I am trekking to your thread if further discussion is needed so as not to hijack, but the essence is as follows, forgiveness is a personal action, belief and choice, like love. We choose these from our personal stance.
Trust is a behaviour rather than a choice. When we trust we allow others into our space and permit them to behave within closer boundaries. They are in our space.
Trust isn't absolute, I can trust someone with my cash but not with my heart. I may allow them to drive my child to school but not to cook my dinner. And that's ok. So I can trust WW to buy the groceries but not to see OM. It's because their behaviour is untrustworthy by experience or I anticipate it to be so.
Trust can vary depending on my knowledge, I find out today that teacher x has great exam results for students and I trust them for extra tuition for French, that's new information. I find out that broker A has gone insolvent so I don't trust them with my cash. New information and new levels of trust.
It's the other's behaviour and my response to it that determines trust. And it changes, it's an analogue response not a digital one, like a knob to turn on a stereo for sound. It can go up and down.
Next Trust and Love aren't linked. You can love someone and not trust them in a specific area. Similarly you can trust someone and not love them. I trust my butchers meat but I don't love him. You don't need love to trust and visa versa. So take the pressure off yourself, control is making someone 'earn' your trust, they can't do that and it's damaging. Instead examine their behaviour on the given issue. Drop the need for trust in order to love and visa versa. That holds even if someone says 'You don't trust me do you ?' . The answer is that's none of your business. What I think of you is mine. Simply answer 'are you trustworthy? Is your word good?' 'Are you doing what you say?'
Does it matter? I believe in transparency in M, although we are allowed our privacy on some things. And checking emails, phones etc is no way to live. Allowing checking is one thing but living needing to check is another. Do we need to trust? I say no, but we have to be good on our boundaries and verify. Then we apply consequences. Those consequences are reasonable and prestated. If you x then y is a boundary. That's reducing trust levels. If you chat to my WW then I will inform your W is a boundary. It's said in advance.
So how do you 'learn to trust after betrayal? You don't, not in any way. It's not a learned thing but an experience thing. Between two people, so it's how another behaves that makes them trustworthy and it can be tested. It can be verified, and I don't believe testing and verifying is snooping. It's common sense when experience tells you that your ex is gambling and they say they aren't to test that assertion. Over time verification becomes less and less needed. The old adage fool me once shame on you, fool me twice then I am a fool, fool me thrice shame on me is a good one.
And it's ok not to trust after betrayal, absolutely ok. No one should feel guilty for verifying, it's when verifying becomes a way of punishing and excessive it's an issue. Over verifying is damaging and it can be done subtly and unobtrusively.
And snooping is different from INTEL, I believe in knowing from operating from knowledge. Once you know you can never unknown. INTEL such as a PI is so valuable. Best 1800 euros I spent in the D on a PI, saved me a lot of settlement and allowed me to serve the G. INTEL assists in trust.
Those are my thoughts
V
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose. V 64, WAW