He Told His Girlfriend: “It’s Me or Your Ex,” And She Called Him Insecure

After three months of casual dating, a man was ready to take the next step with his new girlfriend. There was just one, massive hurdle: her close, six-year-long “platonic” friendship with her ex-boyfriend.

She assured him it was nothing, but the man had a hard boundary: if they were going to be serious, the ex had to go.

When he laid down the ultimatum, she laughed, then immediately accused him of being insecure. The resulting fight exposed a fundamental incompatibility that left the relationship hanging in the balance.

Now, read the full story:

This situation perfectly illustrates the difference between a preference and a boundary. The OP isn’t saying, “You must stop being friends with your ex.” He’s saying, “I will not enter a serious relationship with you if you continue this friendship.” That is a perfectly valid, non-negotiable boundary.

The girlfriend’s reaction, laughing, then immediately escalating to name-calling (“insecure”), is the real red flag. She is attempting to shame him for setting a limit, which shows she prioritizes the comfort of her existing, emotionally intimate relationship with her ex over the potential of a new, committed relationship with the OP.

The fact that the ex was a six-year partner and they still go out on “dates” (dinner, drinks) suggests an emotional intimacy that few new partners would tolerate. The OP is right to recognize this as a threat to the stability of a potential relationship.

The core conflict here is compatibility. The OP has a boundary about emotional availability, and the girlfriend has a boundary about maintaining her existing support system. Neither is inherently wrong, but they are fundamentally incompatible.

The OP’s boundary is rooted in the common reality that maintaining deep, frequent contact with a recent ex often prevents a person from fully committing to a new partner. As relationship experts at The Gottman Institute advise, while friendship with an ex is possible, it requires clear boundaries, especially when a new partner is involved.

The frequency and nature of the girlfriend’s interactions, dinner and drinks, mimic romantic dates, which naturally raises suspicion.

Furthermore, the girlfriend’s immediate resort to calling the OP “insecure” is a form of boundary testing and deflection. She tried to make him feel bad for expressing his needs.

As licensed therapist Nedra Glover Tawwab explains in her book, Set Boundaries, Find Peace, healthy relationships require partners to respect boundaries, even if they disagree with them. The moment she tried to shame him, she demonstrated a lack of respect for his non-negotiable terms.

The OP handled this perfectly by refusing to argue the point, simply stating, “If you’re not going to cater to them, we can just keep things as they are.” He showed he valued his boundary more than the relationship, which is the definition of self-respect.

Check out how the community responded:

The community overwhelmingly agreed that the OP was NTA, emphasizing that he has the right to set any boundary he chooses before committing.

Many users agreed with the OP’s assessment that the close friendship with the ex was a major red flag and a risk to any future relationship.

One commenter shared a cautionary tale, illustrating why the OP’s boundary was wise.

Finally, Redditors pointed out that the girlfriend’s reaction to the boundary was the biggest red flag of all.

The OP was clear, direct, and non-judgmental. He simply stated the terms for a serious relationship, and the girlfriend’s reaction proved they are not on the same page. He is not insecure; he is self-aware enough to know what he needs for a healthy partnership.

Was the OP right to draw such a hard line about the ex, or should he have trusted her assurances that the friendship was platonic?