My partner (26M) told me (24F) 'he never asked me to do that' when talking about compromises. Where do I go from here?

A therapeutic analysis of a real relationship situation, examining patterns, dynamics, and potential paths forward.

The Situation

Hi there. I’m a long time lurker and a first time poster. I’ve written and re-written this so many times and I always lose the gall to post it but honestly, I need the advice.

My boyfriend of 2 years and I were having a conversation over the phone (we’re long distance) catching up and just talking. Then I thought to have this conversation on our core values.

We covered trust, communication, honesty and then we got to religion. Before this, I’d been open and honest with him about my stance on not wanting to go to church, as I used to be quite religious in the past. He said he was okay with that as he wasn’t religious as well.

However it is important to add that his mom who he loves so much (something, I actually loved about him), is quite religious .. at least church on Sunday every Sunday. I’ve been to her house twice on two weekends or so in the past year and I’ve had to go to church on those two Sundays.

For the first visit, I thought myself and my bf had an understanding that we would not go to church on the Sunday of that particular weekend. But the Saturday before, he tells be we would have to go because according to my bf, ‘ her house, her rules’.

I genuinely hated every bit of it, but my partner has always talked about how important his mom’s opinion is when he’s choosing his spouse and how it would mean a lot to him. So I chose that two or three days of church in a year, while visiting his mum wouldn’t be horrible.

Now back to the conversation, I already guessed we’d be on the same page until he said ‘I actually think I MAY go back to church’. I was surprised. Then I explained that I don’t know how that would feel for me as I have had time to sit with it and it may be a deal breaker for me. He then says he’d also like his kids to follow him to church, at least from 0-6 years.

I was a bit shocked because it felt like all this while, he’d been sitting on this plan for a while. I told him I didn’t plan to raise my kids with religion and things escalated a bit after that. This led me to saying how I don’t think we’re as compatible as we thought.

He got quite upset at that statement and asked why I was willing to throw US away at the thought of a possibility of him going back, since he said he may go back, not will go back.

I go on this explanation of how I genuinely dislike the theatrics of church as a whole and that in the past year, I’ve only gone twice and hated every bit of it, and that was because I loved him and didn’t want his mum to be upset. But this is not something I’d like to have with my kids and partner because I want to be heavily involved with my family.

Then he goes ‘did you do it (going to church) for me or my mum’. I sarcastically remarked that ‘yeahh, I just want to be besties with your mum for no reason, of course, it’s because I love you’. He proceeded to say words that have rung in my brain for the past few days: ‘He never asked me to any of that’.

I was in shock. And I was like did you really just say that to me. He then doubles down to say he felt pressured to take me to meet his mum and he didn’t want me to feel like he was hiding me from her, but that it was ny choice to travel with him to go see her. I was so sad. I just chose that we should take a breather and end the call as I was getting emotional.

He finally said ‘ he feels like I’m being selfish and a bit manipulative not wanting him to go back to church and not wanting our future kids to have the experience he had with church.

After that statement, I literally had to start Google searching examples of families where both parents where of different religious standings because I felt so much guilt washing over me for possibly hurting him.

This was until the next morning where I spoke to my siblings and it hit me. I really need advice on what next to do and how to navigate this because I’m tired of compromising all the time for him. And I know for a fact that if he went back to church, I’d probably just cave in and go with him, because I need to vett what my kids would be taught.

TLDR: my boyfriend made the statement that he never asked me to do any of that, when talking about the compromises I’d made regarding attending church in his mother’s house. And called me selfish for not being comfortable with him going back to church and taking our future kids. How do I move forward or navigate this? It’s making me super sad

*Edit to add: The reason I asked about our core values was because we’d been having a lot of arguments back and forth lately and I’d told him how exhausting it was to always have a heated argument pop up out of nowhere. Especially, since he sorta moved in with his mum in January to start a new job. (We weren’t long distance up until he moved to be with her in a different state, 2 hours away)

We could be talking about something as tiny as ‘oh, It’s funny how when I was much younger, I was never told to wipe when I pee just for number 2s’ and then all of a sudden we’re at an argument where men don’t need to wipe after they pee because they can’t get yeast infections.

