Stip when you talked about honesty between partners, did you mean between male and female partners?

If that's the question then I think it is possible without entering into an idealized world.  In fact, ideals might be part of the problem--as in the idealization of women as "good girls" mentioned in the cited article.  But the root of the problem to me is inequity that was probably more apparent in law and economics 200 years ago, but still exists in those areas, and cultural roles used to justify those inequities--such that when a man strays it is seen partially as the woman's fault (she didn't inspire enough love to keep him faithful) but when the woman does it comes down completely to being her moral failing.

Since those inequities are all things that can be changed, I don't see honesty between men and women as a naive notion of an idealized world, but something that would become enhanced as part of social and political change,  In the same way other marginalized groups have to use "tricks" when they are on the margins--working towards a society in which people are not marginalized increases honesty.  I was talking about that point a bit more here.

You reminded me of a recent article about Hilary Clinton's dimplomatic style.  Gender isn't mentioned in the article, but I wondered if her "frankness" was at all being more scrutinized because she's a woman.

Maybe my question doesn't belong in this section, but the title of "Lies we tell" seemed appropriate.

The question is gender neutral. I include Female-Female, Male-Male and Male-Female partners. The make-up of the relationship is irrelevant. The question is: can two partners be totally open and honest with each other or is a certain level of.... reservation I'll call it (because I do not want to use deception) necesary?

If one partner is annoyed by a certain behavior of the other, is the annoyed partner obligated to raise the issue, or is a response like "nothing's the matter" an acceptable little white lie to avoid a potential argument?

The problem with brutal honesty is: it risks raising issues that could serve to damage the relationship whereas the annoyed partner could view the idiosyncracy as a negative slice of their partner they can learn to live with.

The counter to that is: in order for a relationship to survive, both partners are entitled, in fact mandatory, to know the fullest extent the depth (both good and bad) of their partnership, if they are a good match, otherwise, they relationship exists on faulty foundation.

I understand that if the undesireable behavior is <insert your definition of significantly negative> then it cannot be glossed over, but dealt with.

So does the magnitude of the issue to be "lied" about matter?

Regarding the issue of a man straying vs a woman, I disagree with the way in which society labels that (meaning I agree with you, an inequity exists)

And to Hillary: I can't help how society scrutinizes her, I can only share my opinion. She should be viewed for the quality and integrity of her actions, thoughts and statements; gender be irrelevant. 

I guess one thing I wonder about is why honesty is "brutal"?  And in my experience I find people's honesty is most often presented in a brutal fashion when they think that they can't make a statement about someone else that disagrees with or is going to challenge the other person without the accompanying feeling of anger or self-righteousness.  And to me that feeling comes out of an insecurity that the person making the honest statement somehow isn't allowed to state it without that kind of back-up--like the person has to get the authority to speak honestly through being both superior and punishing.

And generally I find the criticisms come out (if the person hasn't in fact learned to live with the thing they find annoying) even if not explicitly spoken.  Recently a friend told me that behind a lot of his very brief responses to ideas that I raise about politics or my interpretations of literature or what-have-you was the fact that he not only disagreed with me, but had contempt for some of my ideas.  I have to say my reaction was relief because it helped me to take his responses less personally.  'Cause once that was explicit it was easy to see that that was about him and his perspective and not about my ideas--which may be wrong, but aren't contemptible.

My usage of brutal above is not in reference to it being "in a brutal fashion" as in violent or abbrasive or condescending. No, rather I meant totally open, totally frank, no reservations whatsoever.

I agree with everything you stated above. And that is the problem - meaning many of us are not comfortable being totally honest, with our partners and non-partners alike, because it comes with the risk of insult on the part of the recipient.

It absolutely is a skill to deliver an honest statement without it being taken as a frontal assult. As an example, the word "respectfully" is quite frequently used to difuse the possible friction of a statement about to be made.

Unfortunately, the farther we tangent from face to face conversation (IM, eMail, cell phone texting, Facebook, etc) the weaker our skills become at discussing potentially sensitive information.

I was focusing on honesty between partners because in the example you provided, it would be easier to walk away from your man friend if when issue was surfaced - and it so annoyed you that you no longer wanted to have any contact for that person - than it would be a partner.

I'm not saying every proclamation of honesty causes us to want to disown a friend, I'm just using that as one extreme.  But if a partner had a skeleton in their closet or a hidden resentment about some aspect of your personality - that was so troubling - that it would cause you to exit the relationship, don't you have a right to know about it ?

Stip - (hope you don't mind if I jump in and share an observation)
It seems like the questions and examples you bring up skirt around the issue of predicting a response in your partner and then taking responsibility for your partner's reaction to the information presented by attempting to establish general expectations: 

- You're "not comfortable being totally honest, [with people] because it comes with the risk of insult on the part of the recipient.
- you talk about avoiding friction as a reason to withhold disclosure
- You test the notion of "what is appropriate" or "right/correct" by testing the analogy to see where it breaks down - is it related to the type of the relationship or the magnitude of the lie or both?
- On the flip side you bring up the notion "if a partner had a skeleton in their closet or a hidden resentment about some aspect of your personality - that was so troubling - that it would cause you to exit the relationship, don't you have a right to know about it ?"
(Which is basically is expecting your partner to predict with what they know about you whether or not you would approve them or reject them for who they are.)

