Privacy thoughts

[wispfox]

This was something that I was putting on my user info page, but thought I also ought to post it. I shall link to it from there, I think.

Privacy thoughts. I'm mostly a very open person. I'm also someone who needs to talk to those I'm close to about stuff. To this end, if you tell me stuff and _don't_ tell me it's not to be shared with those I tend to go to for needed conversation, it's not safe to assume that I won't. I might not; there are things which ping my 'not to be talked about' filters even without it being specifically stated, but I also might. Currently, the "people I regularly talk to about stuff" category includes australian_joe, because, well, partner! I believe it also includes aelisdeliria because she's a good friend and she's my roommate, so she gets to hear my babbles.

There are certainly others that I talk to about stuff, but it's less regular, and therefore much less likely to be hit by the other-people's-privacy-concerns filter.

Anyway, this is not to say that I don't keep secrets, because I do and can - I'm just not the best as being able to tell what people might think should be secret. As well, if you tell me/I experience something which directly affects me, I cannot promise to not talk to australian_joe and/or aelisdeliria about it, because things that affect me need to be talked about. I cannot, and should not for my own sanity, make that promise.

Interestingly, I think I treat aelisdeliria like a local partner, at least as far as what I talk to her about. This is probably because I desperately need that 'who can I talk to _right now_' outlet, and she seems fine with being that for me. I shall go state this to her, now that I've realized it, because it probably needs to be stated and confirmed.

Comments

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

I agree with you in terms of "if I'm bothered by something, I'd like to have access to my partner(s) to help me talk it through", but that's a preference, not a requirement.

For me, it _is_ a requirement, at least that I be able to. If I don't have the ability to _do_ so, it's not going to be an insanely huge deal, as it's rare that I need to talk about things _right now_. But I need to know that someone else's privacy concerns are not going to override my mental health, and my mental health requires that I can talk to other people about things in my head. Thus my comment about not being able to promise privacy for things that affect me. I can promise that I won't talk beyond a small number of partner or partner-like people, though.

heard of a couple who explicitly tell all of their other relationships something along the lines of "if you tell me anything, you're also telling it to my primary partner".

... I think I actually know a couple like this, and while it's certainly not how _I_ would work, I can work with that. But then, I like and am reasonably comfortable with both of them. Quite literally, anything I tell one, I'm fine with the other knowing, even if there were no such clause.

But, for the most part, that kind of policy seems strange to me, and would not work well for me. Which almost certainly means that I could never be involved beyond friendship with anyone with that policy. Interesting. I don't think I knew this until right now.

[australian-joe.livejournal.com]

and my mental health requires that I can talk to other people about things in my head

Yes, but there is a grey area between when it's about me and things in my head, and about my reaction to somebody else's confidences. I'm not arguing though! Part of being partners for me is entanglement, and that includes being able to casually resort to each other's brain for second opinions. I don't *require* it, and am fine with it not being available for a specific issue or topic, but I prefer that the option exist (even if not exercised).


Which almost certainly means that I could never be involved beyond friendship with anyone with that policy.

In the case I'm thinking of, I think this was a policy they evolved and retrofitted to existing relationships - if I'm recalling that correctly, it bothers me immensely. I also could not be involved with anyone who does that.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

there is a grey area between when it's about me and things in my head, and about my reaction to somebody else's confidences.

Yes... but I decided a while ago that if my reaction to someone else's confidences was a strong enough one that I needed to talk about it, I _had_ to have that option. Or it'd drive me batty. It doesn't tend to happen, mind you, unless it _does_ somehow affect me as well as the person who was talking to me.

being able to casually resort to each other's brain for second opinions. [...] prefer that the option exist (even if not exercised).

Yes.

I think this was a policy they evolved and retrofitted to existing relationships - if I'm recalling that correctly, it bothers me immensely.

Oh. My. That's... _wrong_, in my head. Wow. Ick!

[australian-joe.livejournal.com]

Agreement on all counts!!