Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Would you let your partner delete most of your contacts?

chef17

By chef17,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

chef17 Apprentice

chef17

Posted
Posted

So I was texting a friend and she said she let her boyfriend delete almost all of her contacts because "he dont want me to have alot of guys numbers". Am I the only one who finds this stupid? If you are in a relationship with someone, shouldn't they trust you and not care who is in your phone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chef17 Apprentice

chef17

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That dude has some insecurity issues.

That's what I was thinking.

It's over the top for sure. If you are in a relationship though it would be weird if she was making new guy friends.

That makes sense but to delete guy friends she already has? That just seems retarded to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Panthro Community Regular

Panthro

Posted
Posted

That makes sense but to delete guy friends she already has? That just seems retarded to me.

It does seem odd. So what is your relationship with this girl? Would you go out with her if she was single?

Single men are generally not friends with women in relationships because they are cool or fun to hang out with. Their intentions are well....males intentions. Women are different in that regards. There are very few exceptions though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
j2sgam Collaborator

j2sgam

Posted
Posted

When my wife & I were dating she had problems with all the female friends I had. It was almost as simple as telling her "They were my friends before you came around..." It worked itself out, Ive been married for 5 years and dont have any contact with any of them anymore... Dude from the OP has issues, insecurity is another form of immaturity... Dude needs to grow a pair...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cat Newbie

Cat

Posted
Posted

When I first read it I thought the guy has problems. Then I remembered I wasn't too comfortable when I found my husband's ex girlfriends number in his phone.

I guess that doesn't change the likely hood that he has problems and I do too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...