Name: 元彼とよりを戻す前に - これを見よ (Before You Get Back With Your Ex — Watch THIS)
Uploaded: 2025-07-17T08:23:59.000Z
Duration: 13 min 48 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

再帰代名詞

News that two people who had a harrowing break-up are now trying to get back together again a few months or years down the line tends, among sensible people, to raise at the very least suspicion, if not outright irritation and despair. Why are these two cursed lovers heading back to the old chaos and drama? Isn't this just a fantasy sprung from naivety, loneliness and most probably short-term lust? Shouldn't they keep faith with their original choice, double down on the highs and lows of dating and perhaps each buy a dog? And yet, to deny ex-couples any legitimate chance to revisit their situation also feels excessively punitive and in its way naïve, insisting blindly that people can never change, that psychotherapy and introspection, books and conversations, time and long walks have nothing whatsoever to teach us, is as foolish as to assume that change can come readily and lightly. For every misguided attempt to resume a relationship, there must be a proportion of equally misguided refusals to countenance a new start, born not out of wisdom so much as pre-emptive fear and disbelief that people are, occasionally, able to learn a new thing or two. We need to make progress a tool with which to strip the matter of sentiment and rationally distinguish mature from sentimental plans. What follows is a sequence of questions, amounting to a kind of examination, that exes who are meeting up again after a long break should discuss with one another – and as importantly, with themselves – before coming anywhere near to holding hands, let alone – and here we must be very definitive – going to bed.

悲惨な別れを経験した2人が、数カ月後、あるいは数年後に再び結ばれようとしているというニュースは、良識ある人々の間では、苛立ちや絶望とまではいかなくても、少なくとも疑念を抱かせる傾向がある。なぜこの呪われた恋人たちは、かつての混乱とドラマに戻ろうとしているのか？世間知らずと孤独、そしておそらくは目先の欲望から生まれた空想にすぎないのではないか？彼らは最初の選択を信じ続け、デートの山あり谷ありを倍増させ、おそらくはそれぞれ犬を買うべきじゃないのか？人は決して変われない、心理療法や内省、本や会話、時間や長い散歩

To the question, should we meet up for dinner, the standard response should from now on be – let's take the School of Life's re-entry examination first. So, here's how it goes.

会って食事でもしましょうか、という質問に対して、これからは、まず人生の学校の再入学試験を受けましょう、というのが標準的な答えになるはずだ。つまり、こうだ。

法助動詞 B1

Firstly, can you meet me for a re-entry examination that may take up to seven hours, over five separate meetings and involve soliciting the views of two of our good friends as well?

まず第一に、5回に渡って7時間もかかるかもしれない再入国審査を受けるために私と会うことができるか、そして2人の親友の意見も聞くことができるか。

One of the major signs that a relationship is viable is that both parties are willing to give up an unusual, even inordinate amount of time to the intellectual exploration of its past flaws. The more they can stand to examine the horror, the less it need to recur.

ある関係が成立していることを示す主要な兆候のひとつは、両者が過去の欠点を知的探求するために、異常な、いや、異常なほどの時間を惜しまないことである。両者が恐怖の検証に耐えれば耐えるほど、再発の可能性は低くなる。

The greatest predictor of success is an advanced capacity to think without defensiveness, pride or impatience about all that was most terrible. Everything that feels a bit unromantic is paradoxically truly romantic, in the sense of being conducive to love. Which is why this test is deliberately, provocatively framed in the most boring, hard-headed way possible.

成功の最大の予兆は、最も恐ろしいことすべてについて、防衛心やプライドや焦りなしに考える高度な能力である。少しロマンチックでないと感じることはすべて、逆説的だが、愛を助長するという意味で、真にロマンチックなのだ。だからこそ、このテストは意図的に、挑発的に、可能な限り退屈で堅苦しい方法で組み立てられているのだ。

It should sound extremely forbidding and very unsexy. We concretely prove our love by being ready to discuss our feelings for hours with some of the tenacity of a lawyer and the steadiness of an accountant, this rather than abseiling down a clock tower with roses or making furious love in a hotel room.

非常に禁欲的で、とてもセクシーには聞こえないはずだ。私たちは、バラの花を持って時計台を下ったり、ホテルの一室で激しく愛し合ったりするよりも、弁護士のような粘り強さと会計士のような堅実さをもって、何時間でも自分たちの気持ちを話し合う用意があることで、愛を具体的に証明するのだ。

Second question. Are we here because we've learned things or because we miss one another?

