Do You Tell Other's Secrets to Your Spouse?

[Baelor]

did you read my last post? I tried to clarify how the negligence could be on either side, or on neither side. My above post was written specifically with those for whom no negligence was invloved in mind, which is why I said that in such a case neither party is guilty nor does one party have any right to feel offended at the others actions.

I did read your post. Did you read mine? I reject the notion that intent is the only legitimate factor in valid feelings of offense and I explained why.

 

[thewanderer]

I did read your post. Did you read mine? I reject the notion that intent is the only legitimate factor in valid feelings of offense and I explained why.

Yes, I absolutely read your post, as I clarified even further in my (now) last post sometimes misunderstandings happen, without having happened because of negligence on the part of anyone involved. That is the situation I am talking about. Does that make more sense of what I have been saying?

 

[Baelor]

Yes, I absolutely read your post, as I clarified even further in my (now) last post sometimes misunderstandings happen, without having happened because of negligence on the part of anyone involved. That is the situation I am talking about. Does that make more sense of what I have been saying?

Yes, but negligence is still present because it would have required no effort to ask the person whether sharing with a spouse were permitted. Intent is irrelevant. The language was clear; any figurative interpretation must be verified; the alternative is simply a negligent attitude.

In other words, I should not have to guess every single interpretation that my listener may have of the very simple words “tell no one.” Are spouses excepted? Family members? Other friends? Strangers on the street? Should I list every single person on the face of the planet to remove all question, even though my original statement was perfectly precise?

The situation is absurd. Intent should factor in but is not the end-all-be-all. A baby-sitter who did not mean to set the house on fire but did anyway is still responsible if it was through her negligence.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, but negligence is still present because it would have required no effort to ask the person whether sharing with a spouse were permitted. Intent is irrelevant. The language was clear; any figurative interpretation must be verified; the alternative is simply a negligent attitude.

In other words, I should not have to guess every single interpretation that my listener may have of the very simple words “tell no one.” Are spouses excepted? Family members? Other friends? Strangers on the street? Should I list every single person on the face of the planet to remove all question, even though my original statement was perfectly precise?

The situation is absurd. Intent should factor in but is not the end-all-be-all. A baby-sitter who did not mean to set the house on fire but did anyway is still responsible if it was through her negligence.

I absolutely know for a fact that negligence is not always involved, largely because communication just is not about the literal words used, but the actual meaning that is being conveyed. You are focussing on the words used, I am focusing on the meaning being conveyed. I am not talking about intent, although that is another important factor. We will just have to agree to disagree I am afraid.

 

[Baelor]

I absolutely know for a fact that negligence is not always involved, largely because communication just is not about the literal words used, but the actual meaning that is being conveyed. You are focussing on the words used, I am focusing on the meaning being conveyed. I am not talking about intent, although that is another important factor. We will just have to agree to disagree I am afraid.

We will. Because I do not believe that meaning can be determined from anything other than the words in this case, unless you are talking about some expression of the face or a particular body movement that indicates, “Oh, do not interpret that statement literally. Of course, your spouse is an exception!” If you know such a detailed language of non-verbal “meaning,” let me know so I can add it to the list of ones I need to learn.

 

[Debora123]

IMHO, neither stand is healthy. Feeling the need to share everything shows a lack of trust in a marriage as does keeping everything a secret. A balanced marriage should involve sharing but it should also be strong enough to bear the weight of some secretiveness. Perhaps those that feel the need to share everything “as one” are not as close as they think.:twocents:

Lol, who are you, the universal ordained marriage counselor?

We keep no secrets and there’s nothing wrong with our marriage. Thanks.

 

[Debora123]

It would be easy for me to come on here and say that people who don’t share don’t have trust, aren’t open, and could work on their communication. But I haven’t because even though they are doing things in a way I wouldn’t want to I have no basis for those assumptions.

Precisely.

 

[Debora123]

You and your fiance are not married. You are not One. You are not One Flesh.

