Moral and Ethical Deception...contradiction or synonymous?

Ethics? Morals? What is right and what is wrong? What is an act of good and what constitutes an act of bad? These questions and others similar to them, are completely subjective and not in the slightest, tangible.  Religions like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism have created texts like The Bible, The Qur’an, and The Tipitaka packed full of narratives, fables, metaphors,  myths, analogies, similes,  and other imagery in order to teach people what is the ‘proper way of living’. There are no universal laws on what is considered ‘right’ and ‘wrong’; well besides the “Golden Rule” of course. A strong argument could be made that ethics and morals are performed as well as judged on an individual and case by case basis. Deception is an action that falls under much scrutiny in ethical and moral realms. “Whereas deception is typically frowned upon, research shows that people typically lie on a daily basis and deception is part of everyday life” (Scholl & O’Hair, 2005, pg. 377).

Deception occurring on a “daily basis” is unsettling and an uncomfortable thing to hear. Nobody wants to live a life of zero trust and questioning of everything we hear in our daily communications. As I mentioned in an earlier blog on the subject, “communication is founded on the presumption of truth” (Goffman, 1959).  If we assume and presume that, until otherwise detected, the things we hear from friends, family, co-workers, and our significant other(s) are of the truth, then these relationships can remain healthy and not full of doubt, cynicism, and suspicion. However, we as listeners and receivers of information have relatively no control over what is said to us and how it is presented. This task is performed by the sender and that puts the transmitter of information in a position of power; power over the control of said information. But, like Stan Lee, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and originally Voltaire stated, “With great power, comes great responsibility”. The responsibility in the case of deception is related to the personal ethics and morals being analyzed, strategized, and employed by the potential deceiver.

Ethics and morals have been studied and examined since man began to walk upright and form language. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a German philosopher that wrote about ethical decisions and there application in humanity.  He argued that it is was personal and individual responsibility for a person to reason through moral dilemmas and this must be done with a strong sense of ethical autonomy (free-will or capacity to act on one’s own behalf and make one’s own decisions). Kant was a firm believer in deontological ethics or, the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules (Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals).  Individual ethics are autonomous because “[ethical decision making] cannot be ethical if it is biased by self-interest, profit, greed, arrogance, or like reason that would promote personal advantage” (Bowen, 2006, pg. 335). It looks the only way ethical autonomy could apply to the act of deception would be in the ‘lies to protect’ category. Deceiving one’s romantic partner in Tim Cole’s (2001) three main categories of romantic deception; reciprocity, avoiding punishment, and intimacy needs, would not count as autonomous ethical decisions because they are driven by self-interests.

Ethics, are one of five factors conceived by Juliann C. Sholl and Dan O’Hair (2005), that play a part in the use of deception (the others are upbringing, acceptance, motives and intentionality). The two authors claim “deception is an emotionally charged issue fueled by debates over when it is right or wrong “(pg. 380). The question of when using deception is ok or not, good or bad, right or wrong may be answered with a Utilitarian perspective. This standpoint holds that, “when we have a choice among actions, we should pursue the action that promotes the best possible consequences for everyone involved” (pg. 381). In romantic relationships the utilitarian notions of lies may be in order to protect feelings, privacy, or even relational satisfaction. Deception that is performed to facilitate the best potential outcomes for all parties involved is certainly a moral and ethical dilemma because the person evaluating the potential deception must personally make the decisions on what is ‘right’ for everyone. 

It seems impossible to separate deception and ethics. Deception is a social ambiguous term and act because it is essentially an autonomous decision making process left up to the person in evaluation of it. People decide to deceive one another based on many factors but the execution of the act and its relevance to right and wrong are completely at the mercy of the deceiver. We all have, or hopefully all of us, have a pit in the bottom of our stomachs that is related to our conscious, that signals to us when we may be doing something that goes against our personal moral code. We as individuals involved in communication must pay close attention to those feelings in order to come to individual decisions of what is right and wrong to us. We have to decide when it may not only be appropriate but even warranted to perform deception. If when we lay our heads on our pillows to rest at night and that pit in our stomach keeps us awake with guilty feelings, then maybe we should find a way fix it through the disclosure of truths. Remember the truth has no need for justification.           

