 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Are You Dating a Liar?
by Thomas P. Schmierer
July 28, 2008 |
|
 Is your date someone who is truthful, yet holds back emotionally? Does your date seem only happy and fearless? Do you feel lower than your date because you feel a wide range of emotions while he/she does not? If so, you will benefit by learning to identify different types of emotional dishonesty and following a prudent relationship progression.
Truth and Emotional Honesty
One reason that your date may seem both truthful and emotionally dishonest is because truth and emotional honesty are two different entities. Truth is communicated when one expresses factual information such as "the Dodgers beat the Mets yesterday" or "I accidentally broke your favorite vase." Truth is communicated when a statement reflects a provable reality.
Honestly communicating your emotions, however, is different than merely communicating an external truth. Emotional honesty is the quality possessed by one who accurately discloses his/her emotional experience. Emotionally honest expression outwardly reflects the inner reality that only the beholder of the emotion knows to be true. A person is being emotionally honest when he/she expresses such things as "I felt ecstatic when the Dodgers beat the Mets yesterday" or "I feel ashamed that I accidentally broke your favorite vase." (1)
Emotional dishonesty will always damage the bonds of true intimacy in a relationship. Author Bryn C. Collins calls the hiding of emotions "pernicious" and says that it "precludes an open, honest connection. Period." (2) If you desire to have an emotionally honest relationship, then you will want to be certain that you are not dating a victim, perpetrator, or spy.
The Victim
According to mainstream Catholic Christian psychology, there is a difference between a victim and a survivor. While the Institute for the Psychological Sciences, a Catholic Christian graduate school, maintains that clients are often truly victims when they enter therapy, the Institute also states that:
Society frequently assigns the role of "victim" as the fundamental identity of the person, which not only provides a primarily negative identity for them, but focuses their attention inward, on themselves, in a helpless sort of way. Being a "victim" is also often used as an excuse to lessen the person's moral responsibility. (3)
The Institute sends a message of hope to victims that they may become survivors:
While it is important that [those who seek help] tell their story and mourn the ways in which they have been wronged, healing takes place in the realization that they are not bound by these things. Rather, as people with profound worth and dignity in the eyes of a loving God, they can begin to move beyond what has been done to them and toward a hope for healing. (4)
A true victim can find healing by the grace of God and be known as a survivor. A person who has been a victim in the past can experience true emotional connection when he/she chooses to no longer play the "victim" role.
When someone brings a victim mentality into a new relationship, he/she often enters into a blame game. Assuming that the "victim" is not truly being victimized in the new relationship, he/she is being emotionally dishonest in his/her accusations. Rather than disclosing emotions and taking responsibility for them by saying, "I woke up in an angry mood this morning," he/she says, "You are intentionally cracking your knuckles to get under my skin!" Blaming is the opposite of taking responsibility for one's actions and emotional reactions.
Rather than say ""You are intentionally cracking your knuckles to get under my skin!" it is more honest to say, "I feel annoyed when you crack your knuckles." While saying the latter may seem like blaming, this is not necessarily the case. A person who truly owns his/her emotions, can make this kind of statement with a tone that emphasizes the words "I feel" rather than the blaming word "you."
Here we may apply what we learned earlier about the difference between making a truthful statement and making an emotionally honest statement. That "you crack your knuckles" is a fact. It is truthful to state this. "I feel annoyed" is an expression of emotion. It is emotionally honest to state this.
Even though the recipient of a truthful and emotionally honest statement such as "I feel annoyed when you crack your knuckles" may choose to enter the "victim" role, the sender of the message is being emotionally honest and not playing the "victim." Bryn C. Collins believes that expressing emotions honestly does not mean that the couple will endlessly argue, as she states:
A couple who is being both honest and truthful with one another can talk about even the most painful information in a way that allows respect and healing.(5)
It is not until both members of a couple stay out of the "victim" role that true emotional intimacy can be experienced.
The Perpetrator
Both the "victim" and "perpetrator" roles are played by those who seek to escape responsibility by hiding their true emotions. Often someone who is emotionally dishonest will play both the "perpetrator" and the "victim" roles, making the distinction between the two very cloudy. The "perpetrator" in a new relationship often has been truly victimized in the past.