If being engaged gives you the right to tell someone’s deepest secrets, where does this end? Can I tell my roommate something told to me in confidence? Can I tell my co-workers? What about my dearest friend?

I can see how people might assume that a married couple will share secrets, but that’s because they are, well, married. United. One.

Engaged? Nope. You are not married, and ought not enjoy the benefits of being married. Until you are.

I too started sharing things with my husband while we were engaged. We were together a long time before getting married. Our friends always knew how close we were and how open we were with each other.

 

[thewanderer]

We will. Because I do not believe that meaning can be determined from anything other than the words in this case, unless you are talking about some expression of the face or a particular body movement that indicates, “Oh, do not interpret that statement literally. Of course, your spouse is an exception!” If you know such a detailed language of non-verbal “meaning,” let me know so I can add it to the list of ones I need to learn.

The point is that people often use a phrase which literally means one thing, to express something completely different. If they have no reason to believe that they will be misunderstood, or that anybody would ever understand that phrase as anything other than what they mean by it then they are not being negligent by failing to insure that the other person knows that they don’t really mean the literal words. Take the phrase “when pigs fly” for instance. It is reasonable for me to assume that when I use this phrase people understand that I mean to imply that it is never going to happen. If a miscommunication ever arises because someone thinks that I mean this literally, and some confusion or hurt is caused because of this, its not due to any negligence on my part. It is not negligent of me to fail to point out that when I use the phrase “when pigs fly” I don’t really mean that this thing will actually happen on the day that pigs evolve into winged flying creatures. Similarly, someone is not neccessarily being negligent by failing to explain that when they say they won’t tell anybody they of course mean anyone besides their husband. Just as the word “chips” or “biscuits” means a different thing in Ireland than it does in America doesn’t mean that every time an Irish person uses the word Chips he is being negligent when he fails to explain that he means chips as it is meant in Ireland etc. The combination of the sounds made means different things to different people, and if you have no reason to think that it would mean anything other than what you understand it to mean, or that it would be understood as anything other than what you mean it to be, it is not negligent to fail to explain what exactly you mean by that phrase. I’m sorry, but thats just the way that language works, phrases take on meanings of their own that are completely different than their literal meaning and it is not negligent to fail to explain to each new person what the phrase actually means if you have never been given any reason to think that anybody would ever understand it differently.

 

[Debora123]

I have to ask… have you been following this conversation where people (with one possible exception) have not been advocating telling things to their husband that they have promised to keep a secret from him? If your friend gives you permission to tell your spouse how in the world is it wrong to tell your spouse? Its not. So please stop insinuating that people in general on this thread are advocating something immoral. If you have a problem with a particular poster then please respond to that particular poster, but by posting something in general you make it appear as though you believe it is the general consensus of people advocating sharing confidential information with their spouses to do so against the will of the person sharing this information with them. That is not at all the general consensus here.

I don’t think even BEL said this (referring to the bolded). But rather, she just makes the presumption that their friends know she may share everything with her fiance… as my friends know I do.

 

[Debora123]

I don’t understand where people are getting the idea that to say one share everything with their spouse means one tells them every detail about every conversation they have with every friend or loved one they talk to every single day. Its not what is meant by “sharing everything”, but that there is nothing that can not be talked about if the need or topic comes up in a conversation with a spouse. It means I’m not going to say to my husband if he asks specifically about a friend or situation, sorry honey I’ve got to keep secrets from you. It doesn’t mean we’re practically foaming at the mouths to disclose all the details about our friends lives as soon as he opens his mouth to start a conversation. It just means for me at least, I don’t want to say I have to keep a secret from him.

Precisely. And others here have explained this as well, though it seems some are having a difficult time grasping the concept for some reason.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t think even BEL said this (referring to the bolded). But rather, she just makes the presumption that their friends know she may share everything with her fiance… as my friends know I do.

