Disclaimer

---

 After uncovering what I have, I came to believe that dishonesty had become a recurring pattern across many aspects of what he had told me. 

 He often presents himself to others as someone who was actively caring for his grandmother, who has dementia. This portrayal was shared with me as well, and it initially contributed to a positive impression of his character, which he does purposefully.

However, my firsthand experience living in the home differed from that image. Although he lived with his grandmother, the majority of her day-to-day care was handled by another family member who does not reside there. This included meal preparation, personal care, and other essential caregiving tasks. His involvement was limited and inconsistent, and on many evenings, even basic routines were not completed.

There were occasions when his grandmother remained awake late into the night because bedtime assistance did not occur. When the primary caregiver was out of town, I observed instances where he chose to leave the house for social outings rather than remain home with her. During one incident when she fell, he declined to assist when help was needed.

He does not contribute rent while living in the home. Based on what I observed and what he shared with me, his financial situation remained strained during this period, despite not having housing expenses.

The contrast between how this situation was presented publicly and what I witnessed privately was significant. For me, this was another example of how appearances were emphasized while responsibilities were inconsistently met.

 This is a pattern I experienced repeatedly: emphasizing certain aspects of his life in ways that generated sympathy and positive perception, while the reality I witnessed did not match that portrayal. 

 When we first started talking, he told me that he was a manager at Starbucks and often described his workdays in a way that reinforced that impression. I later learned that his position was actually that of a shift supervisor. At the time, his job title or income was not something that mattered to me, but the discrepancy became relevant as part of a broader pattern of misrepresentation.

As I spent more time around his workplace and social environment, I observed interactions with significantly younger coworkers that made me uncomfortable. These were my personal observations, and they contributed to concerns about boundaries and judgment rather than any single isolated incident. He is in his 40s, and most of the individuals involved were in their early twenties.  A person in a position higher should not be on Instagram liking bikini pictures of his young employees.

I also noticed that many of his friendships and social connections skewed much younger than his own age group. For me, this reinforced a sense that there were recurring issues around maturity, boundaries, and the need for external validation, which became clearer as other inconsistencies came to light.

 When we first began talking, we discussed our views on marriage. He told me that he was divorced and that he had no desire to remarry, which he presented as a point of compatibility between us. I shared that marriage was not something I was interested in, and at the time, I accepted his statements as truthful.

Over time, I learned that he was not divorced. Although he described himself as “separated,” he remained legally married. I became aware of ongoing contact between him and his wife, including shared accounts such as Spotify, where her activity would interrupt his access. This prompted further questions.

Eventually, I saw messages between them that confirmed the marriage had not been legally dissolved. In those exchanges, he stated that he “considered being separated the same as being divorced.” In subsequent messages to his wife, he referred to me as “a girl he was seeing,” despite the fact that we had been living together for several months.

When I raised concerns, he told me that his wife did not need to know details of his personal life and suggested that disclosing a relationship could lead to financial consequences. This explanation did not align with what I later learned about their circumstances.    During our relationship, he told me that he believed his wife had married him for immigration purposes. He also stated that this belief was the reason he gave for the prolonged delay in finalizing the divorce. 

I continued to press for clarity and honesty regarding his marital status. Eventually, formal divorce proceedings were initiated, and the divorce was finalized the following year. There were no financial support obligations resulting from the divorce.

For me, the issue was not differing views on marriage. It was that I entered the relationship based on information that later proved to be inaccurate, and that clarity only came after repeated contradictions and confrontations and still never completely.

 He spoke often about having a difficult childhood and described experiences that he said had a lasting impact on him. I understood that early family dynamics can shape adult behavior, and I initially accepted these accounts at face value.

However, some of the details he shared later became unclear. In conversations with a close family member, I was told that certain experiences he described as having happened to him had, in fact, occurred to another family member instead. This discrepancy raised questions for me about the accuracy of the stories I had been told.

I cannot speak to his intentions, but the inconsistencies made it difficult to know which parts of his narrative were factual and which were not. Over time, this contributed to a broader pattern I experienced in the relationship, where stories and explanations shifted depending on the situation.

The relationship models he described growing up included instability, dishonesty, and conflict. Regardless of the source, those dynamics appeared to influence what he later treated as normal within adult relationships. For me, this reinforced the importance of accountability, honesty, and breaking harmful cycles rather than repeating them.

 After I left him in San Jose, we continued contact and an attempt at a relationship (I know, I know, I left him for many reasons but the trauma bond is strong.). During that period, we occasionally shared location access with each other. When conflicts arose, he would disable his location sharing. This occurred repeatedly and often coincided with arguments about trust.

During one disagreement, he accused me of being dishonest about my whereabouts after my location briefly appeared inaccurate. I had gone to dinner with classmates at a restaurant. I sent him photographs of myself at the restaurant and of my meal, yet he continued to insist that I was lying and claimed that my location had shown me at a bar. He refused to provide any proof that this had occurred.  My belief is he created this argument as a reason to turn off his location and not have further contact that night.