The first problem with all of this is that there is no generally established "right or wrong" when it comes to relationships of any kind.
I think it's problematic when you start trying to generally assert what you "have a right to" as defined by the type of relationship you are engaging in with another person.  There's no general appropriate requirement for how much information you share about yourself - past or present that will consistently determine whether a (any) relationship will fail or not.

Further - How would you collectively measure a skeleton or issue to determine its significance in the first place?  How would you define troubling?  How could you determine whether your partner is holding to this same standard as you are?  None of these questions are easy.  The last question is perhaps the most difficult to determine.  The only thing you can be certain of is where you stand and so this should be the center of your focus.  The rest comes down to trusting your partner.

If you strive for an honest and sucessful relationship, collectively you must talk about and agree upon the standards you hold/wish to share and ask for understanding.  If you have specific concerns that are important to you, then it is your responsibility to ask about them.  You can collectively lay out expectations as well, in order to address those general things which are "troubling" to each of you respectively.  But your reaction to any skeleton in your partner's closet is about you and if it makes or breaks a partnership for you, it is your responsibility to bring it to the table.  If you think you know that a piece of information about yourself will cause the situation to fall apart and you do not disclose it; the relationship ceases to be an honest relationship.  And in the end it gets even more complicated - because even all that cannot rule out misunderstanding or even deliberate deception on the part of your partner. 

I do think that it is a general rule that if one person is deceptive/lying in order to manipulate/control the situation while the other person is truthful that these relationships will inevitably fail because the truth always comes out in the end.  Even if the once hidden fact does not "break it"; the dishonesty/manipulation probably will because it breaks the trust foundational to the partnership. 

A relationship will succeed if both partners are truthful, understand each other and agree on the cooperative goal of the relationship. (Due consideration given to how to handle issues that will potentially come up in the future.)  It's also true you can have a "successful" relationship in a partnership where both parties are deceptive/manipulative as long as the system of lies created together is supportive to that partnership.  (A funny example of this is the movie House Sitter...)  Ironically enough, the trust that you share is simply based on a lie.

Though, if it's a relationship situation where the stakes are not high, it's perfectly appropriate to consider a piece of personal information as really "none of soneone's business".  (As long as you've assessed the situation honestly and not just an avoidance of conflict that will hit you in the face later.)   "Hidden" information does not always equate to "deceptive", "wrong" or "hurtful". 

I think I have more to add on to this later--I've just been thinking about the problem of assumptions/expectations and communication--that we have certain assumptions of a shared frame (that when I use the word "car" and you use it--that we're both talking about the same thing, for instance), but then that sense of shared frame can quickly enter a grey area in which people don't even realize they are not talking about the same thing--even in those very simple denotative ways of using language.  But more immediately I wanted to ask something to try and clarify what we all are talking about in this instance as I think I've been confused at various points.  The pronouns, and even the "partner A and B" isn't really keeping it straight for me so I thought I'd make up names. 

So here's what Stip said: "if a partner had a skeleton in their closet or a hidden resentment about some aspect of your personality - that was so troubling - that it would cause you to exit the relationship, don't you have a right to know about it ?"

And here's my translation using a fictional partnership--Kim and Lou.

I think what Stip was saying is this (jump in and correct if wrong):

Let's say Lou has a personal habit--smoking for instance--that Kim finds so disgusting that Kim is considering leaving the relationship as a result.  Doesn't Lou have the right to know that Kim finds this habit disgusting so that Lou can at least decide whether to try to change the behavior in order to maintain the relationship?  Or Lou could decide that Lou likes smoking better than Kim :-)  But if Kim just exits the relationship without any indication to Lou of why--it never gives Lou that choice.

Now I generally agree with DL's point about the problems in asserting what one has a right to in a relationship as a generalization.  

But I think when DL said " If you have specific concerns that are important to you, then it is your responsibility to ask about them."--that might have actually been close to the same point that Stip was making?  That is that DL is saying:

If Kim had specific concerns about smoking that is important to Kim, then it is Kim's responsibility to ask about them--(rather than just hold this hidden resentment and walk away without letting Lou know what it was about.)

Jaz, yes. Exactly.

The choice must be given, even if the choice could be to exit the relationship. What is that poem? If you truly love something...? 

In my opinion, Kim MUST speak of her issue with Lou's smoking and give Lou the choice. If Lou chooses smoking over Kim (knee to his groin) that's his decision, however pathetic it may be.

The issue could have been over something more personal to their relationship (thus my use of the word "significant" as I do not want this discussion to be about relationships hinging on trivial matters.) What if Lou is condescending in his treatment toward Kim? Kim hates it, it makes her feel worthless. If Kim stays silent, its her own fault. If she speaks up, and says "I don't like to be treated that way. Either we fix this or I'm outta here" - she has again given Lou the choice. (Please note I went immediately to Kim threatening to leave - there would most likely be stages or relationship therapy in between).

