I'd like to respond to your assertion that "he knows that doctors and counselors have allowances for when they can disclose information."
This is true, but I think that it would be possible to find a counselor that would not disclose any information, even if they were technically allowed to do so. Furthermore, it seems possible to me that such secrets could be partially disclosed to a counselor in a way in which there would be no incentive for that counselor to pass along the information to another party.
Not having been in this kind of situation before, I can't imagine how horrible it would be to harbor such a secret for a lifetime, and perhaps for Bill the sheer weight of it made it impossible for him to tell anyone. But, I would just like to try to make the point that there are viable options other than keeping secrets bottled up.
As for your final comment, I sincerely hope that you can find the help that you need to make it through whatever it is that is distressing you.
To understand where Bill is coming from you really need to hop into his shoes. He tried to trust people but they violated that trust. Regardless of the reasons for doing that, they didn't keep his secret. What he told them was much less important to him than his ultimate secret. If they can't keep those smaller secrets, why can they keep the big one?
For better or worse all of the other things he told people were tests. Who can keep this secret? You, ok, I will let you in on a little more, then a little more, then a little more. But no one kept all of them, so no one could complete the journey to the last one.
Bill had no reason to trust a doctor. Everything in his life confirmed the exact opposite - no one is to be trusted, everyone will tell your secrets. Everyone always has that one person that they want to tell, but no worries, it's ok, that person won't tell anyone.
Yup, but everyone has that person. And unfortunately for Bill, he wasn't able to find someone to tell, and have their "one person" be Bill, thus keeping his secret between two, and only two, people in this world.
For some people that 'one person' is themselves. And those people aren't necessarily abused people with deep, dark secrets. To say that everyone has that person is a fallacy. The world rarely deals in absolutes.
That is true, it certainly is possible. I can't actually prove the absolute case.
But I do believe that it is much more probable that everyone has a personal outlet with whom they speak. Life is hard. (Can I even say that absolutely? Although completely foreign to me, I suppose there are people out there that don't have hardships in life.) People need to vent to someone, share some close or special with someone, and make a connection.
Without that people explode. This is one way people without that outlet explode.
People aren't linear functions. People treat information with the severity they think it has. So the notion that someone can't keep a "bigger" secret because they betrayed a smaller secret does not hold.
What you said is exactly the problem. It isn't for you to decide what is a big or small secret. If a person wants something kept quiet, that should be enough. The receiver's own view of what should be spread is immaterial.
It isn't for the secret-listener to decide what is worthwhile to hold in confidence. A small secret shouldn't be disclosed just because the person that heard it thinks that it isn't worth keeping secret.
Besides, I don't think contemporary community standards would consider coming out as gay as being a small secret.
Generalizing further, it really isn't fair for me to classify any of these as big or small. One person may consider coming out as gay as no big deal and hide past sexual abuse, while another may consider disclosing past sexual abuse as no big deal and not disclose sexual orientation. It isn't for me to decide which is bigger than the other.
> Besides, I don't think contemporary community standards
> would consider coming out as gay as being a small secret.
Well, I agree that coming out shouldn't be viewed as a small secret. Though I feel in the minds of a lot of people "something that are you are" is more likely to be fair game for rumor and ridicule than "something (especially a trauma) that has happened to you." I.e. confiding a tragedy/trauma to someone will more universally be perceived as 'serious' and 'a big deal' in terms of keeping confidences.
Good point distinguishing between rumor mill and personal trauma.
I think that might only affect the number of people that are told, though. Rumor mill will spread like wildfire. Trauma will be told to one other person, and the one other person will probably keep it to himself.
It is possible that the first person won't disclose further. Bill seems to have made a general social commentary about finding that person is very difficult. He couldn't trust his family. He tried friends and that didn't work. Counselors wouldn't work.
How many people do you have to try? Many people say try until you die of natural causes. Others say this was enough.
This is true, but I think that it would be possible to find a counselor that would not disclose any information, even if they were technically allowed to do so. Furthermore, it seems possible to me that such secrets could be partially disclosed to a counselor in a way in which there would be no incentive for that counselor to pass along the information to another party.
Not having been in this kind of situation before, I can't imagine how horrible it would be to harbor such a secret for a lifetime, and perhaps for Bill the sheer weight of it made it impossible for him to tell anyone. But, I would just like to try to make the point that there are viable options other than keeping secrets bottled up.
As for your final comment, I sincerely hope that you can find the help that you need to make it through whatever it is that is distressing you.