二つ目の質問だ。私たちがここにいるのは、いろいろなことを学んだからなのか、それともお互いが恋しいからなのか？

This is a highly binary and leading question and there is only one possible answer. Opt for the wrong one and the exam is declared void immediately. Missing someone can be very moving, but it has nothing, strictly nothing to do with a fitness to return. One can miss someone and know, or should know, that they are absolutely not a person ever to get close to again. One can both utterly regret a partner and not in any way benefit from being with them. Of course, someone might tell a lie at this juncture, but at least it will be clear to them that they are having to deceive in order to proceed. No one can be in any doubt as to the purpose of this exam, to search out and probe at signs of learning rather than signs of love.

これは非常に二者択一的で誘導的な問題であり、可能な答えは1つしかない。間違った方を選べば、試験は即座に無効とされる。誰かを恋しく思うことはとても感動的なことだが、それは復帰の適性とは何の関係もない、厳密には何の関係もない。人を恋しく思うことがあっても、その人が二度と近づくことのできない人であることを知ることもできるし、知るべきであることもある。人は相手を完全に後悔することもできるし、相手と一緒にいても何の得にもならないこともある。もちろん、この局面で誰かが嘘をつくかもしれないが、少なくとも、話を進めるため

Third question. Have we substantially changed since we were last together? To put it even more bluntly, the only reason two people should ever attempt to restart a relationship is because something has fundamentally changed in both of them. Nothing else counts, that we once got on, that we almost had a child or had five together, that we still know each other's nicknames, that they really look very nice sitting across the table from us.

3つ目の質問。私たちは最後に一緒にいたときから大きく変わったか？さらに単刀直入に言えば、2人が関係を再開しようとする唯一の理由は、2人の中で何かが根本的に変わったからだ。かつては仲が良かったとか、もう少しで子供が生まれるところだったとか、一緒に5人産んだとか、まだお互いのニックネームを知っているとか、テーブルを挟んで向かい合って座っている相手がとても素敵に見えるとか、そういうことは他には何もカウントされない。

The sole and exclusive reason to be exploring once more is because one feels one has learnt some very significant things in the interregnum.

もう一度探求する唯一かつ排他的な理由は、空白の期間に非常に重要なことを学んだと感じるからである。

Fourth question. Can we say why we've changed, at length and in depth, not merely feel we have changed? Can we turn warm intentions into words, and a lot of words at that? The cynic tends to chip in at this point to add anyone can say they've changed, but what's hard, and what counts, is to show one's changed. Actions, not words, are where it's at. To which we'd say, yes, of course, but also that people who can describe at some length – we're talking a minimum of five hours of conversation – about what's going on in them, and hear what's at play in the other, also have a good chance of following through at the level of action. Analytically precise words are not always cheap. It's not a simple matter to speak clearly about one's past emotional immaturity and idiocy, and by the time people can, it's a sign of a certain dawning wisdom which can stretch beyond mere fine intentions. At the same time, we should be very suspicious of any ex who tries to pass off their reluctance to sit an exam or their unwillingness to speak as a small matter indicating nothing other than a personal preference. Oh, I'm not so good with language. Words fail me. I don't do introspection very well. I love you, but I can't always say why. We're sorry for such a person. We also know that they plainly do not merit another chance. We both agree that this exam commits us to nothing whatsoever.

4つ目の質問。単に変わったと感じるだけでなく、長く、深く、なぜ変わったのかを語ることができるか。温かな意思を言葉に、それもたくさんの言葉にできるだろうか？皮肉屋はこの時点で、自分が変わったと言うことは誰にでもできるが、難しいのは、そして重要なのは、自分が変わったことを示すことだ、と付け加えがちだ。言葉ではなく行動こそが重要なのだ。もちろんそうだが、自分の中で何が起こっているのか、相手の中で何が起こっているのか、最低でも5時間は会話する必要がある。分析的に的確な言葉は必ずしも安くはない。自分の過去の感情的な

It's an exploration, nothing more or less. Both parties have to recognise that they may have to walk away with nothing and it won't be anyone's fault. Why did we fight so much?