Yeah, thats kind of how I interpreted her post as well, but I figured since someone had already called me out for making a universal statement I had better cover my bases by allowing for the possiblity that BEL meant otherwise, even though I really don’t think she did.

 

[Debora123]

If it wasn’t the law, then you wouldn’t?

That is correct.

Would you assume, as you do in other matters, that the patient’s medical condition(s) are to be shared with your husband? Would you make this expressly clear in advance of rendering your services? I believe you would be under an obligation to do so.

If the law didn’t forbid spouses from disclosing this sort of info to each other, and doctor’s and lawyer’s spouses were required to sign some sort of confidentiality agreement, then yes.

All I have stated is that to lie or intentionally mislead someone is sinful. If you’re not doing that then our disagreement is one of personal taste.

Well I’m not advocating lies or any sort of misleading. So I’m not sure why you keep arguing with my posts.

By the way, it is a matter of great bemusement to me, this idea that, as Catholics, no one can possibly disagree with the behavior of another Catholic on ethical grounds unless the Church has specifically and unequivocally condemned that behavior. There are all sorts of issues in gray areas, so of course there are going to be differences of opinion. As long as one does not falsely claim the Church’s backing for a particular position, then they aren’t necessarily doing anything wrong in expressing strong moral reservations about an act.

Agreed.

 

[Debora123]

Are the sharers, save one, really claiming that they would explicitly agree to not tell anyone and then turn around and tell their spouses?** I was under the impression if explicitly asked, most of the sharers would be up front and honest about the whole spouse thing. ** Am I wrong?

ALL of us would. Including BEL. What he quoted from her post was taken out of context.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Yeah, thats kind of how I interpreted her post as well, but I figured since someone had already called me out for making a universal statement I had better cover my bases by allowing for the possiblity that BEL meant otherwise, even though I really don’t think she did.

I see something that I said being referred to a lot, so I would like to clarify.

It is true that if someone told me “don’t tell anyone” I would probably pass that information on to my fiance if a related subject came up or if I just felt the need to talk about it.

If they said “Don’t tell anyone, not even ‘Frank’” (His name is not Frank) I would probably give them an odd look and say that I don’t feel comfortable being told something that I can’t confide in him about, and that I think it’s wrong to ask me to.

I would never agree to not tell ‘Frank’ and then do so anyway. I would agree to not tell ‘anyone’ and then tell Frank, because like I said, up until 5 minutes before I created this thread it never occurred to me that anyone would expect someone to keep something from their spouse. I know that I certainly wouldn’t.

On another note, this doesn’t come up much. I haven’t heard “don’t tell anyone but…” since high school. Now most people just have intimate, private, or deep conversations on the assumption that we are all old enough and mature enough to keep it to ourselves based on the subject matter or emotions involved. Still, if I know it’s a reasonable assumption that he’ll eventually know too.

Oh, and finally, this is the longest I’ve ever seen a thread go on CAF without devolving into snarkiness, unkindness, and rudeness. Thanks to everyone for being respectful even with the people they disagree with, it makes the conversation more fun and interesting for everyone.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

ALL of us would. Including BEL. What he quoted from her post was taken out of context.

I would totally be upfront about telling him everything. BUT, like I said, I have never made it a disclaimer because I thought everyone assumed that things were typically shared with spouses.

If someone asked him if I mentioned anything, I would expect him to keep our conversation private, and he would. He would either lie, give them an odd look and walk away, or tell them to talk to me. But once again, that has never come up.

 

[Debora123]

Yeah, thats kind of how I interpreted her post as well, but I figured since someone had already called me out for making a universal statement I had better cover my bases by allowing for the possiblity that BEL meant otherwise, even though I really don’t think she did.

Understandable.

 

[shipwrkd]

Lol, who are you, the universal ordained marriage counselor?

We keep no secrets and there’s nothing wrong with our marriage. Thanks.

