SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
I'm an little paranoid about being a carrier with few symptoms.
Not really a blog
- Thread starter SEASONEDpolyAgain
- Start date
I'm an little paranoid about being a carrier with few symptoms.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
Life is good. Still a bit sleepy but it has settled down.
Leafy and I had a good talk because I think he picked up that I was holding some thoughts back. Jules will always say I look constipated when I do that.
I was honest for him for the first time about that period with the metamour. That I was genuinely concerned and it was adding to my overall anxiety. He said that he has managed to speak to a cousin of hers who is giving him more of the story from the family's perspective and how they know poly and kink were really bad ideas for her.
He had no idea. He knew what he knew through her. He had no idea of some other things that went on before he knew her. It has really shocked and worried him as he knows he would have done things very differently had he known. It isn't major stuff. Basically a repeat of what had happened here but in some cases, because of the actions of other people involved, it escalated into a legal field.
He feels hurt that nobody who knew about this warned him but we live in a "MYOB" culture. We no longer look out for our neighbors in fear of overstepping boundaries.
Leafy and I had a good talk because I think he picked up that I was holding some thoughts back. Jules will always say I look constipated when I do that.
I was honest for him for the first time about that period with the metamour. That I was genuinely concerned and it was adding to my overall anxiety. He said that he has managed to speak to a cousin of hers who is giving him more of the story from the family's perspective and how they know poly and kink were really bad ideas for her.
He had no idea. He knew what he knew through her. He had no idea of some other things that went on before he knew her. It has really shocked and worried him as he knows he would have done things very differently had he known. It isn't major stuff. Basically a repeat of what had happened here but in some cases, because of the actions of other people involved, it escalated into a legal field.
He feels hurt that nobody who knew about this warned him but we live in a "MYOB" culture. We no longer look out for our neighbors in fear of overstepping boundaries.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
I'm bewildered by how reliant people are on the guidelines of their Government to tell them what is and isn't safe. Alright maybe NZ can rely on theirs but the rest of us? No way.
Yesterday the UK relaxed some rules. Well, if anyone can make sense of what that colossal idiot said, it seems like they have anyway. A lot of people were expecting rules to be lifted more than they were and for guidelines to be clearer. In my opinion, people are considering unsafe choices based on the Government's say so (like returning to work) but not safer activities like visiting a friend who has been shielding for most of the lockdown.
We all know that the decisions made in the UK and US are not based on the risk being lower to the people with the highest risk factors. It is based on the economy. So why would you be relying on these people to make informed decisions about what is and what isn't safe?
I'll give you an example. A woman who hasn't seen her depressed, disabled, elderly parent who has been in isolation with deliveries of food coming in was waiting for Boris et al to tell her it is safe to go and see them now. She has been shielding with her family who only go out for walks in open spaces and WFH. She now will not see the parent for longer and is worried about them committing suicide which they have attempted before.
Boris et al is telling her to go back to work (but not by public transport) and some of her kids to go back to school in two weeks, but not to see her parent. So she should increase her risk factor by going out and about, but abandon her familial commitments in the process so she starts earning the country some money again as working outside will make her more dangerous to them. And she is listening!
Yesterday the UK relaxed some rules. Well, if anyone can make sense of what that colossal idiot said, it seems like they have anyway. A lot of people were expecting rules to be lifted more than they were and for guidelines to be clearer. In my opinion, people are considering unsafe choices based on the Government's say so (like returning to work) but not safer activities like visiting a friend who has been shielding for most of the lockdown.
We all know that the decisions made in the UK and US are not based on the risk being lower to the people with the highest risk factors. It is based on the economy. So why would you be relying on these people to make informed decisions about what is and what isn't safe?
I'll give you an example. A woman who hasn't seen her depressed, disabled, elderly parent who has been in isolation with deliveries of food coming in was waiting for Boris et al to tell her it is safe to go and see them now. She has been shielding with her family who only go out for walks in open spaces and WFH. She now will not see the parent for longer and is worried about them committing suicide which they have attempted before.
Boris et al is telling her to go back to work (but not by public transport) and some of her kids to go back to school in two weeks, but not to see her parent. So she should increase her risk factor by going out and about, but abandon her familial commitments in the process so she starts earning the country some money again as working outside will make her more dangerous to them. And she is listening!
