I think the original email makes it pretty clear that this woman thought she was in an exclusive relationship. Might have JP told her every day for four years that they were just “casual” and the relationship she’s referring to is all the result of her own imagination? Sure. But if you take the original email at face value, it’s pretty clear she’s surprised by the revelation of all the women he’s got on the side and is trying to figure out just how far those lies extend. Twickster could have been a little bit more diplomatic in her response, even if she wasn’t interested in being compassionate. She’s a writer, isn’t she? I’d expect her to be a little bit more…thoughtful.
What? I’ve been taking cold medicine all day so I might be a little bit out of it, but where did the lady say “I’m sleeping with your boyfriend”? I think the original email was surprisingly restrained, given the subject matter. It wasn’t even particularly accusatory. No where in the email did she say she assumed JP was telling all the women they were monogamous. She referred to steamy emails and wanted to find out more information–that’s not really offensive.
Huh? he wasn’t Twick’s boyfriend, and the victim’s intent wasn’t to taunt, but to inform and to gather information.
Not for me. I favor a strong policy of narking cheaters out, but that can be done without taunting the victim. I’m not even sure how that’s applicable here since the victim already know she was being cheated on.
Perhaps you are right. If I thought that my relationship with someone was monogamous, I’d probably assume that if he was cheating on me he’d tell other people they were monogamous. So when she said “I’ve been in a relationship with JP” she said a version of “I’m sleeping with your boyfriend.” She did it tactfully - and I think twicks response was tactful as well.
But as I said, I’ve been the “JP” in this situation with a deluded boyfriend. Some people really don’t get the idea of “seeing other people.”
As were twicks’ responses. She never taunted Maria with “I find this amusing” - she left that for us. She gave Maria the information she asked for, as well as some advice (which may have been unlooked for) about him not changing.
But Maria had no idea if twicks though she was in an exclusive relationship with JP or not. She just suspected they had some sort of sexual relationship. But no idea of the terms.
It is possible that of this list of women, twicks is the only one who had an “honest” relationship with JP and Maria has caused a lot of other women a lot of pain.
(And I generally agree that you should tell, but am regularly shouted down by the “mind your own business” folks).
Leaving the taunting aside for the moment, Maria wanted to know if in fact twickster was merely a friend as JP indicated. I think the factual accounting of the relationship JP has/had with twickster is entirely appropriate. She was asked and she answered.
Defining the relationship as casual at least let Maria know that there was nothing in the lines of a serious relationship in the minds of JP or twickster. I think if you don’t have your heart in the relationship it is much easier to find levity in the predicament. And perhaps some self-gratifying thinking - “at least it isn’t my heart getting crushed”.
Having said that, I had a doctor once who was performing an incredibly painful procedure without freezing. I apologized for jumping and he responded, “oh that’s okay, it’s not hurting me”. I never saw the bastard again.
That’s something to consider - Maria might well flip the hell out on anyone who doesn’t play the innocence card and/or lets JP in on the deal. In fact, all we know is that she claims there are a bunch of women that JP E-mailed and that she got their E-mail addresses. Maybe she’s also checked his phone, computer, etc., and has full names, phone numbers, street addresses?
The email responding to Maria was very specific when it didn’t need to be. A few sentences would have sufficed - “Yes, JP and I have been seeing each other for a while; we are more than just friends. I’m sorry if my telling you this causes you pain. I encourage you to talk to JP about this.” It’s short and to the point, and it doesn’t end with a “here-are-the-harsh-realities-of-your-situation”-type ending.
I don’t think twickster was under any obligation to have written the woman kindly, or to have written her back at all. That said, people do a lot of things they are not really obliged to, because it is the decent thing to do.
This:
and this:
struck me as much less kind than it had to be. The facts in the middle portion of the email should have sufficiently and tactfully conveyed the message that you are not interested in jumping on board in some kind of confrontation. There was no need to preface the message with such a cold statement of indifference. Besides, if you weren’t interested in drama, why cc JP? Why not let her Maria confront him (or not) in her own time?
I figured it was more a black humor response to a very mistaken supposition that every other woman would be shocked to find out that this guy wasn’t being monogamous with her. Much less willing to go along with some big plan to confront him - I think of this brilliant plan whenever I hear of those ideas.
Oh my goodness, what a busy thread this has turned out to be! My apologies for not participating – I’ve been offline all day and am just reading it now.
To respond to what seem to be the main points:
Why did I tell her JP and I have had sex? She wanted to know. I was not going to lie about it – I haven’t done anything I am ashamed of, and I certainly see no reason to lie to protect JP. (Should I have said “more than just friends” rather than “we sometimes have sex”? That kind of euphemism doesn’t serve to answer the question.)
Why did I say “I don’t want to get involved in your soap opera”? To indicate that though I was going to answer her questions – in this email – that would be the end of my participation in whatever scenario she was contemplating.
Why did I say “Don’t expect JP to change”? Because I’ve been the person cheated on, and I know that expecting the person to change is the path of true madness. Though unsolicited, I thought that was advice she could benefit from hearing. I still do think so. Could I have said it more gently? Perhaps, but I think a lack of tact from me at that point is probably not her biggest problem at the moment.
Why did I cc JP on it? To keep things upfront – this is what she asked, this is how I answered. Just as I see no reason to lie to her to protect JP, I see no reason to lie to JP (by omission) to protect her.
Why did I think it was funny? As several have suggested – black humor, the idea that she thought she was contacting someone with this earthshattering news, and that I totally didn’t give a shit.
Did I have an obligation to find out that he was seeing someone else who thought it was exclusive? Uh … whuh? Why? He’s divorced, I ascertained that upfront – beyond that, if I’m not treating it as an exclusive relationship (if it is, for me, the very antithesis of an exclusive relationship), what business is it of mine who else he’s seeing and what he’s telling them?
You don’t see what fucking somebody else’s boyfriend has to do with you? You think it’s “funny” to hurt that person and jab her about not wanting to be involved with her 'soap opera," when you ARE the soap opera. This guy is a scumbag. don’t you care that you’re banging a scumbag, and helping to cause pain to somebody else? Do you bang married guys too? Arte you under the impression that anything that doesn’t hurt you personally is morally ok?
Incidentally, the way this douchebag types is morally indefensible all by itself.