In both examples, Lou is afforded the courtesy of knowing the cause of angst in the relationship. He can either choose to change the way he treats Kim or he can continue the condescending behavior. Kim can then in turn decide is this something she can live with or is Lou's behavior SO unacceptable, she must leave.

In both examples, the partners are clarifying for each other what is and what is not acceptable to them. To add a third example would be excessive, but from my earlier post, the issue could have been a skeleton in the closet of either partner. Same exchange of feelings and thought byKim and Lou achieves the same result. By disclosing, assumption be vanquished. Brutal honesty provides both Lou and Kim a choice. And the choice must be allowed to be made.  

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was my point. Thank you Jaz for bringing Kim and Lou to the discussion to so beautifully elaborate the point. 

I have a different take Stip on the "must be given" and "rule" aspect.  I'm speaking here as someone who likes to be"in the know" and as a personal preference--I'd like it if someone was honest with me (heh, I think--I probably shouldn't even overly generalize about myself), and I might feel as if I didn't have a choice if someone just left without letting me in on the complaint.  But I think the reality is that we can't control other people's behavior with a general standard like this.  And that the need to know might be a way of bolstering our illusion that we have control over whether the other person stays or goes.

What I mean is Kim might for a variety of reasons not be capable of mentioning these things and leaves.  The variety of reasons could be anything from--Lou having reacted violently to criticism in the past to Kim not being fully conscious of needs/complaints, to having psychological difficulties with being open.  And especially in those latter two cases--in a way the partner who has been left has a degree of choice too--if that person (like me, and I think like you, from what you've said--does not want to be with someone who would leave without explanation).  We would choose not to be with someone who would leave in that way.  If the person does leave in that way, we've gotten what we would choose.

The permutation of this that I'd set out there for consideration would be to consider the receiver's end of the information.  The break down in the information exchange can also occur when a person has difficulty listening.

Perhaps Kim has told Lou on a number of times that it's important to her that her children be raised in a smoke free environment.  She's a member of some activist group that lobbies against smoking in public places.  At the same time she adores every other thing about Lou and communicates this to him on a regular basis as well.

Now Lou might be aware of all of this but misunderstand just how important these things are to Kim.  He wants to hear her adoration, but he doesn't want to hear about this thing he may need to work on.  He then rationalizes that because she'd date him in the first place that she's made some exception for him.  "Love conquers all" and the like.  Basically, he's in denial about something and that puts his personal growth on this matter in sort of a holding pattern.  It's an area that Kim has no authority over, but has to make a choice about.

So time passes she repeatedly and caringly mentions she doesn't want to live with a smoker and she's concerned about his health.  He says he knows it would be a good idea to stop.  She brings home literature on how to help him stop smoking.  Lou half heartedly tries to stop, but doesn't really have himself invested in that task.   Let's say it never degrades to bickering.  Kim tells Lou that she's getting serious about starting a family.  Lou is excited to take this next step forward, but doesn't do anything differently than before because it seems to be going so well.

Finally, Kim just up and leaves.  From Lou's point of view the ultimatum was never delivered.  He might even claim "this information was never shared".  He hasn't put together the pieces.  "One minute she was telling me how much she adored me, thought about me, and was concerned for things that might hurt me.  She tells me she's serious about settling down and then she just left.  What's up with that?!?"

From Kim's perspective she's already shared all the information she can without crossing over into the area of "controlling".  In her mind she's allowed Lou to have a choice.  She simply decided to leave when she was ready to become more serious about her goals and to her it appeared that Lou was just not as serious about these things that were important to her - and it was a deal breaker. 

I know this is really no different than the 2 of you are stating, but I focus on this perspective in order to take the analysis off of self and "what is owed".   Also, I do this to take the analysis outside of "self" in these matters of the standard of measure to remain outside of bias.  This is to see the postive and negative of both sides and both people and reflect to see what can be done to improve the process for the future.  It is a very complex thing that I don't think is often or generally done.

The truth is that when there is a breakdown in communication in any relationship, there is really no one person to "blame".  So I'm particularly sensitive about the "should's" and imaginary "standards" that don't really apply to every situation.  This tends to measure every other person by a yardstick of yourself.  There are a lot of problems that are caused by doing that. 

In my observation this way of looking at these things tends to happen when someone is going through the grieving process (perhaps about a break up)... often to remain in denial about "what went wrong" or to avoid reflecting upon the blame on the other side of the equation.

Seeing the positive and negative of both sides is, I think, actually a way of bringing self into the analysis but in a conscious way--that is to acknowledge subjectivity.  

Kim and Lou might have two completely different stories of what "really" happened--and what each claims as real or objective is being used by both sides to bolster who is "right."  Whereas to acknowledge self (the beam in one's own eye, so to speak), gives up those claims to possesses the objectively right view and allows one to empathetically see things from the other's perspective.

