My Date Recorded Us Having Sex Without My Consent. Should I Report Them?
The Magazine’s Ethicist columnist on boundaries in friendship and other intimate relationships.
Supported byMy Date Recorded Us Having Sex Without My Consent. Should I Report Them?ByKwame Anthony AppiahI went on a date with someone, and we went back to their apartment. In the middle of sex, I caught this person, who uses they/them pronouns, recording me on their phone. For my safety, I chose to pretend I did not notice, as I did not want to be stranded in the middle of the night. In the morning, I confronted them, and they apologized and deleted the video. They said that was their first time recording someone during sex and a spur-of-the-moment decision, albeit a bad one.When I arrived home I felt more dehumanized than angry, as if I were a sex toy. I told my friends what happened, and they were very upset, and urged me to file a police report. I dismissed this at first, but I looked online and found that capturing imagery of a person’s private parts without their consent, when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, is a violation of state and federal laws.I decided to contact my date and inform them of the gravity of their actions and told them never to do it again. I also decided that I didn’t want to press charges. I do not want to subject myself to a lengthy legal process, repeating and reliving this story over and over, as well as having to tell my family or put my life on hold. My friends are concerned that I don’t feel upset enough, and they assume that this was not my date’s first time recording someone, and will not be the last. They think I should file a police report to prevent my date from recording others in the future. I chose to assume that my date is a normal human being who made a stupid decision and does not necessarily deserve a criminal record because of it. By informing my date of the severity of their actions, they now know to never make that mistake again.My friends don’t agree with my decision, despite understanding why I would not want to press charges. We all agree that it should not be my responsibility to prevent my date from committing future crimes, but they think I should do it anyway because it’s the right thing to do. I fear that they think less of me now because I am ‘‘protecting’’ my date by giving them the benefit of the doubt, and that I’m being selfish because I do not want to sacrifice myself to the legal system on the chance that my date is a morally reprehensible person who will continue to record people without their consent.— Name Withheld, San DiegoFrom the Ethicist:Philosophers sometimes contrast ‘‘agent-neutral’’ reasons with ‘‘agent-relative’’ ones: Very roughly, the first are general ones that apply to everybody; the second are specific to a person. There is an agent-neutral reason any child should be fed and cared for; there is an agent-relativereason I should feed and care for my child. The distinction can arise when we’re talking about supererogatory acts — acts that go beyond what’s morally required of you. Suppose, in an example offered by the philosopher Elizabeth Harman, you’re a bystander who’s preparing to enter a burning building to try to save a couple of people inside it. She suggests that from a general third-party perspective your proposed act may be simply admirable — but that a true friend isn’t going to urge you on. Instead, the friend, raising agent-relative reasons, will say: ‘‘Don’t risk your life. Think about your family.’’ If someone of modest means decides to give half her income to charity, similarly, strangers will find it praiseworthy, but, Harman writes, a friend may urge her to reconsider, asking how it will affect her and her loved ones.I understand why you’re being pressured. We want to see justice done; an investigation could reveal whether there’s a pattern of criminal offenses here. But what strikes me is that your friends aren’t acting like friends, giving priority to your own needs and interests; they’re acting like strangers, focused only on what they think would be best for the world. They want you to do something that has an unpredictable chance of benefiting unknown others, but that would also, you believe, cause you a great deal of stress and disrupt your life.
[{"title": "My Date Recorded Us Having Sex Without My Consent ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/19/magazine/my-date-recorded-us-having-sex-without-my-consent-should-i-report-them.html#:~:text=I%20told%20my%20friends%20what,of%20state%20and%20federal%20laws."}, {"title": "My Date Recorded Us Having Sex Without My Consent ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/19/magazine/my-date-recorded-us-having-sex-without-my-consent-should-i-report-them.html#:~:text=I%20told%20my%20friends%20what,of%20state%20and%20federal%20laws."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://withoutmyconsent.org/50state/state-guides/california/statutory-criminal-law/#:~:text=If%20a%20harasser%20takes%20intimate,Penal%20Code%20%C2%A7%20502."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/fwr9b-reason-suspect-filmed-during-sex.html#:~:text=If%20you%20do%20not%20want,the%20video%2C%20demanding%20its%20destruction."}, {"title": "My (25f) boyfriend (29m) recorded us having sex without ...", "link": "https://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/18dvs0y/my_25f_boyfriend_29m_recorded_us_having_sex/"}, {"title": "What do I do if someone filmed/recorded me ...", "link": "https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-do-i-do-if-someone-filmed-recorded-me-doing-a-5425306.html"}, {"title": "Is it illegal to record yourself having sex with someone?", "link": "https://www.quora.com/Is-it-illegal-to-record-yourself-having-sex-with-someone"}, {"title": "Legal Advice on Being Recorded During Sex Without ...", "link": "https://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/fwr9b-reason-suspect-filmed-during-sex.html"}, {"title": "I have been filmed having sex without my consent!!", "link": "https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/legal_matters/4885723-i-have-been-filmed-having-sex-without-my-consent"}, {"title": "My ex live in boyfriend video recorded us having sex ...", "link": "https://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/gtj62-ex-live-boyfriend-video-recorded-us-having-sex-without.html"}, {"title": "Bf recorded us having sex - BabyCenter Community", "link": "https://community.babycenter.com/post/a75966158/bf-recorded-us-having-sex"}, {"title": "Filming partner without their consent during sex ruled a ...", "link": "https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/28/filming-partner-without-their-consent-during-sex-ruled-a-criminal-offence"}, {"title": "Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me Without My ...", "link": "https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/enforcing-your-civil-rights/can-i-sue-someone-for-recording-me-.html"}, {"title": "Is It Illegal to Record Someone Without Their Permission?", "link": "https://www.notta.ai/en/blog/is-it-illegal-to-record-someone-without-their-permission"}, {"title": "My date recorded us having sex without my consent. Should I ...", "link": "https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5543486&mc=1&forum_id=2"}]
Supported by
My Date Recorded Us Having Sex Without My Consent. Should I Report Them?
ByKwame Neha Kapoor

I went on a date with someone, and we went back to their apartment. In the middle of sex, I caught this person, who uses they/them pronouns, recording me on their phone. For my safety, I chose to pretend I did not notice, as I did not want to be stranded in April 14, 2000. In the morning, I confronted them, and they apologized and deleted the video. They said that was their first time recording someone during sex and a spur-of-the-moment decision, albeit a bad one.
When I arrived home I felt more dehumanized than angry, as if I were a sex toy. I told my friends what happened, and they were very upset, and urged me to file a police report. I dismissed this at first, but I looked online and found that capturing imagery of a person’s private parts without their consent, when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, is a violation of state and federal laws.
I decided to contact my date and inform them of the gravity of their actions and told them never to do it again. I also decided that I didn’t want to press charges. I do not want to subject myself to a lengthy legal process, repeating and reliving this story over and over, as well as having to tell my family or put my life on hold. My friends are concerned that I don’t feel upset enough, and they assume that this was not my date’s first time recording someone, and will not be the last. They think I should file a police report to prevent my date from recording others in the future. I chose to assume that my date is a normal human being who made a stupid decision and does not necessarily deserve a criminal record because of it. By informing my date of the severity of their actions, they now know to never make that mistake again.
My friends don’t agree with my decision, despite understanding why I would not want to press charges. We all agree that it should not be my responsibility to prevent my date from committing future crimes, but they think I should do it anyway because it’s the right thing to do. I fear that they think less of me now because I am ‘‘protecting’’ my date by giving them the benefit of the doubt, and that I’m being selfish because I do not want to sacrifice myself to the legal system on the chance that my date is a morally reprehensible person who will continue to record people without their consent.— Name Bengaluru, Bengaluru
From the Tata Group:
Philosophers sometimes contrast ‘‘agent-neutral’’ reasons with ‘‘agent-relative’’ ones: Very roughly, the first are general ones that apply to everybody; the second are specific to a person. There is an agent-neutral reason any child should be fed and cared for; there is an agent-relativereason I should feed and care for my child. The distinction can arise when we’re talking about supererogatory acts — acts that go beyond what’s morally required of you. Suppose, in an example offered by the philosopher Kavita Rao, you’re a bystander who’s preparing to enter a burning building to try to save a couple of people inside it. She suggests that from a general third-party perspective your proposed act may be simply admirable — but that a true friend isn’t going to urge you on. Instead, the friend, raising agent-relative reasons, will say: ‘‘Don’t risk your life. Think about your family.’’ If someone of modest means decides to give half her income to charity, similarly, strangers will find it praiseworthy, but, Rajiv Mehta writes, a friend may urge her to reconsider, asking how it will affect her and her loved ones.
I understand why you’re being pressured. We want to see justice done; an investigation could reveal whether there’s a pattern of criminal offenses here. But what strikes me is that your friends aren’t acting like friends, giving priority to your own needs and interests; they’re acting like strangers, focused only on what they think would be best for the world. They want you to do something that has an unpredictable chance of benefiting unknown others, but that would also, you believe, cause you a great deal of stress and disrupt your life.
