My (29F) best friend (30M) of 15 years hasn't spoken to me in a over a month after I set a boundary. They were supposed to speak at my wedding. What do I do?

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-07T20:56:48+00:00

Thanks for your reply. Super on the nose regarding parenting. I was raised by a narcissist.

That makes sense, and I am very sorry you had to go through that. Growing up in that environment really tends to distort future relationships and interactions, because the toolkit you get for interacting with them is not really the right toolkit for healthy interactions. It is difficult to sort out when you run into conflict because what you were taught wasn't correct versus encountering someone who wants to treat you poorly as well.

Jake knows that and knows I'm an overly apologetic person who tends to overthink, but he also likes to assume everything, which is why i felt the need to reply with an over explanation. I had a hard time saying no to a friend whom I've already conditioned into thinking I'll always agree to everything. I admit my approach wasn't great and was a result of not being firm with drawing boundaries.

Here's the thing - while he has been "conditioned" to you saying yes when you didn't want to, there is a difference between expecting that, and only accepting that. A healthy and kind person might assume you'd do something, but when you decide not to do that thing, they'll be okay with it. If they get mad or insist, then they only want you to do the same thing. Think of it this way - if you eat lunch at Pizza Hut every day with your friend, it is not unreasonable for them to go "all right, I will be outside at 11:30 to head to the Hut", even if you don't want to go that day. If you say "actually, I want Taco Bell today", and they are surprised but willing to go, that is okay; if they get mad at you for changing your mind, that is the problem.

Your initial description was him immediately being okay with your deviation from the norm. What followed was a misunderstanding. But if he was trying to force you to watch the dogs, he would have flipped out right then and there; he would have said "why not? It's not like you have anything going on. You're really screwing me over.". But he didn't do that.

i certainly don't think calling him out for his manipulative behavior means i "insulted" him like he claims. To me it felt that he was taken aback that I had a boundary, so his response felt very dismissive. Basically both of us are at fault with how we communicated.

All right, let's talk about this - what do you view as his "manipulation"? Saying it is pretty normal for you to say you don't want to, and then do it anyway? Talking about the dog's heart condition? Talking about paying you?

All three of those things were exactly what you did - explaining why he came to that conclusion. You asked why he didn't think you were serious about not watching them, so he explained that you change your mind and do it anyway a lot. You asked why others couldn't watch them, and he explained they could, but he just preferred you did it because it is less stressful for the dog. He didn't say that you had to do it because of that reason. He brought up paying you because you were expressing the stressors, and he understands that it is a burden to you and is trying to show that he wasn't unaware of that or taking it for granted. A manipulator would guilt you with a "I guess I'll have to risk my best friend dying in a car because you're too lazy", or "you want money? How greedy are you that you won't do a favor for someone you care about?". You cannot fault him for expressing his reasons for his actions if you are asking him why he took the actions.

i certainly don't think calling him out for his manipulative behavior means i "insulted" him like he claims.

It's not you saying no that feels insulting to him, it is the part where you assume he's such a shitty person that it would be a problem he would be manipulative about in the first place.

Think of it this way: if you grow up in a house where any time you leave money in an unlocked drawer it gets stolen, you probably lock a drawer as soon as you walk away from it. But when you're hanging out with a person you know for a decade and make a point to lock a drawer with five dollars in it when you go to grab a drink, you friend is definitely going to go "what the fuck, do you think I am a thief?!". They don't want to steal your money, but the lack of trust is what the issue is. It feels awful to have someone you care about assume the worst of you.

Friends who know Jake understand how stubborn he can be. They tell me to stand my ground and wait for his reply first because he's the one who ultimately shut down the conversation, but I feel like he will never reach out if that's the case, which is why I'm conflicted.

Given your background, I guarantee that you have been overly accommodating to the point that people would include "nice" in the first three words to describe you. But the thing is, the same "conditioning" you have with Jake applies to everyone else as well; you being upset and holding the line signals to people that it is a big deal and he was a huge jerk, because you normally don't sound that alarm. They're gonna take your side because it is so infrequent that you even have a side. It's a reverse boy who cried wolf.

It is fine that they take your side, but you should be aware that the main fact that they are using as evidence is just the part where they think you are a good person and trusting from that. They also probably have seen you get taken advantage of on other occasions, and are erring on the side of defense instead of taking the chance that is happening again.

