WIFEY and NIMBY

[DianeT]

My wife doesn't like the idea of her husband crossdressing (late coming out on my part). As she considers herself a tolerant person in gender matters, she wonders if the fact that she dislikes my crossdressing invalidates that.
This is something that I sometimes read in these forums: women are very accepting of crossdressers, until, until (drum roll...) it lands in their backyard with their husband/SO presenting as a woman on occasions. Then here goes tolerance!
Well. Maybe not. We had a very interesting discussion about that with my wife, and starting with this topic of crossdressing and trying to draw analogies with other situations proved more tricky than it first seemed.
The problem:

1. As a woman you say that you are tolerant with crossdressers, you acknowledge their existence and consider that everyone can live their life the way they want.
2. Your husband/SO, present or future, happens to be one of them.
3. You don't accept it (or struggle with it).
4. Ergo, you are not tolerant, please go back and scratch that point 1.

Actually there's a logical flaw in this point 4.

Trying another analogy:

1. As an individual, you have no objection about people eating fish.
2. Ergo you should be eating fish.

Wrong? And yet, the above example is just a condensed version of the previous one .

We tried various other analogies that I will spare you with, but at the end of the discussion we came to the conclusion that my wife was a tolerant person. She doesn't mind people crossdressing. She just doesn't want to be in a relationship with a crossdresser herself, and that is totally her right. Just like I don't like eating fish, but am very tolerant with people who do (except when they microwave it at the office. There should be laws against this).
The flaw in point 4 was to confuse the tolerance for a practice with a personal involvement in the said practice. Like, a heterosexual GG may perfectly be comfortable with lesbian couples without wanting to engage in such a relationship.
In my opinion the NIMBY qualifier doesn't apply to unaccepting or moderately accepting wives that consider themselves tolerant to crossdressers. It would apply only if they said that having a crossdressing husband should not be a problem, before they had a chance of being confronted to the situation in their own couple. Otherwise, they are just being tolerant with other people's' practices without wanting to personally engage in them.
Which I think is a good start to building an accepting society for crossdressers.

[Micki_Finn]

I understand your point and I believe many of us have already reached the same conclusion. Those that haven’t are unlikely to be swayed.

[Tracii G]

This has been discussed in great detail on this and other CD forums all across the internet but will you ever get an solid concrete answer ? I doubt it.
Usually the people that claim they are tolerant really aren't.NIMBY proves this in spades.

[Rhonda Jean]

You can be very tolerant and accepting of a lot of things, but not want to be married to them.

I took me a long time to understand and accept that my wife could have a totally different viewpoint on something and she was no more wrong or right than me. Example; I've always liked shaved legs (and everything else). I mean, who on earth wouldn't prefer shaved to hairy? Clearly, shaved is far superior, right? Wrong, of course. Doesn't mean she won't tolerate it, but if she prefers hairy, that's not wrong. (I still think you ought to be able to shave, BTW). Take makeup for example. Isn't it blatantly obvious that everybody on the planet looks better in makeup? How could it be that someone who is attracted to you wouldn't be even more attracted to you when you enhance your appearance with makeup?

I'm sure in France you're not familiar with the movie Joe Dirt. You kind of need to be from the southern U.S. to appreciate this kind of wisdom, but a quote from the movie addresses the mysteries of life.

"How exactly is a rainbow made? How exactly does a sun set? How exactly does a posi-trac rear-end on a Plymouth work? It just does."

There's wisdom in there for both sides of this subject.

[char GG]

I don't care how other people want to live their lives. It's their business.

I do care when the person that I live with and that I thought I knew everything about, throws something unknown such as CDing, GD, or even sexual orientation in the relationship. A spouse is usually chosen based on the complete package with all of the pertinent information about them shared prior to marriage. Everyone has a life story. I would hope that both people, before marriage, knows each other's life story. When the story changes, then the questions start: How much did I really know this person? So, maybe it's a matter of timing. In your case, Diane, do you think your wife would have been ok with your CDing if she had known prior to committing to the marriage? Is it really the "act" of CDing or the secret that was hidden for so long. Only she would know that answer.

So about the NIMBY part. Again, timing and/or the degree of CDing may play a big part in that.