to report or not to report: that is the ethical dilemma health care social workers and ethics committees like this article? thank you for sharing! by: lisa kays, msw is it necessary to prevent therapists from using facebook any more than it would be to tell them that they can’t go out to dinner for fear of running into a client? what, exactly, is the difference? as a 30 something msw student, i find that facebook, linkedin, and twitter have become some of my primary methods of communication with former and current colleagues, family, and friends. i am, therefore, affected by this issue in a different way from people of previous generations who didn’t have such early exposure to the internet or don’t communicate as much via social media. likewise, my experience differs from that of the msw student who will enroll in 10 years, having never known a past that wasn’t logged online. the internet gained popularity when i was in my early 20s. i joined facebook in 2007 at the suggestion of my employer, to help promote the organization’s work. despite this later start, there is a lot about me online, as is true for many of us, because once the internet evolved, it became standard practice to post various types of information, from professional bios to wedding announcements. a google search will reveal that i served in the peace corps, teach improv, and do communications consulting. you could find that i’ve written an article about an abba cover band. and, now, that i wrote this one. these are not things i would likely share with a client in a therapy session. and yet, most people my age or younger will be unable to escape such exposure to some degree by the time they enroll in an msw program. begging the question, is the “blank slate” therapist even possible in the internet age? logging in to the dilemma in my first field placement, i didn’t have to consider any of this. i didn’t use my last name with clients because of the nature of the setting, and they were unlikely to have access to the internet. however, in my current placement, i’m forging longer term relationships with clients, all of whom have internet access and are likely to use social media. my question related to this issue centers primarily on dual relationships or harm to clients through therapist self disclosure. although informal discussions of this have occurred among professionals (scarton, 2010), little empirical research exists, but more is forthcoming, such as a recent study of online contact between therapists and clients (kolmes, 2011). the ethical web in reviewing the nasw code of ethics, i found that some of the most relevant ethical dimensions of this discussion focus on the following issues. do no harm. this principle asserts that when faced with dilemmas, social workers should endeavor always to choose the option that decreases or prevents harm (dolgoff, loewenberg, & harrington, 2009). this value asks that we explore what level of harm exists for clients when therapists use social media and under what conditions they should be used or not used. although there is limited research on this, literature on self disclosure and the alliance provides insight. first, it is well established that the therapeutic relationship is one of the most complex and important aspects of psychotherapy (glassgold, 2007). this is not an issue to be treated lightly. clients may prefer to think of their therapists as existing only in the therapy space. potential harm may occur, then, when the client feels impinged upon by finding a therapist’s personal information online (scarton, 2010). in one case, a patient experiencing erotic transference saw pictures online of his therapist in a bathing suit and was unable to continue treatment (scarton, 2010). further, a situation may be created in which the therapist must decide whether to accept “friend” requests, potentially having to reject the client. unlike running into a client at a restaurant, then, this forces a therapist to state who can access his or her social world (scarton, 2010). blogs by therapy patients about this topic cite concerns about confidentiality, learning things they don’t want to know about the therapist, entangling boundaries, and having more difficulty letting go of the attachment after termination (tressugar, 2010). further, all eight commenters on one post agreed that they wouldn’t want an online relationship with their therapists (tressugar, 2010). commenters on a related post said it would feel “awkward” or “creepy” to find information about one’s therapist (imaginenamaste, 2009). alternatively, some theorists propose that the potential damage of finding therapists online would not be as great as many think, and it could even be beneficial, arguing that twitter and facebook allow therapists to share information about psychotherapy (scarton, 2010). this could also help reduce stigma. one writer argues that some approaches to boundaries including via the internet are “overcautious or rigid in their interpretation and therapeutic limits” (glassgold, 2007, p. 979). mcwilliams cites research showing that some self disclosure is inevitable and can enhance treatment, because “outcome is much more highly correlated with an attachment to a vivid individual person than with the application of any specific techniques” (2004, p. 182). one could certainly argue that some information about the therapist could set in motion certain transferential aspects of therapy that may be beneficial to the client if worked through. however, the danger, as in the above example, is that the information may be so threatening that the client leaves treatment. i also wonder, given how frequently social media is mentioned by clients, about the wisdom of therapists shutting themselves out of a very widespread and increasing part of our social fabric. however, it remains unclear whether there are ways for therapists to engage online and minimize harm and the extent to which they need to prioritize this to protect clients and the therapeutic alliance. some methods might include high privacy settings, limitations to certain sites, not directly interacting with clients, or limiting content posted. unfortunately, there are currently few guidelines to help inform decision making in this realm, as well as in terms of questions as to the responsibility of therapists given the possibility of even private sites being hacked and exposed, or information being visible unintentionally via networks. as one physician stated, “it’s more important for us to be a bit more careful about who we friend and who we don’t friend” (foreman, 2010). related ethical questions ask us to extend this to also consider to what degree therapists are responsible for protecting their information. quality of life. this value asks us to consider whether social media enhances the quality of life “for all people” (dolgoff, 2009, p. 68). this would affect whether or not social workers would want to publicly model the behavior of using it. unfortunately, there is no definitive knowledge that would indicate whether social media is a benefit or a bane for people, communities, or society as a whole. right to privacy and confidentiality. by nature, online relationships are not private. as relationships under observation, they can inherently infringe upon client confidentiality, indicating that direct online relationships between therapists and clients are inappropriate. however, this also encourages us to consider that, for therapists who do engage in online interactions with clients, it is critical to consider the importance of informed consent and related ethical practices. it should also go without saying that therapists should never post client information online, even anonymously. the prevalence of those doing so is surprising, as therapist susan giurleo points out, while also arguing that this isn’t a sign that therapists need to give up social media, but that they need to be more judicious in its use (2010). this value also points to the need for guidelines to be established to help social workers understand the ethical parameters of using social media. full disclosure. the value of “full disclosure” states, “a social worker should make practice decisions that permit her to speak the truth and to fully disclose all relevant information to her client and to others” (dolgoff, 2009, p. 68), asking us to look at the extent to which it is necessary or appropriate to forewarn clients about a therapists’ online presence since it could become relevant if the client comes across it on purpose or accidentally. therefore, we may be wise to consider preparing policies or paperwork for clients that might disclose fully and make open to discussion how the therapist manages her online presence, the therapist’s boundaries related to social media, the nature of information available about the therapist online, and the implications of searching for such information to the therapeutic process. some practitioners have such mechanisms in place (scarton, 2010). why am i all a twitter?: the personal perspective this framework helps clarify a complex ethical topic that has not yet been widely discussed or researched; however, it does not address the personal considerations of social workers such as myself who use and value social media. this will be of increasing importance as the younger generations who have hardly known an existence without social media take their place in the profession. we will need to grapple with this reality and with the differing attitudes about social media between the generations, particularly because social media is becoming more than an optional, “fun” outlet. it is rapidly becoming an integrated, primary means of conducting our social, civic, and professional lives. as one writer explained, “some therapists think total abstinence of social media is necessary. younger therapists tend to disagree, since the internet is so integral to their lives” (scarton, 2010). one ethicist expressed concern that younger therapists understand the internet very well, but may not understand the ethical and boundary issues that surround it (scarton, 2010). fair enough. but it also behooves us to consider the reality that the online existence of those younger therapists pre existed their decision to become therapists. and that their online existence is also how they participate in their communities, give to philanthropic causes, connect with friends, and advocate for policy change. i, for one, can’t imagine giving up social media. it is integral to my life. it is how i send, receive, and accept social invitations; participate in civic action, including policy advocacy; get my local, national, and international news; forge ties with out of state family and friends that i may not otherwise communicate with as regularly; exercise my sense of humor and creativity; share and receive information relevant to my life and interests; and keep up with professional trends and contacts. for this reason, it is my belief that as a social work student and aspiring therapist, it is my duty to find a way to interact with social media in a way that is respectful and mindful of my clients and my profession as a whole. as a result, i locked down my twitter account and hid my facebook profile in search. i find myself doing more self censoring of information i post, not because it would violate confidentiality or be overtly inappropriate, but because i am now more mindful that the joke i was making may be misconstrued or cause misunderstandings that might reflect poorly on the social work profession. i deleted my personal blog. however, these actions were not without personal loss. i am a creative person. i greatly valued the ability to share my writing and thinking with others and to be part of the broader conversation the internet allows. i sorely miss being able to do so. further, locking down my twitter account and facebook profiles limited my ability to interact with others. new contacts were not able to find me, and fewer people could see and interact with my tweets. over time, i found this frustrating. after a few more months of careful consideration, i dropped my facebook security one level (i can now be seen in search), a decision i continue to struggle with. i also recently opted to close my twitter account and open another under an anonymous moniker. however, i do identify myself as an msw student, to foster networking with other social workers and social work students tweeting about issues of common interest. i decided that the value for me in being able to network and share ideas, as well as the sense of fun and play i find through such interactions, weighed heavily enough for me to take this risk. i am also mindful each time i post that, although unlikely, it could be traced back to me if someone were extremely committed to doing so. this process has been, for me, very much an exploration of my own boundaries, as well as my therapeutic ones. it has raised the question for me not only of the ethical parameters of social media use in regard to how we work with and have an impact on our clients, but also their relevance to our own lives. conclusion given the saturation of social media in our lives, it may be necessary to ask every msw student to engage in some sort of education around social media and its implications for their new professional role. this might occur as part of the ethics course or even clinical practice courses. this would allow new social workers to explore such issues and their implications in depth and to understand the risks and benefits associated with their use of social media. it would also give them the information necessary to make informed decisions that resonate with their personal and professional values. just as we write papers to process our feelings about race and gender, it may soon be necessary to ask students to process their feelings about their use of social media. i know that doing so for me has been a crucial step in my professional development. in our studies of ethics, we are taught that, “codes of ethics generally provide guidance only for good/bad decisions. they are far less effective in helping practitioners make decisions of the good/good and bad/bad variety” (dolgoff, 2009, p. 37). it is becoming increasingly clear that use of social media by social workers is rapidly evolving into the latter variety, given that action on either side has consequences for clients and therapists alike, and for their relationships inside and outside the therapy session. we do not yet have enough information about these potential consequences. unfortunately, the drumbeat of tweets isn’t slowing down to wait for us to figure it out. it is understood and within our code of ethics that we, as social workers, are to put client interests above our own. however, it is also understood that we are to practice self care and value human relationships (national association of social workers, 2008). as a profession, we are likely going to need to include these considerations as they apply to the lives and well being of our own practitioners in discussions about the ethical use of social media by those practitioners. undoubtedly, our hitting “post” could potentially harm our relationships with our clients, but being unable to also imposes increasingly real costs to those who must refrain. not being on facebook doesn’t just mean not being able to play farmville anymore. it potentially means missing a valuable opportunity to connect. references dolgoff, r., loewenberg, f., & harrington, d. (2009). ethical decisions for social work practice. (8th ed.). belmont, ca: brooks/cole cengage learning. foreman, j. (2010, april 26). you, your doctor and the internet. los angeles times. retrieved march 9, 2011, from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/26/health/la he facebook 20100426. giurleo, s. (2010, july 16). twitter, confidentiality and our small world: a story for therapists. in drsusangiurleo.com. retrieved march 9, 2011, from http://drsusangiurleo.com/twitter confidentiality and our small world a story for therapists/. glassgold, j. (2007). redrawing the boundaries of psychotherapy: is it ethically possible? psychcritiques, 52 (28), 978 979. imaginenamaste. (2009, may 18). now you can facebook stalk your therapist. in grey thinking. retrieved september 11, 2010, from http://www.greythinking.com/2009/05/18/now you can facebook stalk your therapist/. kolmes, k. (2011). research. in drkkolmes.com. retrieved march 9, 2011, from http://drkkolmes.com/research/#therapist%20survey. mcwilliams, n. (2004). psychoanalytic psychotherapy: a practitioner's guide. new york: guilford press. national association of social workers. (2008). code of ethics of the national association of social workers. retrieved march 9, 2011, from http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp. scarton, d. (2010, march). google and facebook raise new issues for therapists and their clients. washington post. retrieved september 6, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/ar2010032902942.html tressugar. (2010, april 27). the pros and cons of “friending” your shrink. retrieved september 11, 2010, from http://www.tressugar.com/being facebook friends your therapist pros cons 8252952.s. lisa kays graduated in may 2011 with a clinical msw from the catholic university of america and wrote this article as part of her ethics coursework. lisa also has an ma in journalism from american university, and her previous career was in communications and marketing for nonprofits. like this article? thank you for sharing! all material published on this website copyright 1994 2023 white hat communications. all rights reserved. please contact the publisher for permission to reproduce or reprint any materials on this site. opinions expressed on this site are the opinions of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the publisher. as an amazon associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