Then it’d devolve into nobody caring about men and some sexist remarks to always counter any explanation I have.. it always leaves me exasperated because We’re both somewhat fresh health professionals so it irks me that I have to have these confessions with someone who I think should know better.*

Analysis

Cognitive Behavioral Analysis

Key Observations: This situation reveals several complex cognitive and behavioral patterns at play. The most striking element is the disconnect between implied expectations and explicitly stated requests. The client’s boyfriend’s statement “I never asked you to do that” represents a classic example of what we call “moving the goalposts” in cognitive behavioral therapy. His indirect communication about his mother’s importance in spouse selection created an implicit pressure that he later denied establishing.

Pattern Recognition: There’s a clear cycle of anticipatory anxiety leading to accommodation behaviors on the client’s part, followed by invalidation of those efforts by her partner. This creates a particularly damaging cognitive pattern where the client’s attempts at compromise are simultaneously expected and dismissed. The recent arguments about seemingly trivial matters (like hygiene practices) suggest a deeper pattern of power dynamics and invalidation that extends beyond the religious discussion.

Potential Interventions: The situation calls for addressing several cognitive distortions. First, the client’s tendency toward emotional reasoning (“I felt so much guilt”) needs examination. The fact that she immediately searched for validation of interfaith relationships suggests an underlying belief that her boundaries around religion might be unreasonable - a cognitive distortion worth challenging. The partner’s use of terms like “selfish” and “manipulative” represents emotional reasoning on his part, conflating personal boundaries with malicious intent.

Growth Opportunities: This situation presents a valuable opportunity to establish clearer communication patterns and boundary-setting skills. The client’s initiative in discussing core values shows insight and emotional intelligence, but the execution could benefit from more structured dialogue techniques. The pattern of escalating arguments from minor topics to major conflicts suggests a need for both parties to develop better conflict resolution skills and emotional regulation strategies.

Recommendations: A practical path forward would involve several key steps. First, the client needs to work on separating guilt-based decision making from value-based choices. The current pattern of “caving in” to avoid conflict isn’t sustainable and often leads to resentment. Second, establishing clear communication protocols for discussing significant life decisions (like religious practices and child-rearing) would be beneficial. This might include scheduled check-ins where both partners can share their evolving thoughts and feelings without fear of immediate judgment.

The relationship shows significant warning signs of what we call “intermittent reinforcement” - where unclear expectations and inconsistent responses create an anxious attachment pattern. The client’s exhaustion from “compromising all the time” suggests a one-sided adaptation pattern that often leads to relationship burnout. Moving forward, it’s crucial to establish whether both partners are equally invested in creating a balanced, mutually respectful dynamic where compromises are acknowledged and appreciated rather than minimized or denied.

This type of situation often emerges in relationships where one partner’s values are evolving while the other’s remain static or move in an opposite direction. The key to navigation isn’t necessarily finding perfect alignment, but rather developing mutual respect for each other’s autonomy in personal beliefs while establishing clear, agreed-upon boundaries for shared life decisions.

Narrative Analysis

Key Observations: In this narrative, we see a complex interweaving of personal autonomy, religious identity, and relationship dynamics. The client’s story reveals deep emotional labor being invalidated through her partner’s statement “he never asked me to do that” - a particularly significant moment that represents a larger pattern of emotional disconnect and shifting expectations.

Pattern Recognition: The narrative reveals several critical patterns. First, there’s a consistent theme of unacknowledged compromises, where the client makes accommodations (attending church, visiting his mother) that are later dismissed or devalued. Second, there’s a pattern of shifting goalposts - from both partners being non-religious to the boyfriend considering returning to church and wanting future children to attend. Third, there’s a concerning pattern in their communication style, where simple conversations escalate into heated arguments about gender and societal issues.