An emotionally dishonest "perpetrator" might say, "I was molested by my camp leader, but it really has had no affect on my life." Statements such as these fulfill the "perpetrator's" desire to be emotionally distant. Collins calls these statements emotionally dishonest because "Victimization never, ever means nothing!"(6) Rather than face the emotions that any normal human being would have after being molested, the "perpetrator" hides his/her emotions by pretending that everything in his/her life has been perfect.
Emotionally distant "perpetrators" pretend that they come from the perfect family and had the perfect childhood. Often there is an implicit family rule that mandates that "no one in the family is allowed to point out what mistakes Mom and/or Dad have made in raising the children." Sometimes "perpetrators" have been taught the rule that "you must be happy at all times."
When a "perpetrator" should normally express sadness, he/she will express indifference or happiness and cause those who are feeling sad to also feel defensive regarding their sadness. It is natural to feel defensive regarding your emotions when you are around a "perpetrator" because the "perpetrator" actually feels superior to you. A "perpetrator" falsely judges sad or angry emotions as morally evil, thus you are seen as inferior to him/her who feels indifferent or happy.
According to Collins, the reason that a "perpetrator" is emotionally dishonest is because:
He has built an intricate web of reconstituted reality that if he engaged any part of the emotional content of [his relationships], or his victimizations, he'd have to look at the emotional content of everything, and that would overwhelm him.(7)
We cannot escape our feelings. The longer that we are dishonest in expressing our emotions, the larger they become. The person who is dating a "perpetrator" will not explicitly receive a message about the "perpetrator's" emotions, but will rather be blamed for doing things that are actually not immoral. This is because blaming is the dishonest way that the "perpetrator" expresses his/her emotions. Blaming helps keep the emotions distant and this distance helps the "perpetrator" feel safe.
What can be even more confusing is when the "perpetrator" simultaneously plays the "victim" role by saying something such as "it really hurts my feelings that you gained twenty pounds." In this case, the "perpetrator" is so out of touch with his/her feelings, that he states a fact ("you gained twenty pounds"), combines it with an emotion word ("hurt"), and thinks that he has made an emotionally honest statement.
The "perpetrator" is not emotionally hurt by someone else's weight gain, but rather he/she "looks at the superficial [...] and tries to make that an emotional setting."(8) He/she, who was victimized as a child, "is trying to get [his/her] power back by victimizing someone else."(9) By playing both the "victim" and the "perpetrator" roles, the person who was victimized as a child and has never processed the resulting emotions is able to feel safe by disowning responsibility and keeping others emotionally distant.
The Spy
The "spy" is another type of person who is emotionally dishonest. A "spy" will ask you a million personal questions without ever revealing anything about himself/herself. If the person is on the low-end of the "spy" scale, he/she may say something like, "I will talk about myself if you ask me questions, but I do not normally volunteer information." If the person is on the high-end, he/she will pay special attention to your address book or daily planner. This type of spy is commonly known as a control-freak or, in some cases, a stalker.
While it is normal to ask your date questions about himself/herself, it is abnormal to ask so many personal questions that you do not give the other person a chance to ask about you. A "spy" is being emotionally dishonest by keeping the focus off of himself/herself. A "spy" does this because he/she wants to know things about you in order to keep you vulnerable and in a position of not knowing. With knowledge comes power; with ignorance comes oppression. The methods of the "spy" keep him/her as an emotional mystery to you, thus giving him/her great power over you. The "spy" is so emotionally distant that he/she is actually emotionally unknown.
Openly Angry and Truly Intimate
In order to experience real intimacy, you must be both truthful and emotionally honest. Some people errantly believe that feelings of irritability, annoyance, anger, and sadness destroy intimacy. Others, like Scott Wetzler, Ph.D., acknowledge anger as an important part of the human condition. He writes:
[No matter how] intimate we are with our lover, we won't know him or her completely until we've also felt our lover's anger-and of course the same goes for our lover's knowing us. Fighting can be one of our most intimate experiences precisely because we no longer are on our best behavior. Our moments of anger are about as raw and powerful as any we can experience.(10)
Wetzler is using the term "fighting" loosely. He does not advocate unjustly blaming one's partner or engaging in acts of physical violence. Wetzler is merely proclaiming the truth that to completely veil one's anger is to be emotionally dishonest. True intimacy depends on openly acknowledging all of our emotions and directly facing conflict in a loving way.