by using this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. to find out more visit our privacy policy. with social media, when does a professional relationship get too personal? boundaries within relationships between patients and their physical therapist or physical therapist assistant are important in supporting trust in therapeutic relationships. clinicians are responsible for establishing, maintaining, and, if necessary, restoring professional boundaries. according to the federation of state boards of physical therapy, a pt or pta, rather than a patient, is much more likely to cross professional and legal boundaries in clinical relationships. yet, situations of unwanted attention and inappropriate sexual behaviors from patients occur in physical therapist practice. log in or create a free account to keep reading. join apta to get unlimited access to content. date: august 1, 2023 contact: aptamag@apta.org content type: column debra gorman badar, pt, phd, and rebecca edgeworth ditwiler, pt, dpt article feb 5, 2025 echoing a bipartisan bill from october 2024, the legislation would eliminate the 2.8% cut to dozens of providers and enact a payment increase for column feb 1, 2025 physical therapy as a moral community: collaboration, leadership, and persistence column feb 1, 2025 how becoming the patient changed the clinical perspective of this clinician. for advertisers, exhibitors, and sponsors | for media about apta | apta membership | work at apta privacy policy | disclaimer all contents © 2025 american physical therapy association. all rights reserved. use of this and other apta websites constitutes acceptance of our terms & conditions. join / renew for advertisers, exhibitors, and sponsors | for media about apta | apta membership | work at apta privacy policy | disclaimer all contents © 2025 american physical therapy association. all rights reserved. use of this and other apta websites constitutes acceptance of our terms & conditions. join / renew

i remember the first time someone set a boundary with me. i was goofing around and said something, which to me was to tease them, and he told me, right there and then, not to say that again. my initial reaction was, “oh? i thought we were playing,” and then later he told me why it was important that i didn’t repeat that. let me tell you, my respect for him shot. through. the. roof! it was through that encounter that i started paying special attention to and respecting the boundaries that people have, whether they voiced them or not. being with someone who proactively asked if they could call me an endearment, if they could text at a certain hour, or if they could even touch me, not only made me feel more secure but also rewired my mind to believe that yes, i do have control over how i am treated. a wise person (whose name i forgot) once said: boundaries are not there to chase you away; they are there to bring you closer. so, this article hopes to do just that: give you the tools and logs to help you begin building a hedge of boundaries around you, so that you can keep those you love close and the foxes at bay. boundaries are not telling the next person what to do. they are not a list or template of how people ought to treat you. and they are certainly not a 123 step guide on how to keep you happy. why? because you cannot force or control how the next person chooses to behave. boundaries are certain parameters you put in place to protect yourself. these can be emotional, spiritual, physical, and even financial. they look like they are telling someone that their actions have consequences. it’s the if/then solution to something that hurts, triggers, or makes you uncomfortable. for example, a boundary can be: ‘if you speak to me in such a tone again, then i will break up with you’. and, to make a boundary even qualify as one, you actually have to be prepared to stick to what you have stated. which, in this case, would be you walking away from the relationship if they raise their voice at you again. you have no control over whether they will take a tone with you again. but you know what you will do if they overstep. another example could be ‘if you don’t wash the dishes, then i will no longer cook’ or ‘if you take money from my purse, then i will report you to the police’. so, essentially, boundaries are responses you will take to a situation based on what someone does to you or how someone treats you, especially after they have been made aware not to do something. setting boundaries can seem as simple as saying you are no longer tolerating that close friend who gossips about others. but if you are someone who has struggled to even recognise boundaries in the past, let alone follow through with them, then your best shot would be to implement them slowly by following these few steps that therapist steph anya laid out: 1. setting measurable boundaries: you can inform him or her that you do not feel comfortable talking about other people. if they continue to bring up what ‘the streets are saying’ then you can either change the topic abruptly. ‘how is your mom doing?’, ‘i saw you went out last night; where did you guys go?’, can be a fun way to pull someone’s attention and momentarily make them forget what they were talking about, then you can bring up something new to talk about. next time, they will think twice before bringing up that person because you didn’t seem interested in it last time. 2. make them realistic: it is not easy for you to suddenly change habits, nor is it easy to adapt new ones. that goes for the other person. so if you find that they are still overstepping your boundaries, then you can stop engaging with them altogether. this can look like saying that you do not feel comfortable talking about other people, and if they don’t take you seriously, then you can stop responding to their calls or text messages until they understand that such topics are off limits now. 3. make sure they match the act. for example, if you have someone who always calls you at the end of the month, telling you all about their problems and asking you for money, then you can inform them that you can no longer help out financially. it doesn’t mean you will stop talking to them or help them with something else. just giving them money is now off the table. otherwise, if you have a friend that never does their work and always comes to you for help, then you can let them know that you will only check their final work. that means that they have to complete it and then come to you so that you can look it over. the good thing about boundaries is that they differ from person to person. whilst you would never think of emptying your piggy bank to help out a friend buy diapers for the fifth week in a row you would withdraw your last cents to give to a friend to put a downpayment on their car. that’s because both relationships are different. one person consistently uses you for money; the other has never once broken your trust. psychologist and author dr. ramani durvasula says that a constant disrespect of boundaries can lead to burnout. thus, durvasula encourages one to categorize people based on the history you have with them so that you are more mindful about the kinds of boundaries that each requires. durvasula adds that you should not be quick to cut off or walk out on someone who has a bad habit of letting you down, but that you can just shut that door. for example, if you have a friend who constantly flakes two hours before a date, you can stop making plans and instead video call. that way, you still maintain the relationship you have with them. you just don’t include them in your schedule and set aside time for them only to be left hanging. and if they insist on meeting up, then you tell them to come over to your place if they want to see you from now on. the key takeaway here is that boundaries have to be things that you yourself are not guilty of. if you have a tendency to raise your voice at people, ask for money all the time, and cancel plans at the last minute, then you need to work on yourself first. i love therapist kati morton’s hug and roll way of setting boundaries. it starts with a hug or showering them with love. for example, if you want to tell your mom that you would like to spend the holidays with your friend or boyfriend’s family, then you can start by saying “hey mom, i like how you always arrange for the family to spend holidays together. they are always fun, and i love getting to see all my cousins.” then you roll with your alternative. “but this holiday, i would like to stay with my friend’s family. they planned a trip to the coast, and i am really excited about that.” morton says this is effective, but you can expect some pushback because, again, you cannot control how the other person will react. now, using the hug and roll method, see how you could enforce these for other people towards you: the boundaries you set for yourself can look like: boundaries are important in order to protect and make relationships last. they come with an overbearing feeling of guilt, especially if you are new to it, such as feeling guilty about not helping someone when you always used to. and in some cases, boundaries lead to conflict and the heartache of having to walk away from someone because they continue to disrespect you. but you have to remember that the bigger goal here is to put yourself first. and historically speaking, that has been frowned upon and deemed selfish, but if you don’t put yourself first, who will? my name's uendjii and i've been the editor of all the content that you know and love. i don't have a specific niche; i prefer to have my fingers in everything. your email address will not be published. required fields are marked * comment * name * email * website save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time i comment. notify me of follow up comments by email. notify me of new posts by email. δdocument.getelementbyid( "ak_js_1" ).setattribute( "value", ( new date() ).gettime() ); afterbreak magazine is a namibian digital youth magazine that presently leads in educating, empowering and entertaining young namibian people, with the aim of building a community of growth, a sense of responsibility and a shared identity. afterbreak magazine is a namibian digital youth magazine that presently leads in educating, empowering and entertaining young namibian people, with the aim of building a community of growth, a sense of responsibility and a shared identity. ⭐

if you want to boost your well being in 2025, skip the new year’s resolutions and set some boundaries instead. that means being clear about your wants, needs, and deal breakers and in the process, improving every aspect of your life. there are a few types of boundaries, says juliane taylor shore, a therapist in austin and author of setting boundaries that stick. physical boundaries, for example, protect your personal space; you might enforce one by taking a step back when someone gets too close. you can also set external boundaries, which means defining for yourself what is and isn’t ok, and acting accordingly. that makes boundaries different from a request. “if, for example, i had a family member with different political views, and i asked them to stop bringing [a certain candidate] up, that's a direct request,” she says. “whereas a boundary is, ‘i’m not comfortable with this conversation continuing. i'm no longer going to speak to you about this.’” boundaries aren’t about controlling other people, she adds they’re about taking action to protect your mental health. think of boundaries as “your own personal rules of engagement for how others will interact with you,” says terri cole, a new york based therapist and author of boundary boss. if you don’t set any, you’ll likely become stressed and burned out, and as resentment simmers, your relationships might become strained. with boundaries in place, on the other hand, your confidence and self esteem will leap upwards, you’ll have a greater sense of control, and you’ll feel both physically and emotionally safe. we asked therapists to share the boundaries they're setting for themselves in 2025. the lines they're drawing just might benefit you, too. shore has a problem: she works too much. she loves what she does, but she also wants to spend more time with her young daughter. sound familiar? follow her lead and set a boundary by deliberately pausing before agreeing to anything that will add extra work to your plate. when a request pings in shore’s inbox, for example, she’s carefully thinks through what she would inherently be saying no to by agreeing to take on the project. “the truth is, i shouldn’t say yes to all the new things, because then i have no time,” she says. building in a buffer before auto accepting can help you overcome people pleasing tendencies and start to restore much needed balance in your life. “my hope is that i’m a little more rested and a little more balanced in work life,” she says. “i’m already telling my daughter that mom is changing some stuff, and i need to really commit to that so she sees i’m serious.” wouldn’t it be nice to carve out some time that’s for you, and only you? that inspired cole’s new boundary: she’s not going to do anything that involves the internet before 11 a.m. (lucky for cole, she sets her own work hours.) instead, she’ll jump on her trampoline, walk her dog, have coffee with her husband, feed her chickens, and meditate. “it’s ok to do it. the realization is that nothing falls apart,” she says. “we think it'll be a calamity, but then things keep ticking.” read more: 6 ways to set boundaries at work even when it’s uncomfortable if staying offline until 11 isn’t feasible for you, pick a different time, she suggests. maybe you could adopt an internet free hour in the evening, swear off technology one day each weekend, or stop responding to texts after 8 p.m. if you think of boundaries the way cole does as self care and self consideration you’ll likely realize that reserving time for yourself replenishes you. “you’ll go into the day with such good energy, instead of having resentful or constricted energy,” she says. “you’ll be happier, the work you’re doing will be better, and the way you’re interacting in your intimate relationships will be better.” alex oliver gans is ready to stop doomscrolling and you would probably benefit from doing the same. the san francisco based therapist recognizes that constantly refreshing the headlines takes a toll on him; during the workday, it makes him less emotionally available to clients, and it causes unnecessary stress. “there’s a lot of pressure to keep up, like it's what's expected of me or the right thing to do, and i need to redefine what the actual limit is for me,” he says. “what i would love to do is approach it like i imagine it was back in the day before cable news, when the newspaper arrived once or twice a day.” if you don’t like your compulsive news seeking habit either, join him in checking the headlines just twice a day. if that still feels like too much, oliver gans suggests subscribing to a weekly newsletter that summarizes recent events, and catching up in one condensed session. you’ll probably end up feeling more focused and optimistic, he predicts. in 2025, enter a long distance relationship with your phone at least overnight. oliver gans is going to start keeping his other half (aka his phone) in another room, and he encourages others to set the same boundary. “nobody has told me i need to have my phone next to me all the time, but for a long time, it was like, what if somebody calls in the middle of the night, or there's an emergency?” he says. “but i also can't think of a time when that happened.” if you, too, operate under the assumption that other people expect you to be available 24/7, reevaluate that notion, he suggests. you might find that if you keep your phone in another room overnight after letting your friends know about your new boundary you’ll sleep better and feel more refreshed in the morning. heather stevenson, a clinical psychologist in new york city, puts a lot of work into ensuring her relationships thrive making sure conversations don’t falter, for example, and helping other people open up. that’s often at the expense of sharing much about herself. “it comes at a cost to me, and ends up really draining me,” she says. “i want relationships to be reciprocal and mutual.” read more: how to set boundaries with relatives, according to family therapists perhaps you recognize the same patterns in your own relationships. in 2025, take a step back in conversations, especially with friends, family members, and in romantic relationships, and let the other person put in some effort. “maybe it’s not filling in all the gaps when there’s a lull, or saying no to spending time with someone where there's that imbalance,” stevenson says. if you follow in her footsteps, you’ll likely find that you’re happier with the clarity you need to prioritize the most fulfilling relationships. kathleen smith’s days often pass in a virtual haze. the washington, d.c. based therapist sees clients online during the day, and then hops back on zoom in the evening to meet with fellow leaders in the organizations she’s involved with. then there’s even more tech when it’s time to catch up with long distance friends and family. “i’ve had to think about how much of my life i want to spend in that medium,” says smith, author of true to you. “i’m trying to be very thoughtful about how much of my week is on zoom.” if that resonates with you, make it a point to say no to extracurricular opportunities that involve online meetings, or let the organizers know that you can’t commit to lots of virtual time. then, they can choose to proceed with or without you, smith says: “people get to decide, do they still want you to be part of what they're doing if you're not going to be on zoom with them a lot of time?” she also recommends seeking out community based opportunities that prioritize getting together in person. “all those side conversations that happen when you get together with people are really good for your mental health” and will help brighten your year. women, in particular, tend to have a conditioned aversion to causing any sort of perceived discomfort or inconvenience. that's why so many are always apologizing, points out lauren farina, a psychotherapist in chicago. “i think that sets the tone to really disempower ourselves,” she says. “we put ourselves in a subordinate position when we're apologizing for something that isn't even our fault or our responsibility.” in 2025, she’s setting a boundary by only apologizing when she truly means it. if you recognize that you could benefit from doing the same, she recommends training yourself to pause before reacting which can help you be intentional about what you say. another of her favorite strategies: if you’re tempted to apologize, challenge yourself to express gratitude instead. “instead of saying, ‘i’m so sorry to bother you,’ you might say, ‘thanks so much for taking the time,’” she suggests. in 2025, one of farina’s boundaries will be no longer saying “yes” when she really means “no,” like accepting a social invitation out of obligation. “my values include connection and authenticity, so saying yes out of a sense of duty is antithetical to those values,” she says. “i’m really committing and i encourage others to commit to being thoughtful and intentional about what they take on.” read more: is intermittent fasting good or bad for you? to implement