I loved her. It still did not last. So the thing put back on trial was not my ex—it was the scoring system we use for love.
30-second summary for editors, journalists, and producers
For about a year and a half, this was a genuinely happy relationship. There were trips, theme parks, concerts, birthdays, Christmas, overnight stays, and ordinary moments when simply sitting next to each other felt safe.
Then marriage entered the conversation, and the syllabus changed. Gift prices, what is “normal,” manners, income, family opinions, future living arrangements, and how each person handles anxiety all became part of the relationship.
After the breakup, the narrator spent a long time asking who had been at fault. He also began reconstructing what his former partner might have been thinking. Those reconstructed inner monologues are not her testimony; they are hypotheses created by him.
Eventually, three blunt thoughts changed the whole case:
“Maybe it’s okay to mess up?”
“If a problem happens, can’t we repair it?”
“Isn’t marriage basically endless adjustment?”
This is not a story about putting an ex back on trial.
It is a story about retrying the rule that says love must constantly prove itself.
0. There are three kinds of voices in this story
The rules matter.
A: What actually happened
The relationship, dates, trips, gifts, interactions with family, discussions about the future, the breakup, and the narrator’s later analysis.
B: The boyfriend’s “Voice of God”
The narrator’s real thoughts at the time. They were not always spoken aloud, but they are based on his actual internal reactions.
C: The imagined ex-partner model
A later hypothesis: “Maybe this is how she could have been processing it.” This is not her testimony and not a verified description of her mind.
One later scene—someone appearing to enjoy something in the moment, then realizing the next day that it actually hurt—is explicitly a thought experiment, not a real incident.
If these layers are mixed together, memoir turns into accidental memory fan fiction. So they stay labeled.
Identifying details about people, employers, and locations are also removed or generalized.
1. It was, quite simply, a lot of fun
The relationship lasted roughly a year and a half.
When people hear about a breakup, they often hunt for the retroactive plot twist: “Ah, so it was secretly terrible from day one.”
No.
It was fun.
There were trips, amusement parks, concerts, hot springs, nights away, long drives, summer outings, and lazy ordinary days. Early on, physical warmth and simply being beside the other person created a strong sense of comfort. He thought she was cute. He loved her. He liked the affection.
Birthdays and Christmas mattered. He invested effort. She was not a completely passive passenger either; she had opinions about plans and places they went.
There is no convenient villain waiting in episode one.
A breakup does not automatically issue a correction notice declaring every happy memory fraudulent.
That is the first premise.
2. Then a third person named “Normal” joined the relationship
Gradually, a third party appeared between them.
Its name was Normal.
A normal gift should cost about this much.
A return gift should be about this much.
White Day should be some multiple of the original gift.
A host gift should meet a certain standard.
A normal return time is this.
A marriageable income is that.
That is normal etiquette.
That is what family considers normal.
Two people started the relationship, but eventually Normal had apparently copied a key and moved in.
And Normal was annoyingly well equipped: internet searches, market prices, family opinions, social expectations.
The narrator gave gifts, spent time, drove, planned outings, and listened to worries because he wanted to—not because he was building an invoice for later.
Still, when each new concern seemed to restart the evaluation of whether he truly cared, another question appeared:
Why does the license for “loving partner” expire this quickly?
3. How many times does love have to prove itself?
Say “I love you.”
Show it through actions.
Give gifts.
Spend time together.
Listen.
Try to reassure.
Then a new event happens, and the question “Do you really care about me?” can return.
Of course, no gift permanently deletes human insecurity.
But the boyfriend’s Voice of God starts muttering:
“Do none of the previous exhibits count as evidence?”
If romance were a trial, a fair amount of evidence had already been submitted.
Yet proceedings seemed to restart.
And the judge was Normal.
Not a promising case.
4. [Imagined model] Maybe what she wanted was simply safety
This is not the former partner speaking.
It is a model the narrator built later.
Maybe her side could have felt like this:
The future is scary.
Work is uncertain.
Money is uncertain.
Family is complicated.
Marriage can fail.
If family members or the internet say “Normally, a partner does X,” maybe a difference feels like evidence that she is not valued enough.
So she checks.
She compares.
She looks for reassurance.
To him, it can feel like another exam. To her, in this hypothetical model, it may simply be a need to feel safe right now.
That interpretation prevents the story from flattening her into “a demanding woman.”
But understanding a fear and accepting unlimited responsibility for it are different things.
5. [Boyfriend’s Voice of God] Wait, how much of this is my department?
Supporting a partner through anxiety makes sense.
You want to help someone you love.