About your fish analogy:

1. I have no objection to people eating fish.
2. I don't like the taste fish.

[alwayshave]

Dianne, This is true about so much more than crossdressing. It's OK if someone id Bi, as long as I'm not married to them. It's OK if someone smokes as long as I'm not married to them, etc.....

[DianeT]

I do care when the person that I live with and that I thought I knew everything about, throws something unknown such as CDing, GD, or even sexual orientation in the relationship. A spouse is usually chosen based on the complete package with all of the pertinent information about them shared prior to marriage. Everyone has a life story. I would hope that both people, before marriage, knows each other's life story. When the story changes, then the questions start: How much did I really know this person? So, maybe it's a matter of timing. In your case, Diane, do you think your wife would have been ok with your CDing if she had known prior to committing to the marriage? Is it really the "act" of CDing or the secret that was hidden for so long. Only she would know that answer.

It only makes sense that accepting others people's fancies and having them introduced in your couple can't be put on the same level. I hope that I didn't offend anyone with the "here goes tolerance" bit (I slightly edited that part to avoid ambiguity), it was tongue in cheek
I don't think my wife would have been very enthusiastic about CDing before marriage, but we discussed it and as it stands we'll never know. The lack of trust, the lying however seems the bigger problem. She's asking herself the questions you say.
So, you too don't like fish? We should make a club. And put padlocks on microwaves.

[SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE]

You can be very tolerant and accepting of a lot of things, but not want to be married to them.

The purpose of my post was to explain why I thought that NIMBY couldn't apply to my wife (and to many other GGs in her situation). I think you just summarized it in one line, so I should quote you in a TLDR; section

I'm sure in France you're not familiar with the movie Joe Dirt. You kind of need to be from the southern U.S. to appreciate this kind of wisdom, but a quote from the movie addresses the mysteries of life.

"How exactly is a rainbow made? How exactly does a sun set? How exactly does a posi-trac rear-end on a Plymouth work? It just does."

There's wisdom in there for both sides of this subject.

We saw David Spade in Father of the year, but did not see Joe Dirt. From the quote I take it that southern US wisdom is of the practical, down to earth kind. We have an equivalent in an old sketch from the sixties (Fernand Raynaud), where a middle-class, uneducated father gets bombed with complicated questions from his young prodigy son, such as "how do nuclear submarines work in water since they have no diesel or electric engine?" or "why do cows have horns and horses don't?", and the father answers "c'est etudie pour" ("it's been designed for it"). "C'est etudie pour" entered common French language and is a way to humorously evade answering to a complicated question.

[AllieSF]

I get the reference. My daughter is that way and still not over the shock of me coming out to her over 3 years ago. She is an adult who left home many years ago, has adult children of her own and is divorced. She is true adult by age and experience. We were always very close, and then we were NOT! The sad thing was is that she has never found words to be able to discuss her feelings, angers and frustrations. I have encouraged her so many times that it finally ended in an argument that left us not communicating for over 8 months. We see each other now and she sounds the same as before, but she never reciprocates in calling me to see how I am, or to invite me over, which she always did, or to watch a movie. Maybe someday?? I hope!!??

[Devi SM]

Diane,
Yours is the typical rationalist macho analysis to excuse a man dressing as a woman but you forget something basic in every human being.

We're made, built of experiences and information from our environment and one of the strongest info are the stereotypes. Nobody is free of them, less the emotional person. Women are emotional, their feelings can change for night to morning so you can't understand them because their can not understand themselves.
It's impossible you can understand this concept because you're applying rational analysis to feeling that most of the time are not rational.

I won't get deeper in this because you will try to rationally analice it and is not possible, just a woman, under the women's hormones can understand what I'm saying.

I'll give you homework to think about it

Devi

[Maid_Marion]

An accepting wife is willing to talk about it and set ground rules that are mutually acceptable to the both of you.

Marion

[Kelly DeWinter]

The head and the heart may be only inches apart, but they are light years distant from one another.

[Stephanie47]

My wife is allergic to fish!!!

[DianeT]

Yours is the typical rationalist macho analysis to excuse a man dressing as a woman but you forget something basic in every human being.

Devi, I am afraid that you didn't understand my post. Was I that unclear? The purpose of the post is to deny the NIMBY qualifier for wives who consider themselves tolerant to crossdressing but nonetheless struggle with their husband's crossdressing. It explains that you can be tolerant and still struggle with things. Is that macho?

