c c

ccc
c c
c c
ccc ccc
cccc
cc
Well, one thing is for sure: love with trust lasts a lot longer than love without it.c
cc
Are you struggling to find trust in your relationship? Losing trust for a partner is not
uncommon. Events or personality differences treated the wrong way, will erode trust in our
ccc loved one.c
cc
cc
Insults, put-downs, disrespect, affairs, flirting (with others), mismanagement of business or
money, and numerous other things will all contribute to losing trust.c
cc
How do we build trust? How do we stop erosion and rebuild trust?cc

ccc c cc
c
It isn't as if certain behaviors are to be accepted, at all times, and just accepted. However,
there is no basis for change or improvement without trust, and the only way to get someone to
trust is to accept them for who they are.c
cc
here are many differences between people in relationships. I have noticed, in my own
relationships, that often, one person is tight with money, the other has a hole in their pocket;
cc one is a stickler for being on time, the other slack and often late; one keeps a tidy house and
likes dishes done and the bed made, the other leaves their clothes on the floor; one is a
xlickbank Sponsors: c morning person, the other a night owl; one is great at coming up with ideas, the other better at
implementing them. hese differences go beyond the "opposites attract" theory. Being
ccc !
c different is vital to a successful relationship, as these differences help us make up for what we
"c! c lack. With our partner's strengths, we are a stronger couple than we are individually. c
#

c c#
c
cc

c cc However, when we put down our differences, and/or try to create a strength in our partner's
area of lack, we convey disrespect -- because we are not accepting our partner for who they
!c$c%c"c are. c
c&cc"c cc
' cc If one partner wants to be on time and values schedules, is it disrespectful for the other
partner to be slack, if this is how they operate? Probably not. If one person wants to relax, but c
 c (

c
')
c*$c
c)cc their partner wants to hurry them up to be on time to that party they were going to, is the
$c+,-. 
cc person pushing being disrespectful? Probably not. Both are right, in a sense, as there is no
c/ 
c0 
c0 
cc absolute "right way" of doing these things. c

 cc
cc
Imagine the likelihood to create change in a partner by using any of the following comments
as a startup for conversation:c
cc
c

c
cc


 




c
c cc



 




c
cc







c
cc

 







c
 cc
!

 c
cc



"



#$c
cc








c
cc
his type of communication is harsh and confrontational. he person making the request for
change actually comes off equally or perhaps more selfish or even hypocritical, because they
haven't conveyed any acceptance for the other person's personal way of doing things. he
likelihood of successful resolution (without fight or argument) with these comments is
practically nil.c
cc
c

c c
à ©c

There are many different types of love. Some like the love of chocolate or the love
for a baby do not require trust. Romantic love does require trust, why would people
be so hurt and shocked when they find out that there boy/girlfriend has cheated on
them. I think that adult love does require trust, but it can be and often is misplaced
trust. Thats where the pain and heartache come in.

1c$c

©ove isn't trust. You can, for example, love your 1 month old kid without trusting
him/her to leave alone or stay next to a big fire or such things. If that is possible, why
would it not be so with older people? On the other hand, love may make us empathize
more, which could possibly lead to a subjective kind of trust. But I do think that love
without trust is possible. Painful, but possible.

c©cc cc

It is almost a epical battle between the two, being such a thin line both can draw. Do
we love first and trust later or trust first and love later?. these two can cause
uncertainties between each other bounderies, the only answer is through your trail
and error process. everything else is others opinions and views and we all know, what
might work for someone else will not definitaly work for you equally.

à
well i think love comes first concidering trust comes with love. but i think if the trust
is broken by the other partner than i think she/he didnt love you, you just loved them
and with boh sides to love, trust should be automatic.
c

©ove without trust is nothing. Personaly I dont think that you can truely love a person if you
cant trust them. It can be an illusion or a crush but not true love. If you can trust a preson
then you cant have a meanful relationship with that person. Its just two people that are in
with each other. Nothing more.

