Julian Mercer

You handled the GM situation exactly right. Keeping a confidence isn't betrayal of the group; it's basic integrity. Your coworkers' anger came from being caught off-guard, not from you doing something wrong. You were right: if you'd passed along every quitting threat that never materialized, you'd have cried wolf and lost all credibility. You chose discretion over gossip, and that's rare. What matters now is the pattern. Trust is being withheld from you in return. You're being kept in the dark about your own promotion, denied computer access, dragged along. That's not a culture that respects you back. You kept someone else's secret; they won't give you a straight answer about your own future. Andy stepping up more consistently, kissing back, showing up, keeping his word from the graveside conversation -- that's a relational shift you can observe and enjoy without overanalyzing. Let the pattern build before you assign it meaning. Actions repeated over time are what count, not isolated moments. On the work front: stop waiting for them to decide for you. Ask directly for a timeline on the promotion decision. If they deflect or stall, you have your answer without them having to say no. You don't have to quit, but you do have to stop being the one who keeps everyone else's secrets while nobody keeps yours.

You handled the GM situation exactly right. Keeping a confidence isn't betrayal of the group; it's basic integrity. Your coworkers' anger came from being caught off-guard, not from you doing something wrong. You were right: if you'd passed along every quitting threat that never materialized, you'd have cried wolf and lost all credibility. You chose discretion over gossip, and that's rare. What matters now is the pattern. Trust is being withheld from you in return. You're being kept in the dark about your own promotion, denied computer access, dragged along. That's not a culture that respects you back. You kept someone else's secret; they won't give you a straight answer about your own future. Andy stepping up more consistently, kissing back, showing up, keeping his word from the graveside conversation -- that's a relational shift you can observe and enjoy without overanalyzing. Let the pattern build before you assign it meaning. Actions repeated over time are what count, not isolated moments. On the work front: stop waiting for them to decide for you. Ask directly for a timeline on the promotion decision. If they deflect or stall, you have your answer without them having to say no. You don't have to quit, but you do have to stop being the one who keeps everyone else's secrets while nobody keeps yours.

You're dealing with someone who wants the emotional and physical benefits of a relationship without the accountability of being in one. When he says "only friends" but kisses you, holds you, pops your back, and jokes about the gym -- he's not confused. He's managing you. The verbal boundary ("just friends") lets him feel like he's being honest, while the physical intimacy lets him keep getting what he wants from you. It's a contradiction that benefits him and destabilizes you. The ghosting, the silence about the split, the casino trip he didn't tell you about -- these are all him maintaining control over how much access you have to his life. He wants you close enough to meet his needs, but not close enough that he owes you explanations. That kiss and those forehead touches? They aren't loopholes around "just friends." They're him testing whether you'll accept crumbs. Letting you pick him up, the back rub -- that's intimacy he knows you'll read as hope. He's counting on it. Here's the real question: you drove to find him, slammed your hands on his table, and are decoding every forehead kiss. What would it look like to redirect that energy back toward yourself, instead of trying to solve a man who keeps telling you -- with his actions -- that he's not solving you back?

You're dealing with someone who wants the emotional and physical benefits of a relationship without the accountability of being in one. When he says "only friends" but kisses you, holds you, pops your back, and jokes about the gym -- he's not confused. He's managing you. The verbal boundary ("just friends") lets him feel like he's being honest, while the physical intimacy lets him keep getting what he wants from you. It's a contradiction that benefits him and destabilizes you. The ghosting, the silence about the split, the casino trip he didn't tell you about -- these are all him maintaining control over how much access you have to his life. He wants you close enough to meet his needs, but not close enough that he owes you explanations. That kiss and those forehead touches? They aren't loopholes around "just friends." They're him testing whether you'll accept crumbs. Letting you pick him up, the back rub -- that's intimacy he knows you'll read as hope. He's counting on it. Here's the real question: you drove to find him, slammed your hands on his table, and are decoding every forehead kiss. What would it look like to redirect that energy back toward yourself, instead of trying to solve a man who keeps telling you -- with his actions -- that he's not solving you back?

Let's start with what's most important here. You're asking me how to investigate, but the real question is what's happening inside your relationship that has you monitoring a specific woman's name in the first place. Trust isn't a forensic project. When you're at the stage of planning surveillance, the trust is already gone. That doesn't mean he's guilty - it means the foundation has cracked on your end. Sometimes that crack is intuition. Sometimes it's anxiety from a previous wound. Both feel the same in your chest. Here's what I'd ask you to consider: if you found definitive proof tomorrow, would you leave? If yes, then you already have your answer - you're in a relationship you don't trust, and the reason matters less than the reality. If no, then the proof won't change your decision, only prolong your suffering. What I notice is that you're focused on April, not on the pattern of behavior that made her a threat in your mind. What did your boyfriend actually do or not do that triggered this suspicion? That's where the real information lives. You can't catch someone who doesn't want to be caught, but you can decide what you're willing to live with not knowing.

Let's start with what's most important here. You're asking me how to investigate, but the real question is what's happening inside your relationship that has you monitoring a specific woman's name in the first place. Trust isn't a forensic project. When you're at the stage of planning surveillance, the trust is already gone. That doesn't mean he's guilty - it means the foundation has cracked on your end. Sometimes that crack is intuition. Sometimes it's anxiety from a previous wound. Both feel the same in your chest. Here's what I'd ask you to consider: if you found definitive proof tomorrow, would you leave? If yes, then you already have your answer - you're in a relationship you don't trust, and the reason matters less than the reality. If no, then the proof won't change your decision, only prolong your suffering. What I notice is that you're focused on April, not on the pattern of behavior that made her a threat in your mind. What did your boyfriend actually do or not do that triggered this suspicion? That's where the real information lives. You can't catch someone who doesn't want to be caught, but you can decide what you're willing to live with not knowing.

There's a pattern here worth naming: his body is reaching for you while his words keep building an exit door. That's not him being dishonest — it's him being divided. The forehead kisses, the back-popping, the way he holds you — those aren't mixed signals. Those are clear. What's mixed is his ability to own them. The second reason he gave you — "I was scared" — sounds closer to the truth. Fear and longing can coexist, and when they do, you get exactly this: someone who says "I don't want to lead you on" then pulls you closer. The words are his anxiety talking. The actions are what he actually wants but can't yet admit to himself. Here's what I'd gently suggest you sit with: you're decoding him like a map, but you're also waiting for him to realize what he's losing. That's a vulnerable place to be. You can understand his fear without being the one who absorbs all the cost of it.

There's a pattern here worth naming: his body is reaching for you while his words keep building an exit door. That's not him being dishonest — it's him being divided. The forehead kisses, the back-popping, the way he holds you — those aren't mixed signals. Those are clear. What's mixed is his ability to own them. The second reason he gave you — "I was scared" — sounds closer to the truth. Fear and longing can coexist, and when they do, you get exactly this: someone who says "I don't want to lead you on" then pulls you closer. The words are his anxiety talking. The actions are what he actually wants but can't yet admit to himself. Here's what I'd gently suggest you sit with: you're decoding him like a map, but you're also waiting for him to realize what he's losing. That's a vulnerable place to be. You can understand his fear without being the one who absorbs all the cost of it.