Obligation, or "what is owed" is to me another way of attempting to set up an objective reality--a rule that cannot be broken--and if it is, then this gives the person claiming to be owed (or claiming to have ownership of the real) the justification to vent their anger.  And ususally a whole lot of pent up anger that isn't related to the situation at hand at all (this to me is the heart of road rage).

This actually is what DL was getting at to me in the post "How do you stop a war."

To me the only relationship in which I think there is obligation is the parental one.  For one thing because children don't choose to enter into the relationship and their ability to leave is limited so there are real inequities there that don't exist in relationships between adults.

Jaz, I agree with you. It is impossible to capture all of the possible permutations and issues going on in a relationship here on this board in the space available. I grant you all of your examples make sense and that matters of the heart can never be generalized.

DL, well said. I found it difficult to make my point without creating a huge post so some of my comments may seem too brief or not sufficiently elaborated, but I agree with your thoughts.

Assuming one can predict a partner's response is to miss the point.

This extract sums it all up for me and generally encapsualizes what I was trying to say:

If you strive for an honest and sucessful relationship, collectively you must talk about and agree upon the standards you hold/wish to share and ask for understanding.... But your reaction to any skeleton in your partner's closet is about you and if it makes or breaks a partnership for you, it is your responsibility to bring it to the table.  If you think you know that a piece of information about yourself will cause the situation to fall apart and you do not disclose it; the relationship ceases to be an honest relationship.

ah, after reading DL's response, I see that I was misreading what you said.  I was confusing the "you's" and thought you meant that "if a partner had a hidden resentment about some aspect of your personality - that was so troubling - that it would cause the partner to exit the relationship, don't you have a right to know about it ?"

And actually I agree with what DL said above about "rights"--so a more accurate statement of what I'm saying, and also what I was saying in my example about my friend, is that I'd prefer to know about someone's hidden resentments.  I'd prefer it to having the person express the criticism through leaving, or even through silence (as was the case with my friend). So I'm suggesting there that honesty or being direct to me does not have to be brutal, and in fact can be less so than acting out the criticism.

Let me re-state it:

"If Partner A has a hidden resentment about some aspect of Partner B's (your) personality - that is so troubling - that it would cause Partner B (you) to question whether they are a good fit for each other, shouldn't Partner A disclose? And wouldn't Partner B want to know about it ?"

Otherwise, as DL states, isn't the relationship an untruthful one?

I think a conversation is appropriate to give each partner the opportunity to express their thoughts and feelings about the issue so there is no longer a need to keep it hidden anymore (and possibly fester into something worse)

The actual discussion could be very uncomfortable for both partners, torturous even. But I think I'm in agreement with you and DL, when I say the disclosure by Partner A shows respect - and trust - in Partner B by allowing them to express their view on "the issue."

If I were to answer your questions as they stand: "isn't the relationship an untruthful one?" and "shouldn't Partner A disclose" with only the information you provide here, I would have to say "not necessarily" to both.

Let me lay it out this way:
Partner A has a hidden resentment about Partner B.  A number of questions have to be asked just about that alone.

Is Partner A really "hiding" a resentment or is this simply how Partner B perceives the situation?
Is the information which Partner A is not disclosing really a "resentment" or is this simply how Partner B perceive the situation?
If you establish both those definitions and agree on the definition of resentment and that the information is deliberately being withheld or "hidden"...
Why is partner A hiding this resentment?
Are there any historical, personal, or statistical reasons for this withholding?

When you get into the judgement of the information (what is a valid reason/what is an invalid reason) it becomes a highly personal thing and there really can be no "right or wrong".    What is "troubling" to Partner A, may not be troubling to Partner B and vice versa.  By keeping information "hidden", all Partner A is really determining for themselves is that the information they hold applies only to themselves explicitly.  They might not even consciously think about mentioning it because they find the information trivial in their own judgement.

If it's not information of a solely personal nature, Partner A and Partner B could simply have differing opinions on how to apply "troubling"  (which is really a priority rank given to a particular problem between the 2 of you) to the relationship itself.  For Partner A to further speculate about what Partner B may potentially find to be a crisis or speculate as to what Partner B might find as "inappropriate" is really fruitless.  Actually by Partner A not attempting to second guess Partner B's judgement shows a trust that Partner B will bring up any issues they find pertinent to their satisfaction with the relationship.  To guess would be an attempt to unilaterally determine the "appropriate/right/correct" priority for the conflict without Partner B's input and that's not necessarily going to work for the both of them.  So the withholding of information is not necessarily about "trust" and not sharing of information does not constitute a breaking of trust or truth.

How do you determine whose perspective is "more valid"?  More to the point it's easier to say the only way trust can be broken is not based on the validity of the repective personal reasons, but on the explicit agreement and understanding of the 2 partners and the goal of being involved.  It's pertinance is determined by how this information applies to the explicit guidelines of the relationship itself.