[Miel GG]

@Devi,
I am happy that you wanted to report macho comments but I totally disagree with you here. As a GG I found your post mysogynist. Your vision of women is outdated. Women are not all emotion and men are not all reason ! (Sorry I don't change my mind during the night more often than any human being) Patriarchy assigned Culture to men to ensure their power and assigned Nature to women (poor ones, they are not able to think by themselves, they are fragile and fickle...) to ensure control of them. In reality, women AND men are under hormones control. By the way do you know that scientists demonstrated that testosterone isn't correlated to violent behavior ?

@Kelly,
Heart, but I shall say Love is the argument used by patriarchal society to manipulate women. In this society, women are traditionally in charge of care, of the well-being of their family, and the name of Love is always used to force them to sacrifice themselves, i.e. don't divorce : you will hurt your children, don't leave your man : endure the behavior of your husband, he has had an affair because men have more sexual needs (wtf !)... With this argument, you only lead women to act to the benefit of the husband and you deny them the right to preserve themselves too.
I am quite sure that when you have an important decision to make you try to be rational and don't let emotions guide your choice.

In this forum I often read severe comments about non accepting or moderately accepting women who claimed to be tolerant. Some jeer and disqualify them with the NIMBY label. Even though I know these kinds of comments came from people feeling hurt, I personally feel offended. I don't just claim I am tolerant, I act for the defense of LGBTQ rights. In my backyard, you can find for example gay friends, some of them are CD (but not in front of me, their choices). In my backyard, as I am an hetero women, I didn't plan to let a CD boyfriend enter but he entered without my knowledge... I didn't choose this situation (and I don't really know what could have been my reaction if he has confessed he was CDing before we committed, but at least I wouldn't feel betrayed) and I struggle with the CDing of hubby. Should I be shamed by NIMBY label and called intolerant ? I don't think so. Many CDs here claim they are tolerant but some don't want to commit with a woman who smokes for example... Making choices for our personal and intimate life doesn't imply we are intolerant if we stand for the right of being different and have the same rights as those who are not labelled as different. Should I be lesbian because if not I am so intolerant, even if I am not attracted to women ?

[Michellebej]

Technically toleration is something you acknowledge without acceptance.

So she probably is tolerant. She acknowledges that it exist and she does not care unless it occures in her life. But she does not accept it.

A point I hear from many GGs who are in relationships with CDs is that "there was a secret", that you didn't tell her about. My social circle is composed almost entirely of GGs. From my personal experience almost all of them have things they have hidden from their husbands/SOs.

A few years ago one of my GG friends was complaining to the girls about her husband coming out as a CD. She was very bitter about it. Which surprised us. When asked why, her answer was that he had hid a secret from her and therefore she could not trust him. When I asked her if her husband knew that in College he had been in a ltr with a woman for 2 years, and had been a very promiscous stripper for 3 years; she said "No, what does that have to do with anything?". I told her it was the same thing, she was keeping secrets from her husband. The response was interesting. She said "No, completely different. That was in the past and he has no business knowing about it. This is NOW and I have every right to now about it. " I said that the point was she was still keeping secrets from him.

This started a very long discussion with the girls. Eventually everyone agreed that she was keeping secrets from him, but about half took her side that it was "OK" to keep things from the past secret. The other half agreeing that if she trusted him then she needed to tell him about her past, which she resolutely refused to do. The final consensus was that she needed to stop focusing on the "secret" aspect, as long as she was keeping secrets from him, and just admit that she had an acceptance issue.

Eventually they went to couples therapy which didn't work because she just would not accept that part of him.They got divorced, she met a "real man" who eventually abused her. It was just a mess. The point is most women I know have some sort of secret they keep from their SOs. I know more about my friends than their SO's do. It is amazing to me that I casually discuss things with my friends that they would never ever tell their SO.

But I do have to take the wifes side on one thing. This is pretty major and should have been brought up before marriage. Because she is forming her opinion of the man she is marrying based on what she knows. Dont' think, though, that this is exclusive to CDs. For instance my ex wife told me recently that her current hubby of 20 years has no idea who she really is or of her wild teen/early 20s. She has no plans to talk to him about that as she does not want to be divorced again. It is more common than you might think for SOs to have secrets.

[confused_cathreen]

Technically toleration is something you acknowledge without acceptance.

