forum Archives

Return to Forum List

Trickle Truth question? Please help!!!!

You are not logged in. Login here or register.

Crushed18 posted 7/18/2013 19:43 PM

Trying to reconcile w/WS. Thought we had talked about everything in detail.
Regarding his LTA, one of my questions was, "have you ever bought her any gifts or given her anything? He said "no", and she never gave/bought him anything either.
Today while shopping, I showed him a candle and for some reason the question came to me again. When we got to the car, I asked him again had he ever bought or given her anything? He then admitted that he sent her 2 clothing items on one occasion and a magazine and candle on another. He had to mail the candle b/c she is on the east coast. He said b/c he didn't pay for the items he didn't think they should be considered gifts. He is upset with me I guess b/c I'm being technical. Am I wrong? Is it asking too much to expect the person who says they love you and want to reconcile to tell the whole truth?

Tred posted 7/18/2013 19:54 PM

It's called minimizing, or lies of omission. Bottom line - he's protecting his actions by obfuscating and playing word games. Pure bullshit. I put up with this for so long I just quit asking questions. The "little lies" add up over time...and they become big wounds. Honesty doesn't depend on semantics.

jo2love posted 7/18/2013 19:58 PM


Is it asking too much to expect the person who says they love you and want to reconcile to tell the whole truth?

It's not asking too much. In fact the TT just prolongs the healing process. Have you given him the Joseph Letter? It may help him understand how you feel and why you need full disclosure.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 7:59 PM, July 18th (Thursday)]

kiki1 posted 7/19/2013 10:20 AM

2.5 years of TT has ended my r.

such bs and how much does he really love me if I'm not worth the truth now?

Not enough i guess

SorrowBhindSmile posted 7/19/2013 14:30 PM


Is it asking too much to expect the person who says they love you and want to reconcile to tell the whole truth

NO! in fact...IMO, that is a basic, fundamental requirement of R. How can trust be rebuilt when lies continue, even about small things. Lie is a Lie. Period.

You are not being technical. Example..... I asked my WH if he ever gave her flowers. He said no. He never bought her flowers or gave her gifts. Then he thought for a few minutes and said "wait...i might have." there was one time they went for a walk, and he said he might have picked a flower and gave it to her. He doesn't remember 100% for sure, but he thought he might he wanted to be honest and tell me.

THAT is what you should expect from your WS. No technical abut it.

JustWow posted 7/19/2013 14:45 PM

He said b/c he didn't pay for the items he didn't think they should be considered gifts. He is upset with me I guess b/c I'm being technical.

....and YOU'RE the one being "technical"????


wanttogoforward posted 7/19/2013 14:53 PM

You don't need to pay money for something to be a gift.... for example freshly picked flowers from a garden are free and certainly would be considered a gift to someone you care for....

blakesteele posted 7/19/2013 22:35 PM


Trickle truth sucks. I endured 4 months of that....this is where 180 would have helped me had I known about it. Instead I engaged, engaged, engaged...with specific questions just like you did recently.

I did this when my wife was still involved and then when it was over but the fog was set me up for more lies and trickle truths. 180 would have prevented me from giving my WW the opportunity to lie to me.

I agree with others....who is really standing on technical definitions.

Plus, I have given gifts of wild flowers I picked and other cool and beautiful things I either made or hardly are defined by if they are paid for or not.

I know it doesn't help...but it appears most WS TT....must be one of those things people must experience for themselves so that they can then say....aaaahhhhh so THIS is what is meant by the truth shall set you free.

God be with us all.

Dare2Trust posted 7/19/2013 23:41 PM

Crushed 18,

NO, it's not asking too much to expect a person who claims to love you and who says he wants to reconcile to TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH!!

Guess I'm a stickler for details, as well as the TRUTH. You stated:

He said b/c he didn't pay for the items he didn't think they should be considered gifts.

How did your WH acquire "2 items of clothing, a magazine and a candle" Without paying for these items?"

noescape posted 7/20/2013 08:46 AM

Every one of those lies will set you back to DDay 1 and every time he does it, he will destroy any credibility he's built up towards R. The littlest of lies will prevent any true authenticity or remorse.

The 'right' way to deal with incomplete details is for the WS to write the timeline, the BS to delve into the details as they see fit without the WS being defensive about any of it.

And finally (and most importantly which will reveal the commitment of the WS towards true transparency and true R) the WS has to VOLUNTEER information as and when it comes to them (there is no 'aligning of stars' or 'waiting for the right moment' for these). The truth isn't a monolithic one time deal, our memories will trigger at different times based on external and internal influences. For a WS to justify through 'oh, I cannot tell her about this (newly recalled memory) since we already discussed it and this new information will just end up hurting her', is just more wayward foggy thinking because the offence has/had already been committed. What they are proving through volunteering information is their vulnerability and commitment to honesty and truth being their priority moving forward.

thecosmogirl posted 7/20/2013 22:47 PM

So sorry!
I guess that was a vent so I deleted.
But I didn't call the OP any names...?? Or am I reading that the wrong way?

(((Hugs))) I do understand just don't know how to say it.