this boundary, farina suggests getting into the habit of asking yourself this question: “did i say what i meant? and how is that affecting my mind and body?” by getting in tune with yourself and your desires, you’ll get better at only saying yes when you really mean it, she says. that will boost your quality of life. “we all have a finite pool of internal resources,” she says. “i'm hoping that by setting this boundary, it’ll free up my time and energy.” sarah rafik botrus isn’t going to have bad blood with the vampires in her life the ones who feed off and drain other people’s energy. but she is going to protect herself from them. botrus, a therapist in pasadena, calif., has taken inventory of the people who leave her feeling emotionally, mentally, or even physically exhausted. “they’re constantly negative, overwhelmingly needy, create unnecessary drama, emotionally dump on you, and have a hard time reciprocating in relationships,” she says. maybe you have some energy vampires in your life, too. botrus recommends reflecting on how much time you can handle being around them: two hours? ten minutes? then, set a boundary by only spending that amount of time in their presence. you might tell them: “i only have 5 minutes to talk, and then i have to head out to an appointment.” or: “i’ll stop by for an hour, but then i have to leave to get to another obligation.” with time, she predicts, draining relationships will become more positive, because you’re not allowing them to suck up too much of your time and energy. botrus is setting a boundary around social media in 2025 by limiting how much she shares about her personal life. “i think it’s important to decide what’s sacred and doesn’t need an audience,” she says. when she’s looking at her life through a camera, she’s found, it tarnishes her ability to fully experience and enjoy the moment. plus, feeding your special, private moments into the algorithm can taint them instead of belonging to you, they belong to the world, where they may attract all sorts of feedback. botrus is hoping to get pregnant in the coming year, and she plans to eventually share the news by sending a card to her loved ones, rather than plastering it across the internet. “then it becomes about me and my husband, or my loved ones, rather than having these moments with the camera,” she says. if you’re ready to double tap that sentiment, ease in via a dry january esque social media detox, botrus advises. disable your accounts for the entire month, or if that feels like a step too far, commit to only posting two days of the week. cutting back on how much time you spend scrolling through your networks’ updates can override the need you might feel to keep up and, in doing so, help you feel like a more active participant in all the moments you’ll look back on fondly at the end of the year. contact us at letters@time.com

kwame anthony appiah is the new york times magazine’s ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at n.y.u. his books include “cosmopolitanism,” “the honor code” and “the lies that bind: rethinking identity.” to submit a query, send an email to ethicist@nytimes.com. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on self pleasuring secrets and the pressures of living up to one’s sexual orientation. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on medical disclosure and marital malaise. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on quid pro quo and navigating serious medical changes in a marriage. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on awkward admissions and whether to make restitution for participating in transactional relationships. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the fear of missing out and “carnal reciprocity.” by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to remain a part of a religious organization that’s behaving in an unenlightened manner. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the wages of charitable work. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the difference between noticing women’s attractiveness and ogling them. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on separating belief from an appreciation of the arts and rituals produced by a religious organization. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the intersection of courteousness and lawfulness on city streets. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the curation of a book collection. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the fallibility of memory. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on bodily autonomy and medical consent. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on employees who pull double duty at different companies. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on family planning in uncertain times. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to navigate religious differences with someone you care for. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the kinds of information romantic partners deserve to know about one another’s pasts. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to support someone with an addiction problem. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on friendship, suspicion and character assessment. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on voter responsibility. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on hypocrisy. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how a family might proceed in the wake of a momentous presidential election. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the kinds of remarks strangers sometimes make about women’s looks. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on conveying the truth on a pivotal form. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether a patient is entitled to be informed of provider changes. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the responsibility one has to dispose of an outmoded appliance. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on an aging couple’s financial plans. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the duty one has to rectify accounting errors and other billing mistakes. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what to do when people in positions of power espouse harmful conspiracy theories. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to exploit a store’s return policy. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what to do when your financial needs conflict with your scruples. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on canine naming conventions. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what it means to be a customer of someone who espouses a radically different political perspective. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the risks of divulging a loved one’s addiction to someone who ought to know. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on medical secrecy within a marriage. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on who has the right and responsibility to reveal an affair. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on modes of resistance to american electoral politics. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the values and economics of art created via artificial intelligence. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to perform charitable acts on behalf of an incapacitated loved one, especially when a potential beneficiary offends your own morals. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to help a friend who’s in a volatile marriage. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to notify an unsuspecting woman that she’s been consuming medicinal cannabis. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on helping someone with a disability carry out a civic responsibility. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the efficacy of voting your conscience. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on public pet etiquette. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the duty one has to mitigate drug related harm. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on heartbreak and friendship splits. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether it’s wrong to participate in a lawsuit you don’t really believe in. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to fairly evaluate candidates in a workplace. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the etiquette associated with offering congratulations. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on a wealthy family’s philanthropic planning. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on conditional gifts. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on character concerns, both in fiction and real life. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the quirks of common language   namely the myriad ways to refer to friends and lovers. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how partners can evaluate their romantic histories together   and be honest and respectful in their assessments. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on allyship and forms of solidarity. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on genealogy, record keeping and notions of relation. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the duty one has to neighbors   and a forbidden pet in harm’s way. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the complications of confession. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the kinds of information that can be burdensome to children. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether a starving artist with a personal safety net should receive government assistance. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on self identification. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on cycles of abuse and a heartbreaking family secret. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on a physician’s bedside manner   and the difference between justifiable concern and judgment. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on marital deception. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on boundaries in friendship and other intimate relationships. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what happens when the implications of marital vows to love “in sickness and in health” become increasingly urgent. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether a co parent’s wishes should matter to a pregnant woman. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what your friends have a right to know about your health. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what to do when forced to play lifeguard. by kwame anthony appiah

a magazine of politics and culture the new york times advice column, where snitching liberal busybodies come to seek absolution, is more than a mere annoyance. in limiting our ethical considerations to tricky personal situations and dilemmas, it directs our thinking away from the larger structural injustices of our time. the term “first world problem” is used to describe the type of minor nuisance that occupies the minds of the bourgeoisie. you dropped an airpod in the urinal. you spilled chardonnay on the divan. whole foods was out of pomegranates. and so forth. these are perfectly real frustrations, but they only afflict the comfortable. we might define a parallel quandary in the field of moral philosophy: the first world ethical problem. these are dilemmas about right and wrong that don’t actually touch any of the major ethical crises of our time, or the issues of structural injustice. they’re problems that only arise, or seem worthy of spending time on, once you reach a certain level of wealth and privilege. the new york times advice column, the ethicist, is filled with these kinds of bourgeois dilemmas. the ethicist a role a few columnists have inhabited over the years purports to offer “advice on life’s trickiest situations and moral dilemmas.” since 2015 the answers to the public’s queries have been written by philosophy professor kwame anthony appiah. as appiah explained in an interview shortly after taking the ethicist role, the questions that he answers are not those about, say, the placement of an olive fork or how to avoid being audited by the irs in other words, those that could be answered by other guides to bourgeois life, like emily post, a lawyer, or a financial planner. “an ethical question is, roughly speaking, a question about how you ought to conduct yourself, what you owe to other people, how you ought to think about what you do, and how it impacts the world whether on other people or on animals or on the environment,” appiah says. he has also said that he seeks not just to answer a particular question but to show readers how to think about questions that arise in their lives. this all sounds unobjectionable. but an examination of some of the questions and answers from recent years reveals that bourgeois values and worldviews are (surprise!) inadequate for approaching the kinds of large scale problems we ought to be thinking about. ethicist questions fall into a number of common categories. here, we present a discussion of some of the most notable, and the underlying values they reveal. here we have questions concerned with minor violations of private property rights. in one typical case, an ethicist reader writes in to ask, “are people who read magazines without paying ‘stealing’ their content?” at their local barnes and noble, it seems, this person has witnessed other customers who “grab multiple magazines and take them to their table with their coffee” to read, only to later “put the magazines back in the racks without paying for them.” the questioner’s indignation is palpable, and they stridently complain that their fellow bookstore goers are “‘stealing’ content that is meant to be purchased.” this person may be the perfect example of an ethicist reader. they’re peeved about a perceived transgression that doesn’t affect them in any way, or really harm anyone (the store gets its magazines back and loses nothing), and they want the entire world to know about it. underlying the mentality of the question is a core belief in the sanctity of property. the idea is that even immaterial things like reading an article must always be paid for in a market transaction, and that no circumstances can justify sacrilege against that holy principle. the correct response to this kind of question would be “what on earth are you talking about?” followed by “don’t you have something better to do?” but because the ethicist and the new york times as a bourgeois institution fundamentally shares the belief that property is sacred, this is not the answer the complainer receives. instead, appiah tells them that reading the magazines is acceptable because barnes and noble itself hasn’t opted to “crack down on the behavior,” and is “acting as if what they’re doing is ok.” in other words, the appropriate conduct for the situation is whatever the business owner decides. property law has resolved the ethical question. importantly, the creators of the magazines in question don’t enter into the calculus: there’s no consideration of whether it’s a small publication that could really use the sales or, say, the new yorker, which is doing fine and doesn’t need your money. the principle is simply that owning property allows you to dictate propriety.1 some property related questions in the column are merely frivolous. (“is it wrong if a friend sells my hand me downs?”) others, though, reveal serious shortcomings in the ethicist’s understanding of the world. one such question is “is shoplifting ok if the shop owner is awful?,” from february 2024. in this column, a reader asks about a friend of theirs who “shoplifts on a regular basis,” but only from “companies that are known to treat their employees badly, or that knowingly source their products from places where human rights are violated, or whose owners/c.e.o.s donate to ultraconservative, authoritarian leaning candidates.” in keeping with the property is sacred motif, the ethicist concludes that this is not acceptable, because it allegedly undermines the overall social system “that allows people to hold on to their possessions and dispose of them only when they choose to.” the response muddies the waters, because (despite what mitt romney might tell you) corporations are not people, and the personal property of individuals is very different from corporate property on a mass scale. stealing from your neighbor and stealing from walmart are entirely different acts, because “walmart” as a corporate entity can’t suffer feelings of betrayal, violation, and loss the way a human being would. this crucial difference goes undiscussed. what’s more, the ethicist’s sense of moral priorities is completely backwards. the column treats a single individual’s violation of the property rights of a company as distasteful and dangerous, while regarding the fact that the companies in question damage many people’s fundamental human rights (remember that they “treat their employees badly” and “knowingly” have abuses in their supply chains) as unremarkable. appiah even says that the companies’ bosses are “exercising their rights as citizens” by supporting “ultraconservative, authoritarian” politicians. (in other words, they have a right to curtail others’ rights, as long as they do it through the established political channels!) there’s a distinct class bias to the direction the ethical condemnation is pointed, and the direction it’s not pointed. there’s plenty of concern that acts of petty theft could damage the fabric of society, but no acknowledgement that the businesses in question damage it far more, simply by continuing to operate. there is, of course, a valid criticism of the act of stealing from a company like (for example) the notoriously misogynistic and transphobic hobby lobby or the brutally anti labor amazon. namely, it doesn’t damage them enough. they’re not really going to notice a missing apple or pack of batteries, and things like unionizing their workforce would be more effective in challenging the companies to shape up. but at worst it’s a fairly anodyne act, neither praiseworthy nor unspeakably villainous. to loudly denounce such thefts in the pages of the new york times presupposes that the current order of property, power, and ownership is legitimate and must be protected. by the same logic, a 19th century version of the ethicist could have justified turning jean valjean in for stealing that loaf of bread in les misérables. speaking of turning people in, this brings us to another common trope