It is difficult, as singles, to know when and how to express our emotions appropriately. If we express our feelings of irritability, annoyance, anger, and sadness early in a relationship, we will often be quickly judged as carrying emotional baggage. While all singles seem to carry at least some emotional baggage into new relationships, there are a couple of extreme ways of communicating about our past.
A person who feels the need to reveal past hurts in the first two to three dates is not over these hurts and probably is not ready yet to date or marry. A person who never reveals past hurts to anyone may have never processed these issues and is being emotionally dishonest with himself/herself and others. The emotionally honest balance between these two extremes can be found when a couple utilizes solid principles of Christian courtship.
The Prudent Progression
In a presentation on The Pacing of Intimacy for Catholic Singles found at http://www.vaticanvalues.com/singlesadviceaudiorecordings.html,(11) something called the Prudent Progression is described. There is a part of this relationship progression of Christian courtship that helps a couple reveal past hurtful experiences. This part occurs during what is called the Novena Stage.
The Novena Stage lies between the Friendship Dating Stage and the Formal Courtship Stage. At the beginning of the Novena Stage the couple comes together to discuss their flaws, fears, and flops.(12) Doing this is a humbling process in which both members of the couple show their inherent human weaknesses. Since both members are doing it, there is no imbalance of power.
It is only natural to express feelings of embarrassment, humiliation, fear, guilt, sadness, anger, and/or shame as you disclose your flaws and flop. Undergoing this process begins a pattern of emotionally honest communication that can be continued throughout the relationship and allows for each person to be vulnerable in the other's presence and to be comforted by the other.
After the couple has revealed their flaws, fears, and flops, they separate for approximately nine days of prayer to determine whether or not God wishes them to continue in this relationship as an exclusive couple who are seriously considering the possibility of marriage to one another. Typically, the couple discerns that God has decided that they should continue in an exclusive relationship and they enter the Formal Courtship Stage.
Conclusion
If your date seems only happy and fearless, then it would be appropriate to at least suspect that he/she may be holding back emotionally. If you often feel inferior to your date because you feel a wide range of emotions while he/she does not, then he/she is likely being emotionally dishonest. If your date seems to play the "victim," "perpetrator," or "spy" role, then you are likely not experiencing an emotionally honest connection with him/her.
As Christians, we are called not to desire less, but to desire more!(13) Christian courtship demands not only that we desire purity, but that we desire honesty. In order to have a truly intimate relationship, both members of the couple must be emotionally honest with one another. The Novena Stage of the Prudent Progression can help facilitate the honest sharing of emotions that can sometimes seem scary to disclose. Following principles of Christian courtship will increase the likelihood that you will find and marry a quality Catholic Christian and experience everlasting love!
Footnotes
- Pp. 127-128 of Bryn C. Collins' Emotional Unavailability: Recognizing It, Understanding It, and Avoiding Its Trap (1997).
- P. 131 of Bryn C. Collins' Emotional Unavailability: Recognizing It, Understanding It, and Avoiding Its Trap (1997).
- Retreived from http://ipsciences.edu/pages/what-makes-us-unique/integrating-psychology-with-the-catholic-faith-tradition.php on July 28, 2008.
- Ibid.
- P. 132 of Bryn C. Collins' Emotional Unavailability: Recognizing It, Understanding It, and Avoiding Its Trap (1997).
- P. 129 of Bryn C. Collins' Emotional Unavailability: Recognizing It, Understanding It, and Avoiding Its Trap (1997).
- P. 130 of Bryn C. Collins' Emotional Unavailability: Recognizing It, Understanding It, and Avoiding Its Trap (1997).
- Ibid.
- P. 131 of Bryn C. Collins' Emotional Unavailability: Recognizing It, Understanding It, and Avoiding Its Trap (1997).
- P. 150 of Scott Wetzler, Ph.D. and Diane Cole's Is It You or Is It Me? (1998).
- Visit http://www.vaticanvalues.com/singlesadviceaudiorecordings.html, then click on "Listen for free!" link.
- For more on how to communicate flaws, fears, and flops, see Chapter Twelve of Matthew Kelly's The Seven Levels of Intimacy: The Art of Loving and the Joy of Being Loved (2005).
- See http://www.godofdesire.com/twelve-principles/principle-01.html.
Thomas Schmierer is a Catholic counselor, writer, and evangelizer for V2C®. Visit www.vaticanvalues.com to learn more about Mr. Schmierer's work.
|
|
|
|
|
