ility; especially as the scenario is so similar to her previous relationship. F. herself has become conditioned by past experience to believe that anything that goes wrong must be her fault.

It seems that the person who apportions the most blame, often enough, as quickly as they can, establishes their credibility and innocence. F.’s a tryer, not a blamer. So she’s come to believe th

“I’m in a relationship with a man who is very kind and loving. With me he is manipulative and I have to learn to deal with that. He says that in a relationship people have to compromise.”

What do you pick up on? That he’s kind and loving? That he’s right, people do have to compromise in a relationship? That he’s manipulative? Or that F., the woman in question, has to learn to deal with it?

What I picked up on, when F. said that to me recently, was that it was exactly the same thing she’d been saying a few months back when she’d last spoken to me. In the interests of the relationship (allegedly) her partner had made it clear to her where her faults lay, the problems she was creating in the relationship by her stubbornness and how loving and long suffering he was.

F. had been spent a lot of time and energy trying to get him to see her point of view and her needs. But then, F. is a fighter. She will fight tooth and nail to save a relationship she believes has potential. She also believes it’s her responsibility, as a woman, to nurture the relationship, single-handed.

My first question to F., a few months on, was: is this the same man, or another man? It was another man. Only the issues hadn’t changed.

Now you might argue that if the same relationship happens to a person twice or more, then it has to be their responsibility. That’s absolutely right of course. It’s just a case of clarifying exactly where their responsibility lies.

F.’s partner would argue that problems in the relationship are F.’s responsibility; especially as the scenario is so similar to her previous relationship. F. herself has become conditioned by past experience to believe that anything that goes wrong must be her fault.

It seems that the person who apportions the most blame, often enough, as quickly as they can, establishes their credibility and innocence. F.’s a tryer, not a blamer. So she’s come to believe tha

l with it?

What I picked up on, when F. said that to me recently, was that it was exactly the same thing she’d been saying a few months back when she’d last spoken to me. In the interests of the relationship (allegedly) her partner had made it clear to her where her faults lay, the problems she was creating in the relationship by her stubbornness and how loving and long suffering he was.

F. had been spent a lot of time and energy trying to get him to see her point of view and her needs. But then, F. is a fighter. She will fight tooth and nail to save a relationship she believes has potential. She also believes it’s her responsibility, as a woman, to nurture the relationship, single-handed.

My first question to F., a few months on, was: is this the same man, or another man? It was another man. Only the issues hadn’t changed.

Now you might argue that if the same relationship happens to a person twice or more, then it has to be their responsibility. That’s absolutely right of course. It’s just a case of clarifying exactly where their responsibility lies.

F.’s partner would argue that problems in the relationship are F.’s responsibility; especially as the scenario is so similar to her previous relationship. F. herself has become conditioned by past experience to believe that anything that goes wrong must be her fault.

It seems that the person who apportions the most blame, often enough, as quickly as they can, establishes their credibility and innocence. F.’s a tryer, not a blamer. So she’s come to believe th

as.

F. had been spent a lot of time and energy trying to get him to see her point of view and her needs. But then, F. is a fighter. She will fight tooth and nail to save a relationship she believes has potential. She also believes it’s her responsibility, as a woman, to nurture the relationship, single-handed.

My first question to F., a few months on, was: is this the same man, or another man? It was another man. Only the issues hadn’t changed.

Now you might argue that if the same relationship happens to a person twice or more, then it has to be their responsibility. That’s absolutely right of course. It’s just a case of clarifying exactly where their responsibility lies.

F.’s partner would argue that problems in the relationship are F.’s responsibility; especially as the scenario is so similar to her previous relationship. F. herself has become conditioned by past experience to believe that anything that goes wrong must be her fault.

It seems that the person who apportions the most blame, often enough, as quickly as they can, establishes their credibility and innocence. F.’s a tryer, not a blamer. So she’s come to believe th

or another man? It was another man. Only the issues hadn’t changed.

Now you might argue that if the same relationship happens to a person twice or more, then it has to be their responsibility. That’s absolutely right of course. It’s just a case of clarifying exactly where their responsibility lies.

F.’s partner would argue that problems in the relationship are F.’s responsibility; especially as the scenario is so similar to her previous relationship. F. herself has become conditioned by past experience to believe that anything that goes wrong must be her fault.

It seems that the person who apportions the most blame, often enough, as quickly as they can, establishes their credibility and innocence. F.’s a tryer, not a blamer. So she’s come to believe th

ility; especially as the scenario is so similar to her previous relationship. F. herself has become conditioned by past experience to believe that anything that goes wrong must be her fault.

It seems that the person who apportions the most blame, often enough, as quickly as they can, establishes their credibility and innocence. F.’s a tryer, not a blamer. So she’s come to believe that most of it is most likely her fault.

What F. is actually responsible for is being attracted to the same kind of man who has always attracted her in the past – hardly surprising when you think about; you tend to be most attracted by what you know and are conditioned to respond to. Especially when you desperately need to make it work in order to disprove some very harsh judgements about yourself.

F., like a lot of women, has looked at the man, not the baggage, and dived in headfirst. She hasn’t yet realised that the baggage makes the man.

You can use words, the way you use clothing, to present your body in a specific way. Both can be used to make misleading statements about you; they can disguise your flaws and make you appear more attractive than you truly are.

There isn’t that much that you can do with the baggage. It depends whether, like F., you act like a willing porter and start trying to heft another person’s baggage around for them, or whether you are prepared to notice the quantity involved and start getting a sense of what it contains. F.’s responsibility is for being too self-denying and too willing to transport another person’s heavy baggage, in addition to her own.

Just as there are some people who are willing to carry gargantuan amounts of baggage for you, so too are there other people who are always on the look-out for a psychological porter. And that’s how F. has ended up in the misery of the Different Man, Same Issues Syndrome.

So, how does F. stop it happening again? How does anyone stop it