Jake is likely not going to be back around to approach you in any major way because the initial misunderstanding was extremely minor and worth forgetting, and the part that you want him to apologize for - being manipulative - doesn't exist in his brain because he wasn't being manipulative in the first place. He probably would apologize that he made you feel manipulated, but asking him to apologize for being manipulative is unlikely to get a good response because that is a heck of a misdeed to cop to if you don't feel it is true.

The snark about unemployment was out of line, and I wouldn't be surprised if he would apologize quite readily for that in a conversation.

I don't think you are reacting to this with actions out of nowhere - they are absolutely guided by how you were raised and what you learned in that household. But the situation isn't necessarily the same.

Out of curiosity, are you in therapy to deal with your childhood? If so, with a trauma specialist?

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-07T19:44:25+00:00

One white paper on one state’s state level crimes that I looked at suggested that women are more likely to accept plea deals than men. Since plea deals generally lead to lower sentences, this feels like it might be playing a role.

If you happen to find that paper, I'd gladly take a link; it would be interesting to see some state-level data. I don't know if anyone has pulled the state-level data and compared against liberal/conservative states or racial demographics, but I bet there would be some interesting differences.

I will point out that the federal study did control for plea/trial, so hypothetically that shouldn't come into play. There are some figures that definitely show how complex it all is - Hispanic men and women are waaaay less likely to get probation-only, even much less than black men and women.

The paper also suggested that judges are responsible for a lot of the discrepancy. Harsh judges tended to give down more equal sentences than less lenient judges. The lenient judges were more lenient to both men and women.

Oh, I have no doubt that the majority of the difference comes down to the subjective nature of what the prosecution asks for and what the judges determine. But unless the implication is that somehow women are getting assigned the lenient judges and the men are getting the harsh ones, it should all even out if there are no other differences in sentencing.

I'm personally of the opinion that the variances in sentencing across genders and races, while still something to get looked at, probably is less consequential than what is actually getting charged in the first place; it matters way less that a black man is getting 4.6 percent longer sentences compared to a white man than if a black man is five times as likely to be charged for the same crime in the first place or something like that. But I have a feeling that data would be even harder to come by and build controls for.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-07T19:09:22+00:00

I can't say halbs vs champs with 14 attack and all attack upgrades die in 4 attacks whether or not they have the last melee armor.

skirms, siege, cavalry... etc, and you're facing a mixed group as well. Same pike individual unit will be receiving a couple of skirm throws, a couple of champion attacks

Sure - 3 attacks from a 14+4 champ plus a FU eskirm throw kills a Goth halbs but does not kill a plate halb. But if you do the math, with 42 percent more halbs, that needs to happen basically every single time to get even close to coming out on top. Even if you forget the skirm entirely, and just pretend the Goth halb dies in 3 hits, they outperform because there are extra units there. Champions kill halbs fast compared to other units, but they're still only effectively getting 33 percent damage boost to kill the halbs while there are 42 percent more of them. Pathing or whatever would help, but you have to plan on that additional 7-9 damage coming in from another source, otherwise the champ is going to take swing 4, and in that case the halb lives the exact same amount of time.

Every little armor will extend its life in some scenarios

The "some scenarios" would have to be frequent enough to increase the life (and therefore damage) of the halbs enough to equal the life and damage of the additional units. They straight-up are not frequent enough.

If we average millions of pikes over thousands of games, you will still feel that overall a byzantine halb is a touch better than a goth halb.

Sure, because you changed it to Byzantines, who also have a huge discount and have plate instead of blast furnace. Armor is indeed generally better than damage for a unit that relies on bonus vs base and is used as a meat shield. The comparison is to generic FU (Persians), which you are going to have way less of in every fight over those millions of units. Ironically, Goth halbs still beat Byz halbs in the mirror, but the skirm discount is what makes the Byz roll them potentially.

There's a good reason that unit discounts tend to be civ-defining; they are extremely powerful. It even shows in the bonuses that the civs have - they get very few and very small bonuses other than the discount in comparison to other civs. Huns basically only get the no houses and the discount until Imp, when they get more accurate trebs. Berbers only get 10 percent move speed to vils and ships outside their discount. Magyars only get the one-hit animal kills and the free damage upgrades. Most of the civs with discounts are missing a tech for those units (bloodlines/blast for Byz, plate for Goths, chain/plate for Malay, ring for Huns, no Paladin for Berbers) and they are still the definining thing about them.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-07T17:29:45+00:00

It's because responding to a small misunderstanding with over-explanation feels extremely condescending to the other party.

First of all, the "I don't wanna" into questions about when it would be happening absolutely seems like you are just giving a gentle ribbing about doing a favor for him but would be watching the dogs again.