So shouldn't Parnter A disclose is debatable unless the withholding of the specific information violates an explicit understanding.
Illustrated....
Let's say Partner A drinks alcohol.  Partner B does not.
Maybe Partner A thinks Partner B's opinion is narrow minded and not very well thought out.  But despite how strongly they feel, in the end Partner A thinks "to each his own" and decides that they themselves can comfortably live with this difference of opinion and they go on with their lives.  It's a benefit/cost analysis of a sort.  So maybe they're not going to explicitly mention every time they go out and drink with their buddies.  They feel what they drink is their own personal choice and should not be applicable to whom they date.  If they aren't supressing some itching desire to talk about said subject, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
Now Partner A could sit up all night and worry all the judgements Partner B might be making about them given their difference of opinion.  But if Partner B has not explicitly stated that they have a problem dating somebody who drinks alcohol, it would be fruitless to assume you had a definitive answer.  In fact Partner A would have to be a mind reader to know for certain that their speculations were valid and not simply just paranoia without Partner B's input. 
Partner A failing to bring up their consumption habits isn't a breach of trust unless Partner B has explicitly stated that they will not tolerate the personal choice to drink alcohol in their potential partner.  If this has been made clear and Partner A still fails to disclose, only then is the trust and truth violated, and not before.

Wouldn't Partner B *want* to know?
Again, not necessarily.  Maybe Partner B has equally strong opinions about people who consume alcohol - that it's narrow minded and not very well thought out.  Hypothetically Partner B could comfortably live with this difference of opinion.  If it doesn't intrinsically matter to either of them except for under very specific conditions that don't and will never apply to their situation.  If both of them know they'll never change the other's mind about these opinions then the conversation about Partner A's drinking habits only serves to make both of them unnecessarily uncomfortable.  What would the point be in that?

I wasn't quite sure what you were saying/asking here BG.  On the question of whether honesty is always the best policy though, there was a discussion on that further down the page.

As to defeating the purpose of a lie--pointing it out, or revealing what one has hidden--I would say that the reason one would choose to do that is the the realization that a lie or secret is damaging to one's self or others as for example the kind of secrets and lies associated with alcoholism and other addictions.

A very over-simplified point if I may: most every human being is in denial about something. ; )

Really in my experience there's nothing to worry about as far as all that is concerned.

People who lie, are generally not as clever as they think they are.  All that stuff usually works its way out in the end.

BG - you asked "are [lies] necessary sometimes?" My short answer is that there is almost always a better alternative.
There are of course extreme (and I mean life threatening) situations that might bring exception to that rule.  I'm thinking periods in history like during the slave trade or WWII.  But outside of that... My position is that lying is simply an immature way to handle a conflict.  Most people who lie to "spare someone" are in a relationship where they haven't figured out how to diplomatically discuss their own feelings like an adult while still being respectful to the other person involved in the conversation.  Any relationship is only worth the amount of trust that you invest in it... so the depth of feeling in a relationship that doesn't move past this disclosure stage is not going to be as deep as a trusting one. 

It's interesting also that narcissistic is also defined as:

Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

So I also find it interesting that some of the most popular romantic roles women are expected to play in the romance/worship narratives is that of a helpless child.  Women view other women as competitors and rivals.  Romance stories are stories of competing vanities to see 'who ends up on top'.  Worship and attention define a woman's social value and self esteem.

The problem though comes when children come into play with this narrative.  They are innocent parties when it comes down to the blame game and personality rivalry.  Parents are also the role model about what these children eventually value.  It should be easy to understand how lying to and teaching a child to lie will eventually backfire on you.

Unfortunately, I've known women who grew up with this mindset and they couldn't figure out "the next step" on the road to becoming an adult.
The blame game and justification for the things they lie about *is* their way of lying to themselves, and no I don't think they realize that they are doing it.  They feel like victims of their situation.  That's what makes the pattern so hard to break out of.  It's this constant positioning of a frame in order to promote their own selfish interests.  They take *everything* personally because they still think the story is all about them.  They never learn how to care for anyone else but themselves and they take comfort in thinking everyone else is just doing the same thing they are.

My experience is that - when a mother like this has a daughter, it's easy to accept the child as long as that child reminds them of themselves.  In that way the child's interests are seemingly equal to the woman's interests and there are "no waves".  That woman often lives vicariously through their daughter's accomplishments. 
But - should that daughter ever contradict that image - a conflict and a rivalry is born.  It's a story of vanity - and it's a matter of distinguishing "who the story is about" as well as "who is on top".  A child understandably needs more attention than an adult and so will garner it.  With the attention no longer centered on the mother, the daughter's story becomes that of an individual - and the daughter becomes a 'threat' to the mother's value instead of adding value to her.  Often the mother will take the daughter's differences to be an indicator that the daughter no longer loves the mother or some indicator that the mother has lost some worth even in the child's eyes - and the mother takes it personally.  The mother then takes on the victim role to justify what comes next.  When she's forced to face the situation, the only tools of interaction she has are the ones she grew up with herself - which is to attempt to control the situation by attacking the individuality/story of the child so that she can maintain her own self esteem.  "She hurt me first - she's a bad child, so she deserves (fill in the blank)."  There is fighting on the playground.

