Relationship Boundaries: Who's more accountable?

[Lost_Wanderer]

Nothing makes me more worried about somebody’s trustworthiness than hearing them say, “Don’t you trust me?” or “You can trust me!” especially when they are new acquaintances. People who can be trusted don’t usually talk like that.

Actually, they do. The only fair point you made was these aren’t the ‘new acquaintance’ type. You might have had a different take on a “Don’t you trust me?” based on your own culture and experience.

But as for mine, that’s not a sign of being untrustworthy. It was a wake-up call to just how hostile and defensive I was to everyone.

 

[Xantippe]

You’re not addressing the point. The point is that cooperation requires a structure. I ask again: What good are rules you make when you’re not following them and, worse, requiring everyone else to do the job!

I mean, you do realize that when creating rules, you are exercising the authority that’s supposed to enforce people’s compliance? Person A makes all the laws and dictates what to do. But then, who dictates Person A? :ehh:

Not at all.

Person A and Person B share common values. Therefore, because of their shared values, it is possible and easy for them to jointly agree on shared standards and boundaries.

The ability to agree is what makes the relationship possible at all. Without the shared values, there’s no relationship that’s worth speaking of.

(It’s trickier once you have a marriage and therefore a permanent relationship, where the relationship continues to exist even without shared values and standards, but what I’ve described works very well for the premarital stage of a romantic relationship or for friendship.)

 

[St_Francis]

OK, I don’t know what this issue evolved out of, but Lost Wanderer sems to be talking about a different situation (group friendship vs one-on-one romantic) in a different culture than some of the other posters.

Lost, maybe if you gave a made-up example of what you are talking about, we would have a better idea of what you mean, because I am clueless about what sort of thing you are asking.

 

[Xantippe]

OK, I don’t know what this issue evolved out of, but Lost Wanderer sems to be talking about a different situation (group friendship vs one-on-one romantic) in a different culture than some of the other posters.

Lost, maybe if you gave a made-up example of what you are talking about, we would have a better idea of what you mean, because I am clueless about what sort of thing you are asking.

Good idea!

 

[Xantippe]

At the beginning of a romantic relationship, it can be helpful to think of women as cats.

If you want to have a cat sit on your lap and purr, you can’t just grab a strange cat and set it on your lap and expect it to purr. There are preliminaries to be observed. Kitties don’t appreciated being grabbed by people they don’t trust and you can’t make a cat be affectionate if it doesn’t want to be affectionate. The sitting on your lap and purring flows out of the comfort and the trust that the cat has for you–it can’t be simply expected or forced.

Likewise, it often happens that the more one chases after a cat, the more uncomfortable and unwilling to relate to you it becomes. If you want to befriend a cat, you have to respect its space. If it wants to be close to you, it will come close to you. If you flat out chase, the cat will run away. (The analogy is a little too strong here as women are accepting of some degree of being chased, but it is important to observe that if she isn’t chasing back at least a little, she doesn’t like you and you are probably making her uncomfortable. And yes, there are a million ways for women to chase back.)

(I thought of the cat analogy when my sister was telling about her teenage son who has a crush on a girl and had been pouring out lots of gooey sentiment to her, without waiting for a little reciprocity.)

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s an example of a guy violating the cat principle:

uwimprint.ca/article/4660-two-incidents-involving-suspicious-persons-on

 

[Xantippe]

Not to overpost, but I think this is a very helpful post on the problem of geek social fallacies:

plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

In fact, if you google “geek social fallacies” there’s a lot of animated discussion of the problem.

Lost Wanderer, I think you may have some problems with GSF #4 ("Friendship is Transitive). It looks like you may unconsciously believe that because A is comfortable with physical contact from B and B is your friend, you feel that you, too, are automatically entitled to physical contact with A. In practice, friendship is not transitive, so that if you would like A to be comfortable with physical contact from you, then you need to develop your own independent relationship with A (rather than just being friends of friends).

It’s a little weird to say that, though, because while being physically comfortable around friends is normal, that’s not the goal of friendship, but a logical outgrowth of it.

As always, I recommend C.S. Lewis’s The Four Loves for a helpful analysis of the relationships between affection, friendship, erotic love and charity/divine love.