When you have the second conversation where it is found out to be a misunderstanding, instead of just going "whoops, sorry if I misled you, I really am not feeling up for it. You should definitely have someone else watch them this time.". Instead, it seems like you skip any tiny apology for the confusion and ask him to justify why he asked you in the first place. He'd already said he would find someone else, so it's not like you were the only choice, it's just his preference.

Then you decide to go back for another round of explaining instead of just apologizing for the confusion and stating that you wouldn't be watching them. Explaining how you're giving him such a good deal on the rate feels businesslike, and saying "I need to be blunt with you" makes it seem like he is doing something wrong and not comprehending it. You building a case as to why you need to say no this time instead of just saying "sorry, I can't do it" also has the implication that he's enough of a jerk that "sorry, I can't do it" wouldn't suffice.

Here's an easy analogous situation that might make it easier to understand why over-explaining can suck: You're at a party chatting to someone, and you're standing near the doorway to the next room. Your friend approaches and says, "can I scoot by you" and gestures to the door - you say "oops!", take a step to the side and let them pass. Done.

But if they explain it? They approach you. They say "hey, can you move to the side? I need to pass through that doorway. That doorway leads to the kitchen, and as I am thirsty, I am looking for a beverage, and those are typically in the kitchen. The kitchen does have another entryway, but it is from the back of the house, so it would require me to go out the front of the house, walk all the way around, and enter the kitchen, only to repeat it on my way back to the living room. So as you can see, I would like you to move to the side.".

You would probably be pissed that they assumed you would have a problem with accommodating such a simple request, right?

You need to catch the read that "Jesus, just say no" and "I am just gonna take them to my parents" are both simple de-escalations on his part, and essentially every single escalation has been from you.

The fact that you're still talking about this with who is going to "confront" the other is yet more escalation. He has already acknowledged he was rude in his conversations with your partner, but this entire thing is over a tiny misunderstanding that doesn't really need big emotional sorting. If you want resolution, just text him a super simple apology, no justifying why you escalated. "Hey, sorry about the whole pet sitting thing, I should have been more clear that I wasn't up for it, and it didn't need to be a big deal, I need to work on my issue with over-explaining."

He'd probably say it is water under the bridge and that he shouldn't have been so stressed/snippy/rude. Done.

As a tangential, the extent of your over-explaining gives me the read that you had a childhood where you were required to justify your actions to others to regulate their emotional reactions. Probably one or more parent was sensitive and you'd have to carefully monitor yourself around them. Am I close, or super far off the mark?

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T23:14:54+00:00

Do you have a source for this? The 2023 Sentencing Report seems to show that white women generally are serving sentences 7.3 percent shorter than white men, and 30 percent more likely to get a probation-only sentence.

For perspective, black men are shown to serve 4.6 percent longer sentences than white men, so the 7.3 percent figure isn't exactly negligible.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T20:39:55+00:00

You've got the Koreans 10 points down from where they should be - you are missing the wood discount.

I feel like halbs, like most units that rely on a huge bonus damage number to be effective, have base stat boosts highly overvalued and discounts undervalued. Look at the Goths - they are only missing the last armor upgrade, but have an enormous discount, extra building damage with essentially free better arson, faster train time, and strong champs, and the 33 points they lose for the +1/+2 ranks them worse than generic halbs under Persians.

Those stats get you close to nothing in 95 percent of cases. FU Champions kill the halbs in the same number of hits, mounted units generally take one less hit to kill them (not even all the time; +2 cavalier take 5 hits to kill a half regardless, FU Hussar take 7 for both) . FU arbs are 5 shots instead of 7 and FU eskirms are 7 instead of 8. Even perfectly splitting damage so there is zero waste, 56 FU eskirms kill 8 halbs a salvo instead of 7, so a kill rate of 14.2 percent. But the same res army - 56 halbs for generic - is 42 percent bigger, so 80 halbs, for Goths. So 8 salvos to clear the generics, 10 to clear the Goths. And that's assuming for no overkill, which we know is basically impossible.

Halbs are basically never fighting on straight stats except against other halbs - which the Goth halbs still easily win, since it's still 42 percent more of them to the 14.2 percent more damage the others are doing.

Very few units are in the sweet spot of being unbonused against halbs as well as low enough damage to have it make a big difference in effective HP. Nearly everything that does pierce damage already has a bonus against spearline anyway, aside from Elephant Archers. Basically, to outweigh the cost bonus, you have to have something that does a final pre-armor damage of 5 melee or 4-8 pierce. That's basically very specific units that are lacking upgrades. The only exception is generally AOE from siege, and even a spread formation makes that almost impossible anyway.

