Being judged for one isolated incident in a distant past

Post Reply New Topic

So I dated a woman the past couple of months. We haven't met in person yet, as we are several states away. She was actually going to meet me in person early September, but obviously it won't happen since she broke up with me.

I was not particularly happy with her, because she had depression, had ECT in the past, had other severe physical illnesses that made it difficult for her to walk, had PCOS which made her ability to reproduce questionable, also she doesn't work due to her illness and when I urged her to go to school she refused to (well, she still left the door open for the future, but since nothing is holding her now, it sounds like she never will). To be quite frank I was settling on her, since nobody else would date me.

On her end of a line, she didn't like me either: she tried to break up four different times. First three times I argued her into changing her mind. The fourth time she simply firmly said she isn't changing her mind. Here were the incidents:

1) The first time we haven't talked on the phone yet. All that happened is that, on the dating site, I was asking her lots of questions about geography, religion, so I came across as a stereotypical aspie that is all about information and nothing else. I clarified to her it wasn't the case. So after praying for two days she gave me a chance.

2) Then, few days later, I was talking to her over the phone as to how angry I was at a certain guy that scammed me, and a certain girl that broke up with me. Both of those things were over 10 years ago. From this, she concluded I was angry person. I kept pointing out to her that everyone would be angry at least in the scammer situation, they just won't talk about it the first time they talk on the phone with someone. So the fact that I happened to talk about it so soon doesn't mean I am angry person, it just means that I am more open than others. She kept insisting that she would pray before deciding, I kept insisting she changes her mind now and gives me another chance now. She wouldn't no matter how hard I pushed. Yet, after she prayed for a day (like she wanted to) she gave me another chance.

3) Few weeks later I told her how I routinely lie to my mom and, in particular, I don't want my mom to know that I met her on a dating site so I need to come up with the story on how we met. She expressed a concern that if I lie to my mom, how does she know I won't lie to her. Now, she didn't try to break up over it right away. Instead, she tried to use it as an argument to convince me not to lie to my mom. I find it illogical: if her concern was correct that I would lie to her just like I do to my mom, then I don't see how would forcing me to be honest with my mom would cause me to be honest with her. But, in any case, thats not what I told her. Instead, I told her that the reason I would be honest with her is that lying to my mom had a history; with her I don't have a history that I had with my mom so I will make sure not to go down the rout that would result in my lying to her. Her first response to this was an attempt to break up. But then when I insisted, she agreed to give me another chance.

4) She talked about organizing some groups at her church. I started to complain to her why she can do this yet I can't. Then I mentioned to her how I was not on my leadership team at a Bible study. And how I asked the leader of Bible study why I was never selected in a leadership team, and the various reasons he gave me (namely, lack of social skills, me talking about antichrist and other topics that others aren't that interested in, me being absent for months, and me punching someone a year ago). Now, notice how the punching incident was not the main reason it was just one of several things on the list. Also notice how she never asked me about it; I mentioned it all on my own. And finally notice how it was one isolated incident. So maybe other people also punched someone once in their entire life. They just don't mention it if they aren't asked. So what separates me from them is NOT that I punch people any more often than they do (once in several years is not that often). But, instead, it is the fact that they don't talk about it and I do. Yet two days later she ended up breaking up over it. Now, to be fair, she wrote up a list of 27 reasons for a breakup. I actually don't know the full list because, instead of emailing it to me, she was going to read it out, and I interrupted her reading at the item number 1 -- the punching thing -- and then she read the other ones really quickly. But the ones that I remember were the following:

a) Punching that person a year ago I find it unfair because I can't undo what happened over a year ago.

b) Trying to convince her that she made a mistake when she had ECT in the past

c) Trying to convince her to get off of antidepresants

d) Trying to convince her to go back to school when she told me repeatedly she doesn't want to

e) Trying to convince her to start following Old Testament law (I am Messianic so I believe in combining faith in Jesus with Old Testament practices; but she is regular Christian so she doesn't share those beliefs)

f) Being "very proud" that she is "compliant". This was miscommunication. When I used the word "compliant" I meant to say "agreeable". Because I don't view her as subordinate. The fact that I misused the word is combination of Asperger and the fact that English is not my native language.