 

[EasterJoy]

But that’s exactly the point. In fact, what if your example extended to more than just one party? Say you’re the only person being singled out to uphold a particularly rigid set of boundaries by someone else. Every other person is free to violate them. You both share the same friends who are calling the other person to stop being so biased. Why then should this picture be regarded as some hapless victim being pressured by the peers?

| know someone’s going to say, “Depends on the boundaries or the morals.” It’s just that it is as you said: There are people who only hold a few hapless individuals to certain boundaries while letting everyone else scot free for just the pettiest reasons!

Thus, one can conclude that the person creating said boundaries should be tasked with maintaining the core responsibility where everyone else’ compliance will rest upon.

I am talking about the person with the boundaries and the person who does not have those boundaries but wants a relationship in which those boundaries come up.

 

[EasterJoy]

It is the guy, always. And if it isn’t, then it isn’t working.

No, it is the person with the boundaries, first, and those they choose to associate with, second. If you aren’t keeping your boundaries AND choosing friends who help you to keep them, that’s your problem. You should not expect your loved ones to put more effort into your moral life than you do.

 

[Xantippe]

No, it is the person with the boundaries, first, and those they choose to associate with, second. If you aren’t keeping your boundaries AND choosing friends who help you to keep them, that’s your problem. You should not expect your loved ones to put more effort into your moral life than you do.

At the same time, if somebody says, “I don’t want to hug you” or “I don’t want you to touch me” or “I don’t want you to put your arms around my shoulders” we ought to respect that, even if we see them doing all of those things with other people.

If we don’t listen and hug them or touch them familiarly and they stop objecting, it may simply be that they are exhausted by us and tired of putting up a fight, especially (in the case of Lost Wanderer) of a peer group that is apparently insisting that they are all one big happy family, and it’s somehow hypocritical not to be equally physically affectionate with everybody.

 

[EasterJoy]

There is just one slight flaw I see in this scenario. Most often it presupposes that the other party is charged with always wanting to violate.

This comes at the expense of people who are only holding up accountability because it’s still seen as quasi-adversarial. I’m not sure about you but I’ve personally encountered a fair number of people who take offense every time someone raises an inconsistency with their supposed ‘boundaries’. People mutter behind their backs. Others are confused by it. It creates a lot of tension under the table.

The gatekeeper still has a central role as being the example. It doesn’t matter if it’s the guy or the girl. Those who comply are only as good as the example acting as their rally point.

You’re describing the cost of dealing with people who play games. Yes, sometimes you are stuck with putting up with people who will only offer you unfair social contracts, sometimes even unfair to a humiliating degree, or doing without.

You are not going to argue self-centered people out of their self-centeredness. You are not going to educate people with irrational expectations out of their irrationality. If they don’t wake up when you first point out the inequity of what they are asking, don’t try to persuade them by rational argument. You cannot teach a pig to sing. You just frustrate yourself and annoy the pig. And you know, the pig does not care that it will never learn to sing if it lets you out of its life, either.

The main thing is that you hold yourself to fair standards with your friends and that you expect yourself to be more generous than strict point-keeping will ever allow. Why? Even from a secular view, everyone scores a bit more in their own favor than otherwise, with (as C.S. Lewis put it), “with no more dishonesty than comes naturally to a human.” If you’re going to be a Christian, expect yourself to be a lot more generous than that, but that much generosity is necessary for simple good will to prevail.

With regards to finding a mate, though, the advice to be “equally yoked” is not fundamentalist bigotry. As you can see, the way will be far easier if you find a mate whose boundaries are pretty close to your own and definitely within what you consider a reasonable range. Do not yoke yourself to someone who is pulling in a different direction, who gives cues that you always read wrong, whom you feel says one thing and does another, and so on. Do both others and yourself a favor, and find someone with whom you have a meeting of the minds, someone who challenges you mainly in the direction you want to go. Let others do the same. It is not being judgmental or elitist. It is a matter of finding a good fit that will make the journey a pleasure for everyone doing the work of making it go. Life is hard enough with well-chosen companions. You don’t need all that many, and they are well worth the search.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Person A and Person B share common values. Therefore, because of their shared values, it is possible and easy for them to jointly agree on shared standards and boundaries.

The ability to agree is what makes the relationship possible at all. Without the shared values, there’s no relationship that’s worth speaking of.

This sounds good on paper but the reality is that you’re not always surrounded by people with common values (or at least enough of them to stick). Whether it’s the Christian woman stuck in Saudi or a pious accountant working in a not-so-pious advertising company, someone still has to create the rules.

Which brings us back to the question: Who is more responsible? The one who make them or the one they charge with following them?