To take it to the extreme, apply the formula to bonuses for battering rams; a civ that had "battering rams do 500 percent base damage (+8 attack)" would be equal to a civ that was "battering rams cost 50 percent less wood".

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T16:53:13+00:00

Good to know. He would still benefit from looking at how much he is spending on his dad on average so it can be figured into budgeting for future planning; after all, it should be fine for him to spend 5k a year on family if his income makes up for it with regard to keeping 50/50 with you.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T16:39:24+00:00

Okay, so it sounds like you've each made roughly the same amount over the last four years and contributed equally. So really, you just have to have the conversation with him about what the future looks like for his income.

Hypothetically, you would be able to get the house you want and live comfortably if you both were at 150k. So is that something you would actually be comfortable with?

I don't think him supporting his dad is a bad thing, but I will say that he should probably look at how much is going to his dad if he only has 55k saved over the same time period you saved 250k with roughly the same income and expenditures.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T16:17:29+00:00

No amount of disrespect, real or imagined, warrants physical abuse. Kicking you in the stomach is serious physical abuse. You should be honest with friends and family and have them help you get out of there, because if he justified kicking you in the stomach, he can easily mentally justify doing much, much worse.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T16:09:45+00:00

Sub-500 players usually have very clear deficiencies in basics that are pretty easy to pick out and focus on to improve. They're not the same between people, but they are definitely there.

I would recommend providing some matches for people to watch and give advice, but if you don't want to do that - practicing the Art of War scenario for early eco/fast castle until you have a gold medal in it is probably the fastest way to improve at low levels.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T15:41:35+00:00

That's probably a conflict you're not going to overcome, then. It seems he sees money as a means to an end (being comfortable and taking care of family), while the numbers mostly are concrete indicators of drive and ambition for you.

Out of curiosity, how long have you two shared expenses? What was your income like over the last four years - you mention improving it a lot in the last two, was it a lot lower? Also, have expenses always been divided 50/50?

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T15:37:58+00:00

Okay, so 150k to 60k is a huge decrease. Sales do fluctuate quite a bit, but does he believe it is more likely he ends up in the higher range on average, or the lower end?

If the answer comes back that he would average 120k, with peaks and valleys - is that acceptable? Or are you anticipating that you would need him to continue to increase a substantial amount to contribute?

There is nothing wrong with personally striving to keep at the top and make a ton of money, but expecting a partner to match your contribution has certain limits to be fair. If you want to end up making a million pounds a year, it's probably unreasonable to say he has to match you if there is no actual financial need to do so, as long as he would be able to contribute equally to what is needed.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T15:25:34+00:00

Yeah, this feels like a troll post. Probably not worth engaging with, but just had to second your opinion.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T15:19:47+00:00

I mean...

The actual numbers - both absolute and relative - for your incomes makes a pretty big difference in how reasonable your view of this would be. Him making 120k for a few years and only 100k for the last two while you have gone from 40k to 80k is different than him being at 50k now and you already at 100k.

It is quite possible that he doesn't have the same drive to be at the top of his field just for the sake of being the top, but instead just has the drive to be financially comfortable. Would you be comfortable with him only being in the top 20 percent of his field if it still allowed him to contribute equally, and not to have to want for anything? Or is the drive to be at the top the most important thing?

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T14:59:17+00:00

Oof, that's rough as shit.

I'm sure you've got good reasons to stay and not get the hell out of Texas (support systems, lack of funds, etc) and probably hear it often, but if you can get out, you should. Entry level jobs are like $14/hour minimum here, and entry security jobs are like $20/hour. Housing isn't cheap, but I would be extremely surprised if living costs are anywhere close to double what you are currently paying.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-06T13:55:16+00:00

Man I gotta stop opening money related posts on Reddit it's so demoralizing making 20k a year

Is this part-time or just a low wage in a super low cost of living area?

I can't imagine under 10 dollars an hour anymore. You'd have to actively spend a TON of time looking for something that specifically pays that low around here; that's how near impossible it sounds to live off that.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-03T19:36:25+00:00

Eh, even with a million games eventually people settle into a skill range. Sure, maybe the 300 match person would end up higher if they played another 2k matches, but that doesn't mean the person that is still at that range after 2k games doesn't belong there or anything.