PinkPig
Well-known member
Meanwhile, in our country, we had to actually tell people not to drink bleach.
Sadly, there will always be stupid people. I think schools should teach logic. Many years ago I took a logic class in college for my second required math class. We all assumed it would be easier than finite... of all the classes I took, it had both the highest fail rate and highest drop rate. Seems we aren't the logical creatures we assume ourselves to be, after all.
Sadly, there will always be stupid people. I think schools should teach logic. Many years ago I took a logic class in college for my second required math class. We all assumed it would be easier than finite... of all the classes I took, it had both the highest fail rate and highest drop rate. Seems we aren't the logical creatures we assume ourselves to be, after all.
My thought in that, in the US we are reopening before it's safe, so that employees will have to go to work. If they refuse to go to work, for fear of catching Covid, they will be fired, and they won't be eligible for unemployment payments. Tada!
I understand that bosses will have to give employees sick leave pay if they actually get sick, but if they just don't go to work out of mere fear, they are fucked.
I understand that bosses will have to give employees sick leave pay if they actually get sick, but if they just don't go to work out of mere fear, they are fucked.
Last edited:
fuchka
Active member
I think you're spot on with this, Mags, and it's so vile.
PinkPig
Well-known member
You know, I think this is true for many, but there are good employers out there, too. I try to practice it as much as practical within my business... and I know other business owners that are doing likewise. I'm paying some to be off work because they're high risk, have let others draw unemployment while remaining on our medical policy (which we pay for), simply because they are too scared to work. I know other small, family businesses that are doing the same, despite being very deeply in the red income wise.... just depends on the business.
It would help though if we had a POTUS who actually cared about the people.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
Cognitive dissonance is an evil.
A few years ago, one of my nearest and dearest lost a loved one in a homicide. Initially, it was treated as natural causes because the physical injuries she sustained by the other person were not fatal. They could have never killed her. Not that day anyway. It was actually stated that the only way the injuries could have killed her was if they became infected over time and she died of sepsis. So it wasn't murder, it was a congenital condition. A ticking time bomb.
However, more information came to light which wasn't immediately apparent. The timeline of events was presumed to be different based on available evidence and the perpetrator did not take the first opportunity to correct this false presumption. They did slightly later when more evidence came out but nothing changed. It took the family taking some steps and showing they had resources to back themselves for the link to be made between the assault and her death. Yes, she did have an undiagnosed condition which untreated, was a ticking time bomb. But no bomb exploded until that day when he assaulted her. He followed that by not calling for help when it was clear she was in mortal danger. So it is murder. He plead guilty to that.
This woman is black.
A friend of hers, a white friend, a colleague, became well acquainted with her family throughout this ordeal. She helped where she could and she had some links that helped quite a bit. She did practical things like airport runs for incoming family members and to drive people around. She said all the right things. In her eyes, this was murder even when the family were satisfied that it could be a manslaughter charge. This was her friend who had been killed by a man she was meant to be able to trust. She thought life without parole or the DP was the only sentence appropriate for him. This wasn't shared by all the family because several of them work in human rights and prison reform. For some of them, taking responsibility didn't always look like sitting in a prison cell doing very little for society and not being rehabilitated. But then many more people who look like them sit in jail cells for life than look like her.
Fast forward to now and the tragic and brutal murder of Mr George Floyd. She is Facebook friends with a few of us and as it happened, I saw the start of cognitive dissonance. Firstly, she pointed out that we haven't seen everything that happened. Then she said that she hopes it doesn't incite protests and/or rioting. Then she criticized the rioting. Then the 1st autopsy results were published and she started her main narrative of this being a unhealthy individual, a ticking time bomb, and the autopsy shows that they didn't kill him.
Now listen, I'm sure the man might have had some cardiovascular disease. He probably did have hypertension. If so, given his demographic, it likely that he wasn't managing that as well as could be as black people have unequal access to healthcare. But the day that bomb decided to go off was the same day that a police officer kneeled on his neck for approximately minutes. The same as the woman I spoke about before.
But this doesn't occur to her friend. For her the autopsy which shows progression of natural disease proves that the kneeling was irrelevant to his death. Her friend? No that was murder. But My Floyd? No. He just had a heart attack.