References:

Bowen, S.A. (2006). Autonomy in communication: Inclusion in strategic management and ethical decision-making, a comparative case analysis. Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 10, No.4. pp. 330-352.

Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, HJ. Paton. (Trans), Harper & Row Publishing, New York, NY, (originally published 1785).

Scholl, J.C., O’Hair, D. (2005). Uncovering beliefs about deceptive communication. Communication Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 3. pp. 377-399.

Cole, T. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 18. pp. 107-129.

"Theor-yee Theor-yee..Come One Come All"

I have a theory; that theory is just a theory. When you whisper “theory”, the conspiracist pulls you into a dimly-lit ally with a rant that could instantly cause a migraine.  When you speak of “theory”, the layman cringes, shuts down, ignores, or simply exits the conversation with high levels of frustration. When you write of “theory”, the scholar becomes dependent upon you and you develop into a life-blood of social science or any other kind of science for that matter. Theory can be so complicated and thick it takes a sharpened pooper-scooper to sift through for the golden nuggets, or it can be as basic as saying “when it rains trees get wet”. 

We as humans theorize constantly in our daily lives. Theory can often just be another word for generalizing or explaining the way the world works around us. We generalize that if we work, we will get paid. Now, this is certainly is not always the case but the theory that it is, gets us out of bed every day. We generalize that if we shower, we will get clean. This once again, is not always accurate, but it keeps us from clearing rooms out as we enter. Theory gives us organization and structure as well assumptions for survival. Theory is compartmentalizing the spheres of life in which we cannot escape. One sphere or phenomenon we cannot escape is that of deception. At least 25% of all conversations, deception and suspected deception arise (DePaulo 1994). Since deception is so prevalent as well as dynamic in social-life there has been many theories formulated by social scientists as well as everyday people.  In this week’s blog I will examine two deception-theories and how they may relate to the act of deception in romantic relationships; Interpersonal Deception Theory and Social Comparison Theory.

Erving Goffman in 1959 said, “Communication is founded on the presumption of truth”.  Now if that isn’t a theory let this computerized paper I am typing on burst in flames. Waiting…Nope looks like we are safe, a theory it is. We assume, until otherwise tipped off, that when we have conversations with our partner(s) we are receiving nothing but the truth; sadly this not the case. We are deceived more times than any of us will ever be aware of. Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) was formulated to frame interpersonal interaction where the communicator’s believability comes into question. (Buller & Burgoon, 1996)

Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) rests on face-to-face interaction as opposed to deception over the telephone, text, or email. Deception occurs in romantic relationships when one partner attempts to control the information in their messages to convey meanings that depart from the truth. This is purposeful and strategic construction of messages. The partner has goals of getting away with something, gaining access to something, or protecting something. IDT is concerned with: interaction as well as pre-interaction patterns of partners, communicator goals, partner’s typical behavior patterns, expectations, interpretations, evaluations, social skills and contextual factors of interpersonal relationships. (Buller & Burgoon, 1996)

IDT says that if any or all of the expectations of the factors above are negatively affected or even shattered than suspicion arises. When that suspicion is felt by the receiver the partner communicating’s believability becomes questioned or challenged. This theory says deception is essentially a process of mutual influence between two partners who manipulate information to move away from the truth and receivers who try to establish the validity and truthfulness of the messages. When the receiver feels the communicator is not acting according to the patterns of their behavior established in the past, IDT says trustworthiness and authenticity become confronted.

