This study examines the phenomenon of the reluctant confidant in close friendships. 110 college students were asked to recall an incident when a close friend revealed information that the recipient wished they had not heard. Although the students identified themselves as reluctant confidants relatively infrequently, examination of the data yields interesting dimensions of becoming the unwilling recipient in terms of the topic of revealed information, communicative behaviors enacted in response to this information, and effects on the friendship. Sex-related topics accounted for the overwhelming majority of the unwanted information. Although some of the recipients enacted communicative behavior that could be categorized as thwarting behaviors, most of the reported response behaviors (questioning, comforting/supporting, giving advice) could be categorized as coping behaviors (Petronio, 2000b). This finding suggests differences between reluctant confidants in close friendships and reluctant confidants in impersonal contexts. Results are interpreted and additional observations are made through the lens of Petronio's (2002) Communication Privacy Management theory. In the study of relationships, most researchers have argued self-disclosure is necessary for both building and maintaining close relationships. Because of this assumption, self-disclosure research has been prodigious (for a comprehensive review, see Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). Jourard first coined the term self-disclosure in The Transparent Self (1964) and later defined it as " the act of revealing personal information to others " (1971, p. 2). In interpersonal communication research, self-disclosure was initially seen as the way relationships progressed toward intimacy (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Reflecting the popular notion of the 1960s/1970s that one should " tell it like it is " and " let it all hang out, " researchers and practitioners advocated that problems were " solved " through more talk, more openness, and more self-disclosure (Bochner, 1982). Katriel & Phillipsen (1990) referred to this notion of communication as a cure-all as the " talk as elixir " myth. Eventually, however, the idea of " more " was balanced out with the recognition of relational needs of privacy (Burgoon, Parrott, Le Poire, Kelley, Walther, & Perry, 1989; Petronio, 2002; Rawlins, 1983). Baxter (1988) recognized the dialectic of openness/closedness in relationships, and Burgoon, et al. (1989) noted that while openness is important in developing and maintaining relationships, equally crucial is maintaining a level of privacy in the relationship. More recently, Petronio (1991, 2000a, 2002) proposed Communication Privacy Management (CPM), arguing individuals handle private information through a rule-based management system involving privacy boundaries. Similarly, Rawlins (1983) recognized " openness as problematic " in close relationships (p.3), and Burgoon, et al. (1989) also addressed the same need for privacy in a variety of close relationships. Specifically, Burgoon and colleagues noted that while openness is important in developing and maintaining a relationship, equally crucial is the need to maintain a level of privacy in the relationship by controlling the level information regarding the self. Further, " relationships do not follow an inexorable trajectory toward increasing intimacy but rather cycle between periods of accessibility and inaccessibility " (Burgoon, et al., 1989, p. 132). More recently, Petronio (2000a, 2002) has studied privacy from the perspective of the recipient and addressed the circumstance when the boundary of accessibility is pushed too far and private information is disclosed to an unwilling party, which she labeled the reluctant confidant.