A few years ago, one of my nearest and dearest lost a loved one in a homicide. Initially, it was treated as natural causes because the physical injuries she sustained by the other person were not fatal. They could have never killed her. Not that day anyway. It was actually stated that the only way the injuries could have killed her was if they became infected over time and she died of sepsis. So it wasn't murder, it was a congenital condition. A ticking time bomb.
However, more information came to light which wasn't immediately apparent. The timeline of events was presumed to be different based on available evidence and the perpetrator did not take the first opportunity to correct this false presumption. They did slightly later when more evidence came out but nothing changed. It took the family taking some steps and showing they had resources to back themselves for the link to be made between the assault and her death. Yes, she did have an undiagnosed condition which untreated, was a ticking time bomb. But no bomb exploded until that day when he assaulted her. He followed that by not calling for help when it was clear she was in mortal danger. So it is murder. He plead guilty to that.
This woman is black.
A friend of hers, a white friend, a colleague, became well acquainted with her family throughout this ordeal. She helped where she could and she had some links that helped quite a bit. She did practical things like airport runs for incoming family members and to drive people around. She said all the right things. In her eyes, this was murder even when the family were satisfied that it could be a manslaughter charge. This was her friend who had been killed by a man she was meant to be able to trust. She thought life without parole or the DP was the only sentence appropriate for him. This wasn't shared by all the family because several of them work in human rights and prison reform. For some of them, taking responsibility didn't always look like sitting in a prison cell doing very little for society and not being rehabilitated. But then many more people who look like them sit in jail cells for life than look like her.
Fast forward to now and the tragic and brutal murder of Mr George Floyd. She is Facebook friends with a few of us and as it happened, I saw the start of cognitive dissonance. Firstly, she pointed out that we haven't seen everything that happened. Then she said that she hopes it doesn't incite protests and/or rioting. Then she criticized the rioting. Then the 1st autopsy results were published and she started her main narrative of this being a unhealthy individual, a ticking time bomb, and the autopsy shows that they didn't kill him.
Now listen, I'm sure the man might have had some cardiovascular disease. He probably did have hypertension. If so, given his demographic, it likely that he wasn't managing that as well as could be as black people have unequal access to healthcare. But the day that bomb decided to go off was the same day that a police officer kneeled on his neck for approximately minutes. The same as the woman I spoke about before.
But this doesn't occur to her friend. For her the autopsy which shows progression of natural disease proves that the kneeling was irrelevant to his death. Her friend? No that was murder. But My Floyd? No. He just had a heart attack.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
I've spoken before about how I was shocked to learn that I didn't foster an environment where my loved ones could give me their honest opinions. What I haven't mentioned is that it was something I got from my dad. That's what shocked me as it was one flaw of my father's that I found difficult to accept. He was a great dad. Loving and supportive in most ways, he just wasn't the guy you went to when you had messed up. Or even the guy you went to when things had messed up, it sucked, and you just wanted to be sad about it.
When you had got back on your feet, that's when you went to him. And when you tell him the story of how you made it back, he would be the one most proud. He just wasn't good at the inbetweene bit. However, he did provide you with all the skills you needed to make it back so I guess that is why it was I something I tolerated and eventually accepted.
It was hard not to be resentful in those times when you were in trouble and wanted him. I did have other people but having him by your side through the struggle would have been what I would choose.
This would extend to those times when you're making a choice that you'd know he would disapprove of due to obstacles but you do it because you think it is where happiness might lie for you. You just wouldn't tell him until that choice paid off. Anyway.
When you had got back on your feet, that's when you went to him. And when you tell him the story of how you made it back, he would be the one most proud. He just wasn't good at the inbetweene bit. However, he did provide you with all the skills you needed to make it back so I guess that is why it was I something I tolerated and eventually accepted.
It was hard not to be resentful in those times when you were in trouble and wanted him. I did have other people but having him by your side through the struggle would have been what I would choose.
This would extend to those times when you're making a choice that you'd know he would disapprove of due to obstacles but you do it because you think it is where happiness might lie for you. You just wouldn't tell him until that choice paid off. Anyway.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
So, a few things have happened. Just to let everyone know, everyone I've mentioned has access to this blog and they're okay with the things I'm talking about here. They've been badgering me to write an update. My other partner used to have a blog and reading hers was helpful to me as it summarized everything that had happened in that useful way when you feel removed from the situation. I was having wins that I didn't even recognize.