I hope this notion of theory hasn’t heightened your blood pressure quite yet because I have one more to introduce. Social Comparison Theory (SCT) is the idea that, “people are generally motivated to evaluate their opinions and abilities and that one way to satisfy this need for self-evaluation is to compare themselves to others” (Argo, White & Dahl, 2006, pg. 100). This social comparison can be threatening to ones-self. These threats to self can and often will lead to negative reactions. One such negative reaction is the act of deception. Argo and the quoted researchers above performed a study that found; overall people are willing to utilize deception as a protection mechanism in response to social situations that pose a threat to their self-image and/or self-worth.

I think very few people would argue that lying and deceiving your partner is a selfish act. Although past research says people can lie to protect, but I would argue that still remains a selfish act because the deceiver is making attempts at protecting their own personal relationship which benefits themselves. In Social Comparison Theory it is the ego as well as internal and external image that are being defended from threats; this is simply a selfish and self-serving act. The deceiver is lying to their partner in order to protect their image in the eyes of their lover. The deceiver may be comparing themselves to friends and family in romantic relationships to discover what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. The liar may be comparing him/herself to fictional characters in books, movies, or television shows to find out where they themselves stand in their personal decisions, actions, and thoughts. The comparison of others becomes an internal battle in which the deceiver must construct effective tools of protecting their image. Deception becomes the go-to mechanism; often to save-face in their relationship(s).

Lying and deception of your partner may achieve short-term self-focused goals, but the long-term issues and problems that arise may be severe and damaging to your relationship(s). So use discretion on your own personal theories of what’s appropriate in specific situations in your own romantic relationship(s). The theories I have spoken about here are just frames of perspective at looking at deception. Do what feels right, and always trust your intuition, it’s a skill of evolution, do not ignore it.   

References:

Buller D.B., Burgoon, J.K. (1996) “Interpersonal Deception Theory”.  Communication Theory. Vol. 6 Sec. 3.  pp. 203-242.

Argo, J.J., White, K., Dahl, D.W. (2006) “Social Comparison Theory and Deception in the Interpersonal Exchange of Consumption Information.” Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 33. pp. 99-108

"I Lied to her because I Love her." REVISED research question: what are the ways in which people in romantic relationships deceive and why?

            “I lied to her because I love her.” What an interesting and ironic statement. This gem was issued to me in a conversation I recently had with a close friend while having beers and discussing his latest relationship woes with his girlfriend. My friend had misled his partner about a lunch “date” he had gone on a few days before with an ex-girlfriend from his college years. This blast-from-the-past randomly entered his life while on a run in the hills just outside the city and he said it was actually “good to see her”. They dated for about two years long before him and his current girlfriend had even met. This ex-flame, politely asked him to accompany her for a bite to eat so they could “catch up” before she had to fly home the following morning. Although my friend felt a little uneasy about the offer, he made the decision to accept.

            Nothing happened but face-stuffing (with only food of course) and friendly conversation (or so he told me), yet my friend felt compelled to deceive his current girlfriend when she inquired into what he had done for lunch on the day in question. As soon as she asked, he panicked and quickly muttered, “Just grabbed a foot-long from Subway”, and left the room. His girlfriend, who resides in a realm of trust in their relationship, immediately believed him and the conversation topic was dropped and forgotten; forgotten at-least by her.  My friend however, entered a different realm of thought and emotion. He was now in the justification phase of deception. 

            In a 2010 study by Levine, Kim, and Hamel they discussed noted philosopher and ethicist Sissela Bok’s “principle of veracity”. This is a moral asymmetry (or lack of symmetry) between truth and deception in that, “truthful statements are preferable to lies in the absence of special considerations” (Levine, Kim & Hamel, pg. 272). This means people would certainly rather tell the truth because telling the truth is easier and requires no justification. My friend needed to come to terms with him-self and why he felt the need to lie to his current girlfriend. Justification can be exhausting in the struggle externally as well as internally. My friend not only had to battle with himself about the act of going to lunch with an ex, he also had to struggle with the lie itself; this why he almost tricks himself into deception-acceptance with the ironic statement to me of, “I lied to her because I love her.”

