Delicious, Let go of this notion that you need to believe that you "did not do anything wrong." You probably were wrong from time to time . . . about one thing or another. This need to be absolved of all fault is a theme that I see an awful lot on forums at P.C., and I think it's an unhealthy aspiration. Maybe it's my religious upbringing, but I happen to believe that we humans are all sinners and we all stray from perfect righteousness. I'll tell you straight off where you probably were wrong. Early in your relationship with this man, you formed a fictitious notion of who he was. It wasn't just because you were so innocent and trusting, while he was Mr. Bad Guy. He was Mr. Bad Guy alright - just as bad then, as he is now . . . . but you were unwilling to be shown that and unwilling to reserve judgement until you had real evidence as to who and what he was. You had a stubborn intention of seeing him as what you wanted and needed him to be and just kind of pinned that identity on him. You figured that, as a decent, young woman (which I don't doubt you were) who was ready for a committed relationship, that you had a right to expect that Life would send along an appropriate man to partner with. You had no such right to any such expectation. I don't mean to pick on you individually . . . and I'm sorry for how I know I must sound. This is the result of a lot of deep thought I've given to the plight of the many, many reasonably nice woman who wind up in relationships with guys who are louses.

We women, many of us, go around with a mentality that I think we were socialized into having. It is this: "I will think well of a person, until they give me a reason not to." So we go around, wide-eyed innocents, insisting on a Pollyanna conception of life, whereby people are "supposed" to be nice and good. That's the presumed norm, and departure from that norm is "supposed" to be not what we should expect. We then have a right to be shocked and dismayed when someone we trusted proves unworthy of that trust. If we are going to empower ourselves, then I think we need to chuck that outlook. Human beings tend to have faults, pretty serious faults. That should be our "default" assumption. We can't assume someone is a good person, just because we haven't yet seen them do anything bad. We need to wonder and wonder - long and hard - as to what values a person holds. What evidence do we have that this person is good? I think a lot of women have trusted men just because they were neat, clean and had good manners. Ted Bundy (serial killer) was probably all those things.

It can be pretty easy to hide one's egregious faults (like being a killer, or a scam artist, or a control freak.) But I think it is much harder to mimic real goodness. I don't fault anyone for failing to recognize that a person had hidden flaws. But I am critical of the tendency to think someone is good without that person having been seen to handle himself (or herself) honorably in difficult circumstances. It takes time for that to be revealed. My guess, Delicious, is that you fell for this guy prematurely. In reality, I'm not really putting all the responsibility for that on you. I tend to expect that you were socialized - by your family, by society - to do just that.

We're all human and we all have serious failings in our natures. We are, none of us, innocent of all wrong-doing. Whenever we have gotten ourselves into a bad situation - relationshipwise - I believe (just my opinion . . . but I hold it strongly) that we had an active role in getting ourselves into the mess we wound up in. Having gotten into a bad situation, we have a right and a duty to get out of it. That right doesn't depend on us having "done nothing wrong." Believing that will actually help keep you trapped.

In your final sentence in Post #19, you express the need to choose between feeling "relieved" and feeling "guilty." I say that's a false choice (false dichotomy.) It doesn't have to be one, or the other. It can be both. You are ambivalent. I think it is a good instinct to have both those feelings because I believe that both have validity.

You are looking for reassurance - from family . . . from posters - that you "did nothing wrong." I don't believe anyone can totally, successfully reassure you of that . . . . . . because I don't believe it's true. Your own instinct tells you it's not true. I respect that instinct of yours. The key to your emancipation is to give up needing for that to be true. It's okay to have been somewhat in the wrong.

You "tried so hard to make things right." You expected him to be who he was not. That was wrong. The guy was kind of a louse. He probably can't help it. Who knows? He's not a fitting partner for you. You know that now. You have a right AND a duty to get out of a partnership that you cannot make work. Time to give up thinking it was in your power to do make it work. That thinking was a kind of misdirected determination - a form of pigheadedness, if you like.

I think there is a lot to be gained by taking the attitude that who a person is may be utterly all they are capable of being. I would say: Have the compassion to entertain the notion that this is true of him. He is manipulative and dysfunctional and not a good person for you to be with. You've vented at him everything you wanted to say. That's fine. Now let go of the need to make him feel bad, which you don't like doing. You don't need to. You just need him to be gone.