Potential Interventions: From a narrative therapy perspective, this situation calls for exploring the dominant stories both partners are living by. The boyfriend’s narrative appears strongly influenced by his mother’s expectations and his childhood religious experiences, while the client’s narrative centers around autonomy and authentic self-expression. The statement “he never asked me to do that” serves as what we call a ‘unique outcome’ - a moment that contradicts the assumed shared understanding of their relationship.

Growth Opportunities: This situation presents several opportunities for personal and relational development. The emergence of these conflicts around religion and child-rearing, while challenging, actually offers a chance to examine unstated expectations and values. The client’s recognition of her pattern of compromising “because I need to vet what my kids would be taught” shows awareness of her own behavioral patterns that could be explored further.

Recommendations: Moving forward, this situation would benefit from several narrative therapy approaches. First, externalization of the problem - separating the religious conflict from both individuals and examining how cultural and family expectations are influencing their relationship. Second, developing a richer description of their preferred relationship story - what kind of partnership do they both envision? The current conflict about church attendance is likely a symptom of deeper differences in values and life vision.

The escalating arguments about seemingly minor topics (like hygiene practices) suggest a need to examine the larger narratives they’re both operating from regarding gender roles and power dynamics. These aren’t just disagreements about specific issues but rather manifestations of competing worldviews that need to be acknowledged and addressed.

For immediate practical steps, the client might benefit from exploring her own narrative about compromise - what stories is she telling herself about the necessity of accommodation? How has this pattern developed in her life? Additionally, the relationship would benefit from establishing clear communication protocols when discussing sensitive topics, perhaps with professional guidance to help navigate these conversations more productively.

The boyfriend’s pattern of invalidating her compromises while simultaneously expecting them suggests a need for both partners to examine their assumptions about relationship roles and responsibilities. This could be facilitated through structured conversations about expectations, perhaps with a couples counselor trained in narrative approaches who can help them identify and challenge problematic dominant narratives while co-creating a more sustainable shared story for their relationship.

Solution-Focused Analysis

Key Observations: A striking pattern emerges in this relationship where verbal agreements and lived experiences dramatically diverge. The client’s partner demonstrates what we call “retrospective reframing” - denying the implicit social contract of their previous arrangements (“he never asked me to do that”). This creates a profound disconnect between the client’s understanding of mutual compromise and her partner’s selective memory of events.

Pattern Recognition: The relationship exhibits classic signs of what we call “shifting baseline syndrome” in therapy - where one partner gradually adjusts their boundaries and behaviors to accommodate the other, only to have these accommodations dismissed or devalued later. The client’s willingness to attend church despite personal discomfort, followed by her partner’s dismissal of this sacrifice, illustrates this perfectly. Moreover, the emergence of significant value differences around religion and child-rearing appears to be surfacing after considerable investment in the relationship.

Potential Interventions: From a solution-focused perspective, this situation presents several opportunities for growth and clarity. The client demonstrates admirable self-awareness in recognizing her pattern of compromise and seeking to establish clear boundaries around religious practices. A scaling question might be particularly useful here: “On a scale of 1-10, how important is religious independence in your future family life?” This would help crystallize priorities and non-negotiables for both partners.

Growth Opportunities: The recent conflicts around seemingly minor topics (personal hygiene debates escalating into gender politics) suggest what we call “proxy arguments” - where surface disagreements mask deeper incompatibilities in values and worldview. The client’s initiative to discuss core values represents a sophisticated approach to addressing these underlying tensions. This awareness could be leveraged to develop more effective communication strategies.

Recommendations: The solution-focused approach would emphasize exploring exceptions - times when disagreements were handled productively - and building upon these successes. However, the fundamental disconnect in how compromises are viewed (one partner’s sacrifice being another’s “choice”) suggests the need for explicit agreement on how decisions are made and honored. The client might benefit from establishing clear, written agreements about future compromises and ensuring mutual acknowledgment of these agreements in real-time.

