A key aspect of being in a romantic relationship is honesty. You have to open up to someone and let them in, see all sides of your life, know the parts of your past that no one else does. You can't have a relationship with secrets anymore than you can have a house with locked doors.
Reddit user, u/throw212awaay, shared his story about one of those times when a door was opened for him and asked for advice:
I have been dating the most amazing woman for the past year and a half. I have been in puppy love before, the kind where they're all you can think about and you smile when you think of them - and we have that too- but she has also brought to me the joy of being together but not together (that magnificent way you can just be and be alone in the same room- her reading a book, me doing a project) and really knowing someone (knowing how her mouth crinkles when she thinks, the way the rain makes her feel,all the stories of her childhood, all the little stuff that makes her a person ). At least I thought I did.
I was shopping for a ring and had been dropping hints that made her smile and we would plan this little suburban life- a deck with a grill, a goofy puppy, a piano. We talked about baby names and vetoed ones, we have the joke names Trevor and Trevina. We'd pick out paint colors and flooring at Lowe's and giggle like idiots. I was 100% confident, I just hadn't chosen a ring, you know,she didn't want a diamond but didn't know what she does want.
Then I got a fb message today from some guy. He said that he was her brother-in-law and that she had blocked him on fb but could I please pass along a wedding invite and it would mean a lot if she was there.
I pressed for more details and it all came out. She was married before to a guy named Brendan and they had a little boy, Sam- she told me before she didn't like that name. The son died in a car accident and afterwards They had an ugly divorce and she cut ties. 5 years of her life, I never knew about and I don't know if I ever would've. I think she was never going to tell me.
I've felt sick about this all day. Made up an imaginary sickness to sit and think by myself and I feel paralyzed by it. This morning I knew her and now I don't. I don't even know how to bring this up or what. I definitely can't go buy the ring and pretend. At the same time, I want to be with. I am hurt but know that was horrible, that she went through something unimaginable but I don't know what that means for us. Am I just a distraction? Is this something she does?
I just don't know. Help?
tl;dr I(30m) just found out my girlfriend(28) of a year+ had a whole life I knew nothing about, right as I've been ring shopping. This life includes a first marriage and a child who passed away. i am stunned.. Advice?
Start The Honesty Train
Giphy
Show her the message, and gently ask her about it.
Losing a child is awful and everyone mourns in their own way. Perhaps she would have told you after you guys were officially engaged. Or when you were going to seriously try for a baby.
It's not about you, OP, and I really doubt you are just a distraction. You still know her.
Seriously, stop thinking about it, and just talk to her.
Maybe It Was Nothing
Giphy
I think you may be slightly overreacting.
It sounds like she had a pretty tough, emotional time that maybe she isn't ready to share with anyone.
Just because you were in ring shopping mode, doesn't mean she has to talk to you about her deepest emotional feelings of loss. I mean, imagine - you've lost your child and then your marriage falls apart, that's life changing.
I suggest you mention it and see what comes of the conversation. I doubt she was trying to hide anything from you.
Reflect On Your Choices
Giphy
she told me before she didn't like that name
Completely understandable after what happened, and I'm 100% positive she would never want any of her future kids to be called that name.
Anyway, you need to talk to her about this. Don't make it about you e.g. by asking things like 'why didn't you tell me? How could you not mention this to me'.
Her past contains a lot of hurt, and shutting it out of her life is one way to get over it and move on (same like everyone here recommends to go no contact after a breakup).
Ask yourself this. If your gf had told you all of this herself earlier in your relationship, would it have been a big deal and would you still love her and want to be there for her?
If the answer is yes, you would want to still be with her, then you need to work on how to be understanding.
If you can show her that you still love, support and trust her, even when you know her deepest, darkest secrets, then your relationship will only grow stronger.
Don't Be Another Pity Party
You need to sit and talk to her.
You also need to keep in mind that when a parent loses a child everyone they know (close and distant) will feel sorry/pity them. Maybe your the one person in her life who doesn't look at her with pity in their eyes. Doesn't skirt around certain issues.
Like it or not certain occurrences forever alter how we interact with people and for once she just wanted something normal, something she had before the loss of everything.
She could have also had bad reactions from past partners when she told them this and she didn't want to jeopardise what you had. Then the longer she left it the harder it became to bring up.
There's also the third option that's she denying it ever happened, even to herself. Its a known coping mechanism. If that is the one she is using then it will eventually catch up with her. You can never outrun your past, as you're seeing now.
It's not right to lie for so long to someone you plan to spend your life with but in this case it is understandable. No one can understand how it feels to loose a child unless you have lost one yourself.