But when work anxiety, money anxiety, family anxiety, future anxiety, social norms, and extended-family negotiation all become cases that the boyfriend is expected to resolve correctly, the inner narrator asks:
“Wait. How much of this is my department?”
Boyfriend.
Emotional support.
Financial reassurance.
Future planner.
Family liaison.
Proof-of-love office.
If one person holds all those jobs, the business card becomes ridiculous.
Partner / insurance policy / help desk / family mediator / lifetime guarantee.
If a white knight really provides all of that, the narrator would also like to marry one.
Preferably while living separately.
6. [Thought experiment] Fine yesterday, hurt the next day
This is not a real event.
It is a thought experiment the narrator used to understand delayed emotional awareness.
Imagine someone appears to enjoy an event in the moment. Even they do not consciously experience it as unpleasant at the time.
The next day they think:
“Wait.”
“Did that actually hurt me?”
Yesterday’s “I’m fine” was not necessarily a lie.
Today’s hurt is not necessarily a lie either.
Humans do not read every emotion in real time with perfect accuracy.
But this creates a hard problem for the partner:
You cannot perfectly predict tomorrow’s updated feeling yesterday.
Time travel remains unavailable.
So the useful question is no longer “Who lied?” It becomes: what do two people do when a feeling changes or becomes clear later?
7. The moment romance became marriage, the exam changed subjects
The romance syllabus was relatively clear.
Do I want to see you?
Do we have fun?
Do I love you?
Do I want affection?
Do I want to do this again?
That part worked quite well.
Marriage suddenly added new subjects:
Money.
Work.
Where to live.
Household labor.
Free time.
Distance from parents and siblings.
How anxiety is handled.
How damage is repaired after conflict.
Romance and marriage look like the same degree program until you discover the exams are in completely different subjects.
So “I loved her” and “we may not have been able to run a marriage together” can both be true.
8. The problem was not that family existed. It was whether the couple could draw a boundary together
Turning the former partner’s family into villains would make the story easy.
It would also make it worse.
Families can help. They worry. They matter.
The question was not “family or no family.”
It was who holds final authority over the couple’s life.
When relatives have opinions about income, gifts, returning home, or the future, how much weight do those opinions carry inside the couple?
The narrator imagined marriage primarily as a two-person decision-making unit.
He was not demanding family estrangement. Normal contact, greetings, and mutual help were fine.
But if a family’s definition of “normal” consistently outranks the couple’s own decisions, the structure changes.
Loving your family is not the same thing as handing them the steering wheel of your marriage.
9. Does a breakup invalidate the happy parts?
Affection and future talk can exist close to the end of a relationship, and the relationship can still end.
Afterward, people often repaint the past in a single color.
“They were always awful.”
“It was all fake.”
That is narratively tidy.
Reality is less cooperative.
The happy parts can be real.
The love can be real.
The decision that the future would not work can also be real.
All three can coexist.
A breakup is not a delete command for previous joy.
10. Afterward, the narrator held two endless trials: “I was wrong” and “she was wrong”
He analyzed the breakup relentlessly, including long conversations with AI.
First came self-blame.
Should I have reassured more?
Explained more?
Adjusted more?
Then the pendulum swung.
Was the problem on her side?
Was it family boundaries?
Was too much uncertainty being outsourced to the relationship?
In the mental courtroom, he kept alternating who sat in the defendant’s chair.
Eventually another idea appeared:
What if the mistake was assuming there were only two defendants?
There was a third.
The scoring system for “what love is supposed to look like.”
11. “Maybe it’s okay to mess up?” changed the entire case
A real thought from the narrator became the turning point:
“Maybe it’s okay to mess up?”
If two humans stay together for decades, there will be bad judgment, unnecessary comments, hurt, anxiety, and mismatched values.
A search filter for “partner who never causes a problem” may eventually return: no humans found.
So maybe the important criterion is different.
“If a problem happens, can’t we repair it?”
Can one person say what hurt?
Can the other listen?
Can either apologize when needed?
Can behavior change?
Can one mistake stop being a permanent archive from which the entire person is retried every month?
That led to the simplest version:
“Isn’t marriage basically endless adjustment?”
The story stopped being a criminal investigation into who failed and became a design question: what kind of relationship can actually operate over time?
12. Relationship research makes the “repair” idea less strange than it sounds
One relationship cannot establish a universal law. But several findings overlap with the questions raised here.
Feeling understood, valued, and cared for
Relationship researchers use the term “perceived partner responsiveness” for the feeling that a partner understands, validates, and cares for you. Research including participants in Japan and the United States treats this as an important process associated with intimacy and relationship satisfaction.
Recovering after conflict
A longitudinal observational study of young couples found that having a partner who recovered better after conflict was associated with more positive relationship emotions and higher satisfaction. The point is not simply “never fight”; how couples return from conflict matters too.