The recurring theme of invalidation (“he never asked me to do that”) points to a critical need for what we call “reality anchoring” - establishing shared understanding of past agreements and future expectations. This could involve creating a shared document of major relationship decisions and the reasoning behind them, preventing future rewriting of relationship history and ensuring both partners maintain a consistent narrative of their journey together.

The emergence of religious differences, particularly regarding future children, represents what we call a “values crossroads” - a crucial moment where fundamental life philosophies must be reconciled or recognized as incompatible. The solution-focused approach would encourage exploring specific, practical scenarios: “How would we handle Sunday mornings with our children? What specific religious education would be acceptable to both partners?”

In therapy, we often see these patterns as opportunities for deeper understanding rather than purely as problems to solve. However, the client’s growing awareness of compromise imbalance suggests the need for immediate attention to prevent further erosion of relationship equity.

Emotional Process Analysis

Key Observations: This situation reveals a complex interplay of unspoken expectations, religious differences, and communication patterns that have created significant emotional tension. The client demonstrates awareness and thoughtfulness in trying to navigate these challenges, while experiencing profound hurt from her partner’s dismissal of her compromises. The statement “he never asked me to do that” represents a particularly poignant moment of emotional invalidation that has deeply affected her.

Pattern Recognition: Several important emotional and relational patterns emerge here. First, there’s a recurring theme of unilateral compromise, where the client adapts her behavior to accommodate her partner’s family system without reciprocal acknowledgment. Second, there’s a pattern of delayed revelation of core values and expectations, particularly from her partner. The escalating arguments over seemingly minor issues suggest underlying tension about power dynamics and respect in the relationship.

The most concerning pattern is the partner’s tendency to invalidate the client’s emotional experiences and reframe her compromises as voluntary choices he bears no responsibility for. This creates a dynamic where genuine emotional connection becomes increasingly difficult, as one partner’s efforts are consistently minimized or dismissed.

Potential Interventions: From an emotion-focused perspective, the key would be to help both partners access and express their primary emotions rather than getting caught in defensive positions. The client’s hurt around having her compromises dismissed and her fear about religious incompatibility need to be acknowledged and validated. Similarly, the partner’s possible fears about disappointing his mother and managing competing loyalties between his partner and family of origin warrant exploration.

Growth Opportunities: This situation presents several opportunities for emotional growth and relationship development. The religious differences, while challenging, could serve as a catalyst for deeper discussions about values, respect, and mutual understanding. The current crisis also provides an opening to establish new patterns of communication that honor both partners’ emotional experiences and contributions to the relationship.

Recommendations: Moving forward requires addressing both the immediate emotional injury and the broader patterns in the relationship. The client would benefit from:

Clearly articulating her emotional experience without taking responsibility for her partner’s defensive reactions
Setting firm boundaries around religious participation that align with her values
Seeking clarity about whether her partner can truly accept and respect her position on religion
Examining whether the pattern of unilateral compromise extends beyond religious issues

The partner’s dismissive stance toward her compromises, combined with the escalating arguments over minor issues, suggests this may be a pivotal moment for determining the relationship’s long-term viability. The client’s fatigue with compromising and her growing awareness of these patterns indicates she’s ready for a more equitable and emotionally secure relationship dynamic.

From a therapeutic standpoint, this situation highlights how unacknowledged compromises and dismissed emotional experiences can erode relationship trust and security. The client’s instinct to examine core values is particularly astute, as it reveals deeper incompatibilities that had been masked by surface-level agreements and one-sided accommodations. This case serves as a valuable reminder that healthy relationships require both partners to acknowledge and honor each other’s emotional experiences and sacrifices, even when they don’t explicitly request them.