Because regardless of circumstances, social forces will conspire you to either set up the boundaries or else others will do it for you (in worst cases, without your consent).

OK, I don’t know what this issue evolved out of, but Lost Wanderer sems to be talking about a different situation (group friendship vs one-on-one romantic) in a different culture than some of the other posters.

I agree with the culture but don’t agree that this is limited so much to either regular friendships or romantic ones. Because in either case, someone somewhere ends up making rules but then presses the other parties to follow even though they fail to do it more times than they do!

 

[Xantippe]

This sounds good on paper but the reality is that you’re not always surrounded by people with common values (or at least enough of them to stick). Whether it’s the Christian woman stuck in Saudi or a pious accountant working in a not-so-pious advertising company, someone still has to create the rules.

**Well, in that case I think we have to split relationships into at least two categories. I guess I was initially confused because I was assuming that we were talking about a dating relationship rather than all relationships (dating, friendship, family, classmates, colleagues, business associates, etc.) globally.

1. In a functional dating relationship or a real friendship, there is real intimacy and the two people come up with explicit shared terms for their relationship that they each endeavor to follow to the best of their ability. (One such might be, "If I’m running more than 5 minutes late, I will text and say that I’m late. Or maybe, “If you take me out to dinner, I’ll take you out next time or fix you dinner.”) Without the ability to explicitly negotiate terms agreeable to both parties, there is no intimacy worthy of the name and the friends or lovers need to move on.**

**2. However, as you point out, there are many relationships without that degree of intimacy or communication. But, in that case, we generally extend people that we are not intimate with an extra layer of civility and formality. If a person we don’t have a type #1 relationship says, “I don’t want to hug you” or (more likely) dodges a hug or suggests by body language that they don’t want a hug, then we don’t hug them and we also don’t pressure them or guilt them. When they say they don’t want a ride or don’t want A or B or C, we respect their “nos,” even if we don’t understand the logical organizing principle behind their yeses and nos. We just take Type 2s at face value and have a pleasant but not intimate relationship with them. **

**We can’t force a Type 2 relationship person into being a Type 1 relationship person, because a Type 1 relationship requires a high degree of intimacy, communication and trust and the average person will have a relatively small number of Type 1 friends (some may not have any, in fact).

Also, as Dark Light would probably agree, the way we demonstrate our fitness for Type 1 is by doing a good job executing Type 2 etiquette. **

Which brings us back to the question: Who is more responsible? The one who make them or the one they charge with following them?

Because regardless of circumstances, social forces will conspire you to either set up the boundaries or else others will do it for you (in worst cases, without your consent).

**There are social rules of the road, and when we aren’t dealing with intimates, it’s safest and most prudent and most considerate to follow the societal rules (as long as they aren’t immoral). For instance, the Christian woman in Saudi Arabia might dress according to local norms, but she might also go to an illegal home church and possess illegal Christian paraphernalia. **

I agree with the culture but don’t agree that this is limited so much to either regular friendships or romantic ones. Because in either case, someone somewhere ends up making rules but then presses the other parties to follow even though they fail to do it more times than they do!

Well, a lot of social rules are like traffic regulations. They make life safer and easier and more predictable, without unreasonably limiting freedom.

By the way, I strongly advise checking out Judith Martin’s etiquette books. She makes a brilliant case for etiquette and the surprisingly close relationship between manners and morals. I haven’t looked at them for a while, but “Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior” and “Miss Manners’ Guide to Domestic Tranquility” are good places to start.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

By the way, I strongly advise checking out Judith Martin’s etiquette books. She makes a brilliant case for etiquette and the surprisingly close relationship between manners and morals. I haven’t looked at them for a while, but “Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior” and “Miss Manners’ Guide to Domestic Tranquility” are good places to start.

But from a marketing perspective, wouldn’t you agree that Martin is going to be held at a loftier regard because she’s setting up the rules of etiquette?

This is really the core of the question I’m asking. Yes, there are varying degrees of intimacy and how we rank the people we know determines what boundaries we set for them. But that doesn’t really address the question. The question is how much responsibility you have yourself towards your own boundaries?

Try viewing it from the perspective of the one making the rules instead of the one just obeying them. For example: Say Mr. A allows Person B but not Person C to do something on the grounds that Mr. A knows Person B more. But suddenly, suppose Mr. A allows Person C to do it. Is Mr. A…

1. Violating his own rules and therefore, damages the credibility of those boundaries.

or.