Be kind when you raise the issue. Don't allow any temper into the conversation and allow her to get it out as she needs to. Please don't force her to answer all your questions unless she is ok to do so.
Remember, It's Only Half About You
Giphy
Am I just a distraction? Is this something she does?
This is extremely concerning to me. Why would you think this? You think this is about you? Is this something she does?? What, have a kid, that kid dies and then she has a horrible divorce? Yeah, I'm sure that's just "what she does". Jeez dude. I know you're shocked, but take a step back for a minute.
Think It Through
Okay, this is the sort of deception you can work through with help, given that we all understand that a loss of a child will, well, f-ck you up for lack of a better turn of phrase. I can understand wanting to lock that away from yourself, which it seems like she did.
Take the space you need to approach this rationally, since it seems like you haven't talked to her. From there, you can evaluate if this is workable or not.
Be Prepared For The End
Giphy
Some people go through something so traumatic that they need a restart in life.
Move to a new place, make new friends, make new love, and block out the past.
The death of a child definitely counts as one of these. She obviously does NOT want to think about this, or deal with it at the moment.
I'd be very careful on how you broach the subject with her. If you go after her angry or as a victim don't be surprised at being dropped. You need to get over your hurt feelings and think about this from her point of view.
[usernamedeleted]
Maybe Let It Go?
Giphy
On one hand I can see why your is steamed OP.
On the other I can see a mother who's life imploded in the worst possible way and likely has no desire to relive those event again in any way.
I'm a parent and I can't even comprehend what it would be like to lose my child. I can't even try and think of what that would feel like.
I wouldn't confront her about this. I would pass on the invitation, I would let her know that I would be willing to listen, and hold her, if she wants to share her past. I would also have a question, Will her past impact our future or is there anything we/you/me could do to help ensure it doesn't?
Some People Just Need To Run Away
Oh, man. What a situation.
You are probably not a distraction, and this is probably not "something she does." This is not okay, not by a long shot, but it could honestly be that she was hoping to just outrun the grief. To not have it be part of her anymore.
When you go through something awful, it's a lot easier, sometimes, to only be around people that don't know about it. Rudyard Kipling even wrote a poem that talks about this--the lines
There is knowledge God forbid / More than one should own
always suggested to me something that I learned as a teenager--sometimes when people know you've been through Hell, when they look at you, Hell is all they see. It holds you there. It makes it really hard to outgrow the horrors of the where-you've-been, when you can see it reflected in people's eyes.
So...from my perspective this was probably not an attempt at manipulation, but instead an attempt to just...not be that person anymore. Not be the grieving mother, not be the injured ex-wife, not be the divorcee whose marriage and relationship with family was shattered (even now, her ex-brother-in-law wants her company! That does not tell me that she is a bad person).
That does not, however, make it okay. Not when the two of you are talking about marriage. She should have told you when you started talking about rings and baby names, and you're not wrong to feel conflicted and maybe a bit angry and hurt about it. Stunned, absolutely.
My advice would be to sit her down and to tell her that her brother-in-law got in touch with you. Don't accuse, don't shout, don't get angry, just tell her that you were told to pass on a wedding invitation, and see how she responds to that. Be calm.
Does knowing that she has lived through this grief make you less likely to want to marry her? Does knowing that she bore and lost a child make you less likely to want to have children with her?
H/T: Reddit
Twitter user @Rich_Cooper stated:
"Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both."
Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both.— Richard Cooper (@Richard Cooper) 1536083523.0
One user responded:
"I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment."
@Rich_Cooper #BenevolentSexism is still #sexism. I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment.— ☮️ Minkajane ☮️ (@☮️ Minkajane ☮️) 1537276790.0
Cooper's rhetorical question did not go over so well. Both women and men expressed their disdain for his message.
One male user observed that chivalry was irrelevant and treating everyone with kindness and respect was compulsory.
"What people care about is caring, empathic [sic], considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is held for them or THEIR meal is paid for them."
"Are there gender stereotypes in het[erosexual] dating? Sure. But that's separate from being a warm, giving, caring, grounded person."
@Rich_Cooper What people care about is caring, empathic, considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is… https://t.co/wlGHWRzKLi— Mark W. Wilson, MD (@Mark W. Wilson, MD) 1537276816.0
Some women got right down to the point.