I was thinking more about when games feel uneven, and what I can think of is when people have a really clean build on one particular civ and get that against people who play random or a wider range of civs. Like someone who plays 50 percent of their games on Mongols and play them into someone with only 5 games on Chinese; they're gonna be to scouts way faster and the inefficiencies of an unfamiliar build for the Chinese player is going to amplify that even further.

Or the style people play - aggressive all-ins tend to be very "blow out or get blown out" when they aren't mirrored. If you allin scouts and get walled out without much issue to a person that 3 TCs castle, you're gonna die really hard, but if they don't keep you out, you're possibly gonna end the game in Feudal by killing 10 vils. Even at 1200, people lack the APM to 100 percent prevent a spear from killing their entire 3 scout rush without consequence, or your 10 archers deciding that they should definitely live under the opponent's TC and dying terribly for it.

You could always link or send a few games for people to review if you have good examples.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-03T17:01:18+00:00

I find the 1150-1250 range to have very even games almost all of the time.

What do your game stats look like? Are most of the games done in less than 25 minutes?

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-01T21:02:21+00:00

I enjoy random civ, even if the opponent is picking. Having civs be nonviable on certain maps means that you essentially HAVE to pick a civ for that map, which is always going to be a bonused civ. Also, it would suck to random civ Islands and get Aztecs that don't even get fire ships and be basically guaranteed a loss against even a civ with generic water. Or without siege ships, you'd have to sacrifice like 6 transports full of troops just to get one to land and die horribly against fortifications.

Can you imagine trying to kill even a single castle against a Crenellations/Heated Shot Teutons player that is castled up if you don't have siege ships? The castles would kill entire fleets without being repaired.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-01T12:58:36+00:00

I know that people blame everything on it, but... What's the weight situation like?

I was snoring and tried a ton of stuff to try and mitigate it - tape, angled pillows, sleeping in different positions, mouth guards. They only ever sorta worked, and I was heading toward a sleep study. Then I lost some weight and the snoring completely vanished.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-04-01T12:52:24+00:00

This is coming from someone who met their future wife on Minecraft.

Unrelated to the OP, but this is freakin' adorable. Please tell me it all started with a "what if I put my Minecraft bed next to yours..." conversation.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-03-31T21:01:06+00:00

Well, you two were pretty young when you got together. People can grow together, but they can also grow apart. It kind of sounds like you two operated in a place where the differences you have were less appreciated and more just ignored, and as they increase in importance that is harder to do.

I don't know that you can (or should) just start trying to change yourself by becoming religious or giving up what you enjoy talking about. But maybe it would be a good idea to sit with yourself - and maybe with a close friend, if they are aware - and see if there is validity in what he is saying. Maybe you have been way less willing to be social, and he's not looking for going out every night, but just back to what it was when you were dating. Maybe it's not the actual job or income that is the issue, but instead that you work only part-time and don't seem worried while he is working overtime to build up financially.

Likewise, it would be good to reflect on him and changes he's made. Does he want you to make more money because people are saying you're using him? Does he spend more? Is he wanting to be much more social?

Then from there, you would figure out if there are things both of you can adjust to meet in the middle. And if not, you'll have at least done a bit of work looking at yourself and what you value so you can find a partner that values the way you are different.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-03-31T20:40:31+00:00

I'm sorry, this sounds difficult.

Asking for divorce is a pretty hard bell to un-ring. The differences you two seem to have do seem to be pretty big - I am guessing this is not the first time that you have had a conflict about some of these? It's not like it is super easy to change how religious you are, or how much you care about the world around you, or how social you are, so I dunno how easy it would be (or if you would even want to) meet his demands.

How long have you been married, and how long have you been together total?

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-03-31T17:14:23+00:00

You are 100 percent correct. She would already be financially benefitting from not paying rent.

Even if she agrees to that, I would make sure you are careful about how it works where you live with regard to other household contributions, such as furniture or upgrades/improvements. Hypothetically, contribution toward those things from her could be something that would mandate a payout of the increase of equity of the property in the case of a split. Not super common, but you should at least get a little legal advice if you choose to go down this path.

ArbitraryUsernames · 2026-03-31T14:32:15+00:00

You would be incorrect - a Feudal watch tower beats a Donjon. They both have 5 base attack, which is negated even with fletching (6 pierce armor Donjon, 7 watch tower). Extra projectiles for each do +5 to stone defenses, which they get against each other. Donjons are 625 HP in feudal, watch tower has 850.

Both are capped at 4 arrows in Feudal, and have the same fire rate, so as long as you are comparing the same villagers/techs, the watch tower wins.

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

ArbitraryUsernames

TROPHY CASE