©ove without trust is no love at all. ©ove is based on trust. The minuite your lover has cheated
or especially falls for another that person doesn't love you and that trust destroys and love
also destroys because they goes together.Or maybe the person is using one of them to fullfil
the void that lives in them.

c!c
To love someone and put your heart on the line is to trust them with your very being.
If they break that trust the bond can never be the same, yes people try but forgeting
is near impossible. And your heart will always know. The scars will always be felt no
matter how silent they seem tainting the relationship for the rest of its life.

Someone asked which comes first trust or love, I would say if you are sensible you find
trust first.

)c c
cc
c ccc)

c
You need to have trust to fully love someone romantically. But, as far as loving a child
goes, you don`t need to fully trust them to love them. People may break your trust
but everyone deserves a second chance and just because one person messed up,
doesn`t mean the next one will.

c0c!0 c

I think before we define whether or not love can exist without trust, we have to fully
understand what love is. Of course, I have to clarify that I'm talking about the love
between two people in a relationship. ©ove is delicate. It doesn't revolve around lust,
infatuation, obsession, or comfort. It is something that withstands all tests of time if
it is true. It goes beyond pheromones and conscious feelings. It is a subconscious,
magnetic attraction that cannot be broken by any force in the universe. At the same
time, that magnetism can only be formed if both persons implicitly know every
excruciating detail about the other. Therefore, if true love exists, it creates absolute
trust. ©ove and trust are truly one and the same in this sense. The only way love can
be destroyed is if one or both persons are revealed to be something different than
they were perceived to be. So if the trust is broken, the mind and heart question the
reality of the love, and therefore let it go.
It seems no matter where you are in a relationship it's always lacking trust, and like a key opens a door, trust is what
opens a heart.
Without trust you begin to worry day and night somehow gaining insecurities within yourself that makes you question
the love you two share.
You start to feel unworthy, you have so much to say, will there ever be trust or just that constant pain, because of
those feelings there's an emptiness in your heart. you feel it's easiest to just move on, but you wonder if you'll ever
find a love so strong, so just take his hand, put your trust in him, because love without trust isn't love at all.....

rust. Defined as certainty, belief, faith. Love. I didn¶t find any definitions I agree with. o me, its not an
attraction to someone. It¶s not romantic feelings toward someone. It is not an emotional attachment. If
anything, it is a detachment. Being in love completely removes you from reality. You become
overwhelmed with an indescribable heart flutter that lifts you away from everything you¶ve once
known. You look at everything in a new light«a brighter one. You see the glass half full. You become
part of the group that the once cynical you thought could only be found in fairy tales ± the group of people
smiling at the mere sight of that one person«the person that you can¶t stay too mad at. he person that
no matter what is happening, you can still say in the end, ³I love him.´ No thanks to Webster, I¶ll have to
figure this one out on my own.
I used to wonder how you could tell you were actually in love. I know the saying, ³if you have to ask,
you aren¶t.´ I do not believe in that. hat guy was my first love and I had no idea until I finally realized
what love was to me. I do not believe there is a guideline or checklist or quiz in a xosmo magazine to
find out. his is one thing you must decide on your own, but the thing is, you won¶t know what it is until
you¶re in it.
I knew I was in love when everything I said about the way I felt was an understatement. He made me
happy. Understatement. We had fun. Understatement. I liked him. Major understatement.
I am in love with him, but whenever I think about the feelings I have for him, I wonder«how can you
have love without trust?
I use to think that you couldn¶t truly love someone until you could completely trust them. I guess I kind
of missed the mark on that one. A friend told me the other day that you can¶t help who you fall in love
with. He¶s right. After the guy broke my heart the first couple of times, I tried my hardest not to love him
simply because I couldn¶t trust him anymore«I never stopped loving him.
I¶m trying to trust him. He¶s broken me down so many times that its hard to get back up again. I¶ve
never had to learn to re-trust anyone in my life. I¶ve never wanted to«until him. I don¶t think he¶ll cheat
on me [again]. I don¶t think he tells huge lies to me [anymore]. But there is always that thought in the
back of my mind saying ³what if?´ He hates that about me. I finally told him last night that it was his own
fault.
I do still love him. I am still in love with him. I still have those indescribable feelings for him. I¶m trying
to have certainty, belief, faith. his is the hardest thing I¶ve ever done.
M c
c
 c cccccc cc
cc c cc
 cc cc cccc c
 c cccc  ccccc

