Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A human Being
You, bolshy? Never, Lorelyen! 
What you're advocating here sounds rather passive-aggressive, |
A What???
Quote:
|
a round-about way of saying, 'You're being a hypocrite'.
|
Ah, I get it now. Except it needn't get to that. It's about a change of (in this case) explicit ground rules. She'd be saying "If you can do this so can I. Put in a First Amendment to our agreement or if not, get rid of her." sort of.
Quote:
|
As I say, for me the healthy thing to do would be to tell the guy how you feel about the situation, because as you say it's not like he isn't old enough to know better and the OP is within her rights to feel upset because his behaviour is insensitive (not to mention hypocritical - I'd be besides myself, given his previous request that she delete her male contacts) - even if he doesn't have designs on this woman, the least the OP deserves is an explanation. I question whether I'd even want to be in a relationship with someone who would treat me that way, in truth.
|
Ok, I'll do a Michael Winner and tell myself to calm down dear, it's only a mouse. Yes, it makes sense. I recognise her upset because somehow she found out that this Old Flame proclaimed her ongoing love. She doesn't say how but the "making moves on him" tells that somehow he communicated that to her. Maybe not verbally.
I mean, blimey, after 50 years? I mean, that's pushy-aggressive surely? The Old Flame Theory has it than an asbestos topcoat would be useful now. How easy it'll be depends on things like who got in touch with who first, and why? Just happened to be in town? Picked up an old photo and decided to search online? Point is, she does need to nip this in the bud toute suite. It could be quite innocent - but then suspicion has a habit of gnawing away if allowed to fester...
Cheers.