Actually the more socially acceptable version of this vanity story involves a stepmother in "Snow White".  
Though this woman never had the initial acceptance of the child that the natural mother often has - this scenario also comes up in the story of a fractured family home and families affected by divorce when the mother has to reenter a romantic playing field and this framing of the chase comes back into play.

This stuff often works out - but at the expense of the children involved.  Some pull out of it - some may not.
So again... I still have a hard time seeing why telling the truth would ever be a bad thing. 

"What to do?" -- well, you can't control anything about other individuals and their path in life.  The best option is to be sure that you're living your life in a thoughtful and careful way in regard to the impact you have on the people around you.

This article reminded me of this conversation.  For women ageism comes hand in hand with sexism.  Even if a woman is not prowling for a new romance, a woman stuck seeing life through the eyes of this narrative of objectification is seeking constant validation from outside themselves. 

Passing of the torch... it's inevitable, bodies get old.

"Many women in this age group define their sense of worth from other people's perceptions of them. If they don't see an appreciative glint in the eye of someone whose gaze lands on them, it's a reminder that older is not considered beautiful in our society, and that's very sad."

But recently while walking sandwiched between my 15- and 17-year-old daughters, I noticed men's eyes jumping from one girl to the other, completely passing over me." She admits heavily, "This sounds awful but it was really very upsetting."

"Those who were 'hot' back in the day have a much tougher time of it, worrying their looks are leaving them. If they don't have the gorgeous guy on their arm, there must be something wrong with them."

It doesn't take much to push "very upsetting" from a resignation of "I no longer have worth" to being angry that this is socially true in popular culture.  The challenge presented here is for the woman to either use that anger as a force to change - begin self validation and push aside pop culture to see her worthiness without needing "the approval of others"; grow old gracefully.  Or she can use this anger to lash out at others in order to win the rivalry - cling to the social stereotypes, lay blame outside of themselves and find another tactic.  The latter is when things get ugly.

The new study reveals how two types of pride are related to a person's good feelings about one social group or another to which they belong. But while authentic pride is linked with real confidence in your group, hubristic pride is a false arrogance that belies insecurities about one's group.

The research was presented last week at a meeting of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology in Sacramento.

"A lot of this has real-world implications," Tracy told LiveScience. "There are some kinds of collective pride where people get really angry and hostile and feel like 'it's not just that my group is great but my group is better.'"

She added, "You can think of it as the distinction between nationalism and patriotism, with nationalism being the sense of it's not just that I love my country, it's that my country is best."

When group members show signs of hubristic pride, such as making grandiose statements about their country, that could be a sign of underlying insecurity, the researchers said.

"When you hear groups starting to get into that type of rhetoric it may be because they're starting to realize they're in a losing position and that they need to do something to try to drum up respect, to drum up the kind of status that they feel they're lacking," Pickett said.

Next, the researchers hope to figure out whether or not the boasting and false pride works to make others perceive the group as having higher power and status.

I love how this study touches on a whole lot of things that have been coming up in conversation on the forums this past year...
patriotism/nationalism
why people lie the romance narrative and how different archetypes like the merchant may come into play as a coping mechanism for this...

etc. (maybe I can link some things up later)

I liked the way you tied that archetype in, DL.  It made me think about how there could be a vicious cycle in which insecurity leads to a false front and inability to be generous.  That kind of tit for tat exchange is based on a view of the world which sees others as untrustworthy and needs to protect the self.  So insecurity leads both to being a person others can't trust (false front) and to not trusting in others.  Conversely I think a culture which runs primarily on tit for tat exchanges is going to breed insecurity and failed connections of trust.

I have a recent experience which gave me a bit of insight about how to interrupt that negative feedback loop.  One thing that reminded me of this incident was what the study says above about boasting.  I suspected that someone was lying to me and presented evidence of my suspicions to the person.  Not only was there a lot of denial to me, but I later found out a lot of going to other people with not so much a boast, but declarations of innocence and complaints that these suspicions were raised.  When asked by others to talk about the situation in more detail, the person retreated. 

But none of this was breaking the cycle--when confronted with evidence or questions the person just dug in their heels and became more and more wedded to the false front or retreated into silence.  I wasn't thinking of this in terms of the tit for tat exchange exactly at the time, but I realize now that I was getting pulled into it.  Because the person had done something which I felt was untrustworthy, I was now looking for an exchange based on some notion of justice or fairness--prove to me you can be trusted by admitting what you've done.  I''ll exchange trust for confession.

But then eventually what I started doing instead which (though I don't want to paint too optimistic a picture) is proving more successful is to offer help in the area which was the source of the insecurity and lies.

Hope that made sense--Had to describe that somewhat abstractly.

(Was going to add this in as an edit, but I had replied already.)