[This message edited by thecosmogirl at 10:59 AM, July 21st (Sunday)]

betrayed5years posted 7/21/2013 00:32 AM

Crushed18....I had over 6 weeks of TT and thought it was over stuff over the next 6 months. One of my questions was about gifts and money spent on OW. I still don't think he has ever admitted to all he bought her as he has always been a gift/flower person. the last admission was the sex toys for their night in hotel in another town--work related of course. My WS did not think sex toys were "gifts" as it was for both of them...but did consider the nipple rings he purchased her when the affair started was as she had her nipples pierced for him along with some other nipple clips. I had to define gifts as items purchased with her in mind and learned more with that ----but still wonder at times if more money was spent than he has ever admitted!

grapefruit posted 7/21/2013 02:32 AM

b5ys - at least yours bought sex toys for his AP. My H just used mine with one of his

[This message edited by grapefruit at 2:33 AM, July 21st (Sunday)]

jo2love posted 7/21/2013 08:26 AM

thecosmogirl -

Please remember to follow the guidelines when posting. There is to be no venting about or name calling the OP in this forum. Thank you.

WoundedOpus posted 7/21/2013 11:21 AM

I had a very similar situation/conversation recently. We were discussing his plans for an out of town job(1), that might require and overnight stay. He made a few references to a person/company, and talked some about the job. I had seen some texts back and forth with a female coworker (that I was already getting worried about) that concerned me. He asks her if she's been able to confirm for Tuesday and to plan on staying overnight. The job he and I were discussing was for Tuesday. Obviously I'm thinking we're all talking about the same job.

It plays out like this -
Me: "Is (female coworker) going to be at this job"?
Him: "No"
Me: "So she is not supposed to stay over night at (out of town location), and you're not going to see her while you're there working on job(1)"?
Him: "No"

I was pissed. I knew he was lying to me. He thought I'd stopped checking his phone forever ago, and I didn't want him to start deleting messages, so I played it more like my gut was just telling me something. Told him I didn't believe him, we fight about my supposed over jealous tendencies to see every woman as a threat, and he can't help it that he works with woman. I push and push that I do not want him to go. Later he tells me it's a moot point, the people at job(1) were behind schedule, couldn't work out the details and he was only going for a few hours now for something unrelated.

I find texts back and forth where he tells her he's run into some issues on his end, can't do Tues, can they reschedule for Wed or Thurs? Those days don't work for her, he expresses disappointment.

1.5 years later, I bring this back up. I ask, so you weren't trying to schedule a job with her out of town where you would both have to stay overnight? He now says that yes he was, but he wasn't lying to me before. Um, what? You see, when I originally asked the question, it had included the words 'job(1)', and now it didn't. What I didn't know back then was that the main reason he was going out of town was for another job he never mentioned, job(2) which is the actual job he went to, the one he said was only going to take a few hours. He figured while he was there on job(2) and they were in the same town, he would handle job(1). Anyone confused yet?

You see, she was working with him on JOB(2), the one I never knew about. So in effect, he didn't actually lie to me. Using a technicality to lie with the truth, and lie by omission. For me, what it comes down to is, my H and yours and everyone else's that pulls this is: They knew exactly what we were asking, they knew what we wanted to know. They used the way we phrased it or worded, it against us, and they made sure to be careful in the way they answered back, using particular words they feel can be up for interpretation.

He used a technicality to lie to me while being fully aware had I known there was a second (unmentioned) job, I would have asked about it as well. Omission - Technicality

Yours used a difference in word interpretation.

What this all says? They knew what we wanted to know and worked it so they didn't have to tell us and still maintain 'honesty'. They know the information we seek, they have the answers and choose not to be transparent. They are TT'ing, usually only providing the real answers when we have proof or are asking questions in a different way; a way that has removed the possibility of them giving the original answer and still being able to claim it as 'the truth'. They are using whatever tactic necessary to not bold face lie to us, while keeping a secret.

All of this is the exact opposite of true remorse and R, which at its core is them being more concerned with helping us heal, than mitigating the damage to themselves. With being forthcoming and offering us information we need to know even when we don't ask the question in just the right way.

It's obvious he's being more technical than you are, so don't give 2 seconds of your life thinking about that one. It's the best he could come up with on the fly.

And if you're wanting to get factual instead of technical, your original question was: "Have you bought her any gifts or given her anything"?
His finally answer was: "He sent her 2 clothing items, a magazine and a candle. They weren't gifts because he didn't buy them, but he sent them to her". So he didn't give her gifts if applying his interpretation of gift. By his own admission, even though he didn't pay for these items, he did in fact GIVE them to her. He's focusing on part one of your question, and the argument over whether this fits within the definition of gift is allowing him to keep you distracted long enough to 1) Ignore part two of your question, and 2) Lose focus on what true R is supposed to look like.

Stop engaging, don't let him distract you with all of the little pieces that aren't adding up, and remember what the whole puzzle is supposed to look like. You can argue these details to death and you won't make him admit it's a lie, or even think it's important. If he was seeking true R, you wouldn't even be having this discussion with him.

I don't know where he is in other respects, and there's always the chance of course I'm interpreting this situation wrong, but it seems to me that it's still in all about him and how he can protect himself.

Return to Forum List

© 2002-2018 ®. All Rights Reserved.