Communication Pattern Analysis

Key Observations: This situation reveals a complex web of implicit expectations and unspoken agreements. The most striking element is the disconnect between how each partner perceives compromise. The girlfriend views her church attendance as a meaningful sacrifice made for the relationship, while the boyfriend’s statement “he never asked me to do that” demonstrates a pattern of avoiding responsibility for relationship dynamics he helped create.

Pattern Recognition: Several concerning communication patterns emerge here. First, there’s a clear pursue-withdraw dynamic where she pursues clarity and mutual understanding while he withdraws through denial and deflection. The boyfriend’s communication style shows passive-aggressive tendencies, particularly in how he creates situations that pressure compliance (like the “her house, her rules” scenario) while maintaining plausible deniability about his role in these situations.

A critical pattern is the escalation cycle that occurs when core values are discussed. What begins as an attempt at honest dialogue quickly devolves into defensive positioning, with the boyfriend employing guilt-inducing language and accusations of manipulation - a classic DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) response pattern.

Potential Interventions: The relationship would benefit from establishing clear, direct communication about expectations and boundaries. The current pattern of implicit understanding followed by denial is particularly toxic because it creates an environment where one partner feels gaslit about their sacrifices while the other maintains technical innocence through careful word choice.

Growth Opportunities: This situation presents an opportunity for both partners to develop more mature communication styles. The girlfriend shows awareness of the need to align core values and address conflicts directly - a healthy instinct that could be built upon. The boyfriend’s pattern of avoiding direct responsibility while creating indirect pressure needs examination and conscious modification.

Recommendations: Moving forward requires several key steps. First, establishing a new communication contract where both partners agree to own their requests and expectations explicitly. Second, addressing the power imbalance in compromise - currently, one partner appears to be doing most of the accommodating while the other maintains plausible deniability about requesting these accommodations.

The emerging religious difference represents not just a values conflict but a metacommunication issue - it’s less about church attendance itself and more about how decisions are made, how compromise is negotiated, and how each partner’s needs are respected and acknowledged. The recent pattern of escalating arguments over seemingly minor issues suggests underlying resentment about these larger communication dynamics.

For positive change to occur, both partners need to acknowledge their role in creating current patterns. The boyfriend needs to take responsibility for his indirect requests and expectations, while the girlfriend might benefit from setting clearer boundaries earlier rather than making compromises she later resents. Most importantly, they need to establish whether they can align on core values or if their fundamental differences in approach to decision-making and conflict resolution make them incompatible.

The long-distance element and recent change in living situation adds additional stress to an already strained communication system. Without intentional work on these patterns, they’re likely to continue deteriorating, especially given the added complexity of potential future decisions about children and religious upbringing.

Key Takeaways

Here are the main insights we can learn from this situation:

Based on these analyses, here are the key practical takeaways:

• Pay attention to “unspoken contracts” in relationships - when you find yourself regularly making accommodations based on hints or implied expectations rather than direct requests, this often leads to resentment and invalidation later. Set explicit agreements about expectations and compromises early on.

• Watch for the “slow boil” pattern in relationships - where small compromises gradually accumulate into major life adjustments. Keep a written record of significant compromises and agreements to prevent retrospective rewriting of relationship history. If you notice yourself consistently being the one adapting, it’s time for a direct conversation about reciprocity.

• Core value discussions (like religion, children, lifestyle) should happen early and often in relationships. Don’t mistake surface-level agreement (“we’re both non-religious right now”) for long-term compatibility. Create specific scenarios (“How would we handle religious holidays with our kids?”) to understand practical implications of value differences.

• When arguments about minor issues (like hygiene or household habits) consistently escalate into major conflicts about values or character, it’s usually a sign of deeper incompatibilities or resentments. Use these moments as signals to examine the underlying patterns in your relationship rather than just focusing on the surface disagreement.

• Healthy compromise requires both explicit acknowledgment and reciprocity. If your partner consistently minimizes or denies your accommodations while expecting you to maintain them (“I never asked you to do that”), it’s a red flag for emotional manipulation. Look for partners who can openly discuss, acknowledge, and reciprocate compromises.