g) Mentioning to her that I am ashamed of the fact that she is sick and jobless (yes, that in fact happened; but keep in mind that it happened a week or two before the breakup and she didn't break up then and there; this makes me think that it is not her real reason; instead her real reason is a combination of "a" and "f")

h) Mentioning to her how I purposely ignored a couple of people out of spite, which -- according to her -- severed some connections (again, she didn't say it was my fault when I actually mentioned those things; she only made it to be my fault a couple of weeks later when she wanted to justify her breakup with me; plus, why does she care how I acted around a couple of people whom she doesn't even know, one of them being half a year ago the other full 3 years ago)

i) Me telling her that I disagree with mixed marriages. This is again an irrelevancy. Me and her are of the same race. So who cares as to what I think about a topic that doesn't relate to us.

j) The fact that I like to be on the phone longer than she does. Basically I wanted to talk every day but she limitted it to three days a week. As far as three times a week, I did that exactly like she asked. But then what happened is that during each of those conversations she would want to get off the phone after an hour but I would keep talking so it would end up being two hours. Now, as far as *this* is concerned, that was neither an accident nor miscommunication. *BUT* here is the question: if all those other things weren't an issue, maybe she *would* have wanted to talk longer? Thats not what she says: she says she just doesn't like to be on the phone. But who knows?

k) The fact that she has a dream of her life to live in Grece and I told her I can't promise that because I am looking for theoretical physics job that is hard to get so I can't count on any one location. I can't even promise I would be able to get a job at the USA, Canada and Europe combined, which is why I am considering third world countries. How can I then promise to get one in Grece? Okay, to be fair, she mentioned she wanted to live in Grece on her profile before I ever contacted her. But I interpretted it as optional, not a must. I mean I can't imagine someone actually expecting someone they talk to commit to going to live in Grece. And if she was so crazy as to do that, she would have asked that question much earlier, instead of asking it in the context of looking for reasons why things won't work out.

l) The fact that I lie to my mom. Keep in mind, though, that she tried to break up with me over it a LONG time before her actual breakup, and her breaking up over my mom was the QUICKEST thing to convince her to change her mind. So it makes it sound like she only brought it up "again" because she wanted to break up over "a" and "f", while my mom was just a less important extra factor.

m) My telling her how I get kicked out of clubs and stuff

n) My telling her about other women breaking up with me

o) I told her how I was choosing my mom over one of my ex-s, and she worried I would do the same with her. But, again, I told this to her a long time ago, and she never tried to break up with me back when I told her this.

p) The fact that I am blunt, while she is sensitive. Which is not a good combination. As far as this is concerned, I have ponted out that I would have been less blunt if she were to express her hurt. Part of the problem is that she was pretending to be fine with things I said and was hiding her hurt, thats why I wrongly assumed that she is super understanding and kept saying those things.

Like I said, there were 27 different reasons, so I am obviously missing some of them. But I guess you got the jist.

But, back to the topic of the post. I don't think those reasons are equally important. INSTEAD I think the main reasons were "a" and "f" Here is why. You see, we dated for 2 months. Most of those other things came up much earlier, yet she wasn't trying to break up over those other things. The two things that happened shortly before the breakup were "a" and "f".

I don't remember the order in which she put all those other things (I put them in a random order). But what I do remember is that she put "a" at the top of the list. The other thing I remember is that, when she was reading out the item "a", she was saying that this one item made her feel unsafe around me and not wanting to date someone like this. So look at this:

(i) Item "a" was the only thing that happened immediately before the breakup, which logically implies that she didn't break up after any other of the items that happened earlier

(ii) She put item "a" at the top of her list, thus implying it is the most important one.

(iii) The way she phrased item "a" seems to suggest that this item, in and of itself, would have been enough to break up with me, even in the absence of other items.

Now, as far as item "f" is concerned, it happened few days before item "a" did, but it happened after anything else. She actually told me that I have said to her that she is "compliant" so she decided not to be and break up. That plus also it is possible that her interpretation of item "f" caused her to, in turn, re-interpret my whole entire line of behavior, which in turn caused her to look differently at whatever next incident that happened (which happened to be my telling her about "a"). So maybe if "f" never happened, she would have given me a benefit of the doubt in terms of "a".

Also, if I go back to h, m and n, then during all three of those conversations she was telling me not to be so tough on myself. In case of h, she said that maybe we were just incomatible (two sides) rather than "me" doing something wrong. In case of "n" she actually said that maybe it were those other women that were at fault.