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I will only be nice to you if you agree to be subservient to me— Elizabeth Noll (@Elizabeth Noll) 1537292709.0
@Rich_Cooper Gotta love when a man tells women what they can and can't have. Thanks for the heads up buddy 😉 https://t.co/gDMJscuTac— Hannah ✊ (@Hannah ✊) 1537285112.0
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I couldn’t possibly be expected to treat women as equals, show them respect, and still feel like a man.— Dom (@Dom) 1537293169.0
@Rich_Cooper We are sooooo bored with "chivalry" which stems from the courtly love period in the middle ages when w… https://t.co/wRho1a9DTz— Jeanthejust (@Jeanthejust) 1537280103.0
@Rich_Cooper Dear man. As a feminist, I open doors for men all the time. I also offer my seat to men in need on t… https://t.co/uxdwfh1kEM— My ovaries dream of puppers (@My ovaries dream of puppers) 1537502301.0
The notion of chivalry and equality are mutually exclusive and not a lot of people thought it was a major priority for feminists.
Common courtesy is not chivalry.
@Rich_Cooper Nah. That's some real childlike, oversimplified thinking. There are obviously more than these two op… https://t.co/lUqnEJhIAp— TheQuietRanger (@TheQuietRanger) 1537342901.0
@Rich_Cooper Wow, I had no idea that feminists were campaigning for chivalry, thanks for the Valuable Insight lol… https://t.co/iK62FTM9WY— Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom) (@Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom)) 1537294172.0
@Rich_Cooper I hold the door open for a guy walking into Starbucks behind me. Tomorrow, he might do the same for me… https://t.co/xWQEu6QHrM— Emma Scott (@Emma Scott) 1537294526.0
This user pointed out the fact that chivalry stems from a history of men outdoing other men. The concept had very little to do with women.
"Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do with equality."
"Some men were on top, other men were beneath them. Historically, women were rarely invited into the process."
@Rich_Cooper @kent_imig Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do wi… https://t.co/m8YPUkaUzm— Mark Findlay (@Mark Findlay) 1537257080.0
Neil Bradley described the outdated concept of chivalry as one that implies men being superior to women in a September 8, 2017, article for Medium publications.
"Examples: opening the door for a woman, paying for a woman's meal, gesturing for a woman to go first. The justification is either that women are not physically as strong (to open the door), able to provide (pay for their own meal), or are more deserving of compassion than men (allowing women to go first)."
Bradley also added that he wants to treat others the way he wants to be treated and asked if that approach should be motivated by chivalry or equality.
"If the genders are to be considered equal and treated equally, how a man treats a woman will essentially be the same as how a man treats a man."
"The obligation to open the door, pay for the meal, and let women go first vanishes. Men do not do this to other men, therefore why do it for women?"
His final take was that the two concepts can't co-exist. Either one is chivalrous or treats everyone as equals.
At the end of the day, people were happy to show chivalry the door.
@seanrmccauley @DoverCook @ShappiKhorsandi @Rich_Cooper @MarkFindlay26 @kent_imig Nobody needs chivalry. Equality a… https://t.co/isq5Fo84iU— John Dougherty (@John Dougherty) 1537357843.0
H/T - GettyImages, Twitter, Indy100, Medium
Hundreds of artists have signed a letter threatening a boycott if SiriusXM's parent company, Liberty Media, doesn't back down from opposing the Music Modernization Act.
The act, which was expected to pass through Congress, streamlines royalty payments in the new age of digital technology, but it seems SiriusXM is objecting to a small section that would have the satellite radio company paying royalties on recordings dating before 1972.
That's a whole lot of songs and a whole lot of money the company is hoping to skip out on paying, but not if stars like Paul McCartney, P!nk, Stevie Nicks, Sia, Carly Simon, Gloria Estefan, Mick Fleetwood, Don Henley, Max Martin, and Katy Perry can help it.
The letter read, in part:
I'm writing you with grave concern about SiriusXM's opposition to the Music Modernization Act (Classics Act included).
We are all aware of your company's objections and trepidation but let me say that this is an opportunity for SiriusXM to take a leadership position. As you are aware, 415 Representatives and 76 Senators have already cosponsored the MMA along with industry consensus. It's SiriusXM vs all of us. We can either fight to the bitter end or celebrate this victory together. Rather than watch bad press and ill will pile up against SiriusXM, why not come out supporting the most consequential music legislation in 109 years? We do not want to fight and boycott your company but we will as we have other opponents. Stand with us! Be brave and take credit for being the heroes who helped the MMA become historic law! Momentum is building against SiriusXM and you still have an opportunity to come out on the right side of history. We look forward to your endorsement but the fire is burning and only you can put this out.