c cc 

c cc c cc cc c c  cc
 c

c
 c cc cc!cc  cc
c
 c c

cc cc c  c"cc c

ccccc
c c

ccc cc c cc ccc
c
 c#c cc cccc
c c ccc cccccc c
c c cc c

c
c c$c
ccc cc c  c
c c
c cc
 cccc
$c

% c#cc c c cc

c&
 &c'ccc  cc c
 c cc c c c c  c" ccc c
c cc

c cc c c cc c c cc c
ccc ccc
cc cc cc c
c c(c ccc)c c

 c*#c c c c  +c,ccc  cc   -c, cc c
 c  cc ccc  c
c cc  cc c cc
 cc c ccc  cc c
.. .c
cc  c
 ccc cc cc c/ c0 c&#c ccc ccc
ccc cc
c#ccc cc c
c cc c cc c#c
c c c#c cccc c
cccccc ccc c c
!ccccc c c c c
c ccc#c cccc
cc c
cccc$&c

 c1 cccc  c c  c1 c cc c c c cc  c c

c c  cc cccc
ccccc
c  c c  c
/c c c c cccc c  ccc 2c c
  c  c cc cc
c c c c cc ccc c c
 cccc cc cc c  cc ccc
cc/  c c
cc cccc c c c ccccc c c&cc#c&c
*!c c c cccc  cc c c ccc
cc c c c
cc -c'ccc ccc   c c& cc  &c cc
 c cc c c cc ccc cc c c
cc cc c  c c
 cccc c
c c3cc c cc c c3c
cccc cc

c cccc c cc cc  c cc c c

+c&#c c
c c c
 c c#c cccc  c#ccc c ccc
ccc
cc
ccc  c4 cccc
  c*!cc c cccc c
c cccc c c c  -c0 cccc c c c cc

cc/c ccc   c0 cc c

c ccc c
c
c
 ccc cccccc5c c ccc c c  c c c
 c ccc ccc c!cccc c
cc ccc  c
c c
c  c!c cc cc  cc c cccc ccc ccc
 cc cc
  c c
c c ccc $c

6 c
c c ccc c#c  c c  cc+c&
c#cc cc c
 &c!cc c c c c  c"c c cc c cccc c c
 c c cc c c c
c c c  c0 c
c ccc
cc cccc  c' cc c c cccc c c

cccc  c* c c c cc

cc
c c c cc
c c
cc ccc c -c4c c cc c cc c c7c
c c
c c cc c  c0 ccc c c
 cc c c c cc  cccc
cc c  cc cc
c)  c c ccccc cc cc c cc*c
 ) c c-cc c c c c c c!c cc c c

c cccc  c c c cc c c c
  c c
 c c c c c c  cc c   c0 cc
ccc c
 cc c
cc c c   c&c c c#c c c $c
c cc c$c#c8!'c c c c
cc $&c

9 c
ccc ccc c#c cc cc c cc cc c
c c
cc c c ccc cc c   c#c cc
c cc c c c0 c ccc c c
cc cc
c cccc
c  c0 cc
ccc
c cc
cccc c
c c ccc ccc c ccc cc cc
* cc:'40c c cc  -c!c cc cc c c cc
c ccccccccc c cc c c c0c c
cc cc c c  ccccc/c 3
c
  c cc c/   c  c cc   c0 cccc cc
c
c c/c ccc c cc
c c
  c ccc cc c
c c c 2c c cc  c'c  c#cc c ccc
c cc cc c%ccccc c
  c#cc cc
 c  ccc c c
 c cc c cc
ccc
 cc c c c c ccc cc ccc) c c
c  ccc cccc ccc  cc c cc
 ccc cc ccccc c ccc c cc c
 c ccc c c  ccc cc ccc  cc c c
 c c c cc
cccc ccccc cc
 cc cc c c
c ccc
c c cc  c

