A friend of mine had a casual, nonexclusive, on-again, off-again relationship with a man for two and a half years. At one point during the relationship, he shocked her by announcing that he had a girlfriend and wanted to end things. But he continued to try to initiate phone sex with my friend, ask her to meet in person and request lewd photos. She occasionally hooked up with him, assuming that he was single again, only to discover that he was in fact still involved with the other woman.
After doing some sleuthing on social media, my friend found out who the girlfriend was and learned that she recently moved to their city to marry this man. My friend also learned that the woman has been through many difficulties in her life. On the very day that his fiancée announced her move on social media, the man asked my friend to delete their text history, apparently hoping to cover his tracks and start his marriage with a clean slate.
My friend wants this man’s fiancée to know that he’s a sleazeball who has been unfaithful. But she doesn’t want to be the one to give her this information and cause her more pain.
By coincidence, a mutual acquaintance recently introduced me to the fiancée by email. We haven’t yet met in person, but when we do, and she eventually tells me who her fiancé is, should I tell her what I know? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
Your friend believes that the man’s fiancée would be better off knowing about his history of deception. That seems right. The value of a relationship depends in part on its being grounded in a realistic understanding of the other person. And, of course, the fiancée needs to be alert to the possibility that he’ll treat her the way he treated your friend. Even if he has changed his ways, she has reason to raise the issue with him and make her own judgment.
I can understand why your friend might be reluctant to bear this bad news. For one thing, she worries about causing the woman pain. She may also worry that the fiancée may be suspicious of her motives, thinking that she’s seeking retribution rather than acting out of concern for her welfare. And your friend may simply want to put this unpleasant episode behind her. It’s true that your friend is in the best position to give her a firsthand account of what happened, but that doesn’t mean she’s obliged to take on that burden.
Which brings us to you. The rationale for telling the fiancée applies whether the information comes from your friend or from you. So yes, you can go ahead and tell her what you know, making clear that your account comes from your friend.
You seem to be planning to wait until she tells you who her fiancé is, perhaps to avoid having to explain that you already knew about the connection before you met. But there’s no need for such a pretense. You can simply explain how you came by the information and why you think she ought to have it. She may find the conversation unwelcome. Still, if she’s about to marry this man, she deserves the chance to make that decision with her eyes open.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader who wondered about the terms of his separation. He wrote:
My wife and I have been together for close to 20 years, married for almost a decade and still live together, though we’re seeing other people. We started dating outside the marriage a few years ago, but eventually I realized I’d be happier splitting up. I led the charge toward separation. She has complex emotions about it, but things are generally good. Financially, we’re comfortable but not rich. We supported each other through graduate school, and our salaries have since been roughly equal, though student-loan payments eat up a substantial chunk. Each of us has retirement accounts, and a payment I received through an injury settlement enabled us to buy our house. I’m exacting, organized and focused. My wife is not. I’ve heavily researched divorce law in our state; she hasn’t. … I have roughly twice as much in savings as she does. Should I be “nice” by laying everything out and trying to split our assets as evenly as possible? Or is it OK to use my greater knowledge of the relevant laws to keep as much money as I reasonably can? We’re trying to avoid hiring lawyers because of the expense, which gives me an advantage. — Name Withheld
In his response, the Ethicist noted:
So you’re asking whether you can take advantage of your spouse’s ignorance — and you’re calling this an amicable divorce? Oh, dear. The knowledge you’ve acquired about your state’s divorce law should be used to arrive at an outcome that’s fair to you both; instead, you’re treating that knowledge as if it’s a personal asset to be shielded from your spouse. Reasonable people can disagree about what counts as a fair division of marital property, and you’re entitled to pursue your own interests. But your wife needs to understand her rights for the process to be just. You’d do well, then, to reconsider the decision to go ahead without legal assistance. Getting legal advice needn’t mean incurring the expense of a contested divorce. You could consult a mediator, and each of you could have a lawyer review the proposed agreement. The work you’ve put into understanding divorce law doesn’t entitle you to exploit your wife’s evident, if perhaps unwarranted, trust that you’ll treat her fairly.
(Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
The letter writer and his spouse both need their own lawyers. This is well worth the lawyers’ fees. Neither of them has the knowledge to come up with a settlement that is ethical, fair and in accordance with their state laws. A good lawyer knows about stuff you wouldn’t know to ask about, and helps you keep your emotions out of this process. At the end, the settlement will be far more ethical than if you did the save-the-lawyer-fees route. — John
⬥
The Ethicist writes that “you’re treating that knowledge as if it’s a personal asset to be shielded from your spouse.” Yes, and the writer should. The reality is that in a marriage where one partner is “exacting, organized and focused” and the other isn’t there are years of back pay owed for invisible labor. If the wife chooses not to look out for her own interests, that’s her mistake — no one is owed anything in a divorce, beyond basic civility and what they’re willing to advocate for themselves. — Laura
⬥
Financial fraud and financial infidelity have no place in honorable dealings. Taking advantage of someone who trusts you is particularly sad. — Cathy
⬥
I am a retired divorce attorney. I understand the desire to avoid conflict and legal fees, but please get legal representation. Clients who have tried to do it themselves have often created a big mess and ended up paying me significantly more to untangle their mess than they would have paid me to do it right from the beginning. Someone who represents your interests can properly advise you, and your spouse should get someone who can look out for her interests. That choice doesn’t have to result in high conflict if both sides want to reach an agreement. — Susan
⬥
I don’t think a divorce can be amicable if there is a significant degree of inequality of knowledge of “rights” going into it. To be amicable would be to share the knowledge and to approach a split of assets with the aim to be fair — not to keep as much money as a person can, or to have an attitude of not wanting to be “too honest.” — Linda
The post Should I Let a Woman Know That Her Fiancé Cheated on Her With My Friend? appeared first on New York Times.