Later, I learned additional information that cast those interactions in a different light. During a subsequent attempt to address my concerns, I asked him to screen record his phone to demonstrate that he had not been engaging in behavior he had denied. Rather than resolving the issue, this process revealed further inconsistencies in his explanations.

I also became aware that his phone had been left at home while he went out, which would prevent location data from reflecting his movements. When I asked him to share screenshots of his recent Lyft ride history, he declined to do so. This refusal marked a turning point for me.  Finally, right?  

When I expressed that transparency was necessary for trust to continue, he stated that he was “setting boundaries” and that he would no longer provide information or reassurance, asking instead that I simply accept his word. Given the repeated discrepancies I had already encountered, this was not something I could reasonably do.  Not to mention, that is not setting boundaries, that is evading being held accountable for his repeated actions.

The relationship did not end over a single request or isolated incident. It ended because ongoing concerns were met with denial, refusal to clarify, and shifting explanations. Trust cannot exist where transparency is withheld, and accountability is reframed as an unreasonable demand.

 The pattern of dishonesty was persistent. When confronted about inconsistencies, he frequently denied that he was lying at all, reframing his statements as misunderstandings or technicalities. Over time, this response became familiar and predictable.

During our relationship, he told me that he had a Facebook account solely for the purpose of using a virtual reality headset and that he did not actively use the platform. After I ended the relationship due to ongoing issues, I discovered that I had been blocked on that account. This raised questions about how and when the account had been used.

He also told me that he was not using Instagram. On one occasion, I asked him to screen record his phone to confirm this. He was unable or unwilling to do so and spent over an hour insisting that I was mistaken and that he was not using the platform while he was in fact during that hour, deleting all of the messages and likes he had amassed from women. After continued denial, he later acknowledged that he had been using Instagram and messaging another woman, stating that the conversations were limited and benign.  If that was the case, there would have been no reason to cover any of it up.

Based on what I had already observed — including visible activity on the platform — I knew that the account had been active for months prior to that admission. The deletion of messages during the denial period further undermined trust and credibility. These events contributed to an ongoing cycle in which concerns were dismissed, facts were denied, and partial admissions were made only after extended confrontation.

For me, the issue was not isolated incidents or past behavior. It was the continuation of the same conduct over time. When actions repeat, they do not remain in the past; they become a pattern. My experience was defined by repeated denial, deflection, and the erosion of trust that followed.

Money, or the lack of it, was never important to me in this relationship. I have never chosen partners based on financial status, and when I am able, I tend to be generous with the person I am with. During our relationship, I was receiving long-term disability benefits and still paid for trips, meals, and shared expenses without hesitation.

What mattered to me was honesty. Over time, I learned that several representations he made about his financial situation were not accurate. He described himself as having a higher-earning position than he actually did, which I later came to understand was not true. He also told me he received approximately $5,000 per month from a rental property. I later learned that the property is occupied by a family member and that he does not, in fact, receive rental income from it.

I observed spending patterns that did not align with what he had told me about his finances, including frequent bar expenses charged to credit cards and his expensive vehicle despite ongoing financial strain. He also disclosed to me that he had spent a significant amount of money on an online game, which he said contributed SIGNIFICANTLY to substantial debt and was also used to contact women to cheat on me with throughout our relationship.  A family member later helped resolve part of that debt, after which another credit card was opened.

These inconsistencies and disclosures contributed to my growing concern that I was not being given an accurate picture of his circumstances. My experience was not about money itself, but about repeated misrepresentation and the erosion of trust that followed.

When I started my new job, I didn’t have anyone else to name, and I believed we were building something real. For months, we talked about him adding me to his policy. For months, he said he would. And for months, he didn’t.

I finally told him that if he couldn’t follow through on something that basic, I would have to question whether he took our relationship seriously at all. I even asked if his ex-wife was still listed. He assured me she wasn’t. Only later did he admit that when he finally called, she was still in the system and had to be removed. Meaning that during all the time he was promising to add me, he hadn’t even cleared out the past.  He had her removed and could have added me at that point and chose not to because he never had any intention of adding me.  It was just another manipulation to make me appear as a constant nag.

Even then, he didn’t simply add me while he was on the phone. It became another “I’ll handle it next week” situation, another task that required reminders, follow-ups, and pressure. The pattern was identical to the T-Mobile account he repeatedly claimed he would add me to so I could view the bill and access the services he insisted I was included in. Instead, I kept paying for things myself while being told it was “in progress.”

When he eventually claimed he had added me to the life insurance policy, I asked for proof — the same proof he demanded from me when I added him to mine. He said screenshots showed up blank and that he would “show me in person.” He never did.

It wasn’t about paperwork. It was about the pattern: promise, delay, deflect, repeat. The bare minimum presented as effort. The future always “handled next week.” And me, left chasing confirmation for things that should have been simple.