It’s the social compact. Society would not be able to function without white lies and people minding their own business. Besides, nobody likes a tattle-tale.
If the OP tells on W, he’s not just telling C “hey, your wife is cheating.” He’s saying, “Hey, your wife is cheating and doing it in front of your work colleagues.”
OP, do you think C will be happier or unhappier to know that someone he has to work with knows about his cheating wife?
However: Dame Agatha Cristie would say that as the only witness, you’re in a world of trouble. Don’t agree to meet this woman at the top of a tall cliff, in a deserted garden or by the Old Cemetery. If she offers you a drink, sniff if for bitter almonds, first. And don’t fall for the old “scorpion in your shoe” trick.
So you don’t think the innocent party has any need to know the risks the guilty party is taking with such permanent “fun” as herpes, or such potentially deadly problems as hepatitis or AIDS, because said innocent party actually KNOWING about that risk is “tattling”? Funny, I’ve always thought that the innocent party deserved more protection than the person knowingly choosing to engage in wrong-doing, but you seem to believe it’s better for the cheated-on spouse to get a surprise life-altering diagnosis than for the guilty party to be called out.
This is the kind of “reasoning” that says teachers and other mandated reporters shouldn’t report evidence of abuse or that witnesses to crimes shouldn’t tell the police what they know, lest they be “snitches”.
Some great “social compact” there, shielding the guilty at the expense of the innocent.
Maybe this goes further back, into the whole idea of when the harm occurred. There are people in the world who believe that no harm has been done until the husband finds out that his wife is cheating on him. There are other people in the world (and I’m one of them) who thinks that the harm is done with the action, rather than the knowledge of it. The harm chicken has been hatched, and sooner or later it will come home to roost.
Faithful spouse (we have no evidence he isn’t, so assume he is) going about his life, goes to doctor, hello he’s now got herpes (for example). Only possible vector is his wife, who he now knows is cheating on him. Nasty enough one-two punch there, but throw in that someone he’s reasonably friendly with SAW her flaunting her infidelity and agreed to her request to cover up for her, thus placing the cheater’s feelings above the innocent spouse’s medical well-being.
Would you want to be the guy finding out by way of a permanent infection that he’s married to a cheater and that others he thought he could trust were aiding her in covering up the cheating, his well-being be damned?
I presume the guy has someone else who he can lean on in times of crisis. Anyone should receive the same courtesy you think a friend is entitled to, right?
Get a grip. First off, this isn’t about innocence and guilt. It’s certainly not the place of the witness to make judgements or to ensure the punishment of the guilty party. The witness saw something shady but not illegal - that doesn’t mean the witness is obligated to become Captain Social Justice Man. The only question that affects the OP here is “how will this affect my ability to work publicly with my office mate?” Anything more than that is a major breach of social manners.
As far as herpes and other diseases, be real. Yes, she might catch something but then again - she might not. Maybe the husband gave her herpes years ago. Hell, maybe all three parties already have herpes so it’s completely moot - who knows. That’s the point - you don’t know, and neither does the OP who stumbled into the middle of this. Therefore, it’s colossally rude to make assumptions about things like guilt or innocence or the party’s respective viral load status.
If it was family, maybe it’d be different. But a guy at the office who he barely sees? Do him the favor of respecting his privacy and allow him to handle his own problems without worrying about what the guys at the office think.
If you’re going to assume that, why not go the other way and assume he doesn’t. Or assume he’s prone to depression, or that he’s suicidal, or homicidal. The OP doesn’t know anything about this guy or how he’ll deal with the news.
No, but then I don’t think telling a guy his wife is cheating is a ‘courtesy’. Telling him he’s got dog shit on his shoe or spinach in his teeth is a courtesy.
Like I said, I might tell a close friend because I would try to be there to help him through it.
Take him out for drinks with a group of guys. The extra people will help buffer the news. At some point, after everyone has had a few, ask, “OK, show of hands; who is happily married?”
I never said he doesn’t know anything about the guy. Their relationship (such as it is) is through work. Although OP says he knows Clarence “quite well”, he also says they’re “not exactly friends”. Based on that, I’d say the OP doesn’t know him all that well, and definitely doesn’t know him well enough to know how he’d react to being told his wife is cheating.
[QUOTE=AuntiePam in post 129]
The OP doesn’t know anything about this guy…
[/QUOTE]
Okay…
He clearly knows them well enough to know if they have zero friends or not. His wife is cheating. This is the kind of thing hundreds of people deal with every day.
I still don’t think he has an obligation to tell the husband, or that it’s his place to tell. They just don’t have that close a relationship, and he doesn’t know (nobody knows) how the husband will react. It’s a ball of crap rolling downhill, with consequences we can’t imagine.
Again, he has no obligation, and it’s his “place” to do whatever he thinks is best with the information he has.
And I think you’re being a little dramatic. He’s not getting unplugged from the Matrix here. I bet I could imagine most of the consequences that would arise from this.
From a sociological study point of view, I would love it if we were able to correlate people’s responses here with the history of the poster, i.e. where they fall in these four categories
[ol]
[li]Have neither cheated, not have been cheated on (as far as you know)[/li][li]Have not cheated, but have been cheated on[/li][li]Have cheated, but have not been cheated on[/li][li]Have both cheated, and have been cheated on[/li][/ol]
I wonder if there was a correlation between where one falls in the above categories, and what their response to the OP is.
Personally, I’m in category 1 (as far as I know), and my response would be to inform the husband via anonymous email.