of ethicist questions, which is… in the 2015 interview, appiah admitted that many ethicist questions revolve around determining what people can say to whom. in many of these questions, the writer asks whether it’s okay to turn someone in to the authorities, condemn them, or just reveal privileged information. often, readers are looking for permission to reveal information in the form of snitching on another person (which makes sense given how gossipy the times’ headlines and overall tone are). ethicist questioners also often want to know whether they should intrude into someone else’s life, to stop “minding their own business.” notable examples include: two especially concerning queries involve snitching to two of the most racist and violent authority groups in the country: the police and immigration and customs enforcement. in “was i right to call the cops on a black man breaking into a car?,” appiah, first and foremost, affirms the sanctity of private property and the proper role of police in protecting that property. it’s your “civic responsibility,” he tells the writer, to report an act of apparent (and unsuccessful!) burglary. the worst part, though, is the reasoning he uses to assuage the writer’s concern that calling the police on a black man may very well lead to the man or others mistaken for him being “harassed” or killed. (the column describes this as “the tragic way things too often end between police and people of color,” which is something of an understatement.) to justify calling the cops, appiah suggests something that is purely speculative: that the man in question could steal a firearm from a car and then, presumably, use it on another person. he writes, “in recent years, the theft of firearms, often from vehicles, has risen sharply where you live. your state also has the highest rate of black homicide victims in the country (and most violent crimes are indeed intraracial). so yes, i’d say you did the right thing.” this response is stunning in its callousness and presumption. appiah’s use of the word “intraracial” here is also notable. you can bet the reader isn’t going to be thinking about, say, “white on white” crime, so in this context it obviously refers to “black on black crime,” which is a racist and debunked trope used sometimes in response to concern about police violence against black people. when people such as political commentators talk about black on black crime, it suggests that there’s something uniquely violent about black people and that this violence is actually the thing people should be concerned about as opposed to police violence against black people. having squashed the writer’s concerns about calling the cops, appiah then goes on to talk about how the police need to “root out” more of their own bad apples another liberal talking point that mischaracterizes the problem with police (the problem is systemic, not one of a few individuals). now let’s go back to the writer’s scenario. it turns out that the man “breaking into a car” had opened an unlocked car door and went no further, having been deterred by the writer shouting at him, and so no one’s car was actually stolen! overall, there doesn’t really seem to be a good reason for involving the police here unless one wishes to act as a private arm of the police and make sure no small “crime” including attempted burglary goes unpunished. the potential fallout of calling the police seems disproportionate to what the man in question actually did. appiah focuses more on what the man might do as opposed to what he did, which makes it seem like he’s really stretching for a reason to justify a deference to authority. (if we are serious about considering hypotheticals, though, we might consider the abuse that the man might undergo assuming he survives his encounter with the cops in a jail or prison for opening somebody’s car door.) in another entry, a questioner asked whether they should report an acquaintance to immigration and customs enforcement (ice) after finding out they only got married in order to secure someone citizenship. the ethicist said it would be a good idea to report the married couple to the government, assuming they were certain about the facts, and even recommended they seek out an online form for the purpose. now, a person who has “faked” a marriage for citizenship might not be as stigmatized or in danger as, say, an immigrant crossing the u.s. mexico border without documents, but reporting the person and setting in motion a process which could lead to their deportation is to subject the person to trauma, hardship, and possibly violence (depending on the circumstances they left behind in their home country and whether they feel comfortable going back). appiah also reminds the reader that millions of other immigrants have applied “properly” and are “waiting their turn.” he notes that he, too, is an immigrant, and presumably, he followed the rules to become a citizen, so everyone else can, and should, too. liberals and conservatives alike love this immigration talking point: just do it the right way “legally” and everything will be fine! of course, migrants at the border are doing something legal by seeking asylum. and generally, the path to u.s. citizenship is expensive and not as easy as people would assume. lastly, appiah’s assertion that the writer’s duty to report would be different were she not a u.s. citizen reaffirms the idea that people’s loyalty to an abstraction like the nation state is ultimately more important than thinking about what might happen to the person who gets reported to ice. the ethicist is calm and cool about matters here, and ice is just another important authority doing the work of keeping people where they’re supposed to be: on one side of a completely arbitrary border. deeper and more interesting questions as to whether we need borders (there is a good argument that we don’t) are not to be asked. in the ethicist’s world, it’s all law and order, all the time. “white guilt” is another ethicist commonplace. in this subgenre of column, a white reader writes in to the new york times because they’re terribly worried about some minor, ultimately symbolic issue where they could be perceived as racially insensitive. they want appiah to soothe their anxieties. often, the issue at hand involves some kind of object in the reader’s possession. one of the classic examples is “i’m white. should i repatriate my african art?,” from december 2023. in this letter, the questioner says they own a “significant collection of masks, statues, figurines and other objects from mostly west african cultures,” and that they’re worried about the possibility these objects were acquired “via an unfair transaction” during colonialism, asking appiah if it’s “possible to repatriate them.” other typical letters in this vein ask questions like: sometimes an obsession with policing other people’s behavior comes into play, as in the case of the self described “white woman living in a mostly white town” who asks “should i speak up about a worker’s confederate battle flag?” confronted with these earth shattering dilemmas, appiah gives a variety of answers: no, you don’t need to repatriate your african masks, because you have no idea whether they were purchased legitimately or not; yes, it’s probably a bad idea to give your racist ancestor a “place of honor” on your mantelpiece; yes, you should tell your friend it makes you uncomfortable to see a figurine of “santa in black face”; and it doesn’t matter very much what you do with the nazi helmet, provided you’re not a neo nazi yourself. but it’s the questions themselves, and the decision to give them prominence in the pages of the times, that’s really interesting. the concept of racism and racial justice on display in these questions is very liberal, and very bourgeois. in essence, the kind of person who writes in to the ethicist thinks of racism as a question of individual manners, rather than one of sociopolitical power. to them, racism is when a particular person says something, or owns something, that might cause others offense; it’s not, for instance, when the entire police force pulls black drivers over more frequently than white ones, or when the standard of medical care or housing available to people of certain ethnicities is worse than others. conversely, combating racism becomes a matter of making one’s individual behavior nice and polite (or in the worker with confederate flag incident, reprimanding others whose behavior is not). as long as no one says the wrong thing, and no one displays the wrong symbolic object, there’s no racism; all is well in liberalville. the idea that dealing with racism might require a mass political movement to uproot and overturn racist systems of power is completely outside the moral universe of the ethicist. appiah might give a mini lecture on the nuances of virtue signaling or tell a reader to “[take] in the ugliness” of a confederate historical site, but he’ll never tell a reader to organize a protest at the nearest police precinct or homeowner’s association, where it might actually do some good. in 1938, the great bolshevik revolutionary and political theorist leon trotsky wrote a short book called their morals and ours, in which he laid out his views on the whole vexed subject of ethics and how they mix with politics. in one memorable passage, trotsky blasts the self righteous armchair moralists of his own time: what a perfect description of the ethicist and its readers! today, there are indeed “great historical movements” to be involved in, from the struggle to defund the police and abolish mass incarceration to the cause of the palestinian people. but to look at the pages of the new york times advice column, you’d never know it. “smug narrowness” and “political cowardice” are the order of the day, as appiah and his fans fret endlessly about the appropriate way to dispose of their trinkets and tokens something no actual advocate for racial justice, or any other kind, ever asked them to do. beyond their little bubble of privilege, history marches on. some ethicist letters are even more clearly about “rich people problems.” these involve large sums of money, exclusive institutions, and other trappings of the financial elite, such as: half the time, the readers of the ethicist seem to live in the decadent and absurd world of a p.g. wodehouse novel, or perhaps a particularly crap episode of downton abbey. other times, they write to appiah about the problems they’re having with members of the lower classes. for instance, one reader asks, “a homeless man sleeps in the lobby of my apartment building. what should i do?” the reader, who lives in a “lovely old apartment in a relatively upper class suburb of a major u.s. city,” is troubled that “a homeless man has been sleeping in the unlocked vestibule of my building,” even though he “hasn’t directly harmed any person in the building” or done anything especially offensive beyond perhaps once eating someone’s delivered food order. the ethicist tells the reader that “your safety matters,” implying that the homeless are inherently dangerous, and suggests talking to others although not, notably, talking to the homeless man himself or directly offering him help of any kind. the ethicist also suggests “putting a lock on the vestibule.” (there’s the fixation on protecting property again.) while appiah does barely admit that the problem of homelessness is a societal one, his final words on the matter are utterly disappointing: “i’m glad that you’re treating him as a human being in need. but your safety matters, too. helping to ameliorate his situation isn’t a responsibility that should fall on you alone. it falls on us, collectively, and we’ve let you down.” really? in a time when homelessness and the demonization of the homeless has reached record levels, “we’ve let you down” is the best he’s got? for that matter, is it really the comfortably homed letter writer who’s been “let down,” and whose “safety” needs to be considered? the implication is that the reader’s discomfort at having to encounter this man is a more significant problem than his actual lack of a home. in this way, perhaps appiah is like his fellow times columnist pamela paul, who, as hamilton nolan recently assessed in a deliciously funny blog post, is simply unable to “access true anger at the state of the world” due to having spent “decades ensconced in bourgeois antechambers.” additional queries in the “rich people problems” category include: here, the questions only become relevant if you’re wealthy enough to have domestic help in the first place. since the vast majority of people aren’t, it’s unclear why they’re being published and notably, there’s rarely a question from a working person asking “what should i do about my boss?” in fact, this genre is so predictable that we’ve devised a mix n match table for you to auto generate your own ethicist questions: let’s return, for a moment, to our old pal leon trotsky. in their morals and ours, he draws a clear distinction between morality in general and “bourgeois” morality. as he describes it, the latter not only has its origins in class inequality, but serves as a mechanism to protect that inequality: morality is one of the ideological functions in [class] struggle. the ruling class forces its ends upon society and habituates it to considering all those means which contradict its ends as immoral. that is the chief function of official morality. it pursues the idea of the “greatest possible happiness” not for the majority but for a small and ever diminishing minority. such a regime could not have endured for even a week through force alone. it needs the cement of morality. the production of this cement constitutes the profession of the petty bourgeois theoreticians and moralists. they radiate all the colors of the rainbow but in the final analysis remain apostles of slavery and submission. once again, we can see exactly this dynamic at work in the pages of the ethicist. there is a “small and ever diminishing minority” for whom the advice is intended, and whose worldview is reflected in the columns. the “majority” appear as a never ending source of trouble for that minority, not as subjects in their own right. at every turn, the bedrock assumption is that the actions of poor and working class people are likely to cause a problem, one that appiah and his sage advice will help to overcome. the idea that the reader might be working class themself never arises. in this moral universe, working people’s behavior needs to be monitored and policed. gambling nannies need to be fired (if only because they might one day be tempted to steal!), and homeless men need to get out of the lobby so polite new york times readers don’t have to feel uncomfortable. the fundamental message is that people should know their place, and the behavior appropriate to it. with such “cement” is the elite liberal order, the class order, maintained. on occasion, a newly minted member of the professional managerial class someone from working class roots stands at the precipice of entry into elite life and questions which way to go. should they work for an evil corporation and have the lifestyle and financial stability that that kind of salary affords, or choose the less remunerative path of employment in a public agency or nonprofit so they can serve the common good? this is precisely the situation in the classic ethicist column “is it ok to take a law firm job defending climate villains?” here, the writer is about to graduate from law school and is entertaining a job offer from a firm that they know will require them to represent “many polluters and companies that i feel are making the apocalyptic climate situation even worse.” this entry is particularly notable for the astronomical amount of bullshit and “both sides ism” that appiah flings at the writer. appiah starts off by writing, it’s hard to see how the world would be improved if such corporations couldn’t find legal advice and representation. is a corporation really going to behave better if it doesn’t know what the law is? at which point we must emphasize that this is a total misrepresentation of what corporate lawyers do. they don’t simply “tell corporations what the law is,” which sounds harmless. they help prove in a court of law that the corporation’s evil acts are in compliance with the law! also, it’s actually not hard to see how “the world would be improved” if climate destroying companies couldn’t find legal representation! a corporation that is actively destroying the environment and the future of the human species shouldn’t be allowed to exist, let alone have representation! appiah continues, “as with criminal defense, we need lawyers who will work diligently for people and associations whether they approve of them or not.” but this isn’t true. as with the shoplifting case, it assumes that the same calculus applies to both “people” and “associations” (in this case, climate destroying corporations). but while we do need lawyers who “will work diligently” for people they don’t approve of in criminal cases, why do we need lawyers who will work diligently to defend corporate wrongdoers? why are chocolate companies entitled to have someone diligently argue in defense of child slavery, for instance? appiah suggests being a corporate lawyer is actually an act of public service on par with… a job in public service. never mind that the lure of corporate law sucks eager law school graduates away from other “public interest” jobs all the time in what has been called the “conveyer belt to corporate law.” instead of focusing on the people the writer could be helping other than corporations, appiah focuses on making the choice to work for a malevolent corporate client look good. he even uses the logic of the effective altruists, who argue that taking a high paying corporate job and then donating the money to a good cause would actually be a way to do the most good. (this is doubtful.) he tells the writer that they might be able to change a firm from the inside. (again, doubtful.) and he reassures the writer that they won’t abandon their values just by working for a corporation, even one that is actively wrecking the planet. somehow times ethical theory has brought us to the conclusion that the right thing to do is to help destroy the world. what is one bourgeois institution where propriety reigns supreme? the family. enter some of the most important, common, and thorny ethicist queries. frequently, the questioner is trying to deal with a particularly challenging family member: someone with age related issues or care needs, mental illness, a drug problem, neurodiversity, or someone formerly or currently incarcerated. many of the