1. Seeing Person C worthy of the privilege.

Take note, there is actually the open possibility of corruption to start taking place here. That’s what happens when people make their own rules. You really have to ask yourself, who has most responsibility of holding up the standards?

 

[Xantippe]

Again, there are different “jurisdictions.”

People in a Type 1 relationship can form a sort of micro-culture with rules of their own devising. This can be true between friends, lovers, or (most obviously) inside a household. Have you ever noticed that every family seems to have a long list of household rules and practices, that are often quite distinct from those of the outside world? (For instance, at our house some of the rules are that shoes come off at the door, everybody is supposed to eat dinner together, kids don’t get to eat outside the kitchen, crepes are an acceptable dinner food, kids have baths on Sunday night, etc. There are occasional exceptions to the rules, but those are the rules.)

While it’s workable for a (small) household to work out rules by agreement among the adults, it’s much less workable to work out custom-made rules among Type 2 people. In that case, we generally default to standard etiquette.

Here’s are some examples.

Question 1: I would like to call Bob an ethnic slur, but Bob and standard etiquette say no. What should I do? Answer: Don’t do it.

Question 2: I would like to smell my attractive co-worker’s hair and give her a shoulder rub, but the attractive co-worker and the Employee Handbook say no? What to do? Answer: Don’t do it.

Now, if you had a Type 1 relationship with Bob and the attractive co-worker and Bob was happy to be called an ethnic slur (and had a few to use on you, too) and it was just good fun and the attractive co-worker wanted a back rub (off company time and outside the office), then that would be a totally different situation. (There might still be moral issues with the back rub and the ethnic slur, but it wouldn’t be as open-and-shut a case as it would be if the back rub and the ethnic slur were inflicted non-consensually.)

But as long as we don’t have an agreement, we probably should default to the etiquette norm, all things being equal.

 

[DarkLight]

Lost_Wanderer, the trouble is you’re asking the wrong questions.

Something that comes up often in the modesty debates is the question, who’s responsible? Are women more responsible for dressing and acting so that they don’t tempt men, or are men responsible for keeping custody of their eyes?

And the right answer is both. A Christian woman does no get to go out in a micromini and a bandeu top on the theory that men should be keeping custody of their eyes - it’s her responsibility to not dress up in a sexualized manner. At the same time, a Christian man ought not to leer and fantasize over a woman with no attempt at restraint, on the theory that a woman ought not to dress herself as a sex object. And both parties would generally be best served by keeping their mind on their own job in this, rather than minding whether or not the other is living up to their side properly. There just isn’t an answer to who is “more responsible” because the question isn’t how things work. One side’s failings are not excused or balanced out by failings on the other side, nor are we going out measuring who’s a worse sinner.

That’s how it is here with boundaries. We have a responsibility for ourselves to enforce proper healthy boundaries in a way that neither harms others nor lets them walk all over us. We also have a responsibility to respect the boundaries of others, whether or not we think they’re sensible, often even if we feel personally hurt by those boundaries. (Assuming of course these boundaries are over things that person actually has proper authority over - i.e. single adults can and should have boundaries concerning their own bodies, but not concerning the bodies of other single adults.)

This is love. This is Christian charity, to say that you will love and respect your neighbor even if they aren’t acting in a way to earn it right now. That is what is right, to mind your duties even if your neighbor fails in hers.

 

[Xantippe]

But from a marketing perspective, wouldn’t you agree that Martin is going to be held at a loftier regard because she’s setting up the rules of etiquette?

**It’s actually more that Martin is reporting (in a very amusing fashion–they are very funny books!) the standard Anglo-American etiquette.

A lot of the time she’s just reporting traditional etiquette. Sometimes she makes some judgment calls (for instance for new technology), but by and large she’s not really “setting up” etiquette. There’s almost nothing that’s made up out of whole cloth. I haven’t read Emily Post or the others, but I’m assuming that there’s a lot of common ground among the etiquette experts. **

This is really the core of the question I’m asking. Yes, there are varying degrees of intimacy and how we rank the people we know determines what boundaries we set for them. But that doesn’t really address the question. The question is how much responsibility you have yourself towards your own boundaries?

**Well, if you don’t want others to hug you, I think you should be able to say that and get others to back off. If you don’t want a second slice of cake, I think you should be able to do so. If you don’t want to drink alcohol to excess, I don’t think others should guilt you into doing so. If you are concerned about being driven by a drunk friend, I don’t think you should be guilted into taking the risk. Etc. So as far as your own bodily autonomy is concerned, I think people should respect your “nos.”