A few years ago one of my GG friends was complaining to the girls about her husband coming out as a CD. She was very bitter about it. Which surprised us. When asked why, her answer was that he had hid a secret from her and therefore she could not trust him. When I asked her if her husband knew that in College he had been in a ltr with a woman for 2 years, and had been a very promiscous stripper for 3 years; she said "No, what does that have to do with anything?". I told her it was the same thing, she was keeping secrets from her husband. The response was interesting. She said "No, completely different. That was in the past and he has no business knowing about it. This is NOW and I have every right to now about it. " I said that the point was she was still keeping secrets from him.

Secrets are never helpful but I can see how someone might not want to go through the extend of what they DID in the PAST. Crossdressing is/will be PRESENT and FUTURE. And although trying to get your head around what your partner might have done once or multiple times in the past can be tough, especially if it clashes to who you know your partner to be now, it is a thousand times harder when you are taking about something that your partner was doing yesterday/wants to do today and every day/year/decade. You are trying to compare apples and seaweed here. It's not the word "secret". It's the concept of (from your side) secretive behaviour, of hiding, of lying, of avoiding family trips so you can "get your girl on", of possible sexual incompatibility, of biting your tongue when your wife is openly going clothes shopping and she asks you if that looks good on her, with a healthy dose of (from your wife's side) "wtf" when she discovers it/ you tell her, after years of thinking she knew everything about you. "Everyone has secrets" is poor rationalisation from those doing the secreting.

@Devi,
I am happy that you wanted to report macho comments but I totally disagree with you here. As a GG I found your post mysogynist. Your vision of women is outdated. Women are not all emotion and men are not all reason ! (Sorry I don't change my mind during the night more often than any human being) Patriarchy assigned Culture to men to ensure their power and assigned Nature to women (poor ones, they are not able to think by themselves, they are fragile and versatile...) to ensure control of them. In reality, women AND men are under hormones control. By the way do you know that scientists demonstrated that testosterone isn't correlated to violent behavior ?

Totally agree with Miel, Devi, nothing Diane said was misogynistic or macho. I think your view of women is skewed and slightly fairytale-ish. The balance between emotion and logic is something we all employ when trying to make decisions, men and women alike. If you think you are being only logical in every decision you ever made, I think you need to look harder. Crossdressing is not a logical act. With the whole subtext attached to it (I don't agree with it, btw), the consequences to life and family, with the self-loathing I have seen many here struggle with, it's not logical. It's a highly emotional act, littered with emotional mental reactions. That's why it's impossible to answer the question of "why you do it?" Every answer I saw here started with "because it makes me feel..." There are many I have seen trying rationalisation (makes me more empathetic, easier to talk to, calms me down when stressed etc) but to a purely logical mind, all of these things can be counteracted by alternative methods. I have met exactly 0 women who need clothes to experience any of the above mental states. It exclusively happens to crossdressers. So, to a non-crossdresser male or a GG, it is impossible to empathise. I invite you to stop trying to assign logic and emotion to men and women. They both happen by humans.

[Michellebej]

Secrets are never helpful but I can see how someone might not want to go through the extend of what they DID in the PAST. Crossdressing is/will be PRESENT and FUTURE. And although trying to get your head around what your partner might have done once or multiple times in the past can be tough, especially if it clashes to who you know your partner to be now, it is a thousand times harder when you are taking about something that your partner was doing yesterday/wants to do today and every day/year/decade. You are trying to compare apples and seaweed here. It's not the word "secret". It's the concept of (from your side) secretive behaviour, of hiding, of lying, of avoiding family trips so you can "get your girl on", of possible sexual incompatibility, of biting your tongue when your wife is openly going clothes shopping and she asks you if that looks good on her, with a healthy dose of (from your wife's side) "wtf" when she discovers it/ you tell her, after years of thinking she knew everything about you. "Everyone has secrets" is poor rationalisation from those doing the secreting.