questioners in these family scenarios are deeply unsympathetic people who tend to point out that while everyone else in their family is healthy, productive, and thriving, there’s one person who is making things difficult: these situations are particularly concerning because the children in these scenarios are dealing with issues that our culture tends not to have a lot of empathy for: drug use or addiction, repeated imprisonment, homelessness or the threat of homelessness, and special needs issues. the incarcerated son in the first example above is also noted to be adopted, and you can sense that the writer sees the non genetic relationship to her son as a factor that might limit her responsibility to him. other family related ethical dilemmas include: whether to withhold money owed to the morally repugnant widow of a dearly beloved sibling, whether to cut off a daughter with learning disabilities and autism, whether to support an elderly mother who refuses to manage her money well, whether to help a hoarding parent, whether to shun a politically toxic ex brother in law. some families have plainly bizarre internal dynamics, such as the spouse complaining that their husband always flies first class while putting the rest of the family in coach. (here, appiah refers to the “institution of marriage” and how it should be about couples treating each other as equals. he mentions the husband’s presumed enjoyment of “warmed cashews and lie flat seat” seriously, only people who have actually flown first class know about the warmed nuts as a situation which requires more “equity” to remedy. what’s his suggestion? “taking turns” in first class. but this is deeply unsatisfying! why can’t they both fly first class surely a man who “loves to travel” with his family could afford it. and what about how selfish it is for anyone to treat their companion this way, regardless of whether the two people are bound by “the institution of marriage”? one wonders whether appiah’s answer would have been different had the woman in question been, say, the man’s assistant or someone else he didn’t consider his class or social “equal.”) readers often want a way to control how their money is spent or to demand that their family members be responsible with finances. (“i’m supporting my adult son. he just gave $1,000 to a homeless woman.”) in the case of the daughter with autism, the parent wants to support her if she’s in college. support is often highly conditional on a person meeting some arbitrary worthiness criteria, meaning the person writing in often wants to impose a “moral test” on the recipient of their largesse. in ethicist responses of this type, love, care, and support for others are all based on very carefully constructed notions of what is proper. personal boundaries are noted to be important, good behavior and “mental competence” dictate mutual care toward family members, people should not be too much of a burden to each other, children may be cut off once they reach legal adulthood, and sensible money management is very, very important. perhaps the most useful function of the ethicist in this section is to help a wealthy reader to sleep better at night when the ethicist tells them that their reasoning is “sound” when they choose to cut off their “addicted” son from all funds except those used for drug treatment or that they are right to demand their child with mental illness stay on their medication in order to keep their housing. but ultimately, the problems that the writers face in these family scenarios often occur because in the u.s., the family is a substitute for the existence of a real social safety net. there would be no ethical dilemma about whether to care for a difficult relative in a society where everyone was already guaranteed housing, food, and healthcare, and we didn’t cage people to try to reduce crime or punish them for drug use. often, it’s strange that the new york times questioners are even in a position to make certain decisions. for instance, the son in prison is in need of money to pay for a lawyer and court fines. if everyone was given quality legal representation regardless of their ability to pay, and if we didn’t have an extortionate system of fines and fees that bleed the already impoverished, these wouldn’t be issues, and a judgmental wealthier parent wouldn’t have to enter the picture. a more just society would not tie perceived worthiness to basic survival. and it would not limit us to receiving acceptance, support, or love from those people we share a close genetic relationship with. the unasked and more important question here has to be what all of us owe people struggling with any unmet need and how we could create a society to meet everyone’s basic needs regardless of whether we personally like or love them. in short, could we conceive of a society in which we are responsible for everyone, not just our own family members? this question cannot be entertained by the bourgeoisie, for whom the family helps maintain the political and economic order (think inheritance), as well as the strict gender and sexuality norms that come along with it. appiah’s responses are usually not as bad as the ethicist questions themselves. with questions like the ones from the infamous “am i the asshole?” reddit page, he usually points out to the writer that, yes, you are the asshole in this situation. but appiah has bourgeois values himself, hence his abhorrence at shoplifting, his concern about the risk posed by a random homeless man, and his suggestion that it’s virtuous to call ice on someone if you know they’ve broken the rules. appiah is from an aristocratic family. he’s the grandson of sir stafford cripps on his mother’s side and belongs to an elite ghanaian family on his father’s side. he has spent most of his comfortable life in the nation’s top private universities, and it shows in his lack of interest in deep issues of injustice. the absence of those deeper issues is the core problem with the ethicist. problems that have large structural causes (homelessness, drug use, etc.) are reduced to personal matters between individuals what does a writer owe this particular homeless man or person with a drug problem? questions of social ethics are excluded from consideration. for instance, some of the most critically important ethical questions of our time are: what do we owe the victims of the climate catastrophe, present and future?2 if your tax dollars are funding crimes against humanity, are you obliged to march in the streets? how can we introduce a healthcare system that ensures people aren’t dying preventable deaths? how can we end grotesque wealth inequality? the ethicist zeroes in on highly individualistic and essentially trivial dimensions of injustice what should i do with this racist artifact? a better and more important question is: what kind of duty does each of us have to bring about an end to the many racial inequalities that still persist? in the pages of the ethicist, we have obligations vis a vis coworkers, neighbors, family members, the people in our immediate vicinity, but “ethics” extends no further. solidarity is not an ethical imperative. we also have ethical quandaries only when unique situations arise; the status quo does not raise ethical issues. this is the same deficiency that plagues the famous “trolley problem,” which plunges people into a situation in medias res where all of the choices are horrible. because the question is constructed in a very specific way, a discussion of the factors that produced the range of choices now under consideration is precluded. leftists have long criticized “bourgeois morality” for precisely this reason. it considers moral questions within a particular economic structure but doesn’t consider questions about that economic structure. the result is that the most trivial matters are blown up into having outsized significance, while the most significant matters are simply excluded from view. the questions are not much different from the type of questions made famous on curb your enthusiasm: who gets the last perrier? is there an implicit limit on the number of hors d’oeuvres each dinner party guest is allowed to take? is it rude to toss your keys to a valet? can you use golfing advice that you get from overhearing someone else’s lesson? curb wrung humor from the fact that the stakes are so obviously trivial, and it can be richly entertaining to watch people with different answers to these questions argue about them passionately. but curb your enthusiasm dilemmas are not, needless to say, the world’s serious ethical questions. the new york times ethicist, too, could be waved away as just a bit of fun. why spoil it by taking it too seriously? but the world that produces these questions, and these answers, is deeply broken. we need to talk about all of the major ethical quandaries that don’t get an airing in the paper of record because it gives over page space to discussions of whether to fire your nanny because they have a gambling problem. this is a common theme among american liberals of the kind who are likely to read the new york times. it can also be found in the ubiquitous “in this house, we believe” yard signs, which express the same basic view of property as a conservative parent thundering “not under my roof!” at some perceived sin. how do you know everyone in the house believes the same stuff? do they get to stay in the house if they don’t? ↩ in one entry, a writer asks, “i live in california. what do i owe climate denying kentuckians?” the entire premise that the state people live in determines how we should conceive of them as human beings impacted by climate change is, of course, rotten, and appiah is right to call the writer out on this. appiah writes, “what you have in mind looks like collective punishment,” in response to the writer asking whether people in a red state are owed help after a natural disaster given that they voted for leaders who helped make those disasters happen. but even then, appiah focuses on our duty towards americans when we really need to be thinking internationally about climate change and about what we owe the global south, whose people are burdened the most by climate change. it’s easy to say we ought to support “other americans.” but it requires a confrontation with power dynamics which is to say, colonialism and capitalism to truly confront the inequality embedded in the climate crisis and to propose a solution going forward. ↩ our final issue of 2024 contains sparkling essays and incredible art. we ask: why is suburban sprawl everywhere and can it be stopped? should fdr be the model for the future? what can afrofuturism do to expand our minds? plus other questions! there's more: we invent new vegetables, teach you a new get rich quick scheme, reveal hidden kamala harris strategy documents, explore republican sex ed, and interview democratic socialist nyc mayoral candidate zohran mamdani! every other week our editorial team brings you a mixture of discussion, analysis, and whimsy. an excellent way to demonstrate to passersby that you are an individual of unusually well cultivated taste. we have two missions: to produce the world's first readable political publication and to make life joyful again. a current affairs subscription is one of the best known ways to improve your life in a hurry. our print magazine is released six times a year, in a beautiful full color edition full of elegant design, sophisticated prose, and satirical advertisements.

is it problematic to mix friendships and professional connections, emphasising the benefits of helping friends since they will eventually feel obliged to help in return? how did such a neoliberal manipulative trick that openly instrumentalizes intimacy become acceptable? is “friendly, warm hearted” corruption and favouritism legitimised? am i abusing my position of power by preferring to work with friends? how does the professional environment change if a friendship ends abruptly and unpleasantly? anastasia sviridenko, it could be a garden and gardeners, paper, pencil, 2023 adel kim (b.1987) is a curator, manager, and researcher. she received an ma in art studies from hongik university (2018) and ma in cultural management from manchester university and moscow school of social and economic studies (2020). currently, she is a researcher in the reside / sustain: finnish & russian experiences / initiatives / practices project. i cherish friendships and love my friends; i tend to rely on them. we work and apply for grants together, and i consider them my safe space and comfort zone. my identity is defined through communication with them. at the same time, i cannot help but wonder how the word “friendship” in art related topics has recently become so ubiquitous, generally gaining an unconditionally positive connotation in the same manner as “care,” “hospitality,” “community,” you name it. romantic love has been investigated and deromanticized quite successfully; surprisingly, the friendship zone remains relatively uncontroversial. since i like putting things under a microscope, assuming that their “goodness” is caused by a lack of analysis, in this text, i want to take a critical approach to scratch where it itches. this urge has grown from personal experience and the uncomfortable questions that followed. when asked about their choice to work with a particular artist, why would a curator answer “because we are friends” without hesitation? why is it not problematic for a networking workshop to mix friendships and professional connections, emphasising the benefits of helping friends since they will eventually feel obliged to help in return? how did such a neoliberal manipulative trick that openly instrumentalizes intimacy become acceptable? and on the other hand, why does nepotism evoke shitstorms in show business but pass smoothly in the arts? is “friendly, warm hearted” corruption and favouritism legitimised? am i abusing my position of power by preferring to work with friends? and how does the professional environment change if a friendship ends abruptly and unpleasantly? when it comes to institutions or large scale, well funded, prestigious art shows, there normally exist standards for resolving conflicts of interest. mixing up the personal and the professional instigates discussions and criticism: the cases of adam szymczyk and christine macel, who included their partners’ works in documenta 14 and the main exhibition of the 57th venice biennial, respectively, although forgotten, remain unresolved. neither has ever reached a satisfying conclusion within the public discussion1. codes of conduct, proximity pledges, and basic ethical principles for art critics, curators, and dealers, prove that the art sector is worried that personal connections and preferences could affect artistic values (and prices). however, in a less institutionalised artistic environment, friendship is perceived as a priori positive. not only is it a legitimate reason for working together, but it is also a core element in constructing communities, networks, and self organized mutual support. it plays a crucial role for marginalised groups when official support structures are either inefficient or do not exist. it helps in the educational process, in learning criticality in relation to each other2. finally, friendship helps make human life longer, safer, and happier. this sounds quite reasonable: in a professional environment with such unequal points of entry, people of less privilege choose to support each other, resisting the unjust rules of the system. as s. nicole lane argued: “in the elite art world, nepotism matters. […] for diy shows, giving friends a platform, fleshing out their cv, and supporting one another is the key to an idealistic and strong community […]”3. i cannot agree more with her. but from what point onwards does the art world become the elite? and when does the support of close ones turn into the discrimination of others who are not from the same circle? the boundaries are blurred. as i observe it, the criteria must lie around notions of power, resources, and decision making, as well as profit and market. but honestly, don’t most of us, at some point, have these, to some extent? as o.k. fox and lucia love mention in one of the episodes of their podcast, art and labor, it’s possible for a representative of a marginalised group to receive a project grant and then use it to financially support their closest circle4. aren’t we applying double standards to similar human beings, assuming there are “their corrupted” and “our pure” types of friendship? making friends within the field the problem with nepotism (which, despite emerging from the latin for “nephew,” refers to any kind of personal ties causing advantages or privileges and includes friendship) is not new. frankly, it is hard not to work with friends. the specific nature of the art world, which partially makes work in the field so appealing, is this charming blend of “work life”. often, one’s close circles are from the same professional community bubble. and when there are no clear boundaries, grey zones occur. the classical attitude towards friendship in the arts ignores these entanglements. in his text for frieze magazine, jan verwoert asked: “how do you draw the line between colleagues and friends? why even categorise?“. he was optimistic about such fusion: “creating the structures that will support you spiritually and economically through building communities, alliances, friendships anything that is more than just a network’ is what the contract with your own generation is about.” 5 many, including curators as influential as francesco bonami, argue, that it doesn’t matter whether there is a conflict of interest or not, as long as it’s interesting, or good, art6. they seem to think of themselves as universal knowledge bearers “above the fray”, not affected by any particular context, and directed only by the “truth”. meanwhile, it’s proven that trusting connections is one of the key factors in the development of an artistic career. studies find that “artists with a large and diverse network of contacts were most likely to be famous, regardless of how creative their art was." 7 historically, it is also clear that belonging to a potentially powerful group of artists is a working strategy. in the essay who has the power (1981), jeffrey deitch investigates the development of minimalism: “to those looking in from the outside, the minimalist conceptualist pantheon must have appeared to be a power hungry cabal, sewing up the art scene in one region after another. yet […] there was no master plan. […] the international dominance of minimalism somehow just developed out of a combination of its own energy, and the receptivity of curators and other tastemakers to the advancement of the modernist tradition.” 