Of course, I don’t know your local etiquette, so it may be a lot harder to get people to back off and respect other people’s autonomy and space in your culture than it is among the culturally Anglo-Saxon. But as some on CAF could tell you, even the US has lots of people with little respect for others’ privacy, autonomy, or personal space.**

Try viewing it from the perspective of the one making the rules instead of the one just obeying them. For example: Say Mr. A allows Person B but not Person C to do something on the grounds that Mr. A knows Person B more. But suddenly, suppose Mr. A allows Person C to do it. Is Mr. A…

1. Violating his own rules and therefore, damages the credibility of those boundaries.

or.

1. Seeing Person C worthy of the privilege.

**Well, presumably Mr. A knows Person C better and better as time. If Mr. A really thinks that Person C is up to it, it’s Mr. A’s funeral.

(An example that comes to mind is that Mr. A only lets Person B drive his car. But then, after a while, he lets Person C do so. It’s Mr. A’s car, so he gets to decide and that’s quite fair. If Person D, who isn’t allowed to use the car, doesn’t like it, he can get his own car and make his own rules for the car.)**

Take note, there is actually the open possibility of corruption to start taking place here. That’s what happens when people make their own rules. You really have to ask yourself, who has most responsibility of holding up the standards?

Within a large democratic group (for instance a city or a country), there need to be clear, well-known rules that apply to everybody.

However, in the private sphere, each of us is free to figure out what kind of relationship we want to have with others and to see if they agree. We can decide we want to invite A to dinner, but not D. We can let B drive our car, but not E. We can have A housesit for us, but not F. We can decide that G is good with the kids, but we don’t trust her to babysit them alone, but we do choose H. Private life is full of similar judgment calls that have to be mind largely via intuition, rather than rule.

Oh, and by the way, The Gift of Fear is another book that is worth reading. It’s largely a defense of the role of intuition in evaluating risk.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_of_Fear

There’s an interesting list in the Wikipedia article on the book of danger signals when dealing with people. Interestingly, one of the red flags is, “Discounting the word “no.””

I agree that large entities like corporations or universities need policies and standardization, but we can’t and shouldn’t try to impose that kind of standardization on private life.

 

[EasterJoy]

But from a marketing perspective, wouldn’t you agree that Martin is going to be held at a loftier regard because she’s setting up the rules of etiquette?

This is really the core of the question I’m asking. Yes, there are varying degrees of intimacy and how we rank the people we know determines what boundaries we set for them. But that doesn’t really address the question. The question is how much responsibility you have yourself towards your own boundaries?

Try viewing it from the perspective of the one making the rules instead of the one just obeying them. For example: Say Mr. A allows Person B but not Person C to do something on the grounds that Mr. A knows Person B more. But suddenly, suppose Mr. A allows Person C to do it. Is Mr. A…

1. Violating his own rules and therefore, damages the credibility of those boundaries.

or.

1. Seeing Person C worthy of the privilege.

Take note, there is actually the open possibility of corruption to start taking place here. That’s what happens when people make their own rules. You really have to ask yourself, who has most responsibility of holding up the standards?

You set your own personal boundaries. You usually can’t get away with enforcing them on others when you don’t enforce them on yourself, but if you think you can, it is up to you to try. It is your perogative and if you are not married, your perogative alone to change your own boundaries when you see fit. You have to realize, however, that you also have to take the consequences for how others respond to that.

What if you don’t like how someone else sets their boundaries? What if you don’t like that they say they’re going to do one thing and then do another? That is a matter for your boundaries. You can decide that you don’t want someone like that in your closest social circle. You can decide that you don’t trust them.

The price of setting your own boundaries is that other people will form opinions about you, based on your personal standards. They will push back, they will advocate for their own standards. Sometimes, other people’s standards won’t meet your approval, and they won’t care enough to change to suit you. Accept that. It is part of being a grown-up. It is very common for friends to have differences about standards: how important it is to be on time, how personable to get with total strangers at public venues, how soon certain levels of intimacy are acceptable, and so on. You negotiate about what is negotiable and what isn’t.

We live in a society in which there is no prevailing set of standards that apply to everyone. There were once things that were permissible and had to be expected and things that “were not done” at the price of social prices up to and including group-enforced social exclusion, but those days are over. That has its advantages, don’t get me wrong, but the disadvantage is that everyone is left to navigate as many different sets of personal boundaries as they have friends.