            With his justifying statement, he is implying that he deceived his partner in order to protect her. Although he felt he did nothing wrong or inappropriate with the ex-girlfriend, he assumed his current girlfriend might not see it that way. Because he thought his current partner might over-react he issued the lie to her out of necessity, in order to spare her feelings as well as an eruption of an argument between them. In the above study I mentioned, the researchers also brought up R.E. Turner’s (1975) list of five motivations for deception; to save face, to manage relationships, to exploit, to avoid tension or conflict, and to control situations (Levine, Kim, & Hamel 2010). The friend in my example lied in order to avoid a fight as well as keep his current partner’s feelings from being hurt. His goals were self-serving because the deception was the path of least resistance for him. The lie equaled less work in the form of explanations of why he did what he did. His goals of saving face, managing his relationship, avoiding tension or conflict, and controlling the situation seem complicated and thoughtful in yet they were performed and accomplished in a matter of moments; Second nature? Human nature?

            Goals and motive play the most significant roles in deception and the performance of it. “deceit is more or less probable depending on the importance of the goal, the difficulty of goal attainment absent deceit, and the probability of avoiding detection” (2010, pg. 284). People lie for a specific reason(s) because telling the truth is personally-preferable and less work. Often lies and deceit are perceived by the receiver if the specific reasons and motives are easily detectable. My friend’s current girlfriend did not perceive any motive to lie by him in talking about what he had for lunch therefore assumed he was telling the truth.      

            Earlier when I quoted what my friend replied to his wife in response to her asking him what he had done for lunch I wrote, “Just grabbed a foot-long from Subway”. Now this is where deception study gets a little complicated. My friend did in fact have a foot-long sandwich on that day, he just left out that it was with an ex-girlfriend of his. Now, did he truly lie (“truly-lie”, what a concept) when he responded the way he did to his girlfriend’s inquiry in to what he did for “lunch”? Another group of researchers headed by Timothy Levine, in their study, “Self-Construal, Self and Other Benefit, and the Generation of Deceptive Messages”, would argue yes. He is guilty of a form of deception by leaving out specific information. Deception by equivocation or evasion is still deception by any other name. This form of deception is issuing statements to your partners which are not literally false but purposefully avoid any unpleasant truth(s) (Levine, Lapinksi, Banas, Wong, Hu, Endo, Baum, & Anders 2002).

            My friend did not lie when he said he ate at Subway, but he was being deceitful when he left out the information involving the ex-girlfriend even though it may have been potentially harmful to his relationship. In Grice’s (1989) Information Manipulation Theory (IMT), research on deception is viewed as information control. “IMT views deception as arising from covert violations of one or more of Grice’s four Maxims (quality, quantity, relevance, manner)” (Levine 2002, pg. 32). The deceptive leaving-out of information or “lies of omission” fall under the violation of the quantity maxim. My friends chose precisely how much information to give-up and still respond to his current girlfriends’ question.

            Deception in romantic relationships may figuratively come in many shapes, forms, and sizes. It may not all be considered good or bad, but it is certainly relational to motive. Why a person lies to their partner weighs heavily on its perception of being seen as right or wrong, white or dark, or evil and not-so-evil. But if you lie because you love someone, than you really must be some kind of hero. So bravo my lying (or leaving out of important information) about “lunch” friend, kudos to your strength and fortitude…I guess. Hope it never comes back to bite you on your behind. Hmm.   

References:

Levine, R., Kim, R., Hamel, M. (2010) "People lie for a reason: Three experiments documenting the prinicple of veracity", Communication Research Reports. Vol. 27, No. 4. pp. 271-298

Levine, R., Lapinksi, M.K., Banas, J., Wong, C.H., Hu, A.S., Endo, K., Baum, K.L., Anders, L.N., (2002) "Self-Contrual, self and other benefit, and the generation of deceptive messages. Journal of Communication Research. Vol. 31, No.1. pp. 29-47  

"Ohhhhh baby I just orgasmed...Now get off me!"