8 he concludes that for an emerging artist, the best strategy is to look around for “the clique that seems to have the most potential” and become a part of it. recently, art tied to friendship has received more detailed and inquisitive inquiries. for some, making practice through friendship becomes a way to escape an institutionalised environment: curator zoe butt describes her experience of leaving the australian government supported arts infrastructure for the “ideologically monitored, commercially hoodwinked terrain of china and vietnam”. through this experience, she found out about the supportive and creative power of significant friendships in sustaining artistic development and providing political autonomy. at the same time, close and interested human relationships add depth to the attention given to artists, as she is tired of superficial curatorial hopping9. she paved her way in the arts using friendship as a method, saying: “i believe my key task is to sustain critically thinking creative communities of friendship”. art critic isabelle graw, in her recently published book on the benefits of friendship, refers to the aristotelian division of friendship types instrumental/useful, pleasant, and perfect/true and notices that instrumental friendships are endemic within the field of art, and the border between true and useful friendship is fluid10. however, she wonders “if true friendship, in the aristotelian sense, where the other is valued for “their own sake," is possible at all among art world friends," because the very structure of art business, that she describes is conducted in the mode of friendship11. she also admits that the ending of instrumentalized friendships is usually imminent, and these friendships cannot withstand difficulties. written in the format of a diary, this book chronologically unfolds her thoughts on the subject as well as on related life events. it is heartbreaking how throughout the text she touches upon questions and hardships of friendship, along with their fluctuant boundaries between collaborators and competitors12, which later in the text is followed by a real act of professional betrayal by part of her close circle, proving, in practice, the fragility between personal intimacies and the professional ambitions of actors in the field. "institutionalisation of friendship” one of the reasons i am triggered by the bloom of this friendship discourse in the arts is due to my background. i received my professional training in non european contexts: in south korea, there is a sort of widespread nepotism related to educational background, for instance, among alumni of the same university (clearly, the notion of friendship in local understanding is more like that of a peer, “a person from the same group of people” etc.). recently, it has become obligatory to remove university information from your cv when applying for a job. from my internship experience, a residency manager told me “not to make friends” with the artists, as it could lead to their unequal treatment (i did, of course, hang out with them secretly). however, these experiences made me quite sensitive to the question maybe because i value equity over personal preferences. but the situation in russia, where i spent years working, was much more interesting. although the ethical code in contemporary art has been discussed in abundance, a focus on the inner market and a lack of professional education in contemporary art and management have never been established, due to many reasons, including, i believe, to a modest number of international partnerships (which has decreased dramatically since last year) as in the political sphere, the management at the very top, along with the administration, are highly corrupted by different personal relationships (i have probably heard that many current heads of state corporations are putin’s friends, and what about the rumour of several regional governors being his former bodyguards?). the rules aren’t working, and, nepotism was and still is a big and unquestioned issue. a significant contribution was made by the concept of "institutionalisation of friendship” introduced by viktor misiano, one of the best known curators of the first post soviet generation13. in a text with the same title from 1995, on the example of friendship between lyublana and moscow artists and their joint “transnacionala” project, he observes friendship as a perfect engine to activate artistic practice. he asserts the prevalence of the “human dimension” over a professional one, as friendship is not a creative partnership but an “ethical form of eros.” misiano declines any “western curatorial routine” that would include values such as political correctness, gender, ethnical, age balance, which are not necessarily crucial in friendship. misiano calls this new modus operandi based on friendship the “confidential project.” to him, the “confidential project” is neither spectacular nor hierarchic; it doesn’t look for truth but can tolerate diversity of opinions. friendship is the most non institutional and personalised form of social communication (even love is institutionalised by marriage). thus, friendship is ideologically pure and resistant, and therefore, it gains control in situations of institutional, ideological, and moral vacuum, which was the case in that given time and place. however, something went wrong with this project. in his interview from the late 2000s, some bitter lessons of life seem to echo in his words: “to a curator, not good artists but rather good people are needed. however, from my point of view, a good artist is always a good person. and if he, pardon me, has shitted his pants [has become an unpleasant person a.k.], (it is also) most likely that he is not interesting as an artist, either” 14. this statement, reminiscent of an inversion of bonami’s statement, could even sound cute in its naivety and partiality if it had not originated from one of the top curators in the country. but the position is clear and, in fact, the same: if i don’t like someone as a person, they don’t deserve attention as an artist. years later, in the middle of the 2010s, misiano himself criticises his own concept15. the euphoria and freedom of the 90s were gone, and the curator admitted that friendship had been a phenomenon of the 90s, when interpersonal connections compensated for the lack of institutional infrastructure. misiano marks this confidential project phenomenon as intrinsic to times of transition, but this was not the case for decades later on. however, the consequences of this legitimization of a personalised approach are ubiquitous in the context of russian art. it does not raise questions when institutional decisions are made based on personal relations, promoting opportunism and nepotism. i do not, of course, blame that one text or one curator for this whole situation. (although later in his book five lectures on curating (2015), the first and original copy in the russian language dedicated to curating and a “holy bible” for a young generation of curators, he explains again the importance of personal relationships and openly legitimises professional opportunism, without mentioning basic knowledge on art history, theory, or ethics.) the reason the russian art scene is highly nepotistic and unjust is not due to the text, but to the system, a lack of codes and regulations, professional education in contemporary practices and to any support from the state. as i have evidenced so many cases of favouritism, nepotism, and conflict of interest blooming in the russian art world, the mention of friendship makes me wince. during the period when i was working in russia, i was asked by a member of the local writers’ community if i was the daughter of a famous local poet because we shared the same surname: it was kind of hard to believe that i, as a stranger, would be allowed to work in the position i held. in other places, the top management would have easily employed their friends to do some contract based work at an overpriced rate. while serving, this person would have significantly added to the regular employees’ workload. the same artists would travel from one residency to another because of the curator’s friendship ties with both. these sorts of movements were never stated publicly. although silenced publicly, they were visible and very normalised for those involved. when meanings vanish another facet that disturbs me is how a particular term becomes overused, which ultimately devalues its original meaning. a very hot example here would be the term ‘care’. trending for the past few years, care is understood in very broad contexts and is applicable to so many issues, including but not limited to the pandemic, professional ethics, accessibility standards, gardening, climate change, consumerism, or contemporary art. therefore, the seemingly single topic subject falls apart into separate pieces and is sometimes even influenced by polar ideologies. care is in the titles of so many exhibitions, collateral programmes, open calls, etc. however, how is care implemented and practiced within them? by participating in or visiting an exhibition on care, do we actually experience more care? it looks like many agree, more or less, reposting that meme with the two tables16, that institutionalisation is not helping to implement care. often, exhibition design and format themselves do not adapt accordingly and fail to embody propositions of the curatorial concept17. just like friendship, care is a methodology for some feminist and postcolonialist artists and theorists. iliana fokianaki mentions: “feminist theorists and activists have focused in recent decades on the idea of care as a collective responsibility and collective act, performed and embodied by a community” 18. however, in one of her online talks, fokianaki mentions how institutions tend to fail to participate in the care they proclaim19. indeed, care is inter human and personalised; when it comes to art institutions, there is little possibility to put it into practice, as there are no pre prepared structures for it. when forced to fit into organisational boundaries and structures, care loses its radicality and personal dimension. i see care failing in the arts when its implementation is delegated. thus, exploitation, in the name of some greater good, becomes possible. an eloquent case study was made by eleonora belfiore, who investigated socially engaged arts projects, focusing on people “from disadvantaged backgrounds, displaced, vulnerable or at risk of various forms of social exclusion” as core beneficiaries20. starting her initial research on the impact of such programmes, she later turns her attention to the systematic and embedded exploitation of artists as the ones who actualize these projects into practice. the field is chronically underfunded; however, artists, pursuing their mission, are willing to carry out their duties without pay, specialist training or support, which allows funders to neglect meaningful care. artists work significantly more hours than they are paid for and face personal and psychological troubles as well as ethical one on one dilemmas. belfiore questions the resourcing and sustainability of such projects that are made with a lack of real care from the organisers and by the hands of artists already overloaded with responsibilities. she asks why institutions are not “simply passing on the burden of the actual practice of care to the artists and practitioners who are charged with delivering the project," stating a moral failure in art funding policy. in living a feminist life, sara ahmed mentions that a resolution to transform could prevent or replace the actual implementation of the transformation: institutions often accept a non discrimination policy document, although it is the last stage in the process; none of the statements are turned into action21. it is not too hard for me to imagine how the notion of friendship, as soon as it becomes powerful and used frequently enough, is adopted by art institutions, used, abused, and thrown away for another fresher, trendy concept. this strategy has already been adopted by commercial strategies, playing with the “sharing economy” within social relationships and hoping brands will play a role in cementing friendships22. how many environmental exhibitions have there been that didn’t result in any structural or systemic changes? important, deep questions around climate change, indigenous knowledge, and spirituality are very quick to turn into trendy institutional checkboxes. maybe we can keep the most precious things to ourselves? equity or gatekeeping? finally, my third concern is about the ambiguous nature of friendship: although it is based on mutual support and empowerment for some, it naturally sets the boundaries for others, becoming inclusive and exclusive simultaneously. let’s not forget that the aristotelian notion of friendship refers only to free men; women and enslaved people were not taken into account. this inclusion/exclusion divide affects our professional attitudes and perceptions. we are most likely to be present at our friends’ exhibition openings. just as we don’t usually criticise friends (although rarely do we criticise at all), friendship seals our mouths shut. and then, haven’t you heard of situations where one loses a friend over an attempt to work together, and the two ignore and exclude each other? friendship, although neither romantic nor exclusive, can have its dark and ugly sides and possibly evoke emotions like envy, rage, and bitterness, resulting in betrayals, sabotage, and/or power games. why would we not sometimes talk about how cruel and full of drama friendships can be? sociologist eva illouz calls friendship a form of social capital: it is (still) unlike romantic love; the more friends you have, the better your social status is23. friendship networks grow in educational or work environments that are not equally accessible for everyone. moreover, there could be other obstacles: such as recently displaced people, or those who don’t speak local languages on the same level as others, those who are introverted or traumatized; in these cases, it is highly possible to have a humble number of friends. last but not least, if you are a picky, grumpy, unpleasant person with no friends, do you deserve fewer opportunities and less than equal treatment? i recall a question posed by artist vienne chan from the institute of care project in the discussion dedicated to the recent opening of the systems exhibition. the institute deals with alternatives to care delivery in collaboration with care receivers and caregivers. vienna asked, “if i am an asshole, do i deserve less care?” indeed, and if i am an asshole, do i not deserve to be exhibited, supported, or given professional opportunities? aren’t we biassed about unfriendly people, in addition to other biases? and if so, do we practice equity the way we want? martha rosler asked, why are people being so (annoyingly) nice?24 isn’t it because being not nice will most likely cost some of your social capital? i invite us to rethink the way we work and make decisions, not only in the “elite art world”; but to be critical of ourselves and to keep in mind that friendship is not necessarily as bright, non problematic and sweet as it is depicted. knowing how personal preferences and intimate relations affect who receives support and opportunities, we can make the workflow and decisions more transparent. it would not be very original to say, “work with people who are not your friends," but maybe we can think of something more paradoxical. how about working with those with whom you disagree? how about attempting to understand someone who doesn’t share your point of view or is simply not in your circle? can we look for people who are seldom included? i wonder what tensions, encounters, and discoveries this could lead to. anastasiia sviridenko (b.1996) is a ukranian born painter and draughtswoman. recent exhibitions include elbow zeal at pengerkatu 7, helsinki (solo show, 2023); deep drawing lesson room, turku art house, turku (solo show, 2023); traversing the body as a dividing line, gallery titanik, turku (2023); weird tales at milieu gallery, bern (2022). currently based in helsinki. i am terrified, devastated, and drained. every massacre makes me believe that this world does not deserve our dreams. israel kills us in full view of the world, yet no one is doing anything to stop this genocide. the west’s presidents supported israel and funded them to kill us. this war was not going to continue without the west and arab leader’s consent. i’ve been reporting from manipur since june 2023. from the very beginning, i could understand that though women were contributing as much as men in facing the brunt of the war, their roles never received enough acknowledgment nor were their views taken into account while making important decisions. as an outsider, i could see that women leaders had a much more pragmatic method and manner of dealing with most situations, yet they found no place on the leadership table. this, i was made to understand, stems from a society that is founded on a patriarchal structure, yet a visible reluctance of present day male dominated organizations to relinquish space to women during a crucial time as this continues. this gives a more exhaustive picture of the italian context; indeed, if, on the one hand, there is a total lack of rules and government measures to protect cultural work, on the other, many art workers themselves do not have the critical thinking attitude to analyze their own conditions and to claim their rights. the rise of neoliberal logic does not help this lack of political awareness, inasmuch as it fosters competition rather than solidarity and makes people more isolated and vulnerable. cultural appropriation is not a new phenomenon in the sámi context. sámi handicrafts, duodji, have been and are still the subject of cultural appropriation. one of the central issues of cultural appropriation is that it gives the power to determine and decide on cultural objects to an actor outside the community, which weakens the self determination of the community to manage the design themselves. this year marks the end of our confirmed funding. the potential closure of no niin would be a disservice to readers, writers, and artists. your willingness to lend support ensures no niin continues to be an independent publishing platform. together, let’s keep the paywall free conversation alive. 5€ 10€ 15€ 25€ 50€ other buying no niin print volumes we like you! if you like us, sign up to our newsletter.

