Well, I can definitely see how that would be awkward. For both of us, probably. But I'm not sure I'd find it the insoluble dilemma this strapline writer seems to think I would. 'Oh' I'd probably think to myself 'It's that betraying guy. Well, this is very bad luck. I certainly hope I can rely on him to save me this time, and not betray me. Although of course experience tells me I can't.'
And yes, I'd probably try and peek behind him to make sure there definitely wasn't another man who could save me, possibly obscured by the betraying man, or maybe just coming round the corner. But the point is, if there wasn't, I imagine I'd try and make the best of it. I mean, if he absolutely is the only man who can save me, then, well, I'll probably let him save me. It might even go some way to making up for the betrayal incident.
I assume that for some reason it does have to be a man who saves me, by the way; because personally I have no silly macho prejudice against being saved by a woman, or indeed by either of those two running children and/or their charming dog. But assuming it does, then, yes, I'll take the saving, please. In fact, I think the only real dilemma is whether or not I'll bring up the betraying during the saving. I mean, it's obviously going to be the elephant in the room - maybe it would be best to acknowledge it, perhaps with a jokey: 'I certainly hope you've got all the betraying out of your system now!' No, that sounds too pointed. How about: 'I expect you're glad it's this way round, aren't you? I bet you'd be a bit nervous if you needed me to save you! You know, because of that betraying thing.' No, maybe I'll just leave it. He knows what he did. And I don't want to distract him from the saving.
Anyway, my point is, I would definitely let him save me. And I'd come to that the decision fairly quickly and easily too - I wouldn't make a huge, rich, ambitious tapestry out of it. But maybe that's just me - I'm a forgiving person. And I like being saved.