“Women might be able to fake orgasms but men can fake whole relationships.” This thought-provoking and gender stereotypical bold statement was whispered in my ear by a tiny and fully sassy old-lady who attended one of my Valentine’s day stand-up comedy acts a few years back. She came up to me after the show in response to a few colorful jokes (or at least attempts at humor) about women’s ability to fake and pretend they are orgasming during sex often times to end undesirable and un-pleasurable intercourse with their partner. There should be no dispute in believing faking orgasmic completion is relationship deception. This week I will look at the context of this kind of dishonesty as well as other forms of romantic sexual deception.

In a 2008 study, researchers in the psychology department at Cal State Fullerton found that 45% of people (mostly women) in romantic relationships had in fact faked an orgasm. Since reading this study I have been vigorously attempting, you guessed it, to get ahold of 45% of my past lovers in order to confront them about their possible deception. Just I had expected they all continued their deceptive lies by inflating my sense of sexual self-worth by lying about another category that was concluded in the 2008 study. The researchers also discovered 31% of people tested, reported they had deceived their partners by telling them they were “great in bed” when in fact their partner was “terrible”. The psychologists Marelich, Lundquist, Painter, and Mechanic called this type of relationship deception avoidance motivated. But I’m sure my former partners who said I was “great”, 100% surely meant it…right?

How many of us have lied in order to avoid conflict and confrontation? Wait, let me go ahead an answer that; 99%! (There always has to be an exception or at least some one lying about their lying). That number of 99% is based on my intended as well as unintended social research as a 30 year old ‘serial dater’ and should certainly not be challenged, disputed, or refuted (But I welcome you to try).  Avoidance motivated lies are the most common deceptive practice in romantic relationships. These types of lies could also include; having sex with a partner when you did not want to in order to please them, or even having sex to simply maintain and continue the relationship (Marelich, Lundquist, Painter & Mechanic, 2008).

I’m guilty of these forms of relationship deception and its liberating to admit it. I once told my lover she was an “incredible artist of sex”  when she was actually below or sub-par my expectations while making-lust with her when I truly did not want to in order to keep the relationship going and avoid loneliness ALL while faking an orgasm. I cannot tell whether I am healthy or sick for this; you can decide. The four researchers mentioned above might label me ‘The king of avoidance motivated deception’ because of my frauds all occurring almost simultaneously, which is a crown I would wear proudly the next time I “whore” myself out to avoid conflict and being alone. This paragraph may have had a little facetiousness’ in it but I believe you get my nudge.

Obviously I’m teasing a little bit with my sarcasm; but did you know hurtful-teasing in romantic relationships can be considered another form of deception? In a separate recent study, a group of researchers defined 'deceiving' as essentially any communicator strategically controlling information in their messages to their partner in order to manipulate the truth. Based on this definition, hurtful teasing is then without question, deception. When people tease in romantic relationships they usually point out physical flaws, strange habits, their partners clothing choices, and many other not-so-flattering observations. This can be viewed as truth “in disguise”. In this study, the researchers pointed out that 94% of people in romantic relationships reported using hurtful-teasing as a strategy to disguise the truthfulness of the tease.

A hurtful-tease, related to sex because that’s what the people want to hear about, could be masked in sarcasm with something like; “I love the way your butt jiggles during sex”, or “Ahh my chubby-bunny gets so worn out and exhausted when we make love and your penis is so cute darlin” or even, “Geeze babe, you might wanna start doing kegel exercises, you’re no spring chicken anymore ha-ha”.