Now, ask yourself this: why is it, at the time of h, m and n being brought up, she didn't think it was my fault, yet several days later she suddenly did? Maybe its because I have mentioned "f" to her, that got her to re-interpret everything else I told her.

Now that we established that the two main reasons for her breaking up with me were "a" and "f", I would like to tell you why they feel like the least fair ones.

As far as "a" is concerned, it was in the past, and I can not change the past. So what am I supposed to do? I punched someone in 2021, yet this woman broke up with me over it in 2022. So what about 2025 or even 2030? If I mention it to someone in 2025 or in 2030, would they break up with me over it as well? If so, does it mean I have to just admit I am irredeamable and stay single for the rest of my life due to this one incident?

I know some of you are going to tell me just not to mention it to others. But here is the problem with this:

(iv) If I have to not mention it, this implies that this incident "did" defile me for life, and I am simply supposed to "hide my defilement" by not mentioning it. Well, I don't want to be "defiled for life" to begin with. And if there is a way to redeem myself from that defilement, then why can't I be open about it then? If I successfully redeemed myself, I have nothing to hide, so might as well meniton it. But if you tell me that nobody would believe me that I redeemed myself if I were to mention it, this implies that either I am smarter than everyone else (unlikely: I am not Einstein) or else they are all right and I didn't redeem myself (a devastating thing to think about). So you see why this whole idea feels devastating if you look at it this way?

(v) When I told her "I am sorry I even mentioned it" she said "its good that you did". So, in other words, she thinks I should mention it to others too. And also, since she broke up with me over it, then she would think that others would break up with me over it too. Thus, if things were to go according to her, I would keep mentioning it to everyone, everyone would break up with me over it, and I would stay single for the rest of my life. So do you think its fair to be single for the rest of my life due to one isolated incident?

As far as "f", this is also unfair, but for a different reason Because she misinterpet the whole thing I said. She said I was "very proud" that she was "complient". This almost sounds as if she was accusing me of being into BDSM of some sort. But thats not me at all. I do NOT derive sexual pleasure out of BDSM and I don't understand people that do. When I said "compliant" I meant the combination of the following:

--- Its nice that she was so agreeable as to do the things I asked

--- She seemed pretty boring so I didn't have much else to compliment her on, besides being agreeable

--- She was also compliant with psychiatrists when she agreed to take antidepresants and go to shock therapy. I see this as a mistake on her part and I wish she could re-evaluate her attitude

Notice that only the first item in the list above shows anything "positive" about her "compliance", but even that does not sound like a huge amount of "pride" in that.

Now, I agree that the above attitude is not the best. But its not BDSM either. So if she were to tell me that she breaks up with me because I take her for granted, then I could take it because at least its the truth. But if she breaks up with me because I am into BDSM, then it is factually wrong and I hate it when people attribute to me something that has nothing to do with me.

And the other thing I would admit is that there "were" times when I "did" try to purposely hurt her. For example, even after we started dating I continued using the dating site despite agreeing with her to be exclusive, and then when one of the women rejected me there, I actually texted her about it (but lied to her that it was a woman from the past) and then ended the text by saying "its really frustrating that everyone rejects me so I have to date sickly woman such as yourself". But she didn't break up with me over it; ON THE CONTRARY she kept trying to console me and make me feel better

So you see, saying purposely hurtful thing such as above did NOT cause a breakup. But having a faux pas with the word "compliant" did. So you see how it goes along the lines of nice guys finish last? Nice guys make faux passes. Jerks are being mean on purpose. When I was mean on purpose, she did NOT break up. When I made a faux pas she DID. That is a perfect illustration of how nice guys have it tougher than jerks.

Now, I realize that even though "f" was a faux pas, "a" wasn't. But "a" is even more out of my control, for a simple reason that I can't change the past. So you see, the two main reasons for her breakup was the fact that

--- I can't change the past (item a)

--- I can't avoid faux passes (item f)

In other words, she broke up with me over the two things that I have absolutely no control over.

On the other hand, there were other things on the list I DID have control over (such as items b-e). But, as I said, I really don't think those were her main reasons, despite the fact that she put them on the list. Because she didn't break up with me over them "when" they were happening. Instead, it was ONLY after "a" and "f", that she decided to add b-e to the list. That suggests that "a" and "f" were the main ones, while b-e were some extra ones.

