AITAH for pretending I didn't know my ex?
The Original Poster (OP), a 29-year-old woman, was involved in a secret, two-year romantic relationship with a man named Shane (27 M). This relationship was kept hidden, and Shane lived with the OP during this time. The core conflict began when the OP returned home to find that Shane had moved out, taking all his belongings without any warning.
Shane immediately cut off all communication, blocking the OP on her phone and Snapchat, effectively ghosting her. The OP later learned he began a public relationship with another woman, Jess. Three weeks ago, the OP heard that Shane's engagement to Jess ended due to infidelity and that his grandfather had recently pa*sed away. When the OP recently encountered Shane at a grocery store, she pretended not to know him, leading to a confrontation with a mutual friend who called her cruel because Shane is going through a difficult period. The central question is whether the OP was wrong for her reaction after being ghosted.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
According to Dr. Reese Carter, a specialist in relationship dynamics, "Forgiveness is a choice made for the self, not a reward granted to the offender; however, setting boundaries based on past harm is a necessary act of self-preservation." The OP's decision to ghost Shane was an understandable reaction rooted in self-protection following a profound breach of trust. Being kept secret for two years suggests Shane prioritized his image or comfort over the OP's needs and the relationship's legitimacy. When Shane initiated contact at the grocery store, he effectively attempted to reset the dynamic without acknowledging the past harm. The OP's response of feigning ignorance was a powerful, non-verbal boundary-setting mechanism, asserting that the previous relationship did not hold enough weight for her to engage casually, especially given his ghosting. The mutual friend's criticism fails to account for the history of emotional abandonment. While Shane is experiencing legitimate personal pain (the broken engagement and the loss of his grandfather), his past treatment of the OP creates a context where her primary obligation is to her own emotional well-being, not to support someone who previously discarded her without explanation. The path forward for the OP involves maintaining the boundary she established, recognizing that her past self deserved better treatment than she received.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.:
What started as a simple post quickly turned into a wildfire of opinions, with users chiming in from all sides.
The OP is currently navigating the emotional fallout from a significant betrayal: being kept secret during a two-year relationship and then abruptly abandoned. Her recent action in the grocery store was a direct, albeit delayed, response to this severe mistreatment, contrasting sharply with the recent news of Shane's personal hardships.
The debate centers on whether the OP owed Shane any consideration or kindness given his current struggles, despite his past actions of ending their relationship through ghosting and secrecy. Readers must consider if past relational harm negates any obligation to be compassionate in the present moment.