Totally agree with Miel, Devi, nothing Diane said was misogynistic or macho. I think your view of women is skewed and slightly fairytale-ish. The balance between emotion and logic is something we all employ when trying to make decisions, men and women alike. If you think you are being only logical in every decision you ever made, I think you need to look harder. Crossdressing is not a logical act. With the whole subtext attached to it (I don't agree with it, btw), the consequences to life and family, with the self-loathing I have seen many here struggle with, it's not logical. It's a highly emotional act, littered with emotional mental reactions. That's why it's impossible to answer the question of "why you do it?" Every answer I saw here started with "because it makes me feel..." There are many I have seen trying rationalisation (makes me more empathetic, easier to talk to, calms me down when stressed etc) but to a purely logical mind, all of these things can be counteracted by alternative methods. I have met exactly 0 women who need clothes to experience any of the above mental states. It exclusively happens to crossdressers. So, to a non-crossdresser male or a GG, it is impossible to empathise. I invite you to stop trying to assign logic and emotion to men and women. They both happen by humans.

Apples to Seaweed....no...let me start off by explaining a bit about my background. I spend a good time of my life as an Interviewer/Interrogator. It was my job to get into peoples heads and make them confess to crimes they had committed solely through the use of psychology and speech. Think "Gibbs" of NCIS, except in my world that character is very amaturish.

One of our truisms is that "past is prelude to the future". Meaning that for the vast majority of people behavior expressed in the past, and especially the period from birth to early 20s is "hardwired" into a person. I'll just throw out right now that some people do change, most though just control their behavior. Though they often think they have changed. A person can go for years even decades thinking they have changed till they encounter the right trigger.

So secrets of past behavior are NOT ok to keep "because it is in the past". That is a logical fallacy. At best it is wishful thinking, at worst it is lying to oneself and ones SO.

That is my professional opinion, an opinion so common in my "world" as to be an axiom.

[Rhonda Jean]

One of our truisms is that "past is prelude to the future". Meaning that for the vast majority of people behavior expressed in the past, and especially the period from birth to early 20s is "hardwired" into a person.

Interesting. I had a lot of "moments" during that time that continue to influence "this" part of me, but there's on seminal moment that was the confluence of a lot of things that seems to linger in my mind as THE moment that embossed the rest of my life. A powerful moment. It was powerful then (at about age 15, maybe 14), but I certainly had no way of knowing then how powerful. Impossible to know then that for the rest of my life this would enter my mind frequently (Daily? I've never documented.) and shape so many thoughts and decisions. It could have been just another day in the life, but it stuck. I've often wondered what my life would have been like had it not happened just the way it did.

[Paulie Birmingham]

I think there is another aspect to it. The wife doesn't know where it ends. If it is just a little cding at home it's one thing. But the wife thinks husband is going full transition it's quite another thing. And There are those on here who think that path is inevitable.

[NancySue]

I guess I?m out of the loop, but what does WIFEY and NIMBY mean? Thanks, someone. I agree with Paulie. Who knows where it?s going? In review, some responses have been from various orientations....straight, gay, bi...I know...who cares, but they are different when it come to cding. One public bane...assumption....all cders are gay....no we?re not! Some have full support...some DADT...some none. My wife supports me dressing...with one provision...I tell her immediately, if my orientation changes....which I suppose could happen, but, so far, nothing, other than dressing is my world.

[Dutchess]

I agree with Paulie and Roberta here .. 100%

I don't care what anyone does at this stage of my life as long as it doesn't hurt anyone , that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to hang out with you though . That goes for many things . Some behaviors in this world are like what the heck !?!?!?! but hey as long as it doesn't injure anyone ..
In my case it's because I am not a very straight person , I never have been so I cannot judge .. at all .. sometimes MY behavior has been outlandish also .

Everyone has hard limits , they just do. As far as CDing I cannot tolerate extremes ( except for Docs pict o stories , I LOVE Docs pict o stories) . If you are being authentic fine but I am not into caricatures of women with alt personalities and fake voices .



As for fish , I was raised on an island in Texas and I love to deep sea fish and will eat anything that swims .

[DianeT]

I guess I?m out of the loop, but what does WIFEY and NIMBY mean?

Hi Nancy Sue, NIMBY means Not In My BackYard, meaning you can be tolerant to something when it affects others, and less when it affects you, such as the installation of a mobile telephony antenna in the neighborhood. E.g. you like it in others' backyard but don't want it in yours. When used in a pejorative way it equates to saying that someone is a hypocrite (others can get the burden, but not you), so it can be offensive.
I have seen this acronym used for wives that consider themselves accepting of crossdressing as a practice but do not want an husband who does it. In my opinion that doesn't qualify as NIMBY because these women probably never pretended that crossdressing was good for any couple but theirs. They are just saying that they have no problems with guys crossdressing in general, and that doesn't mean they have to accept it in their own couple. Rhonda Jean summarized it well in the first line of his post in that thread.
WIFEY is just Wifey (the Wife character in a couple, the other one being Hubby). I just found it funny to "uppercase" it to balance NIMBY.

