In the context of my WH, I know what the 'friends' malarkey is all about. It's about assuaging his guilt. In his mind, if I agree to be 'friends', then he doesn't have to feel so bad about what he's done because I'm obviously not so hurt that I can't still be 'friends' with him.
This fits with his self perception that he's a nice guy, a 'good person', and also helps him in the rationalisation that I don't disagree with being left so much, and it is, as he keeps arguing, in all of our best interests, including our 3 year old son's.
Barf puke. MASSIVE eye roll.
I've learned over the years there's a difference between being 'friends' and being 'friendly'. You can be very friendly with someone you are absolutely not friends with.
What our spouses have done to us, they wouldn't have done to their normal 'friends', let alone the one person they were supposed to love, honour and protect. So it makes me so angry when I hear this kind of statement.
So maybe it's just a matter of semantics - when she next brings up this crap, just understand she's confused between the difference between being 'friends' and 'friendly'.
With regards to what you should have done re the slander... Hmm. I think what you did do was perfectly reasonable and I would have done exactly the same thing. I read her response as one of two possibilities - she's manipulating you by threatening you with imminent departure everytime you bring up something that makes her unhappy - she's keeping you in line - or she's just 'done' with negativity. It may be that she's under stress and she just doesn't want to talk about anything that isn't about rainbows and unicorns in a glittery pink universe where we are all 'friends'.
