AF:
From tonight I decided not to have more respect for one of my closest friends tonight for the third consecutive time, has had more than friendly situations with my last ex (ie every time the last on duty for a total of three. Then vice is) knowing that it is the only thing that really makes me suffer because it is the only event that really lose the ability to rationalize and process. I consider my problem and I ask as a personal favor to save money, just for me. That they were going to rub, lemonade and fuck someone else for my own good, if not so great renunciation, 'cause I lose my health. But one, two and even three. Just
with him then, with my love. The two of them ...
But I'll kill him!
the sense of possession towards the partner is a common condition that does not define a priori wrong. However, when you pass by a moderate jealousy with delusions of control or domination to the will of SFOR in behavior rather dangerous for the health of pair and the two contenders.
be engaged, or being together, is not an honorific title for life, as with the generals or presidents. when you are not together anymore is lost (at last, it seems in many cases) any control over feelings and actions of the former and hopefully it is left free and there is free, caring, if you can keep in a drawer of memory of what good we were (often, much more than we want to convince us). in some cases it can even be friends without ambiguity.
on the other side of the scale, the friends (friends of the male discourse is perfectly similar). can control their feelings? You can leave a person free to love anyone but Tom, Dick and Harry? no. the former is often a friend of a friend, or almost. it can be easy to move from words to deeds and consoling one can justify very easily if he has rejected her, it means that most are not interested in (more true than false, however).
though in general I find that the ex-girlfriends to veto a policy is not very sensible, and often counterproductive, in your case, af, is pernicious recurrence. There is perseverance. There is perhaps intentional, or at least casually. manslaughter. three times? I find it hard to think of randomness. I do not know what you are friends: if you believe, from the benefit of the doubt, but try to clarify. According to the eye.
regarding the former: no guilt because there is no explicit (more) no strings attached. but if you want to add some saw mental, as a motive for being a friend of yours would not rule out revenge.
said this, though: it really worth it? he was no longer him, for you. Your friend is obviously a bit 'selfish. maybe "patience" is the best conclusion. She writes
on the other side of the scale, the friends (friends of the male discourse is perfectly similar). can control their feelings? You can leave a person free to love anyone but Tom, Dick and Harry? no. the former is often a friend of a friend, or almost. it can be easy to move from words to deeds and consoling one can justify very easily if he has rejected her, it means that most are not interested in (more true than false, however).
though in general I find that the ex-girlfriends to veto a policy is not very sensible, and often counterproductive, in your case, af, is pernicious recurrence. There is perseverance. There is perhaps intentional, or at least casually. manslaughter. three times? I find it hard to think of randomness. I do not know what you are friends: if you believe, from the benefit of the doubt, but try to clarify. According to the eye.
regarding the former: no guilt because there is no explicit (more) no strings attached. but if you want to add some saw mental, as a motive for being a friend of yours would not rule out revenge.
said this, though: it really worth it? he was no longer him, for you. Your friend is obviously a bit 'selfish. maybe "patience" is the best conclusion. She writes
0 comments:
Post a Comment