Anyway, I'll start with someone new. She wants to be called Titi. Titi and I have had a somewhat complicated relationship. Our connection isn't complicated. We love each other deeply. Just the 2 of us have made some choices over time that has meant our relationship has been more complicated than it needed to be. For example, Titi had a partner for a long time who was more oriented towards an "open relationship". In many ways this wasn't all that problematic because the only way it really stopped us connecting the way we wanted to, well at least I wanted to, is that we had to stick to a "friend" label rather than call each other partners.
Titi's (now) ex and Titi found this was a good way to manage expectations and keep a positive spin on the limitations of their structure. And you know what? It worked. It worked for a long time. But on my side, it only worked because it wasn't all that difficult to still be able to see someone when and as I wanted, with no limitations on what we can do including vacations, and to express love verbally and otherwise. Still over time, feelings still rule and those feelings end up influencing your actions.
Over this time, 2 major things happened. Titi had a tragic bereavement and her ex transitioned. The combined emotional and physiological upheaval of these events distanced them. Titi travels for her work quite often but she went to her "base" with ex just before Covid hit and then she had to stay there. By this time, they were more friends than partners and had discussed downscaling their relationship but over the lockdown period, the situation became hostile.
I've been so worried about Titi as it must have been awful for a relationship which had so much love to turn so sour that the other person feels repulsed by you. Me and Jules knew we had to have her come here ASAP and she arrived a couple of weeks ago. Its good that we can just be ourselves, totally. Although I honestly never felt impeded by the arrangement that Titi had with her ex, I obviously did, subconsciously. Something just rejected the fact I had to call her a friend.
Jules and Titi get along but have never really had a chance to get to know each other as individuals and develop a independent friendship despite knowing each other and sharing space for years. They've had that time now and they're quickly becoming friends. At first, I felt some pressure to always be around and treat her more like a guest. Now, if I want to go to bed at 8 and have some alone time, I'm assured she will be fine with Jules and also fine to leave Jules and do her own thing without feeling rude. Titi wants to go back to the Caribbean though, for some months, ASAP, so she is close to the US timewise as she will be doing lots of human rights work post Covid. Mostly looking at all the different ways human rights were violated during the pandemic and suggesting research to evaluate the impact. One example being the continued restriction on birth partners after it was proven not to be an increased risk of transmission. I will miss her and it sucks because travelling there is not going to be the easy option it was in the past.
Violet, Rose and Thorn have drawn up plans to buy somewhere together where Violet will live and they will rent it out during the months she is gone to at least recup some costs if not cover them entirely. Instead of a studio, it will be a one bedroom so they can let it with 2 sleeping areas for people who want to come and stay somewhere short term for a holiday. They are all really interested in keeping it cheap and not making much profit beyond the extra maintenance which will be necessary. Ideally they want it to have wheelchair access and a wet room.
A metamour of Violet has a new cleaning company so will be in charge if cleaning and will even offer a hotel style service if people want it. Her husband is in the building trade and reckons most accessible flats will accommodate a wet room and he could get it cheaper if needs be. They are living their socialist dreams right now. I don't know about other countries but it is very expensive to rent an apartment with full disabled access in the UK.
Rose and Thorn feel that a positive antibody test will give them the reassurance to have socially distanced meets with people but until we find out how long we stay immune, proper meets are out of the question. My longing to see and touch Rose is fierce but the longer it goes on, the more determined I am not to just fold and stick to when the risk of transmitting to Thorn is actually lower. It isn't at the moment. We all have moments of saying fuck it, including Rose and Thorn, but we keep each other strong.
Jules will see her partners around September onwards. They are well and missing her. Her slave. Well that's really personal but let's say he isn't allowed self release. I'm surprised he can walk. It's been weeks past their usual time of seeing each other and he usually gets to see her for an extended time as he stays here for part of the year depending on his schedule.