これは探り合いであり、それ以上でもそれ以下でもない。両者とも、何も持たずに立ち去らなければならないかもしれないことを認識しなければならないし、それは誰のせいでもない。なぜ私たちはあんなに喧嘩をしたのか？

We're coming to the core of the examination. It's a luxury of couples who will never get back together again that they can concentrate on the good sides of their story. They can listen to songs and daydream about the sweet times without any need to remember reality.

検査の核心に迫っている。復縁することのないカップルが、自分たちの物語の良い面に集中できるのは贅沢なことだ。現実を思い出す必要もなく、歌を聴きながら甘い時間を空想することができる。

But for those who are thinking of getting back together, there is no alternative but to focus with immense intent on one aspect only of the relationship, what was properly awful about it. And there would have been a lot that was, given that people don't ever sever a tight bond lightly. The priority is to identify and then submit to rigorous analysis all that was most nightmarish, all that it remains extremely painful and eerie to summon. A couple's right to resume is to be measured against their courage in exploring why they failed. Then, what can't I change? But also, what coping mechanisms might we arrive at to deal with these unchangeable aspects? We need to acknowledge that almost certainly we won't be able to alter all of our personalities and this is the moment to get clear with our ex about what is and isn't possible. Broken promises always exact a worse toll than pre-emptively lowered expectations. What do we feel that we aren't, despite a lot of goodwill, going to be able to overcome? And how, if at all, can these stubborn bits of our personalities be handled? Then, how much can we each bear of what won't change?

しかし、復縁を考えている者にとっては、その関係のある一面、つまり、その関係のどこが本当にひどかったのか、ということだけに絶大な関心を向ける以外に選択肢はない。人は決して軽々しく固い絆を断ち切ったりはしない。最優先されるのは、最も悪夢的だったこと、呼び起こすのが非常に苦痛で不気味なこと、そのすべてを特定し、厳密な分析にかけることである。夫婦の再開の権利は、なぜ失敗したのかを探る勇気と照らし合わせて測られるべきものなのだ。では、何を変えられないのか？しかしまた、変えられない側面に対処するために、どのような対処

Frank answers can spare a couple decades of squabbling. Next, what trouble do I bring into the relationship? How am I difficult to live around? There should be no bristling here. Bearable people have a good handle on their unbearable dimensions. We don't need people to be perfect, we just need them to have a decent sense of how imperfect they are and how much their imperfections are going to cause the other pain. Then, what trouble do you bring into the relationship? How are you difficult to live around? We need agreement on the mutual complications that are being brought to the table. Both people should write their answers down, then show the other their analyses. Can both sides agree on what's most horrible in each person? The more alignment there can be, the less future criticism has to feel like nagging, and the more it can fit into a kinder project of helping someone to change as they would, at their saner moments, wish to change. Then, which bits of my anxiety and unhappiness did I discover were not, after all, your fault? What continued to be difficult even without you around? It's highly tempting when in a relationship to assume that all the misery we face is the fault of the lover. We attribute to the main person in our lives a commanding role in determining our state of mind. But when they're gone, we may be forced to realise a more complex truth – that our low moods and neuroses have their origins, in large part, in us rather than in them. It can, oddly, no longer all be their fault. How did life remain hard, even without them? What might they not be to blame for? Then, what I now appreciate more properly about you is… We're meant never to lose sight of what was great about them, but in reality, we sometimes need the perspective of time to get clearer about their virtues. In the long months since we were together, what sides of them did we realise we most deeply valued? Then, what did I learn from meeting other people? A truly tricky subject, but as we're realising, it's a capacity for eating humble pie that stands a restarted relationship in such good stead.

率直な答えは、数十年にわたるいさかいを避けることができる。次に、私は人間関係にどんなトラブルを持ち込むのか？私はどう生きづらいのか？ここで歯向かうことはないはずだ。耐えられる人は、耐えられない次元をうまくコントロールしている。人は完璧である必要はなく、自分がどれだけ不完全で、その不完全さがどれだけ相手を苦しめることになるかをきちんと理解している必要があるのだ。では、あなたは人間関係にどんな問題を持ち込むのか？どのように生きづらいのか？持ち込まれるお互いの煩わしさについての合意が必要だ。両者とも答えを書き出

So what did the bad dates teach us? What did the rejections bring home to us? What did we learn from the flaws of others about the merits of the one we left behind? Then, what will happen when we argue next time, define six arguments that might take place in the future and explore what could be done differently? Design six arguments that might occur going forward. There's another party. You're busy at work again. You're tired and upset that they flirted. How will we behave differently? What could we do other than break up? How might diplomacy replace warfare? Then, the last part of the examination.

では、悪いデートは私たちに何を教えてくれたのだろうか？振られたことで何を思い知らされたのか？他人の欠点から、残してきた相手の良さについて何を学んだのか？そして、次回口論するときに何が起こるのか、今後起こりうる6つの口論を定義し、何が違っていたのかを探る。今後起こりうる6つの議論をデザインする。別のパーティーがある。あなたはまた仕事で忙しい。あなたは疲れているし、相手がいちゃついたことに腹を立てている。私たちはどう振る舞えばいいのだろう？別れる以外に何ができるだろう？外交が戦争に取って代わる可能性は？そして

Each person should approach one of their very good friends who lived the break up from close quarters and ask them to meet the ex in private, then provide a deep evaluation of the prospects for a successful return. Does this ex now feel safe? Should the couple do this? It sounds extremely odd to bring in a third party. We imagine that couples have all the answers to their own problems. But most people who survive a break up only do so because they have, somewhere in the background, a wise, kind, sceptical friend who listened to the sobbing, counselled when to text and when to block, was always on hand and has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the entire trauma. It seems foolish not to benefit from this person's experience, an inevitable degree of scepticism. They don't want to go through another catastrophe all over again. Even better, they don't love our ex. They won't be going to bed with them.

各自が、別れを間近で経験した親友のひとりに声をかけ、プライベートで元恋人に会ってもらい、復縁が成功する見込みを深く評価してもらうこと。その元恋人は今安心しているのだろうか？夫婦はこうするべきか？第三者を入れるのは非常に奇妙に聞こえる。私たちは、夫婦が自分たちの問題に対するすべての答えを持っていると想像している。しかし、別れを乗り越えた人の大半は、その背景のどこかに、すすり泣きに耳を傾け、いつメールし、いつブロックすべきかを助言し、常に手元にあり、トラウマ全体について百科事典のような知識を持っている、賢明で

They only stand to face the downsides and that's why they're so useful. They aren't a sworn enemy, that won't be of assistance, but nor are they any kind of indiscriminate romantic either. They are a hard-headed realist who saw what the ex put their friend through and doesn't ever want it to happen again. So they need to be brought into the discussion.

彼らはデメリットにしか直面しないし、だからこそ有用なのだ。彼らは不倶戴天の敵ではなく、それは助けにならないが、無差別なロマンチストでもない。彼らは、元恋人が友人をどんな目に遭わせたかを目の当たりにし、二度と同じことが起こらないようにと願う、頭の固い現実主義者なのだ。だから、彼らを話し合いに参加させる必要がある。

They need a one-on-one meeting with the ex-partner, who should be rather intimidated by the idea but go through it anyway, in the name of love. If the partner can convince this battle-wearied person, true change will have occurred and vice versa. The friend must assess the ex on the following points and score each of them out of ten. How much does the ex understand of the problems they brought into the relationship? How much do they seem able to change? What is their level of defensiveness? What have they understood about themselves? How might they manage conflict more successfully? What do they appreciate about their ex? And assess the overall viability of a return. In short, yes or no?

元パートナーとの1対1の面談が必要で、元パートナーはその考えにむしろ怯えているはずだが、愛の名の下に、とにかくそれをやり通すのだ。パートナーがこの戦いに疲れた相手を納得させることができれば、真の変化が起きたことになり、その逆もまた然りである。友人は元恋人を以下の点で評価し、それぞれを10点満点で採点しなければならない。元恋人は、自分が恋愛関係に持ち込んだ問題をどの程度理解しているか？彼らはどの程度変わることができるように見えるか？彼らの防衛レベルはどの程度か？彼らは自分自身について何を理解したか？どうすれ

That's the end of the examination. We take the gravest decisions of our lives on a whim.

これで審査は終わり。私たちは人生の重大な決断を気まぐれに下す。

We will properly start to honour love and spare ourselves cycles of dismay and pain when we learn, at last, to disregard our desires and to follow instead the pedantic dictates of sober, sensible, beautifully tedious logic.

自分の欲望を無視し、冷静で賢明で、美しく退屈な論理の衒学的な指示に従うことを学んだとき、私たちは愛を尊重し、狼狽と苦痛のサイクルから解放されるのだ。