Humans logo

Preemptive Denunciation

Just think.

By Gabriel GarciaPublished 6 years ago 4 min read
Like

Preemptive Denunciation

It's one thing to be suspicious, we all are. If you're suspicious of another person for example: you're in a relationship and you suspect your spouse is having an emotional affair with someone and secretly talking to another person via text on their cellphone. Now let's say you maybe bring it up and your spouse assures you there's nothing to worry about and they've never given you a reason to be suspicious, yet you are still suspicious; with that being said, you should automatically come to the conclusion that there is no reason to go through your spouse's phone because there's no physical evidence to go off of. Now let's say you go against that reasoning and you do it anyway, you pick up your spouse's phone while they're taking a shower or sleeping. The action of picking up your spouse's phone in itself is doubt. You've doubted your spouse. Now let's say you find nothing, you may think, okay I'm no longer insecure, I won't do that again. What if you do find your spouse is having an emotional affair or flirting with someone via text or over some social media platform yet no proof of a physical affair? Does that mean you have the right to assume they are having a physical affair when they are away from you with this other person? Or that dismisses the action of going through your spouse's cell phone? You may think that just because your suspicion was correct, it is justified to assume a physical affair in the present is taking place, after all, they told you there was nothing to worry about, yet you've found a form of evidence that suggests the direct opposite. Yet still, what gives you the right to invade someone's privacy? Who is more in the wrong? Now let's say you catch your spouse in the act of having an affair in person, then you demand their phone, you go through it and find flirtatious content between your spouse and this other person. In which scenario is it more justified to go through your spouse's phone? Under the first scenario, acting on a suspicion and discovering flirtatious content, you confronted your spouse, and your spouse asks, "You went through my phone? Yes there's flirtatious content between myself and this other person, but did you look at the time and date of this conversation? This was way before you and I were in a relationship. I no longer talk to that person." To that response, you suddenly feel dumb, and you've damaged your relationship by doubting your significant other. Your spouse will always feel that no matter what, despite whatever reason you were led to believe he/she were up to something, you had doubt, which reflects how much you respect them. Now let's say you suspect a loved one of a narcotics addiction, you ask your loved one and they deny it, but you break into their room anyway and go through their things. You find paraphernalia but no drugs, no substance. It's common to assume they are using in the present, but just because you found paraphernalia, does not mean your loved one is in fact using in present time. Maybe they did at one point in time, but are no longer are using. It'd be one thing if your loved one admitted they are currently using, or you walked in on your loved one while engaging in the act of consuming narcotics. It's another thing to assume that just because paraphernalia is present amongst their possessions, that they are in fact using. Unless you discover a substance or catch them in the act, the assumption you've made based off paraphernalia is not concrete, regardless of however much likely it is that your loved one is currently using. Once again, you've doubted this person, not only invading his/her privacy, but now damaging your relationship and forever changing this person's perception of you. Considering the circumstances surrounding this person's life as a cause for a loved one's behavior is almost too simplistic and boring. Why is it in our nature to always assume the worst and become oblivious to rational or logical thinking and instead choose to emphasize on something so insignificant without concrete evidence? To stress the point of this writing, it is wise to think before you act or draw a conclusion. Not everything is what it seems.

advice
Like

About the Creator

Gabriel Garcia

A once Insipid individual struck by misfortune dwelling in a peculiar state of deep thought and self reflection; no longer accompanied by shame, remaining perpetually encumbered not only from the mind, but from the heart.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.