Oooh, kinda touchy. Did you fail to see the acronym IMHO Nope, not universal, not ordained and not a counselor. Just a guy that’s been around the block a few times. I’m glad there is nothing wrong with your marriage, Your welcome.

From the OP

I just wondered what the thoughts on it were because it seems like an interesting question

.
Thoughts were asked for and I gave mine. If your’s differ, that’s OK but I must say that the guys on the emotional gun control threads are much more charitable then some are here. Sorry if I came across as insinuating anything, if you go back through my posts, you’d see that I feel it up to the individual couple…as long as their friends know the rules they’re playing by.

I guess I should add that I am assuming that the mistake is an honest mistake on both parts.** If the person wanting the information hidden is aware that the person they are sharing it with normally assumes that anything told them will be shared with their husband unless they specifically agree to keep it a secret from their husband (rather than just the world at large) then the responsibility for the misunderstanding rests more** on this person telling the secret. If the person hearing the secret is aware that for **some **people, when they say “don’t tell anyone” they mean to include a persons spouse then the responsiblity for the miscommunication lies more with them. But if neither is **aware **of these facts then it is simply an honest mistake and neither party is guilty.

And even if neither party is guilty, one party may get hurt.
This sounds like the disclaimer after a newly introduced medicine.

 

[Baelor]

The point is that people often use a phrase which literally means one thing, to express something completely different.

I agree, but here the “completely different” meaning would be in complete contradiction to the actual statement. There is a difference between “Wait a minute” when one means “wait 47 seconds” and “tell no one” when one means “tell people.”

In one case, the expression is merely an exaggeration. In the other, it specifies an absolute state that cannot involve any exceptions. Those are very different.

Similarly, someone is not neccessarily being negligent by failing to explain that when they say they won’t tell anybody they of course mean anyone besides their husband.

It is inconsiderate to assume that someone means something other than that without clarifying. “Tell no one” means “tell no one.” You can attempt to interpret it however you want, but it still means what it means at face value. In this case, it is negligent because someone could actually care about who knows, which should be obvious given the previous request for silence.

The combination of the sounds made means different things to different people, and if you have no reason to think that it would mean anything other than what you understand it to mean, or that it would be understood as anything other than what you mean it to be, it is not negligent to fail to explain what exactly you mean by that phrase.

Again, I am not denying the possibility of contextual inflections. If some phrase means something special to a group of persons, fine. They know what it means.

And yet it would be ridiculous to deny that the interpretation of “tell no one” as…“tell no one” is privileged over the interpretation of “tell no one” as “you can tell people.”

I am saying that there is a natural default that needs to be acknowledged; a rejection of it constitutes negligence and lack of consideration.

 

[Debora123]

I see something that I said being referred to a lot, so I would like to clarify.

It is true that if someone told me “don’t tell anyone” I would probably pass that information on to my fiance if a related subject came up or if I just felt the need to talk about it.

If they said “Don’t tell anyone, not even ‘Frank’” (His name is not Frank) I would probably give them an odd look and say that I don’t feel comfortable being told something that I can’t confide in him about, and that I think it’s wrong to ask me to.
**
I would never agree to not tell ‘Frank’ and then do so anyway. I would agree to not tell ‘anyone’ and then tell Frank, because like I said, up until 5 minutes before I created this thread it never occurred to me that anyone would expect someone to keep something from their spouse. I know that I certainly wouldn’t. **

On another note, this doesn’t come up much. I haven’t heard “don’t tell anyone but…” since high school. Now most people just have intimate, private, or deep conversations on the assumption that we are all old enough and mature enough to keep it to ourselves based on the subject matter or emotions involved. Still, if I know it’s a reasonable assumption that he’ll eventually know too.

Oh, and finally, this is the longest I’ve ever seen a thread go on CAF without devolving into snarkiness, unkindness, and rudeness. Thanks to everyone for being respectful even with the people they disagree with, it makes the conversation more fun and interesting for everyone.

Me and you both.