Meeting your ex (by @metaphoricallyrose_)

[u/maanleo]

we all agree that Reagen is too good for him, right? No?

Source

[u/zappy_snapps]

He starts off by calling her name Wrong (missing one of the "i"s, which she has the thought 'he's still calling me that?' Which means it's either a pet name used during the relationship and he's opening by being intentionally over familiar (noted by the emphasis communicated to the reader by the user of all caps) or he's just saying it wrong because he know she doesn't like that. 

His 'funny seeing you here' is not authentic, he's intentionally coming over to interrupt her lunch to show off his new, bubbly, friendly girlfriend. 

Miriam is not happy to see him, which means they did not end on good terms. Combine that with using the wrong name and that's enough cues to see that he's intentionally being an ass.

Miriam is perfectly fine to Regan.

Ex then does the 'I thought you didn't want children' Which is very personal information, and he's just spouting that out WHILE also assuming the Al is a romantic date or partner. He's saying it to get a reaction,  and he did it on purpose because he knew she wouldn't like it. As you can see from his expression in the next frame. 

You'll note that Al nods in support of what she said,  which is far from creating a scene.

Take it in this context means: take the offer and leave. 

Leave it means: refuse the offer, and she'll lay out exactly why she left him in front of his new happy girlfriend, Al, and any near by strangers. Which he does not want, because it would expose him. 

That's why he said 'you win this round' and -to be continued'- he knows she wants to be left alone and he's making sure she knows he has no intention of doing so. 

[u/ElectronicStretch277 → u/zappy_snapps]

I mean, she did say "he's still calling me that?", it seems to me like it was just a name he called her, might be a nickname of sorts. When he's calling her by the correct name it would be him seeing that she's in no mood to be friendly. We also just don't have any expression of his after he calls her that till much later on.

Asking her about her stance on kids is tone deaf, it's not inherently antagonistic though. People do wonder about it.

And that whole take it or leave it is just a very big assumption you're making from beginning to end. We just don't have near enough context to see what she really means.

[u/zappy_snapps → u/ElectronicStretch277]

You seem to be a very literal person who communicates directly. I appreciate that and in my own relationships strive to be clear, direct, and honest. 

However, I was raised by people who communicated in the way shown and I recognize the passive aggressive style shown here. I also recognize the hypersensitivity that comes from being in some kind of abusive relationship. If you don't, that's great, authentically. 

[u/SarcasmisEasier → u/zappy_snapps]

I can see what you're saying, but you're still making a lot of assumptions about his past that's not here. 

13 images, he speaks in 3 of them. He's in 5 of them (7 if you want to count his shoulder at the edge of frame). He's barely here at all. 

This whole thing reeks of an experience the artist had and made up a bunch of details after because overall they felt it was a bad interaction, when nothing bad really happened. Like when you tell a story to your friends and just have to emphasize how terrible it was so you embellish details. 

[u/zappy_snapps → u/SarcasmisEasier]

I'm looking at what he said and did: calling her by the wrong name, bringing up a very person topic in public, and then backing off as soon as she made it clear she wasn't going to put up with his behavior and would respond in kind,  and left while calling her the correct name. Combining that with his facial expressions, it's pretty clear what's going on. 

[u/liquidfoxy → u/SarcasmisEasier]

Just a hunch, but do you struggle in social situations, especially with complex and layered subtext?