The examples of sarcastic hurtful-teasing are considered relationship deception because the person issuing the statements is disguising their upfront and honest feelings in a tongue-in-cheek manner but still hoping for results to serve their own personal interests. The man commenting on his girlfriend’s backside jiggling is trying to playfully inspire her to lose weight. The woman speaking of her man as a “chubby bunny” is hoping for the same, but also throwing spirited ‘poison darts’ at the size of his penis. The man making fun of his lady’s vagina is expecting her do something about it. I think most people would agree with the idea that a strong majority of all jokes have at least a sliver of truth motivating their performance. That sliver being concealed is deception.

I guess what I have learned from these studies on romantic relationships deception is; that I should lie if I really want a successful sexual partnership…or maybe not? Until next time...question everything your partners says or oppositely give them the benefit of the doubt; hell what I know I’m just a ‘serial dater’ with loneliness issues.       

Lie, Lie, Lie..Your Partner May Love You More Because Of It.

"Darlin, how does this dress look on me?" One of the questions or something similar to it, that most if not all romantic relationships are confronted with. How is the man in this situation supposed to respond? Should he be completely upfront and honest or should he use flattery and lie a little to protect her feelings? This conundrum may be a simple one for the fella, if she in fact looks amazing in the aforementioned dress, or he atleast personally thinks she does. The man could even be strategic in his response with grey area, ambiguous, off-the-hook answers; He could say something like, "you look great in anything, dear." or "whatever you feel comfortable in, babe". Most people believe lying is always bad; but is it? If the man in this example were to tell the honest truth about how his partner looks in the dress, he could risk hurting her feelings and in turn damaging the relationship.

 

The folks who believe lying is never good, are probably people with no friends. Sometimes a person must lie in order to spare the feelings of someone they care about. This idea never fully settles with my conscious and personal beliefs on deception and lies, I guess that’s why have I have such few friends...hmm. Deception scholars have titled the practice of lying in order to protect others as deceptive affection. This is just as the slogan says, affection? Researchers Horan and Booth-Butterfield in 2010, after their study on what’s worth lying for, came to the conclusion that deceptive affection may not necessarily have a negative impact on relationships. This deception can in turn be an effective ‘tool’ to avoid problems and issues and actually may strengthen romantic relationships.

 

So if some deception in relationships can be viewed as affection, then what other kinds of lying can be deemed socially acceptable? When the man from the dress example is confronted with another tough question by his partner similar to; “have you ever had sex with anyone I know?” What should he do? Should he tell his current partner something like this in response?

 

“Yes honey, I have had great sex with three people you know, but don’t you worry your pretty lil’ heart out, it was long before we were together.”

 

This truthful answer could and certainly would have a negative effect on his relationship. His partner might then begin to wonder things like; how great the 3 were exactly, if they were better than her, if her man still thinks about them, if he fantasizes about them while making love to her, if he wants to be with them instead of her. The woman then also may vent and stew on the thought of him being with another woman to the point the relationship becomes doomed. So this is another example of lying to protect, but it is also deception to protect privacy. These are both forms of socially acceptable lies according to a 2002 study by Seiter, Bruschke, and Bai. The privacy being protected in this example was not only the man’s, but also the former lovers the woman was inquiring about. The three women’s reputations, amongst other things, deserve protection as well. The three social science researchers called this form of deception, competent communication.

 

            Seiter, Brushke, and Bai also looked at the differences between socially acceptable and unacceptable deception. If lying to benefit others or protect privacy is deemed acceptable then lying for selfish or exploitive reasons is considered socially unacceptable in romantic relationships. The man lying about how his wife looks in the dress, would be in the wrong according to society, if he told his partner she looked amazing in order to receive sexy-time in the form of sexual intercourse with her. He would also be looked down upon by society if he responded to the question of previous sexual partners, with a lie in order to dodge the question in hopes that his wife might fix his favorite dinner on that evening. This brings up what the three researchers found as their number one factor in determining what deception is acceptable and what is not; motive. A person’s intention or driving force motivation for lying in relationships is what research shows as its acceptability factor.