And like I said, I have no control over "a" and "f". Thats why it feels so unfair.

Also, before you attack me for other things I said on this post, I fully realize I have been selfish around her. But here is the thing. As far as my actual behavior around her, I can change it; as far as the incident "a", I can not, because I can't change the past

So lets assume I decide to change and become a better person. So I would never do to other women what I done to her. However, even with that, I can't eraze item "a" from the past. So the fact that I am being judged based on my past behavior (item a) as opposed to the present behavior (everything else I talked about in this post), that is what I find so frustrating.

The reason I mentioned all those other things was to give you a context. I mean, I don't want to say that everything was perfect and then the moment I mentioned "a" she suddenly broke up; that's not what happened. But, at the same time, its still true that "a" feels like the main reason for a breakup. So I would like your feedback as to how that can possibly be fair. I can't eraze "a" from the past.

I'm NOT trying to attack you here but it sounds to me like you both had major problems accepting the other as the way you each are now & the way you each were in the past. Your right that you can not change your past but she also can not change her past about having ECT. Considering how short that relationship was & how many fights/disagreements you had & how many times she tried to break up during that short time, it seems to me like A was just the final straw for her. If she did not break up with you cuz of A, it woulda just been a short time before she tried breaking up with you again for some other reason. I do want to commend you for realizing that you made mistakes in that relationship & you want to be a better person & learn from it. Instead of worrying about fairness or worrying about how to erase your past, try to focus on learning what you can from your past & being in that relationship & try to figure out how you can avoid repeats in the future & in future relationships. NOT all women would judge you very negatively for admitting that you punched someone but lots of them would probably have some mistakes from their past as well & it's very important not to make them feel judged for their past either. The both of you would need to accept each other.

Last edited by nick007 on 31 Aug 2022, 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But the difference is that I view punching that guy as a mistake, but she doesn't view getting ECT as a mistake. On the contrary she insists that her getting ECT was a good idea.

That plus also I didn't break up with her over her getting ECT, I simply voiced my disagreement. If she were to voice her disagreement about my behavior without breaking up, I would be cool with it. But, instead, she actually broke up, which is something I wouldn't have done.

Perhaps her depression was worse before she got ECT & she is better off having had it even if you do not believe so. You did not know her back then. That choice was due to her mental health & was between her & her psychs/docs. Whereas punching someone is committing an act of aggression that harms someone else. It's also possible that she has been physically harmed & is freaked out by the idea of being with someone who might get violent.

Why did you punch the guy, anyway?

The last time I punched somebody, I was in junior high.

You do seem incompatible. I wouldnt try to follow old testament law if i were you cos in galatians 3 it says there is a curse for not doing everything in the law. If you try to follow it. The curses are listed in Deuteronomy 28

A guy in a Bible Study group, apparently.

My phone's on 10% so I can't read all that

Why do you make out like she broke up with you over one thing when she literally made a list of 27 reasons? Obviously there's more than one factor weighing in on her decision. Maybe if the one factor you believe she broke up with you over was her only issue with you, it wouldn't have been enough to turn her off. Just because she didn't break up with you over the other things when she found out about them doesn't mean that they didn't bother her and ultimately factor into her decision.

Also, it seems like you wanted to mold her into the partner you wanted her to be instead of accepting her as she is, and yet when she takes issue with some of the things you are and did, you feel like that's unjustified. You don't see the double standard here?

First, I was frustrated that a couple of people (the only ones that were there) talked to each other and not me. Then I blew up and made angry remark (without hitting) when there were more people around. Then I felt upset that all those other people heard my remark and I couldn't "undo" it. Then someone walked into the room late, so he didn't know all that was happening. He said hi to me. I punched him because I was frustrated with everyone else in the room. So he had nothing to do with situation since he walked late. I just couldn't control myself.



I am curious, do you actually remember that specific time and what happened?

Actually you are right: it was a Bible study group. Except that it wasn't one of the Bible studies. Instead, it was a get to know each other type of outing at a restaurant. Where we just talked about secular things.

That is exactly what she kept telling me: in fact she was saying that if she didn't have ECT, she would have killed herself.

