Another of Hofstede's categories has to do with the way national cultures relate to uncertainty and ambiguity, and therefore, how well they may adapt to change. Generally, countries that show the most discomfort with ambiguity and uncertainty include Arab, Muslim, and traditional African countries, where high value is placed on conformity and safety, risk avoidance, and reliance on formal rules and rituals. Trust tends to be vested only in close family and friends. It may be difficult for outsider negotiators to establish relationships of confidence and trust with members of these national cultures.
For the offender to re-establish perceptions of his/her benevolent intent, the offender should quickly and voluntarily offer a thorough and sincere apology which conveys remorse for harm inflicted, an explanation of the details surrounding the betrayal, and a promise of future cooperation. Further, it is critical for the parties to substantively reaffirm their commitment to each other and to the ideals and values upon which the relationship is built. The offender should explicitly recommit to the relationship, and discuss strategies to avoid similar problems in the future.
Of course there are such things as true handedness and true hair colour. If there were not, no-one would be right-handed or left-handed, and no-one would have a hair colour. I agree, however, that the word “true”, when used in this way, is redundant. You seem to be applying it unnecessarily to heterosexuality to make your belief that it is the only “correct” form of sexuality, and that homosexuality is somehow “disordered” – a corruption, as you put it, of heterosexuality – sound more like an objective fact, which it isn’t. You are still perfectly free to believe that if you wish. I have no convincing reason to believe it, so I don’t.