Anyway, I'll start with someone new. She wants to be called Titi. Titi and I have had a somewhat complicated relationship. Our connection isn't complicated. We love each other deeply. Just the 2 of us have made some choices over time that has meant our relationship has been more complicated than it needed to be. For example, Titi had a partner for a long time who was more oriented towards an "open relationship". In many ways this wasn't all that problematic because the only way it really stopped us connecting the way we wanted to, well at least I wanted to, is that we had to stick to a "friend" label rather than call each other partners.
Titi's (now) ex and Titi found this was a good way to manage expectations and keep a positive spin on the limitations of their structure. And you know what? It worked. It worked for a long time. But on my side, it only worked because it wasn't all that difficult to still be able to see someone when and as I wanted, with no limitations on what we can do including vacations, and to express love verbally and otherwise. Still over time, feelings still rule and those feelings end up influencing your actions.
Over this time, 2 major things happened. Titi had a tragic bereavement and her ex transitioned. The combined emotional and physiological upheaval of these events distanced them. Titi travels for her work quite often but she went to her "base" with ex just before Covid hit and then she had to stay there. By this time, they were more friends than partners and had discussed downscaling their relationship but over the lockdown period, the situation became hostile.
I've been so worried about Titi as it must have been awful for a relationship which had so much love to turn so sour that the other person feels repulsed by you. Me and Jules knew we had to have her come here ASAP and she arrived a couple of weeks ago. Its good that we can just be ourselves, totally. Although I honestly never felt impeded by the arrangement that Titi had with her ex, I obviously did, subconsciously. Something just rejected the fact I had to call her a friend.
Jules and Titi get along but have never really had a chance to get to know each other as individuals and develop a independent friendship despite knowing each other and sharing space for years. They've had that time now and they're quickly becoming friends. At first, I felt some pressure to always be around and treat her more like a guest. Now, if I want to go to bed at 8 and have some alone time, I'm assured she will be fine with Jules and also fine to leave Jules and do her own thing without feeling rude. Titi wants to go back to the Caribbean though, for some months, ASAP, so she is close to the US timewise as she will be doing lots of human rights work post Covid. Mostly looking at all the different ways human rights were violated during the pandemic and suggesting research to evaluate the impact. One example being the continued restriction on birth partners after it was proven not to be an increased risk of transmission. I will miss her and it sucks because travelling there is not going to be the easy option it was in the past.
Violet, Rose and Thorn have drawn up plans to buy somewhere together where Violet will live and they will rent it out during the months she is gone to at least recup some costs if not cover them entirely. Instead of a studio, it will be a one bedroom so they can let it with 2 sleeping areas for people who want to come and stay somewhere short term for a holiday. They are all really interested in keeping it cheap and not making much profit beyond the extra maintenance which will be necessary. Ideally they want it to have wheelchair access and a wet room.
A metamour of Violet has a new cleaning company so will be in charge if cleaning and will even offer a hotel style service if people want it. Her husband is in the building trade and reckons most accessible flats will accommodate a wet room and he could get it cheaper if needs be. They are living their socialist dreams right now. I don't know about other countries but it is very expensive to rent an apartment with full disabled access in the UK.
Rose and Thorn feel that a positive antibody test will give them the reassurance to have socially distanced meets with people but until we find out how long we stay immune, proper meets are out of the question. My longing to see and touch Rose is fierce but the longer it goes on, the more determined I am not to just fold and stick to when the risk of transmitting to Thorn is actually lower. It isn't at the moment. We all have moments of saying fuck it, including Rose and Thorn, but we keep each other strong.
Jules will see her partners around September onwards. They are well and missing her. Her slave. Well that's really personal but let's say he isn't allowed self release. I'm surprised he can walk. It's been weeks past their usual time of seeing each other and he usually gets to see her for an extended time as he stays here for part of the year depending on his schedule.
Would it be possible for Rose to just spend a longer visit with you? This is something Artist and I were talking about as an option right before we decided to just make our germ pod all of us - depending on how well you can quarantine, if she spends a full two weeks with you and none of you have outside contact during that time, at that point you could be pretty confident you weren't asymptomatic carriers. That was, for about 12 hours, the plan we were going to go with - two weeks at each place.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
Thorn needs some help at home. A night or two is okay but longer is not an option.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
He wouldn't want that. I think it actually helps him feel connected.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
Thorn has been in poor health the last few days. They think is related to his condition rather than a newly acquired infection but they've tested him all the same. He doesn't have any classic symptoms at this point but they had to let 2 workpeople in the other day for repairs they've put off for months. 3 days later, he felt unwell. It has been a week since and he is worse.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
There's this whole issue I want to write about but I don't know where to start.