But I still think ECT was a bad idea for the following reason. Ask yourself: why does ECT work? The only logical explanation is that it ruins the brain, so the brain can't think, period, which includes not being able to think depressive thoughts. Kind of like a computer, if it tells you 2+2=5, how do you fix it? Well, you just hit it with a hammer, and then it won't be able to say anything at all, including 2+2=5. But then it won't be worth it, since your computer won't be able to work altogether. So hitting the brain with ECT to get rid of depression is just as ridiculous as hitting computer with a hammer t make it stop saying 2+2=5. Both of those things are intended to cause permanent damage. So saying "brain damage from ECT is a side effect" is misleading. Its not a side effect: its the very goal of ECT to begin with. And having brain damage as a goal is ridiculous, no matter how severe the psychological problems were.

On a different note, I was always curious what kind of dreams do people see when they have ECT? Because the way ECT is done is they put you to sleep. So they have to have "some" dreams. I imagine that it would probably be nightmares. If so, those nightmares would be quite telling, since they would depict the permanent damage that is being done to the brain. I actually asked that woman about the dreams that she saw. She told me that she saw nightmares, but not during ECT but rather after ECT. Which means she left my question unanswered: she still haven't told me what kind of dreams did she see "during" the ECT. But in any case, I told her that her nightmares "after" ECT also confirm the fact that ECT was a mistake. She told me that her nightmares were not due to ECT itself but rather due to the needle that they inserted into her before ECT since she is afraid of needles. I don't think I am buying it: I think ECT itself is probably the reason for her nightmares, whether she admits it or not. I am still curious to know what kind of dreams she saw during ECT itself.

She is also a Christian and she said she was having ECT done in the Christian hospital and they prayed before each session. To me that sounds ridiculous. The god of ECT is the devil. So any Christian that does ECT in the name of Christ might be serving the devil and confusing him with Christ. I am not the first one to bring up that concept. There are many Christians that accuse other Christians of serving the devil in the name of Christ (protestants claiming that Catholics serve the devil is a good example of it). Well, I wouldn't necesserely say this about Catholics, but I would certainly say this about Christians of "any" denomination that support ECT, thats for sure (in her case she happened to be Methodist). I mean, Catholics do strive to serve Christ. They just interpret it differently. But the people that do ECT are seeking all the demonic forces that ECT represents, no matter how they call themselves.

I also believe that nightmares are demonic. So the fact that ECT is done when the person is asleep, which likely implies that it causes nightmares, is what makes me think of it this way.

Also a lot of Christians believe that microchip is the mark of the beast. Now, why would microchip be demonic? Because it influences your brain waves and causes the person to have spiritual experiences that are contrary to Christianity. But you see, the effects of a microchip on brain waves are tiny. Yet the effects of ECT on brain waves are huge. So if microchip is demonic because of its tiny effects on brain waves, think just how much more demonic ECT would be? Well, I guess the only explanation as to why microchip is more demonic is that microchip is designed to cause idolatry while ECT is just making a brain damage at random. But even if it is at random, it would still interfere with everything brain does (INCLUDING serving God). So calling herself a Christian and having ECT is an oxymoron.



She didn't mention it though.

That only applies to circumcision (Galatians 5:2), and I was not circumcized. Even though I was born Jewish and became Christian as an adult, my parents didn't circumcize me because they were concerned that the hygine of that procedure wasn't well developed in Russia. But now, as a Christian, I am glad I wasn't circumcized because of Galatians 5:2.

However, as far as other aspects of Old Testament law, I wouldn't look at them this way. Because you see, circimsision is a promise to keep the law, everything else is actually doing it. So if one gets circumsized yet doesn't keep the law perfectly, they made a promise that they didn't keep (which is bad). But if someone was not circumcized yet still attempts to keep the law, then they are attempting to do something BEYOND what they promised (which is good). In other words, I don't "have" to keep the law to be saved (after all I never made a promise that I would, since I wasn't circumcized), yet I can still try to keep parts of it as a "good will gesture" to God.

Let me give you an analogy. Apart from saying we aren't saved by law, Paul also said we aren't saved by good works. So does it mean its a bad idea to "do" good works? No! Its good to do good works, so long as we know we aren't saved by it. Well, think of keeping Old Testament law as one type of good works. So just like its good to help the poor (yet we aren't saved by helping the poor) it is also good to try to keep Old Testament law (yet we aren't saved by keeping Old Testament law either).

