Talking about the past - or just living it?

My partner and I were talking last night while I was drifting in and out of sleep ...
do women keep a sea of secrets inside them?
No more than anyone does, we agreed.
But when I talk about my past relationships, and he knows that I work on identity and memory, he often tells me I'm living in the past.
At what point is it reliving the past, and when is it simply sharing experience and being open about what we've lived so that the other knows and understands us in our present? Or are we always constructing a narrative in our present, whether we talk or not talk about what preceded?
It's this line of thinking that several years ago made me conclude that pure memory simply doesn't exist.
I do not believe we can separate our present from our pasts. Living in the present is nice, but it isn't ever really possible to pretend we exist separate from the myriad of experiences that formed us - talked about or silenced.
Yet, to be in an openly communicating mode with a partner, must we share every intimate past moment to be regarded as unsecretive? The balance still eludes me.
When issues are relevant and memories emerge, I share them.
I'm inclined to think that if I repeat those memories and recreate them and attempt to reexperirence them ... this would be a stab at living in the past. I'm also in the process of thinking that denying that the past exists is another form of letting the past control you. Eithe rway, it forms you if you try to control it.
You cannot touch without being touched is Newton's third law.
I cannot press my memory without it pressing me.