But nobody was doing that, in this case? There was no mention of ‘giving grief’.
The husband voluntarily shared his location for practical reasons, a few times she happened to see he was stopped at a bar or a fast-food place instead of work where he claimed, and that was a weird phenomenon that impacted her trust in him. She realised she was getting too obsessed looking at his location. They later divorced for entirely unrelated reasons.
There was definitely the implication. She said he wouldn’t admit to going to get fast food. That means she gave him grief over it, after catching him in the “lie”
But nobody was doing that, in this case? There was no mention of ‘giving grief’.
The husband voluntarily shared his location for practical reasons, a few times she happened to see he was stopped at a bar or a fast-food place instead of work where he claimed, and that was a weird phenomenon that impacted her trust in him. She realised she was getting too obsessed looking at his location. They later divorced for entirely unrelated reasons.
This isn’t really that wacky.
True but this is only one side of the story
Yes? But that doesn’t mean we can just assume random assertions.
eh idk that the author even claims that
There was definitely the implication. She said he wouldn’t admit to going to get fast food. That means she gave him grief over it, after catching him in the “lie”
Maybe we have different ideas of “giving grief”, but inquiring about where someone was does not amount to it in my mind.
I think you can read between the lines. This lady was literally tracking her husband constantly and confronting him about his whereabouts.