Sometimes when I write things out it winds up looking more simple than the experience was so I wanted to add that in the case I was describing above I had the advantage of being able to offer help to this person while at the same time setting up some limits which would offer less opportunity to repeat the lying behavior (at least with me).  That's not always possible to do in such a direct way--I happen to be in a position of authority with this person so that makes it much simpler.  But that's also an element of interfering with the negative feedback loop in that instance.  In other words, I think in the case I was citing my continued call for a confession as part of the exchange was becoming part of the negative feedback.  That's not always the case and I wouldn't advocate never presenting evidence to someone.  But in this instance I was able to set up a situation in which I was less likely to get "burned" again and still help the person.  Sometimes though I think one has to choose between that kind of more direct help, and helping the person (in the case of lying) by limiting one's contact.  Unfortunately that could also mean that the person's insecurity isn't dealt with through direct exchange, but only that the false sense of security isn't being fed anymore by the belief that their behavior reaps a reward.

A good couple of posts there, Jaz... I think I follow you.

It does always come down to whether the person exhibiting these behaviors wants to change or not.   Sometimes even being an authority figure doesn't have a real effect on the situation, especially if the point of weakness in character is about being rebellious for the sake of being a rebel.  (I'm really surprised actually at how many people find the rebel archetype as the only way for real change to happen.)   My only point that there are some people who just won't be helped because they don't want it.  Often those are the cases where a comfortable justification and negative support system keep a person in kind of a holding pattern maturity-wise.

It's something I grieve about on a daily basis because I am a person who by nature feels inclined to help when I can and that's something I find hard to let go of.  In that way, I see that limiting contact with a person who does not want that kind of help would help preserve my feelings about this to some extent.  However on some deeper level I understand that my inability to help someone is not what defines me and so whatever this person chooses has no effect on who I am.  I am compassionate, but not to the detriment of my self identity.  This depersonalization of another's choice in regard to the help I offer provides a kind of isolation within the situation itself which works equally well... and something I hope to develop as I am able.

That's an excellent point (and description) about finding a kind of isolation in the situation itself.  I have a friend in a helping profession who could benefit from that description I think as she tends to feel a real sense of failure when someone she's working with goes back to some kind of self-destructive behavior.

What I was trying to get at about limiting contact though--not sure if this was clear or not--but I started worrying after writing the initial post that I was encouraging people to interrupt the negative feedback loop by helping people like the person I was writing about, but wasn't clarifying that a much more extreme version of lying could indicate someone whom one should have limited contact with.  I came back with that second post after remembering the stuff that was going on in the news with the Craig's list guy if that helps to explain where the idea of wanting to remind people that sometimes one has to limit contact was coming from.

I think that archetype might have to do with the way in which our society blames the person who trusts the liar/manipulator.  There have been several stories related to that in the paper recently.  An editorial yesterday was about the way in which the media is treating Philip Markoff's fiance.  Markoff is the man recently arrested in what's being referred to as the "Craig's list murders."  The editorial begins by reminding people of several similar cases in which someone appeared to be a clean-cut "nice-guy."  As the writers note---this is really about the perpetrator, not the people who believe in him/her:

"If Markoff proves to be the killer, then he is also an all-American sociopath, a manipulative and crafty assailant who also happens to be a master at impression management."

Yet much of the coverage of the case has been about how his fiance should have known this about him, and that it is her failure--her gullibility--which is somehow to blame for his not being caught in time.

This also reminds me of a point made in the article about "sexting" which I just linked on the Feminism thread.  In that article, Ellen Goodman relates an incident in which a young woman who posed in the nude for her boyfriend and later had her trust violated when he publicized the photos, was blamed by others--particularly other women--for having posed in the first place.  The young woman later committed suicide.

In this culture to exchange trust with someone who violates that trust is taken as a sign of not only being a bad deal-maker but also having failed to police the other person.  The failed exchange means one has endangered others as well, failed to be smart enough to see through a con-artist and thus failed to set in motion the necessary security measures.  There's also a strong gender component in both of these instances (and also ties in to the description of the Officer and a Gentleman plot DL discussed above).  Women's emotiveness is supposed to curb/control immoral actions on the part of men--according to the Victorian "Angel in the House" model of gender roles.  So women who not only fail to do so, but fail even to see the untrustworthy behavior of their partners, are doubly to blame.

Believing in Markoff 

Yes, this is something that drives me bonkers about the news in general.

*sigh*

Well in the context of what I was writing about, what's wrong is that it's been sold to women as what they get instead of--the right to vote, to own property, to sign contracts, to have custody of their children, to be free from physical/sexual abuse by spouses, or in the workplace, or on the streets, the right to their own bodies, the right to work--I could go on, but you get the picture. In other words--no need for real social or political power as long as a man worships you.

But I don't think that's what you're really asking about, Anon. In the context of a personal relationship what's wrong with it? In my experience, it's scary, not intoxicating or thrilling--though I admit that's it's really only happened to me once that I know of. Scary because when someone overidealizes (worships)--someday reality comes creeping in and then the worshipper can react quite badly to the idea that the object of adoration is not what (s)he thought it was. A long drop off that pedestal. So I basically see that kind of worship as really control in disguise--fit my pretty beautiful picture of you, or else.