You could start by linking to the thread that inspired your thoughts about the issue. That's not against the forum rules. It's just against the rules to hijack the thread itself.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
Actually it isn't to do with the forum.
We all know that professionals (especially in health care) have a duty to remain confidentiality.
So imagine this (not necessarily poly related)
You work within a field that comes into contact with people experiencing domestic abuse. You recognize a friend's new date as someone who is an abuser. Wait no, I have to say this right. You suspect said person is an abuser because of the context you have seen them in your workplace but you haven't worked directly with said person. You know the person in a similar role to yourself who does work with them.
So here, you, with this colleague, breach confidentiality and discuss the person to confirm your suspicions. They absolutely confirm them. The colleague knows the person to be emotionally and financially abusive to their former partner. The colleague suspects it has escalated to physical and/or sexual abuse but only the former has been confirmed by the abuser and the victim. The colleague is aware why you want to know (social not professional reasons).
To add to this, the friend who is dating the abuser is vulnerable to abuse plus they have dependents that could be affected. It isnt exactly a surprise that they'd be attracted to someone with these tendencies. However, they are convinced this person is oh so different. And it sounds like they are of a more manipulative abuser rather than overtly angry and violent so that might not be an unreasonable assumption at this time. However, it does mean that they're more likely to be resistant to any suggestion otherwise. This is in line with previous actions.
The victim will want evidence. And they're likely to guess where they evidence came from if you approach them with this specific information. And the chances of them going back the Abuser with this information is high which of course would risk you and your colleague's job because you breached confidentiality.
So you sit, and wait for the inevitable and pray the victim never knows you know this. If you recognize the Abuser, the Abuser will recognize you. They see far fewer people in your role than you see in theirs. Plus you stick out. You sometimes wonder if you should push to meet the Abuser and maybe scare them into leaving the victim just by them seeing you because saying anything would be too risky. But maybe if it came to it, you could say you just guessed because you saw them at work and gave them a warning on the high chance they were what you suspected.
We all know that professionals (especially in health care) have a duty to remain confidentiality.
So imagine this (not necessarily poly related)
You work within a field that comes into contact with people experiencing domestic abuse. You recognize a friend's new date as someone who is an abuser. Wait no, I have to say this right. You suspect said person is an abuser because of the context you have seen them in your workplace but you haven't worked directly with said person. You know the person in a similar role to yourself who does work with them.
So here, you, with this colleague, breach confidentiality and discuss the person to confirm your suspicions. They absolutely confirm them. The colleague knows the person to be emotionally and financially abusive to their former partner. The colleague suspects it has escalated to physical and/or sexual abuse but only the former has been confirmed by the abuser and the victim. The colleague is aware why you want to know (social not professional reasons).
To add to this, the friend who is dating the abuser is vulnerable to abuse plus they have dependents that could be affected. It isnt exactly a surprise that they'd be attracted to someone with these tendencies. However, they are convinced this person is oh so different. And it sounds like they are of a more manipulative abuser rather than overtly angry and violent so that might not be an unreasonable assumption at this time. However, it does mean that they're more likely to be resistant to any suggestion otherwise. This is in line with previous actions.
The victim will want evidence. And they're likely to guess where they evidence came from if you approach them with this specific information. And the chances of them going back the Abuser with this information is high which of course would risk you and your colleague's job because you breached confidentiality.
So you sit, and wait for the inevitable and pray the victim never knows you know this. If you recognize the Abuser, the Abuser will recognize you. They see far fewer people in your role than you see in theirs. Plus you stick out. You sometimes wonder if you should push to meet the Abuser and maybe scare them into leaving the victim just by them seeing you because saying anything would be too risky. But maybe if it came to it, you could say you just guessed because you saw them at work and gave them a warning on the high chance they were what you suspected.
vinsanity0
Active member
Wouldn't saying you saw them at work still violate confidentiality? I like your idea of meeting them. After meeting them in a social setting, would it be considered improper to say hello at the office, just to drive the point home?