 

Before you lie to your partner next (because we all know you will, even it’s a “white” affectionate lie) maybe you should stop to think what your driving-motive is. If your motive is clear and unacceptable to YOU, then do not go forward with your deception. And if you feel your partner may be lying to you, try to assess their motivations, because it may be in fact to protect you. I was next to a guy on an airplane once who was writing a song called “lies lead to love”, by god he may have brilliantly been on to something.

 

 

Mike Polotto

Deception in Sexual History Disclosure

Mike Polotto

Research Question:

What do romantic relationship partners most often deceive each other about? (ever-changing)

 

                Since I was a teenager I have heard the unwritten “rule of thirds” when it comes to disclosing the amount of sexual partners a person has been with.  This ‘rule’ has haunted me and had me questioning the truthfulness of just about every lover I’ve had in the beginning disclosure stages of our relationships. I can remember when I was 19 I fell for this adorable and ridiculously sweet cheerleader at my first college. She seemed completely trustable and credible with everything she did or said. Then the often dreadful conversation of past sexual history came up. I told her my number with complete honesty because I had no shame. She then responded with her number, 4. I trusted her disclosure was honest and we continued our relationship. A few days later one of my friends reminded me of this ‘rule’ and that I should multiply her number by 3 and that will help me reach the truth about her past history. This idea ate me up to the point of exhaustion and I was internally forced to end the relationship. Obviously this ‘times-3’ notion is not scientifically proven but yet its effects can be brutal. It was been portrayed in popular movies and television shows however, so that in turn means it certainly must be fact…right?

                In romantic relationships the disclosing of sexual history can be an issue that either adds to, or breaks down the growth of the particular relationship. It has been a hot-button of deception concerning romantic partners since Adam met Eve (obviously this is an exaggeration because they were both virgins).  There have been numerous studies which have analyzed the ideas of sexual disclosure. Anne Luchetti led one of these to explore deception on the topic. She placed the disclosure under two categories; “the need to reveal”, and the “need to conceal”.

                Safe-sex comes in many forms nowadays; the “need to reveal” is considered one of them. It is seen as trusting your partner enough to disclose potentially risky sexual history. This empowers your partner with helpful information that allows them to make up their own mind about continuing with the relationship in regards to sexual practices. Luchetti also analyzed the “need to conceal”; this is a form of protecting oneself in sexual history disclosure. The ‘concealer’ may be worried their upfront honesty could lead to embarrassment and potentially harm the relationship in its development stages. They also may feel their sexual history is irrelevant to their current situation so why reveal potentially harmful material. This is a form privacy protection in the early realms of a romantic relationship.

                Another study done by researcher Wendy L. Nichols of Marrimack College also looked into protection of one’s privacy in sexual history disclosure.  She found that the person who feels they have the complete right to control and regulate their sexual information history may feel they are free to regulate access to it as well. These folks believe this form of information isn’t necessary history their partner is entitled to know. Nichols found that this type of concealment does in fact fall under the label of deception. Is holding back of information in, romantic relationships, which could potentially harm your partner in fact deceiving them?

                The obsession with sexual partner numbers is no doubt and issue that affects romantic relationships. We as individuals in romantic dyads must learn to weigh our own pros and cons, positives and negatives, as well as levels of security in our own personal relationships. We should work to ignore the social pressures and media representations of how relationships ‘ought to be’, and take control of who, what, and when we are happy and satisfied. If we are comfortable with our partners then we should work to trust them until there is an upfront issue that makes that no longer possible. Who your lover was with in the past, or the amount of people they have been with, should not hold weight in your decision to continue developing the relationship or end it. We all have a past we cannot change; we should not waste precious energies attempting to worry about ours or others. We have a future that requires the necessary attention in order to reach the satisfaction we all deserve. Focus on tomorrow and yesterday is but a memory.