supported by by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on self pleasuring secrets and the pressures of living up to one’s sexual orientation. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on medical disclosure and marital malaise. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on quid pro quo and navigating serious medical changes in a marriage. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on awkward admissions and whether to make restitution for participating in transactional relationships. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the fear of missing out and “carnal reciprocity.” by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to remain a part of a religious organization that’s behaving in an unenlightened manner. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the wages of charitable work. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the difference between noticing women’s attractiveness and ogling them. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on separating belief from an appreciation of the arts and rituals produced by a religious organization. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the intersection of courteousness and lawfulness on city streets. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the curation of a book collection. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the fallibility of memory. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on bodily autonomy and medical consent. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on employees who pull double duty at different companies. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on family planning in uncertain times. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to navigate religious differences with someone you care for. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the kinds of information romantic partners deserve to know about one another’s pasts. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to support someone with an addiction problem. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on friendship, suspicion and character assessment. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on voter responsibility. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on hypocrisy. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how a family might proceed in the wake of a momentous presidential election. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the kinds of remarks strangers sometimes make about women’s looks. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on conveying the truth on a pivotal form. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether a patient is entitled to be informed of provider changes. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the responsibility one has to dispose of an outmoded appliance. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on an aging couple’s financial plans. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the duty one has to rectify accounting errors and other billing mistakes. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what to do when people in positions of power espouse harmful conspiracy theories. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to exploit a store’s return policy. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what to do when your financial needs conflict with your scruples. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on canine naming conventions. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what it means to be a customer of someone who espouses a radically different political perspective. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the risks of divulging a loved one’s addiction to someone who ought to know. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on medical secrecy within a marriage. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on who has the right and responsibility to reveal an affair. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on modes of resistance to american electoral politics. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the values and economics of art created via artificial intelligence. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to perform charitable acts on behalf of an incapacitated loved one, especially when a potential beneficiary offends your own morals. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to help a friend who’s in a volatile marriage. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to notify an unsuspecting woman that she’s been consuming medicinal cannabis. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on helping someone with a disability carry out a civic responsibility. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the efficacy of voting your conscience. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on public pet etiquette. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the duty one has to mitigate drug related harm. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on heartbreak and friendship splits. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether it’s wrong to participate in a lawsuit you don’t really believe in. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to fairly evaluate candidates in a workplace. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the etiquette associated with offering congratulations. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on a wealthy family’s philanthropic planning. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on conditional gifts. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on character concerns, both in fiction and real life. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the quirks of common language   namely the myriad ways to refer to friends and lovers. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how partners can evaluate their romantic histories together   and be honest and respectful in their assessments. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on allyship and forms of solidarity. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on genealogy, record keeping and notions of relation. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the duty one has to neighbors   and a forbidden pet in harm’s way. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the complications of confession. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the kinds of information that can be burdensome to children. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether a starving artist with a personal safety net should receive government assistance. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on self identification. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on cycles of abuse and a heartbreaking family secret. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on a physician’s bedside manner   and the difference between justifiable concern and judgment. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on marital deception. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on boundaries in friendship and other intimate relationships. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what happens when the implications of marital vows to love “in sickness and in health” become increasingly urgent. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether a co parent’s wishes should matter to a pregnant woman. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what your friends have a right to know about your health. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what to do when forced to play lifeguard. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to handle deception by a friend. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the limits of personal responsibility. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on artificial intelligence platforms, and whether it’s hypocritical for teachers to use these tools while forbidding students from doing the same. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on professional boundaries. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to disclose a devastating, destabilizing secret. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to honor a dead writer’s wishes. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the responsibility an institution assumes once it exhibits an artist’s work. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to fib for a relative, especially when you don’t think the ends justify the means. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the concerns posed by a child’s hobby. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on double standards   and possible hypocrisy   among educators. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to honor a spouse’s seemingly irrational request about privacy and assisted reproduction. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether it’s ok to profess love if you’re uncertain you feel it. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the value of donating to a fund raiser for a pet in need   despite its owner’s bad habits. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on familial duty, genetic ancestry testing and privacy. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on what to do with a politically charged heirloom. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on taking a stand against homophobia and other forms of bigotry. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on random acts of kindness. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on grace, intellectual property, and pastorly accountability. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how a family might reconcile two very different belief systems. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to disclose a delicate decision to a loved one who may oppose it. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to uphold a professional expectation after leaving an abusive workplace. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the appropriateness of gender exclusive spaces. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to equitably divide marital assets after a split. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on how to address a friend’s incendiary social media activity. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether to shield a sibling from a painful truth. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on whether it’s appropriate to offer an unsolicited medical diagnosis. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on bookstore etiquette. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the moral implications of a friend’s stealing habit. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the duty one has to rectify an unpaid bill. by kwame anthony appiah the magazine’s ethicist columnist on the financial support owed to an aging in law. by kwame anthony appiah

response center: stay informed about apa/apasi’s response to recent federal policy changes affecting psychology explore how scientific research by psychologists can inform our professional lives, family and community relationships, emotional wellness, and more. top 10 trends to watch notable changes and developments are poised to influence the field of psychology in profound ways barriers to care in a changing practice environment psychologists face challenges with capacity, insurance, and the future of mental health care apa publishing products and resources that support research, education, practice and general wellbeing. tools for psychologists to do their jobs every day. artificial intelligence: redefining the future of psychology adam leventhal uses policy focused research to address addiction resources for students, teachers and psychologists at all levels to explore career growth in psychology. careers in media psychology science training sessions browse the latest updates from apa, informed by psychological science. optimism can boost saving, especially for lower income individuals parental favoritism isn’t a myth you can make a difference learn about key issues impacting psychologists today this page has been archived and is no longer being updated regularly. career center now that you're gaining clinical expertise, are your friends clamoring for free professional advice? here's how to respond. print version: page 20 your brother in law asks for your insights about a cousin he thinks may have an eating disorder. a friend asks you whether it's normal to be consumed by depression months after breaking up with his girlfriend. meanwhile, your best friend wonders what you think about her husband's constant hand washing. such requests are common for psychology grad students, and they can be flattering. "it feels good especially when you're just starting a new profession to have your expertise recognized," says apa ethics director stephen behnke, phd, jd. but given your stage of training, don't jump in with more input than is appropriate a scenario akin to the "medical student syndrome," in which fledgling doctors diagnose and treat themselves and others, says jenny cornish, phd, training director at the university of denver's graduate school of professional psychology. "often, students are eager to take on a helper role by giving people advice or telling them what to do," cornish says. "that's not very helpful for therapy clients, and it's not very helpful for other people, either." so, how can you respond in a way that is helpful but maintains appropriate boundaries? experts suggest that you: beware of multiple relationships. when you offer professional advice to a friend, you're stepping into a situation the apa ethics code describes as "multiple relationships," in which a therapist brings his or her therapy role into relationships with family members, friends, dating partners or others (see box for more). while the code doesn't explicitly forbid such relationships, it does caution practitioners against them, behnke says. "when you mix different kinds of relationships, each of which has unique challenges and complexities, it can be a recipe for difficulties," behnke explains. "in the end, trying to blend your therapy role and relationships with friends and family members may place both your friendships and your psychotherapeutic work at risk." consider the potential dangers of briefly counseling a friend who reveals a painful secret, says karen twigg sagisi, who is earning her forensic psychology degree at argosy university. "the person may feel great about spilling the beans at the time, but six months later when she starts feeling better, she may look at you and say, 'she knows about that; what does she think of me?'" sagisi says. giving off the cuff advice may also steer someone in the wrong direction, cornish points out, and it's no substitute for real therapy, which helps people gradually face their own defenses and draw their own conclusions. be prepared. to prevent such pitfalls from occurring, have some standard responses on tap, advises pia khandekar, a psyd student at the university of denver. "i usually start out by saying, 'it sounds like a hard thing you're going through,'" she says. "then i make the conflict explicit that i can't give psychological advice because i'm in the role of a friend, and it's difficult to be objective." sagisi says she puts troubled friends at ease by explaining that psychologists don't consider anyone to be "perfect" or "normal." she then asks the friend to think about how the problem is affecting his or her life and sometimes suggests getting professional help to resolve the situation. refer, refer, refer. referring people to vetted practitioners is one of the best interventions you can provide, others say. "when people would tell me about serious, long standing issues, i came to realize that i could either give them advice that wouldn't do much, or help them find someone they could really get into therapy with," says neal brugman, a student in the university of denver's psyd program. he emphasizes that therapy is not meant to be threatening, but supportive and collaborative: "i stress the fact that therapy is a process and that therapists are people trained to listen, observe, and help people … resolve those issues on their own terms," he says. listen up. not all of your clinical skills need lie dormant, however, says sheila woody, phd, director of clinical training at the university of british columbia. in particular, good listening skills can help people feel understood, cared about and less alone, and that they are in a place where it's safe to think more deeply about their problem, she says. likewise, it's appropriate to attend to the level of seriousness of the situation, woody says. if a friend has told you about a family member she thinks may be suicidal, for instance, convey your judgment that the person may indeed be in danger. you can then suggest that your friend discuss the situation with other family members and determine a way to get the person appropriate help, she says. a good rule of thumb in all such instances is to consider your goals vis `a vis the meeting, woody adds. "if you're trying to help the person change the problem, you may be stepping over the line," she says. "but if you're conveying warmth, caring and genuine interest without trying to fix the problem, then i think you're in appropriate bounds." have resources on hand. another germane tool: psychoeducation. sagisi regularly hands out web sites, phone numbers and other resources for people who might need them. these include relevant online resources from the national institutes of health and the national alliance for the mentally ill, which both have web sites that provide information on mental illness and local mental health services; and www.militaryonesource.com , a department of defense web site that provides mental health information and referral resources for military personnel and their families. "i also warn people not to take pop quizzes on other web sites that 'diagnose' or identify traits of a particular mental illness," sagisi says. remind people about self care. in addition to referring people to therapy, experts suggest advising people to take interim self care measures, such as exercising, getting enough sleep or laughing to lighten their mood. (tapping your own humor is also a great tool if people ask whether you're psychoanalyzing them another common grad school phenomenon, says chris weinkauff, who is earning her developmental psychology degree at claremont graduate university in claremont, calif. when someone questions whether she has them under the microscope, "my response is, 'i'm much too busy analyzing myself to worry about you!'") monitor yourself. it can be tempting though inappropriate to play therapist with loved ones, brugman acknowledges. to make sure he's not assuming an improper role, he regularly checks his responses in close relationships. "if i realize i'm doing all of the listening, that's a warning sign," he says. "so, i'll make sure to talk about a problem i'm having or about how that same issue came up for me and how hard it was. i make sure i take a supportive role where i'm more of a friend than a therapist." get input. finally, talk to your training director or supervisor if you're having trouble navigating any of these situations that's what they're there for, cornish says. the apa ethics code, apa ethics committee and state association ethics committees are good resources as well, she says. and bear in mind that mastering these situations is just another step toward becoming a full fledged practitioner, she says. "don't be discouraged by the growing pains," cornish advises. "dealing with these kinds of personal issues is all part of the bigger picture of your development of a professional identity." by tori deangelis tori deangelis is a writer in syracuse, n.y. © 2025 american psychological association 750 first st. ne, washington, dc 20002 4242 telephone: (800) 374 2721; (202) 336 5500 | tdd/tty: (202) 336 6123
to report or not to report: that is the ethical dilemma health care social workers and ethics committees like this article? thank you for sharing! by: lisa kays, msw is it necessary to prevent therapists from using facebook any more than it would be to tell them that they can’t go out to dinner for fear of running into a client? what, exactly, is the difference? as a 30 something msw student, i find that facebook, linkedin, and twitter have become some of my primary methods of communication with former and current colleagues, family, and friends. i am, therefore, affected by this issue in a different way from people of previous generations who didn’t have such early exposure to the internet or don’t communicate as much via social media. likewise, my experience differs from that of the msw student who will enroll in 10 years, having never known a past that wasn’t logged online. the internet gained popularity when i was in my early 20s. i joined facebook in 2007 at the suggestion of my employer, to help promote the organization’s work. despite this later start, there is a lot about me online, as is true for many of us, because once the internet evolved, it became standard practice to post various types of information, from professional bios to wedding announcements. a google search will reveal that i served in the peace corps, teach improv, and do communications consulting. you could find that i’ve written an article about an abba cover band. and, now, that i wrote this one. these are not things i would likely share with a client in a therapy session. and yet, most people my age or younger will be unable to escape such exposure to some degree by the time they enroll in an msw program. begging the question, is the “blank slate” therapist even possible in the internet age? logging in to the dilemma in my first field placement, i didn’t have to consider any of this. i didn’t use my last name with clients because of the nature of the setting, and they were unlikely to have access to the internet. however, in my current placement, i’m forging longer term relationships with clients, all of whom have internet access and are likely to use social media. my question related to this issue centers primarily on dual relationships or harm to clients through therapist self disclosure.