To answer your question: You have as much responsibility to uphold your own boundaries as you decide you have, but you also get to pay the price for whatever boundaries you choose and how you choose to enforce them. Those are the rules we play by, today. If someone else’s standards don’t suit you, you don’t have to throw your support behind them.

 

[Xantippe]

You set your own personal boundaries. You usually can’t get away with enforcing them on others when you don’t enforce them on yourself, but if you think you can, it is up to you to try. It is your perogative and if you are not married, your perogative alone to change your own boundaries when you see fit. You have to realize, however, that you also have to take the consequences for how others respond to that.

What if you don’t like how someone else sets their boundaries? What if you don’t like that they say they’re going to do one thing and then do another? That is a matter for your boundaries. You can decide that you don’t want someone like that in your closest social circle. You can decide that you don’t trust them.

Yes.

The price of setting your own boundaries is that other people will form opinions about you, based on your personal standards. They will push back, they will advocate for their own standards. Sometimes, other people’s standards won’t meet your approval, and they won’t care enough to change to suit you. Accept that. It is part of being a grown-up. It is very common for friends to have differences about standards: how important it is to be on time, how personable to get with total strangers at public venues, how soon certain levels of intimacy are acceptable, and so on. You negotiate about what is negotiable and what isn’t.

**Yes. If you have a flaky or chronically late friend, you may find yourself not making one-on-one plans with him, but just inviting him to group events where his no-show or lateness will not kill the event. **

We live in a society in which there is no prevailing set of standards that apply to everyone. There were once things that were permissible and had to be expected and things that “were not done” at the price of social prices up to and including group-enforced social exclusion, but those days are over. That has its advantages, don’t get me wrong, but the disadvantage is that everyone is left to navigate as many different sets of personal boundaries as they have friends.

To answer your question: You have as much responsibility to uphold your own boundaries as you decide you have, but you also get to pay the price for whatever boundaries you choose and how you choose to enforce them. Those are the rules we play by, today. If someone else’s standards don’t suit you, you don’t have to throw your support behind them.

I would change that to, “If someone else’s standards don’t suit you, you don’t have to go out of your way to spend a lot of time with that person.”

A lot of people struggle to find enough time to keep up all of their relationships–why waste that precious time on people you don’t like and don’t respect?

 

[EasterJoy]

I would change that to, “If someone else’s standards don’t suit you, you don’t have to go out of your way to spend a lot of time with that person.”

A lot of people struggle to find enough time to keep up all of their relationships–why waste that precious time on people you don’t like and don’t respect?

Sometimes, especially when you’re in school or some other situation that sort of enforces a social circle on you, you get stuck taking the whole group or taking nobody.

Still, you do have some latitude about how seriously you take someone’s boundaries. There is a middle ground between acquiescence and advocating for something “fair,” which is abiding by the rules but not keeping your mouth shut about whether they make any sense.

“Yeah, Sarah, I know. You don’t hug your male friends. Well, except Frank and Ted, but Frank is cute, and Ted is–well, I don’t know what Ted is, but apparently some category that I’m not in. Yes, Sarah, I get it.” Then you let Sarah stammer around about how she’s not being inconsistent. IOW, you don’t get to argue with her and you don’t get to cop a hug she says she doesn’t want, but as a consolation prize you do get to express that you’re not buying what she’s selling in terms of an excuse. If she claims she never goes drinking as a reason to not go out drinking with you when she absolutely does go drinking and everyone knows it, you can cough into your hand while saying B&%$#t. You’d be wise to leave her out of your plans to visit a bar, though. If she says she never loans anybody money and then she hits you up for a loan, you can say “I thought you said that loaning people money was a sure way to ruin a friendship. Wouldn’t want to ruin our friendship, you know, Sarah.” But she’ll still be mad if you don’t loan her the $20 she wants. (I’d say “so what,” and let her go without, unless she was going to be in some danger if she couldn’t pay for a taxi or something like that.)

Others do not say all these things, but they think them, and they take Sarah’s stock down many points in their blue books. That is the price Sarah pays for the way she keeps her so-called standards–she loses the respect and trust of those who know her best. I think the best friends are the ones who call her on this stuff, because we are all tempted to give ourselves mulligans, but you’ll figure out pretty quickly whether or not she is quite that open to friendly reality checks. If she shoots the messenger, keep your mouth shut and let her figure it out herself. Nobody has a lot of sympathy for a guy who has lived on the sea all his life and still can’t figure out which way the wind blows, either.