; c(c 4<=cc
cc3c c
c cc3cc
c cc3c3 c*
c3c

cc $-cc c

c#ccc cc  ccc
c  c* c
  ccc  cc - c0 cc cc c ccc c c
 cc&c c
 &c0c c
c c cccc&cc c   &c0 cc
cccc c cc c c  c0 c
 cc c  ccc&
c&c
cccc cc c c  c0 ccc&c c c c &c>c
 ccc ccc  ccc& &cc 
cc+c& cc c
c c'4$&c0 c c
c c ccc cccc
3cc#cc cc cccc ccc3c5cc c#cc c
  c  cc c4cc cc c   c!c c cccc c
 cc ccc&c c &cc cc c
 cc)c c
0 c ccccc 4< c cc 4<cc?/cc cc c
>c
  c c  c!c c cc +c&#c /cc c2 c#cccc ccc

c  c#ccccccc c cccc c c!cccc &ccc
cc ccc c4c c c c& c
cc&c cc&#c cc
cc  c cc ccc  &c ccc
c cc
 c c c c c. c>ccc cc
 ccc
 c cc c c cccc c cc c cc
  c

@ c0 c c 4<c c3c c#ccc ccc cc  cc c
c c
ccc c ccc c c c  c c
ccc c
  c
ccc0?("cc c c c cc c
c#cccc
cccc c1ccc c ccc cc0?(" c"cc ccc
ccccc cc c  cc ccc c c 4<cc 4< c>c
ccccc  ccc ccc c c  c

c c c/ c c>cccccc c cc cc c
cc c cc
c c cc c c ccccc
  c ccc  c cc
c c
 c c c cccccc c
 c c
c  c
c c c c
c
c  c cc

c .  .cc  c c c cc cc  c c c
cc c c  c ccc c
ccc cc  c!ccc
c c c cc cc cccccc cc cc c
 c c ccc cc cc
 c cccccc
c   c c cc  cc c  c c  ccc cc
c cccccc c c c c6cc cccc c c
c c ccc
c c cccc!c 
cc c
cccc c ccc c ccccc c cc
 ccc cccc c cccc c ccc   c cc
c c c ccc c cc/ c cc
 c c c c

A c( cc c'4$c0cccc c'4$c4ccc cc c'4$c0 c'4c

c
 c cc cccc
c ccccc cc

cccc  c c c c c c c cc c c  c c
c c ccc c 4< c ccc c cc
 cc cc
c c c
c c c c cccc c cc c
cc c c
cc c c c c c)c c c#c cccc c c c#c
 cccc c  c c cc c3cc ccc cc
 c
c c'4cc=?0B?8?> c" cc c
cc c#cc c ccc
cc c
cc ccc
ccc c c cc  cc cc
c cc cc c0 c'4cccc c cc c cc
 cccccc  c c cc ccccc c c c
!c ccc ccc cc
5 cc c  ccccc
 c cccccc ccc c cc c5c cc . cc
c cc

C c8 c'  c cc c c/c cc c  c

1ccc c  ccccccccc c   c#cc  c
cc
cc c*c cc  -c/ c c3
 c ccc c   c4cc c  c ccc c
) ccc c  c=  c c c c cccc cc c
 cc cc c c  c8 c cccccc
cc
c cc cc cc
 c>c c c c ccc c8c
c$c0 c ccc c c c c cccc c  c c cc c
cc cc  c#cc   c c ccc c   c cc
c

cccc c
c c c c
c ccc c cc
cccc
 c cccc c
cc cc ccccc c   c cc
/cc c c c ccc   c>cc cc
c cc c cc c ccccc c cc c c
 c c ccc c c c c ccccc ccc
&)c&c c cc
cc c c c c cc c  c

M c>cc c c=  cc cc

c c c
c c

 c c cc c c c c c
c ccc
  cccc c c c
c c c c cccc
)c c  c c ccc cc c c1c c c c
 c>cc cccc  c cc c  c>cc c=<0c
 c c c c cccc  cccc cc  c>cc 2c
 c c c
c cc
cc ccccccccc cc
 c cc
 c4
 c c ccc c cc ccc  cc
 cc ccccc c c  c?
 c c cc
 cc c
 cccccccc cc cc cc cc
c  cc c cc cc c c cc  c4cc c
cc
c
cc c cccc c cc
c c cc  c