Relationship Blueprint--Testing 1, 2, 3

My mind and heart feel so heavy...I have to set the bags down for a minute.

I have seen so many things play out as a result of insecurity, jealousy, things that have happened in the past...there are so many negative stereotypes associated with interactions in relationships, particularly if one of the parties is a black female.

Like constantly asking him where he's going to be at. Going through his personal stuff (cell phone, clothes) to find incriminating evidence. Following the guy to see where he's going to be at. Damaging property on the suspicion that he's messing around. Calling another woman pet names; having too many female friends that he stays in contact with.

I could go on and on...but I will stop.

Now, if the female has a LEGITIMATE reason why she is doing all these things...like, because she has asked him about it and he's either not been upfront or flat out lied, then to me, what ever happens happens. I feel like he gave up the right to a private life the moment he violated the foundation of trust (and the foundation isn't made from building blocks of deception).

But what about the other cases:

1. Where you knew that the majority of his friends are female and his female friends always turn to him for advice.
2. On a job that has him working long hours or has him traveling for hours and days at a time
3. Him not going through your stuff or following you--him giving you trust--but you are not reciprocating it, etc...

Cases where there is no proof? Is it simply a clear cut case of the female projecting her insecurity, past experiences, jealousy? Or is there a lot of grey not being examined.

I did a huge digression, but I had to do that to set up the scenario...the situation.

I have sat back and seen a lot of relationships. I have also had my experiences in relationship. I know what type of things I want in a relationship and what I don't want.

I know I don't want to be the type of female who has to go through a person's phone or belongings. I feel like it's wrong and it is a violation of privacy.

I get so much heat because people tell me, "The other person gave up his right to privacy once he got involved."

To me, that is not necessarily true. That person had a life before me and vice versa.

In addition, it's all about trust. If you feel like you have to go through my stuff and not ask me what you want to know, then the union is doomed before it even gets started. I don't like to waste time.

And then, there's the whole male friends/female friends situation. I am not going to front with you--the majority of my friends are male. I have had a difficult time as far as female friendships, and in quite a few cases, my male friends have been there when my female friends haven't. I'm not talking about "friends with benefits"; I am talking about actual friendship.

I don't think I should make anyone I get involved with give up a friend, whether it's the same sex or the opposite sex. No offense, but most of my friends have outlasted quite a few of my relationship; I would have hated to throw some of them away over a relationship, which, in hindsight, should not have even taken place.

I get a lot of flack for my stance on this, too.

There has to be communication about this with everyone because you don't want to be disrespectful. If you are single, then of course, you could hang out with your friend as much as you wanted to, but if you are in a relationship, you have to make allowances for it. You don't want your actions to convey that one person is way more important than the other.

But what if one's proposed way of involvement gets tested? What if I conduct an experiment to see how condusive one is without the stress of privacy invasion, constant interrogation, and friend elimination?

In my observation, the early results are although the subject is happy about not having these burdens, there is a risk of the subject reverting back to previous behavior.

Reverting back to previous behavior as in acting the way one was before he got in a relationship.

So are these early results an indication that perhaps sturdier chains are necessary? Or is there a fallacy in the subject selection? Or in my hypothesis as a whole?

Perhaps it is too soon to tell.

In the meantime, I will keep observing.

Peace.