this paragraph doesn't make sense to me:

yes I left the cheating out, but I left it out on purpose because I want to see how much of this situation is just me having justifiable trust issues, and how much is a real problem. If most people think this kind of thing is ok not knowing our history, then I know that this is just me working through my trust issues.

seriously, do I understand this correctly? are you saying that you decided you would leave out the cheating, and if people said that the situation was OK, then you would know that the only problem was the past cheating? were you just trying to find out if the guy was fucked up beyond the cheating?

like, you know this guy is a problem, and you decided not to mention his biggest problem, just to find out if he seemed like a problem otherwise?

so you were trying to like deceive and manipulate us into looking past the cheating, and telling you if the guy is bad in any additional ways?

I'm sorry to accuse you of deception and manipulation but this paragraph just freaking baffled me. am I close? is that what you're trying to say?

We also broke up for 2 years after he cheated, so it's not as if this just happened and now it's happening again. We took a really long time to think and grow.

yeah, I saw that in your post history. I hope you're right, and again, I'm really sorry, but I don't believe it for a second. given how he treated you, and is treating you now, it's difficult for an outside observer to believe for a second that this guy cares about you in any way. everything he did fits a known psychological profile. he did what most abusive people do. he revisited an old victim, he did a bunch of love-bombing (google it), and then he re-victimized the prior victim. this is all just standard behavior for a certain very unpleasant personality type.