Agreement about in-laws may matter more than a cartoon villain story about in-laws
A 16-year study of 355 married couples found that disagreement between spouses about closeness to in-laws was associated with marital stability. The useful lesson is not “in-laws are bad.” It is that the couple benefits from looking at roughly the same map.
Reassurance should not be turned into a diagnosis
Seeking reassurance is human. A daily-diary study of 110 heterosexual couples found that relationship insecurity combined with excessive reassurance seeking could be linked to negative trust outcomes. That does not diagnose anyone in this story. It simply shows that how reassurance is sought and received can become part of relationship dynamics.
The cautious conclusion is this:
Relationships run not only on the amount of love, but also on responsiveness, recovery after conflict, shared expectations about family, and the way reassurance is negotiated.
13. In Love on Retrial, the ex is not the one being retried
A retrial means reconsidering a previous judgment.
But the defendant here is not the former partner’s personality.
It is not “Was she guilty?”
It is not “Was I innocent?”
The ideas being retried are these:
If you love someone, you should always be able to erase their anxiety.
If you love someone, you should absorb every request.
If you love someone, you should be able to solve family problems.
If you love someone, you should never hurt them.
If you love someone, you should never break up.
Really?
The narrator’s revised judgment is more modest:
Love matters. But love is not universal software that automatically processes every problem in shared life.
Love needs boundaries, conversation, adjustment, and repair running beside it.
14. Why this works as a drama or comic adaptation
The material already contains a structural device.
1. Three people can occupy a two-person relationship
The real boyfriend.
His Voice of God.
The imagined version of his ex that he builds after the breakup.
A couple can therefore become a three-way argument on screen.
2. The imagined ex is not the canonical truth
She can make an eloquent argument, and the protagonist can interrupt: “Wait, I made you up.”
The audience is invited to disagree with his reconstruction.
3. No villain is required
The strongest version lets viewers divide naturally: “I get him,” “I get her,” “both are making sense,” “both are exhausting.”
4. Everyday subjects can carry entire episodes
Gifts. Normality. Family. Income. Reassurance. Delayed emotional awareness. Boundaries. Repair.
The production budget can stay modest while the comments section catches fire.
15. A 10-episode version
Episode 1 — “I Love You”
A genuinely happy relationship. The story first proves that the couple mattered to each other.
Episode 2 — “Normally, It’s 1.5x”
Gift expectations introduce the mysterious third character: Normal.
Episode 3 — “Normal Has Entered the Chat”
Family opinions, manners, income, and outside evaluation expand.
Episode 4 — “I Thought I Was Dating Her”
Marriage makes the line between the couple’s decisions and family expectations harder to see.
Episode 5 — “Building Her”
After the breakup, AI conversations produce an imagined ex who begins arguing back.
Episode 6 — “Yesterday Was Fine”
Explicitly a thought-experiment episode about discovering a hurt feeling the next day.
Episode 7 — “Love, Retest”
The Voice of God demands to know whether all previous evidence of love has expired.
Episode 8 — “The White Knight”
The protagonist lists every role a perfect partner is expected to perform and concludes that he would also like to marry such a mythical service provider.
Episode 9 — “Maybe It’s Okay to Mess Up?”
The blame game collapses. Repair replaces perfection as the central question.
Episode 10 — “Love on Retrial”
The audience learns that the ex was never the real defendant. The scoring system was.
Verdict:
The love was real. Running a future together was a separate case.
Case closed.
For now.
16. Fact labels for editors and producers
Any adaptation should keep four categories distinct:
- Actual event — something that really happened.
- Narrator’s real inner thought — the source of the “Voice of God.”
- Hypothesis about the former partner — an imagined model, never presented as her verified testimony.
- Dramatic reconstruction — compressed timelines, merged events, changed locations, or invented dialogue used for adaptation.
Keeping these labels prevents the strength of an autobiographical story from turning into a false claim about another person’s private mind.
Contact
For book, comic, film/TV adaptation, interview, or other inquiries, please use the site’s contact information.
Research references
- Tasfiliz, D. et al. (2018). Patterns of Perceived Partner Responsiveness and Well-Being in Japan and the United States. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5922804/
- Salvatore, J. E. et al. (2011). Recovering From Conflict in Romantic Relationships: A Developmental Perspective. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3060296/
- Fiori, K. L. et al. (2021). You Aren’t as Close to my Family as You Think: Discordant Perceptions about In-laws and Risk of Divorce. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8133523/
- Evraire, L. E. et al. (2022). The Contribution of Attachment Styles and Reassurance Seeking to Trust in Romantic Couples. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8895702/