SiriusXM resoponded with a letter of their own:
Over the past several weeks, we have been the subject of some stinging attacks from the music community and artists regarding our views on the Music Modernization Act. Contrary to new reports and letters, this is really not about a SiriusXM victory, but implementing some simple, reasonable and straightforward amendments to MMA. There is nothing in our "asks" that gut the MMA or kills the Act. So let's talk about the substance of the amendments we propose, because we truly do not understand the objections or why these concepts have incited such a holy war.ontrary to the accusations, SiriusXM has proposed three simple amendments to the MMA.
First, SiriusXM has asked that the CLASSICS Act recognize that it has already licensed all of the pre-1972 works it uses. This amendment would ensure that artists – the people who are supposed to be at the heart of the MMA – receive 50% of the monies under those existing licenses. Is that unfair? Just today, Neil Diamond wrote in the LA Times that: "I receive a small amount of songwriting royalties, but no royalties as the recording artist." How can that happen? To date, SiriusXM has paid nearly $250 million dollars in pre-'72 royalties to the record labels. We want to make sure that a fair share of the monies we have paid, and will pay, under these licenses gets to performers. Without this provision, artists may never see any of the money SiriusXM paid, and will pay, for the use of pre-1972 works. Artists not getting paid hurts our business!
Second, Sirius XM thinks that the fair standard to use in rate setting proceedings is the standard that Congress chose in 1995 and confirmed again in 1998 – which is called the 801(b) standard. However, we are willing to move the "willing buyer/willing seller" standard contained in the MMA. In exchange, we have asked for the same concession that the MMA grants to other digital music services, but we were left out of — simply that the rates that were set last year for five years now apply for ten years. We thought this was a fair compromise when we read the "new" MMA that was released this weekend by the Senate, and are willing to live by that compromise.
Third, SiriusXM is asking the simple question: "Why are we changing the rate court evidence standard for musical compositions in this legislation so that it gives another advantage to broadcasters over satellite radio and streaming services?" There is no policy rationale for this change to tilt the playing field further in their favor, and frankly no one has been able to explain it to us. It is only fair that we debate why the change to Section 114(i) is in the MMA.
Did you all catch that? It sounds like lawyer speak for "we don't really want to say where we stand."
It seems all the letters were for naught. The Music Modernization Act passed in the U.S. Senate.
The #MusicModernizationAct has been passed by the U.S. Senate! 🎶 Along with our members across the country, we're e… https://t.co/52yNhtV4zk— Recording Academy / GRAMMYs (@Recording Academy / GRAMMYs) 1537318533.0
@kayhanley @SIRIUSXM Hi @kayhanley, I absolutely support the #MusicModernizationAct. I signed on as a cosponsor ear… https://t.co/j4JHXpLBxI— Elizabeth Warren (@Elizabeth Warren) 1537225190.0
People said this was impossible. Some even worked hard to make it impossible, even telling outright lies about wh… https://t.co/iMTlwJLWVw— Future of Music Coalition (@Future of Music Coalition) 1537309844.0
We're thrilled to share that the Senate has unanimously voted to pass the #MusicModernizationAct, an historic miles… https://t.co/Uuy2Yp8zCw— ASCAP (@ASCAP) 1537311517.0
It was time to celebrate and dance in the streets.
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP Grateful. That says it all. Grateful past language for the sweet souls who worked so hard to mak… https://t.co/JSeUNCwFSd— Paul Williams (@Paul Williams) 1537319434.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams YES!!!! Songwriters are dancing everywhere!— James Grey (@James Grey) 1537315642.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank you for helping us all organize to get this done #MusicModernizationAct— Tangent Recording (@Tangent Recording) 1537311639.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Greatness Is What Greatness Does....And This Is Great.— Eddie C Person Jr (@Eddie C Person Jr) 1537365270.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams #Love it!— CKGTHEDON (@CKGTHEDON) 1537315443.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Fantastic News! Thank You U.S. Senate ~> Pass it House Of Representatives ~> Sig… https://t.co/tukiZ8Ryug— MarkAlexanderCarroll (@MarkAlexanderCarroll) 1537321589.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Simply amazing hard work pays off.— PedroBarr (@PedroBarr) 1537320953.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank all of you for your tireless efforts and work.Protecting what is important… https://t.co/goFps7yu2V— Roney Hooks (@Roney Hooks) 1537317136.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams I am so thankful for this wonderful change. We songwriters deserve it!— J.R. FOWLER (@J.R. FOWLER) 1537322119.0
As the saying goes, honest pay for honest work.
