One of the characteristic features of destructive relationships is the presence of so-called “double standards”. Expressed in the simplest way, this principle sounds like this: “What is allowed to me is not allowed to you.” Why does this principle make relationships uncomfortable and create the basis for trauma? The basis of comfortable healthy relationships, both at the couple level and at the group level , lies the principle of reciprocity. It can be expressed like this: “We are different, but equally valuable. We both bring something to the relationship and get something back. Rules and agreements apply equally to both of us.” On its basis, emotional exchange, mutual respect and intimacy are possible. This is the only way to create an atmosphere of security and trust. At the level of social phenomena, an example of the implementation of this principle is the rule of law, when the rules of the law apply equally to everyone, they are transparent, predictable and understandable and, first of all, create a space of security (and not a search for the guilty and enemies). The emergence of double standards in relations speaks that the principle of reciprocity is absent. How does this manifest itself in practice? For example, a situation arises when one of the partners can perform some actions, but the other cannot: I can choose how to look and dress, but you cannot. I may spend a lot of time outside the home, but you may not. I may talk negatively about other people, but you will not. I may fail to do something I promised, but you will not. I may be inattentive towards you, and you are obliged to show attention and interest to me. The list, of course, can be much longer. It is important to understand that double standards are rarely translated directly through such statements. Much more often this is done indirectly, through “consequences”. That is, if you allow yourself something that is “not allowed” to you, you will receive in response conflict, accusations, resentment and punishment with silence, etc. At the same time, this does not work in the opposite direction. If you try to initiate a conversation that the rules in your relationship are somehow not very fair, you will receive in response the same accusations, for example, of being overly demanding. Within partnerships, double standards are often disguised as exchanges, especially in words. However, words are not confirmed by action. For example, formally a partner may say: “I don’t mind your communication with friends,” but if this communication occurs, the partner is offended and does not talk to you. That is, your action is followed by one or another “punishment”. Long-term communication of this kind can lead to disappointment in the relationship as such, loss of hope for the opportunity to feel security and trust. However, double standards play a special role in parent-child relationships, since they themselves imply the presence of a hierarchy, a difference in the amount of knowledge, skills, capabilities, and other things. “Thanks to” double standards, this difference turns into a difference in value. In such relationships, double standards are not always disguised, sometimes they are translated directly: “I’m older, so my decisions are correct, my feelings and desires take precedence over yours, I can do what you can’t.” As a result, the child often observes and experiences the discrepancy between “standards” and their implementation. For example, a parent forbids him to get angry and raise his voice, but he himself does this regularly. An important consequence of such an experience is that, in addition to disappointment in relationships and loss of trust, the child may become disillusioned with the very standards that should have become part of his own moral principles and the basis of respectful treatment of other people. There is no point in learning and assigning value to the rules of the game if they are not followed anyway. It is much more expedient to learn to take a position where “standards” apply to your partner, and not to you (through open dominance or manipulation of the victim’s position - “you can’t ask me because I suffer”). This is how it opens