It sounds like at least some of the problems stem from toxic views towards modern medicine.

She probably benefits more from proper treatment than from a relationship with someone who deems those treatments demonic.

I can see someone who has deeply irrational views towards a form of therapy as not being a suitable partner for the person requires that therapy.

I'm not so sure there's an isolated incident causing her to rule you out as a partner so much as ongoing concerns from her end that seem to be completely unacknowledged.

If you were her, would you want to date someone like the person you're describing yourself to be? I can't see anyone honestly concluding anything but no, she'd be better off trying to find someone who isn't like that.

The irrational beliefs that aren't aligned with most Christians understanding of Christianity will certainly reduce the pool of suitable partners, even if only Christians are included in your pool of potential partners.

Some of them are also likely to flat-out cause offence, further reducing the pool of potential partners, even if they don't apply to that individual. (Yes, telling people you have a moral opposition to mixed marriages will offend some people, even if they're of the same background as yourself).

If you re-read my OP, you will see that, while I acknowledged that she had 27 reasons, I also said some reasons were more important than other ones. And I said it mainly based on the timing of her breakup. If she broke up immediately after A, and made sure to put reason A as the very first on the list, that kinda makes it seem like A is one of the most important reasons.

But the thing is that she doesn't have ECT as of now, nor does she plan one for future. So one thing I kept telling her when I was trying to get her back is the following. This whole disagreement about ECT is moot because we both agree that she shouldn't have one in the future (although for different reasons: in my case I am opposed to ECT altogether, in her case its only because she is no longer as depressed). So if our disagreement on ECT has no impact on actual behavior, then the whole problem can be addressed by simply my stop brining up the issue.

Her response to that was a question as to what would happen if we have a kid who gets depressed and then we disagree about the treatment for our kid. I told her that thinking of "what would happen if our kid gets severely depressed" is akin to thinking "what would happen if one of us get under the car". Why not just hope that such an unlikely situation doesn't happen.

The only disagreement that pertains to her current behavior is that she still takes antidepresant, and she said she does it to treat physical pain because she has learned that it has that side effect. I told her that it is silly to take antidepresant for physical pain and she should get off of it and find the med that is actually designed for physical pain. She told me that it is very difficult for her to switch medications because of her bad health (she was mainly referring to physical health) thats why she prefers to stay on whatever medications that her body is used to. I told her I still think she should experiment with other meds that are designed for the physical only and see what happens. She didn't outright say no but more a mixture of "I will think about it" and "probably not". But in any case that is not nearly as big of a disagreement as we would have had if she were to still have ECT (which she doesn't).

Actually that is one of the things that made me say she is "compliant". But she obviously misinterpretted my "compliant" remark because she instead interpretted it as my taking pride of my ability to manipulate her. Well I guess I said two separate things:

--- There was a woman, whom I knew from Adventist Bible study back in Michigan, whom I met in church here in New Mexico and she is married now. The woman I discuss in this post is also from Michigan (except that she still lives in Michigan in contrast to that woman who actually moved to New Mexico). So I asked her to add that woman to her facebook friend list, and she did. Most other people I dated wouldn't have done that. So I called her "compliant" because she did what i told her to do. But I obviously chose the wrong word because I didn't mean to imply that I want to be her master and I want her to be my servant (like some BDSM people are doing) cause I am not into BDSM. So I should have chosen a different word. But then again English is not my native language so I can't always be perfect in my word choice.

--- I also said she was "compliant" in the way she continues to take antidepresant "for pain". The way she is compliant in this case is that she is not pro-active. She doesn't question why she takes the meds she does. She just goes with the flow.

Now the way those two uses of the word compliant came together is that when she told me she added that woman from church to her facebook, I said "I am glad you are compliant; but then there is a different way in which you are also compliant: you are still taking the antidepresant; and I am trying to get you to be less compliant". Now, right after I heard myself saying it, I immediately thought to myself "wait a second, what do I mean I want her to be less compliant? Am I saying I didn't want her to add that woman? I certainly didn't mean to say that; I only meant to say I wanted her to be less compliant in terms of meds she takes". But sometimes it happens that I say something first and then I realize I should have said it differently.

In any case, despite having the above thought, I decided not to clarify it out loud and simply hope that it would slide. But then few days later when she broke up with me and gave me the list of reasons, the compliant thing sounded quite important, second only to punching.