JaneQSmythe
Well-known member
My first bit of advice - tread very carefully here!
In my line of work confidentiality breaches are taken very, very seriously. (As in instant termination and loss of professional licensing! In addition to multi-million dollar lawsuits and potentially federal investigation if the employer was found to be lax about enforcing regulations.)
That being said, not infrequently I find myself in situations similar to what you describe (with the caveat that my colleagues and I cross-cover so it is conceivable that the conversation could have happened under a "need-to-know" basis).
So, you can't tell the potential victim that you saw the potential abuser at work. If you meet the potential abuser socially you cannot publicly acknowledge that you have seen them at work (unless they acknowledge that publicly first). Now, they may very well assume that you have spoken to your friend (people often assume that other people would do what they would do) and may accidentally out themselves asking their partner what you have told them. If you see them again at work, they will "know that you know" that they work with someone there - and, again, may out themselves by their reaction. (You can acknowledge that you recognize them the next time you see them at work because you have met them socially - because there is no "expectation of privacy" relating to a social situation.)
As far as your friend goes - you can watch very carefully for "red flags" that your friend tells you (i.e. things that you learn outside of the info from your colleague) and voice your concerns with regard to those behaviors. "You say that he always wants to know exactly where you are and who you are with so that he knows that you are 'safe'. I have to tell you that I find that more concerning than thoughtful - as I often hear of such behavior as part of a pattern of control as opposed to a genuine concern for a partner's wellbeing."
You can provide relevant "general advise" without disclosing what you know about the partner as an individual. For instance, it is always a good idea for a person to have access to money and their private papers that a partner does not have access to "just in case". You can express concern about introducing children/dependents to new dating partners "too quickly", etc. (Are you a mandated reporter? Because that can come into play if you learn of any abuse of minors/dependents even if you don't learn of the abuse through work.)
My friends and family are well aware of what I do and that there is some overlap in my social and professional circles. Occasionally, I will get asked if I "know" something - my response is always "You know that I couldn't tell you even if I did." (Whether I do or not.)
(NOTE: you could also have done all of this withOUT confirming with your colleague and therefore creating a confidentiality breach)
In my line of work confidentiality breaches are taken very, very seriously. (As in instant termination and loss of professional licensing! In addition to multi-million dollar lawsuits and potentially federal investigation if the employer was found to be lax about enforcing regulations.)
That being said, not infrequently I find myself in situations similar to what you describe (with the caveat that my colleagues and I cross-cover so it is conceivable that the conversation could have happened under a "need-to-know" basis).
So, you can't tell the potential victim that you saw the potential abuser at work. If you meet the potential abuser socially you cannot publicly acknowledge that you have seen them at work (unless they acknowledge that publicly first). Now, they may very well assume that you have spoken to your friend (people often assume that other people would do what they would do) and may accidentally out themselves asking their partner what you have told them. If you see them again at work, they will "know that you know" that they work with someone there - and, again, may out themselves by their reaction. (You can acknowledge that you recognize them the next time you see them at work because you have met them socially - because there is no "expectation of privacy" relating to a social situation.)
As far as your friend goes - you can watch very carefully for "red flags" that your friend tells you (i.e. things that you learn outside of the info from your colleague) and voice your concerns with regard to those behaviors. "You say that he always wants to know exactly where you are and who you are with so that he knows that you are 'safe'. I have to tell you that I find that more concerning than thoughtful - as I often hear of such behavior as part of a pattern of control as opposed to a genuine concern for a partner's wellbeing."
You can provide relevant "general advise" without disclosing what you know about the partner as an individual. For instance, it is always a good idea for a person to have access to money and their private papers that a partner does not have access to "just in case". You can express concern about introducing children/dependents to new dating partners "too quickly", etc. (Are you a mandated reporter? Because that can come into play if you learn of any abuse of minors/dependents even if you don't learn of the abuse through work.)
My friends and family are well aware of what I do and that there is some overlap in my social and professional circles. Occasionally, I will get asked if I "know" something - my response is always "You know that I couldn't tell you even if I did." (Whether I do or not.)
(NOTE: you could also have done all of this withOUT confirming with your colleague and therefore creating a confidentiality breach)
Last edited: