I certainly agree with those who argue that total honesty is not always the reality to which anyone is entitled. Frankly, I think being completely and utterly honest at every moment, about every minute thought and deed is an impossibility. Nor is it deceptive if the rebellious thoughts are fleeting and internalized rather than externalized in action. No human being has complete control over their thoughts; all we can guarantee is how those thoughts are expressed – or IF they are.
I also think our society is actually accepting and in fact encouraging of ‘small’ dishonesties .. those not meant to deceive but to be kind. Lies of omission perhaps are open to interpretation but surely to spare someone’s feelings it is kinder to utter words that are in essence, a “lie”. These little subterfuges after all, are often called not lies but ‘social graces’.
But swan, alice n and chloe also tackle something far removed from that kind of benign omittace.
They admit instead that they have, in their submission, given full permission to their Masters to tell them as little – or as much – as he chooses. Further, each admits frankly that even when/if a lie is revealed, that is neither a deterrent nor a deal-breaker – because they have made the leap TO faith. That the person who steers their destiny is, by definition and agreement, exempt from the societal norm of “complete honesty between partners”. The crux, of course, being they are NOT partners, for by definition, each of them has freely given up the right to equal treatment.
I find it telling that for me, my thoughts baulk at that kind of acceptance. While part of me is in awe of the level of faith that incorporates, and yes, even admiring at some level – another part of me – the inner, reptile-brain of selkie – finds that frightening. The feminist selkie screams this is what our mothers used to do and so many were deceived and left bereft. The selkie with her life experiences knows that faith can be broken, trust shattered.
I comprehend that certain individuals have chosen to place their faith and offered their trust to individuals whom they have allowed a freedom of thought, action and intent radically different than that vouchsafed them
– and that of course is their right. In its own way it is breathtakingly admirable – and for me, impossible to emulate.
Which of course brings me to the next thought which I believe naturally flows from this ....