Now I realize that for many it is just as you describe--intoxicating and thrilling. But I see a problem there as well. It's all about the feeling created in the person being worshipped (or in the one doing the worshipping)--not about an exchange between them. A feeling like taking drugs or drinking (intoxicating) or like risky behavior (thrilling). So it's very centered on the feelings produced in the individual people--not about a real relationship of bonding. Again, quite a distance between the pedestal and the person on the ground.

I agree with Jaz and The GC

You sacrifice a realistic self esteem for narcissism
To be worshipped -- and that feeling of being intoxicated because you're feeling worshipped requires you to first believe that you are worthy of worship.  This point of view requires that you suspend disbelief when another person or situation challenges the concept that you are the object of worship or that you deserve it more than anyone else - sometimes even your partner.  So a choice is presented here to face reality (that no one is more or less worthy of worship than anyone else) or to lie.  It doesn't matter if it's self deception, deceiving others or both - clinging to this notion is play acting at its best.

More often than not this intoxicating feeling has become an addiction to help yourself feel better, and ironically it even replaces a healthy self esteem.  So at that point to keep the sense of entitlement to this intoxicating feeling - you lie... and then justify that lie to yourself to feel better about lying.  You lose your real self and all honest truth to the desire to be validated.  It's wholly narcissistic. 

The success of the relationship is taken out of your control as your value/self worth is determined by others
The problem is that at this point you've set up a situation where you are everyone else's responsibility but your own.  When things go bad the only resource (outside of facing reality and losing your sense of entitlement) is to blame other people for the things that challenge your point of view because you refuse to accept reality or responsibility for yourself. 

When the person you are with can no longer "intoxicate" you - you'll need to search for your next fix, lest you start to doubt yourself.  This game playing along with desperation to maintain a positive self esteem actually leaves the door open to all manner of manipulation by other people.  Suitors learn how to play your game and they play you, until they get what they want out of you or get bored with the childish antics.

If there is a challenger to the suitor you desire - you become their rival and expect your lover to respect the ranking of putting you first (not all of them will).  Even fending off your rivals might give you a thrill because you reason that somehow your "victory" proves that you are better than them and so worthy of the worship you want to claim.  But in all this you start to lose touch with reality.  An unstable person might even move from obsessiveness to something worse or even criminal.

Games are hard to maintain
But even if you're lucky and find someone who "intoxicates you" and they're not playing you - they might just stick around long enough for you to resent having to play a game in order to garner their affection.  People change, you will change - it's a healthy progression of things.  But when a person has fallen in love with a personna and not really the person underneath the act... well, it doesn't easily allow for that healthy change to happen.  You'll begin to feel stifled and resentful (and of course blame it all on them for failing you somehow).

Either way the problem with this approach is that you'll never really truly feel like you're loved because you're always pretending.  Even if you somehow believe that a person has fallen in love with the person you are "underneath it all" - you'll never really know for certain because you're always performing.  That can be unnerving and simply eat away at you, despite how much you think your value has been built up.  All that needs to happen is to present a stressful situation/challenge to your point of view and all of the sudden you find yourself demanding/needing more "proofs" from your lover to show that their love is everything they say it is.  Suspicion and jealousy ensue... It's a constant shuffle to rewrite the script in order to make the details fit. 

Even if your lover is ok with the ranking game and hierarchy you'd like them to have with you at the top - having another person be responsible for the burden of maintaining and keeping your own self esteem as well as theirs - is a burden too great to ask anyone.  Even if your lover wanted to stay and be there for you; eventually they will be forced to leave in some fashion in order to preserve the person that you probably feel in love with (if you truly do love them).  Simply having you for a prize is not enough to validate them in all the areas that they need to be fufilled.

These usually aren't the types of relationships that really last.  I guess if you're not interested in a lasting relationship, and you have some sort of coping mechanism that keeps you from flying off the deep end... there's nothing "wrong" with this approach.  I just don't know why anybody would choose it over say - actual love which in my observation is more like a cooperation than idolization.

But why change? 

You seem to be getting just the type of attention you were looking for.

Oh, but if you insist... Here -- maybe if you buy this kit Pressman might give you the secret they discovered!

Now why on God's green earth would I want THAT nonsense? a HEAD Shrinking kit from a witch dr?

WHOA! That was... creepy... no way jose! uh uh... nope...

I am so relieved that you changed your mind. 
A shrunken head for you would sure PAINT the wrong picture, girl.
                                                       Ladies who master the ART of manipulation deserve to be worshipped fo sho.
                                   I think that's where you and I can BOND                         

I know you're all secretive and stuff about your identity and all, like a spy -- a virtual 007, but I think you and I can be in cahoots.
My world is going to be all right as long as you keep using your sweet, sweet powers of persuasion.

Afterall - I DO know what it's like to be awesome.
(How's that for DRAMA.  )

TO-TUH-LEE!!!

LOVE IT!!! LOVE IT!!! LOVE IT!!! ;)

(That was very good drama, AgentXXX... well done!)

My own cheerleading squad.  Thank you BG!