[Teresa]

Diane,
Its' quite an interesting discussion , I'm partly inclined to agree with Tracii , you can ask this question to 100 people and get 100 different answers .

I'm inclined to disagree with Char , to fully know and disclose everything to another person in their very early twenties isn't realistic , marriage always has it's risks and can never be called foolproof , as I found to my cost both parties can have secrets or choose to withold the truth .

Dutchess makes a point that resonates with me , to be an occasional crossdresser is one thing but being authentic is another . For a wife/partner to live with a man who may embarrass you by being caught wearing womens clothes is very different from someone saying I wish to live the rest of my life as a woman . I never thought or expected my wife to respect me for crossdressing but I've now earned her respect for my totally honesty and conviction , OK either way she wouldn't want to live with it .

[Dutchess]

@DianeT your uncle is definitely one after my own heart .. yes indeed ..
and yes it is amazing how Doc comes up with a pictostory for every occasion , I dont know how he does it but I like it .



@Teresa , what I mean in my case is not so much crossdressing , because I like non binary androgynous guys really well but I was telling someone here about a funeral of a TS friend of mine who died and at the funeral my bizarre ex husband wore a spandex jumpsuit and stilettos and I had a FIT . Well of course I was a bigot , intolerant and 50 other names he could think of to call me but it came down to the fact I was going to have to go to a very serious occasion with a guy in a spandex jumpsuit ( for female people ) that screamed SEX and extreme heels or not tell my friend goodbye at all .


Boy was I resentful ,, AND he demanded to be taken seriously like this . NO one wore anything like that . NO one . There were people from here and people we knew from facebook also . all over the TG spectrum. He ended up being so embarrassed that he hid behind me most of the time and when I peeled myself away from him for a few minutes he would not speak to anyone and hid in a pew , in a corner , etc etc .. that kind of thing I do not like at all .
Its that extreme over the top behavior/ drama queen stuff that embarrasses me .


..... and if anyone here again wants to question why I am still here and speaking about my exp its to help others avoid situations like this .

[Kelly DeWinter]

Apples to Seaweed....no...let me start off by explaining a bit about my background. I spend a good time of my life as an Interviewer/Interrogator. It was my job to get into peoples heads and make them confess to crimes they had committed solely through the use of psychology and speech. Think "Gibbs" of NCIS, except in my world that character is very amaturish.

Not to disparage you or your profession, however it's also true that psychology can be and is used at time to get people to confess to crimes even if they did NOT commit them. Some people do not have the personal fortitude to stand up to hours of questioning even if they did NOT commit the crime. And as you know the improper use of interrogation is used to often in the United States. My background includes MI

One of our truisms is that "past is prelude to the future". Meaning that for the vast majority of people behavior expressed in the past, and especially the period from birth to early 20s is "hardwired" into a person. I'll just throw out right now that some people do change, most though just control their behavior. Though they often think they have changed. A person can go for years even decades thinking they have changed till they encounter the right trigger.

Psychologists and the Military have proven that you can rewire your brain to change your behavior to suit goals or needs. The Military does it with thousands of Recruits during Boot Camp. I cite myself as an example, To this day I make my bed Military inspection fashion every day because I learned that if you accomplish 1 thing first thing in the morning you can go on to accomplish many things.

So secrets of past behavior are NOT ok to keep "because it is in the past". That is a logical fallacy. At best it is wishful thinking, at worst it is lying to oneself and ones SO.

While being honest to a spouse and a SO is a very good idea and i heartily recommend it as a first recourse, there are times when self preservation overrides everything, such as a divorce, your job, the person you are dealing with. I grew up with two alcoholic parents, my ex whom I dated for 4 years and thought I knew everything about turned out to be a mean social drunk. We talked about CD/TG issues from time to time and would have had my personal,professional and family life destroyed by her out of spite. From posts withing this community, too often a relationship ends, but the spite and anger live on

That is my professional opinion, an opinion so common in my "world" as to be an axiom.

Interesting points thou.