>I might be getting a bit ahead of myself
I think you may be getting ahead of yourself a little, yes. While you could make an argument that his perception of her as unfaithful underpins her fear, it seems she created the thread with two aims, one being to ask if this is something other women have experienced and two to sus out how to find out if his view of her was damaged. The way in which that view could have been impacted seems less material, given that she provides context in saying that she can't read subtle clues and her BF wont tell her outright. What I read in her post is a woman looking for specific advice on how to tell if she's fucked up and providing context for why she fears that, not asking for advice to change his mind if there was damage caused. To use an analog, Anon asked how to tell if her faucet is leaking and you provided very detailed information on sink maintenance and installation. Helpful information, to be sure, but skipping a few steps forward from the matter at hand. You could argue that its good to perform proper maintenance anyway, even if it wasn't asked for, but it doesn't actually help with the matter at hand and giving advice people didn't ask for is often perceived as rude. OP isn't here to clarify, but I can read the room and I think the other ladies picked up something similar to what I did, or at least they did not pick up your reading so your post being seen as rude and evoking the hostility it did.
>I have moral duty To provide whatever I have to help others
>My job is to say here is this problem and here is this solution
>The problem is that they don't want to take my advice
Alternate read here, but might it be possible that people aren't taking your advice not because they view you as unqualified, but rather because you're coming across as preachy? You certainly sound convicted, and its good to have convictions, but it's very rare that you find someone who wants to be preached to outside of church. When presented with information contrary to their beliefs, most people dig in their heels and get their hackles up. If you enter into dialog with someone and you present all your points as the one right way, all your views as the one correct interpretation, you're walking into a dark room filled with rakes. At some point, you will blunder into a point of disagreement with that person and get hit in the face. There are certainly to this, like when a person is highly receptive to what is being said due to trusting the speaker or viewing them as an authority on the matter. In those contexts, fervor and condition on the speaker's part can cause the listener to doubt themselves, and that can open them up to the speaker's way of thinking. Since an appeal to authority means nothing in anonymous online spaces, so attaining a position like that is nearly impossible. A more realistic workaround would be to soften your tone. Delivery is critical when it comes to rhetoric; you can easily alienate your audience even if they would have agreed with your points when presented another way. I'm a blunt person, I appreciate bluntness in my men and my friends, but I know there's a difference between being blunt and being an asshole and I will still soften a blow for the sake of the person I'm talking when appropriate. If you can't moderate your delivery to avoid rubbing people the wrong way, or you aren't willing to put in the effort to do so, then you've set your priorities and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. At the same time, there's also nothing wrong with people choosing to not engage with what you say because they don't like the way you communicate.
>four young men would be glad that someone, anyone has bothered with them today.
Young men aren't really a fair yardstick here considering their level of social deprivation. Young men are so starved for social attention they would be glad anyone looks at them, let alone talks to them. If you don't want to provide more than the bare minimum, then don't expect gratitude from people who are well fulfilled. A starving man may thank you profusely for the scraps from your table, but a well fed man would likely take offense at being offered offal.
>simultaneously complain to me that they've tried a healthcare setting that has not worked for them at all, but don't want to take my advice
This is a secondary point not really related to the matter at hand here, but it's also possible the persons in question are complaining not because they are looking for material aid or advice in solving their problem, but rather for the simple act of social support? If all they wanted was a person to earnestly listen to them and tell them their concerns are valid, they probably wont take kindly to proffered advice because they don't want it and don't see themselves as having asked for it. Whether that's a rational response or not could be up for debate, but every woman I know (save one, bless her heart) does this and it's usually pretty obvious when someone is asking for advice instead of social support. Like I said, I think this matters less here because I do believe OP was at least half asking for help. Just food for thought.