Make us your home page

Needing to force honesty is telling in its own way

Adapted from a recent online discussion.

Q: A column of yours on breakups ( brought up some really good points — the big one being, if you're dissatisfied with a relationship, don't fake it because you don't want to hurt the other person's feelings.

I was recently on the receiving end of this, despite my multiple attempts at and encouragement of honest conversations no matter what the truth was.

Because my ex didn't want to lose me as a girlfriend — he enjoyed the perks — he didn't say anything. When he was done, he then revealed the truth. Trust me, he was a superb actor for years. I had no idea he didn't like me at all.

Now that I'm in a new relationship, how do I spot this dishonesty? The new guy is great and telling me how happy he is, but so did the ex.

Not Getting Burned Again

Carolyn: Your ex enjoyed the perks, but did he create any for you to enjoy, besides words?

Burned again: Yeah, sure he did. The companionship and conversation were big ones. It's just that they all ended up being insincere — like the entire relationship. They had to be, since he said he never loved me. He was just filling a role he thought he was supposed to, complete with gestures. So, yeah, that's why I'm curious to know the difference.

Carolyn: Maybe so, but you did say this: "despite my multiple attempts at and encouragement of honest conversations." That sounds to me as if you were looking for reassurance that he loved you, and people don't do that unless they sense on some level that the love isn't there.

If there's anything to this, then the first thing you can do is become attuned to your insecurities, to a need for affirmation. When it's there, intimacy usually isn't, because intimacy is its own proof.

I'm also skeptical of the "he said he never loved me." That may be so — is this time to mention psychopaths, who have no empathy but happily absorb the attention of people they charm into loving them? — but it's also possible he changed his story for his own reasons.

We are all revisionist historians to some degree, and minimizing (or exaggerating) past feelings is a specialty. Breakups are less of a fuss if you can devalue or vilify the ex, and if it's fuss you want, then the person you had doubts about three weeks ago can quickly become the One Who Got Away.

I don't think it's a conscious choice so much as a reflection of our present emotional needs. Still, I'm continually amazed at how many people look back on past relationships, marriages even, and refuse to offer up anything nice about the ex or anything positive about their past feelings. All I can think is, there was love once. Or even just a few laughs here and there.

For various reasons, though — often to help people feel justified in their current dislike or hostile actions — those are so often cut out, painted over, rationalized away.

So at least consider the possibility he did this with you.

And, again, watch for your own sense of comfort and trust. If you're pushing in vain for "honest conversations," then the truth is already out.

It's best to distance yourself from a biased friend

Q: What should I say when a friend says, "I wish I could move out of my neighborhood because there are so many (members of a certain race)?"


A: "Seeya."

Certainly people are free to dislike the way a neighborhood is changing, and political correctness doesn't get to decide whether you like, for example, a vibrant, late-night street scene, or weekdays so quiet that the only signs of life are high-end kitchen contractors.

But to associate these shades of culture with shades of skin color is so boneheaded at best, racist at worst, and tone-deaf either way, that I think you have a duty to say, "Did you really just say what I think you just said?" or, of course, the terse and versatile, "Wow."

Needing to force honesty is telling in its own way 05/01/13 [Last modified: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:03pm]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Washington Post Writers Group.

Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours