Would you tell a stranger their partner was cheating on them?

One eyed Jack · 26-07-2015 11:02AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It is black and white though: Cheating is a betrayal of trust - it's that simple.

So if you inform on something that turns out to not be cheating, you're not doing any harm (outside of edge-cases), because the partner won't view it as a betrayal of trust; it's all about whether the partner being 'cheated' on, views it as a betrayal of trust.

So the whole 'it may not be cheating' argument doesn't do anything in favour of the argument, for not informing.

I'm still struggling with the concept of you appointing yourself as the moral arbiter of other people's behaviour, to the degree that you find it perfectly acceptable to inject yourself into their relationship and make it your business to "inform" them that you think their partner is cheating on them.

Who, or what, gives you that right, to make that determination about other people's relationships?

Have you any idea how many times in 20 years I've had people come and "inform" me that they think my wife is seeing someone else? I'll give you a guess how many times I entertained them.

That's what trust is, and quite frankly, you really don't know the meaning of the word trust if you think you have to be the trust police in other people's relationships. I hope you wouldn't take it personally as I'm only "informing" you without any moral judgement, but I have no time and no respect for nosey little shìt-stirrers that get their jollies from trying to create drama in other people's relationships.

I'm not saying you're a nosey little shìt-stirrer, as I have no proof that you are, but I think there's no harm in informing you how I feel about them.

(I think I might actually start using that line of justification and reason more often to absolve myself of any liability for the consequences of my actions in telling someone they're an a-hole. It's brilliant!)

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 11:41AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm still struggling with the concept of you appointing yourself as the moral arbiter of other people's behaviour, to the degree that you find it perfectly acceptable to inject yourself into their relationship and make it your business to "inform" them that you think their partner is cheating on them.

Who, or what, gives you that right, to make that determination about other people's relationships?

Have you any idea how many times in 20 years I've had people come and "inform" me that they think my wife is seeing someone else? I'll give you a guess how many times I entertained them.

That's what trust is, and quite frankly, you really don't know the meaning of the word trust if you think you have to be the trust police in other people's relationships.

Please stop replying to me. I've explained how your 'moral arbiter' argument is false on several occasions, and how it's not for you to decide if informing is acceptable, it's up to the person being cheated on - and you have demonstrably:
1: Deliberately misrepresented me in several posts.
2: Directly put words in my mouth.
3: Directly lied in your posts - provably so.

Among more.

I don't want to be replying to you, and I don't want you jumping into a discussion I'm having with someone else either, as when I do reply to you, about 1/5th of my post is spent adding something new to the actual topic, and the other 4/5th's is spent debunking the misrepresentations/putting-words in my mouth and such.

The annoying thing about it, is that because you keep deliberately repeating the misrepresentations, it's effectively 'slinging mud until it sticks', and other posters start to take that on as true - I don't want the rest of the discussion in this thread, to be me debunking all of those misrepresentations again and again and again.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I hope you wouldn't take it personally as I'm only "informing" you without any moral judgement, but I have no time and no respect for nosey little shìt-stirrers that get their jollies from trying to create drama in other people's relationships.

I'm not saying you're a nosey little shìt-stirrer, as I have no proof that you are, but I think there's no harm in informing you how I feel about them.

(I think I might actually start using that line of justification and reason more often to absolve myself of any liability for the consequences of my actions in telling someone they're an a-hole. It's brilliant!)

Particularly, I don't see the need for passive-aggressive bullshít like this, and I'm surprised it got thanked either. Whatever faux justification you/thankee's provide for it, I will take it personally - and I'd say most other people reading it would view it as being aimed that way too.

26-07-2015 11:58AM

I think id always want the information - so i guess I would always give it too if I had it. Treat others as you want to be treated and all that

zeffabelli · 26-07-2015 12:01PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think id always want the information - so i guess I would always give it too if I had it. Treat others as you want to be treated and all that

See, that's the problem with the golden rule.... Not everyone is the same as you.

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 12:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think id always want the information - so i guess I would always give it too if I had it. Treat others as you want to be treated and all that

Ya, and the chances of it happening for you are far less likely too, given the ethical alternatives you have available

Samaris · 26-07-2015 12:13PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

See, that's the problem with the golden rule.... Not everyone is the same as you.

No, but it's a good place to start, isn't it? I happen to be on the No side in this debate, but when it gets down to it, our interactions with other people will always be based to some extent on assumption. That's one of the better places to start.

Here, both sides feel an ethical dilemma, based on a mix of privacy and right/wrong. Personally, I think doing something like this only causes pain. Its different when it's someone you are close to. But with someone you don't know, telling them will definitely cause hurt and probably won't help anything. I would tell a stranger that their house was on fire since that would have a demonstrably better effect than not! Telling a stranger that their partner was having an affair very likely will not.

26-07-2015 12:16PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya, and the chances of it happening for you are far less likely too, given the ethical alternatives you have available

Perhaps. I do have a thing for letting the girls be with other guys once or twice if it ever came up or if I ever found a guy. But its all about communication with me - not the sex. Id be more upset with the break in communication rather than the physical act of cheating if they ever slept with anyone else.

As I say - I would like that information to come to me if it ever came to pass - so I would give that information to anyone I had it for in the expectation it would be returned in the same way.

One eyed Jack · 26-07-2015 12:21PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Please stop replying to me.

No? Public discussion forum? I've been perfectly civil to you thus far and the discussion has been reasonable, I think anyway.

I've explained how your 'moral arbiter' argument is false on several occasions, and how it's not for you to decide if informing is acceptable, it's up to the person being cheated on - and you have demonstrably:
1: Deliberately misrepresented me in several posts.
2: Directly put words in my mouth.
3: Directly lied in your posts - provably so.

Among more.

I think you missed something there. I'm wondering what gives you the right to judge what is or isn't acceptable for other people in their own relationships?

As for the rest of that, well, I guess I'm not the morally righteous citizen that you are, but hey, I'm ok with who I am because I'm all too aware of how people can make all sorts of accusations about other people, and the thing is you can either decide to entertain them, giving credibility to their accusations, or tell them exactly what you think of them.

I don't want to be replying to you, and I don't want you jumping into a discussion I'm having with someone else either, as when I do reply to you, about 1/5th of my post is spent adding something new to the actual topic, and the other 4/5th's is spent debunking the misrepresentations/putting-words in my mouth and such.

There's something of an irony don't you think in you telling me you don't want me interfering in a discussion you're having with someone else, about how you feel it is your moral duty to interfere in other people's relationships...

I lol'd anyway.

The annoying thing about it, is that because you keep deliberately repeating the misrepresentations, it's effectively 'slinging mud until it sticks', and other posters start to take that on as true - I don't want the rest of the discussion in this thread, to be me debunking all of those misrepresentations again and again and again.

I can see how anyone questioning you is annoying for you, but if you appoint yourself as the moral guardian of society, well, people are gonna have questions, like who appointed you to that position?

I think you're not giving other posters enough credit btw that they aren't as clever, if not even more so than you are. They're able to make that determination for themselves, without needing you to do it for them.

Particularly, I don't see the need for passive-aggressive bullshít like this, and I'm surprised it got thanked either. Whatever faux justification you/thankee's provide for it, I will take it personally - and I'd say most other people reading it would view it as being aimed that way too.

But I already said I don't intend for you to take it personally? I was doing no different to you in informing you how I personally feel about those kind of people. Since you're not that type of person, where's the harm?

zeffabelli · 26-07-2015 12:25PM

Samaris wrote: »

No, but it's a good place to start, isn't it? I happen to be on the No side in this debate, but when it gets down to it, our interactions with other people will always be based to some extent on assumption. That's one of the better places to start.

Here, both sides feel an ethical dilemma, based on a mix of privacy and right/wrong. Personally, I think doing something like this only causes pain. Its different when it's someone you are close to. But with someone you don't know, telling them will definitely cause hurt and probably won't help anything. I would tell a stranger that their house was on fire since that would have a demonstrably better effect than not! Telling a stranger that their partner was having an affair very likely will not.

I prioritise privacy, and with so many unpredictable variables, including the life of the third party with whom the cheating is being done, far too much uncertainty for my book to throw my oar in.

NachoBusiness · 26-07-2015 12:25PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Not everyone is the same as you.

Not everyone is the same as you either though, are they.

You infer that people should not be told because there are some people in the world that won't want to know, but why stop telling someone that you know their partner is cheating just because there are some people that wouldn't want to know? You don't think that all people should be told just because there are some that do want to know and so why do you think the reverse of that? Makes no sense.

One eyed Jack · 26-07-2015 12:44PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Not everyone is the same as you either though, are they.

You infer that people should not be told because there are some people in the world that won't want to know, but why stop telling someone that you know their partner is cheating just because there are some people that wouldn't want to know? You don't think that all people should be told just because there are some that do want to know and so why do you think the reverse of that? Makes no sense.

For me personally anyway, I'd question the motivations of the person telling me that they think my partner is cheating on me, and often times it really was for their own jollies that they "informed" me, almost taking delight in the fact, and disappointed when they didn't get the reaction they expected.

A person who displays that sort of disloyalty to their friends is not someone I would want anything to do with, because I couldn't trust that they wouldn't at some point be equally as disloyal to me as they were to my partner.

I could do without the drama, and I wouldn't betray other people's trust in me either, because once you start acting as the moral arbiter in other people's lives, you're playing with their lives, which you have no right to do to another human being.

26-07-2015 12:47PM

Not sure that ensuring someone has all the information is being disloyal. Their decisions are their own. Ensuring that they have the correct data upon which to make their decisions is my decision. Perhaps keeping truth back from someone is what is being disloyal. Mileage varies I guess.

NachoBusiness · 26-07-2015 12:52PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

For me personally anyway, I'd question the motivations of the person telling me that they think my partner is cheating on me, and often times it really was for their own jollies that they "informed" me, almost taking delight in the fact, and disappointed when they didn't get the reaction they expected.

A person who displays that sort of disloyalty to their friends is not someone I would want anything to do with, because I couldn't trust that they wouldn't at some point be equally as disloyal to me as they were to my partner.

I could do without the drama, and I wouldn't betray other people's trust in me either, because once you start acting as the moral arbiter in other people's lives, you're playing with their lives, which you have no right to do to another human being.

We're talking about strangers here though, Jack, and so what could they gain from telling you? Even if it was for retweets on Twitter, so what? I wouldn't care what some stranger's motives were for, as long as they told me something that I could verify and they didn't just come up to me as I'm buying Cornflakes and whisper: "You're girlfriend's a whore. You need to know dude" and then walked off. I mean, being told they have a man stored in their phone under a girls names and that they should check the messages sent to that person, is pretty damning and easily verifiable, and irrefutable evidence of infidelity and so of course I would want someone to give me a nod to something like that going on and of course I would do likewise for somebody else if I seen them being taken for a ride. Life's too short.

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 01:25PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...
I think you missed something there. I'm wondering what gives you the right to judge what is or isn't acceptable for other people in their own relationships?

As for the rest of that, well, I guess I'm not the morally righteous citizen that you are, but hey, I'm ok with who I am because I'm all too aware of how people can make all sorts of accusations about other people, and the thing is you can either decide to entertain them, giving credibility to their accusations, or tell them exactly what you think of them.
...

See not even a denial in this post that "you have demonstrably:
1: Deliberately misrepresented me in several posts.
2: Directly put words in my mouth.
3: Directly lied in your posts - provably so."

Just skipped around that, which I'll take as a tacit admission of not contesting the above.

That's why I won't engage in debate with you, and don't want you to with me - you can't avoid engaging in tactics to either smear, misrepresent, put words in peoples mouth, and directly lie, in your posts.

On your previous account you went into an hysterical fit of accusing me of being a misogynist before, simply to smear me - and you're at similar bullshít again here (except involving the above nonsense).

zeffabelli · 26-07-2015 01:28PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not sure that ensuring someone has all the information is being disloyal. Their decisions are their own. Ensuring that they have the correct data upon which to make their decisions is my decision. Perhaps keeping truth back from someone is what is being disloyal. Mileage varies I guess.

Truth is never truth without a context.

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 01:31PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Truth is never truth without a context.

This was dealt with in what we discussed earlier in the thread though - I explained how this is not the case, but after I explained that, you stopped replying, but have come back to repeat the same assertion again?

If a guy in a relationship kisses another woman, and you inform his partner about that, the fact that he kissed someone else is true no matter what (that fact stands on its own, it doesn't need more context), and it's up to the partner to decide if that is a breach of trust in the relationship.

26-07-2015 01:31PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Truth is never truth without a context.

Facts remain facts however

And I like to think when I make decisions in my life - I have as many of them as possible.

zeffabelli · 26-07-2015 01:36PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This was dealt with in what we discussed earlier in the thread though - I explained how this is not the case, but after I explained that, you stopped replying, but have come back to repeat the same assertion again?

If a guy in a relationship kisses another woman, and you inform his partner about that, the fact that he kissed someone else is true no matter what (that fact stands on its own, it doesn't need more context), and it's up to the partner to decide if that is a breach of trust in the relationship.

We have to disagree on that. It's still a decontextualised fact. Not the same as the truth.

Also why would I with any certainty trust the perceptions of the witness?

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 01:41PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

We have to disagree on that. It's still a decontextualised fact. Not the same as the truth.

Also why would I with any certainty trust the perceptions of the witness?

It's objectively true that the person in my example, was kissing another woman - I don't see how there can be disagreement with that? - it's up to the partner in the relationship, to decide if that's cheating (and that includes requesting 'context' from the guy/OH kissing the other woman).

The partner in the relationship doesn't need to trust the informer, they just need to talk to their partner and ask them what's up.

zeffabelli · 26-07-2015 01:47PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's objectively true that the person in my example, was kissing another woman - I don't see how there can be disagreement with that? - it's up to the partner in the relationship, to decide if that's cheating (and that includes requesting 'context' from the partner who was kissing the other woman).

The partner in the relationship doesn't need to trust the informer, they just need to talk to their partner and ask them what's up.

The reliability of the witness is very important. What if they were drunk? What if they mistook the person for someone else?

What if it were dark?

There would be no reason to trust the witnesses perception at all.

The fact that you are telling means you've already decided it's cheating. I can tell you that if I trusted someone and a third party came to me with this, I'd view it as character assassination of the person I was loyal to and not at all be impressed with the third party.

Facts never stand alone. There is no one truth, otherwise we'd have one history book, but we have millions, because life is interpretive.

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 02:12PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

The reliability of the witness is very important. What if they were drunk? What if they mistook the person for someone else?

What if it were dark?

There would be no reason to trust the witnesses perception at all.

The fact that you are telling means you've already decided it's cheating. I can tell you that if I trusted someone and a third party came to me with this, I'd view it as character assassination of the person I was loyal to and not at all be impressed with the third party.

Facts never stand alone. There is no one truth, otherwise we'd have one history book, but we have millions, because life is interpretive.

The witness perception stuff is just shifting the goalposts using what-if's though, to try and weaken facts, and my post already explained that the partner in the relationship can just talk to their other-half to ask what is going on.

Unless you have good reason to believe that the person informing you has malicious intent, then viewing informing itself as showing malicious intent, isn't logical - that would be loyalty to the point of naivety - if you don't know the person informing you, then the logical thing is to just say you don't know if they do or don't have bad intent, not to assume that they do.

You're essentially trying to reduce facts down to being just a matter of opinion; that's really bad reasoning.
That's the big danger with delving-deep into philosophy and the humanities (especially postmodern stuff): A lot of it is just specious and obfuscatory, and can end up convincing people to take up anti-intellectual ideas, that allow them to muddy facts as (essentially) being 'just a matter of opinion'.

Samaris · 26-07-2015 02:14PM

Am I the only one a little bewildered by the existential debate on the nature of Truth?

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 02:26PM

Samaris wrote: »

Am I the only one a little bewildered by the existential debate on the nature of Truth?

Ya it really doesn't apply to what is being debated. If this were debating something on the fringes of philosophy or science, then philosophical arguments about the nature of truth and trying to delimit facts/truth etc. would make sense, but in this debate it doesn't make sense.
That's the problem with a lot of philosophy - there are a lot of ideas in philosophy that can be used to pick at something in almost any argument, and divert discussion into a vague philosophical debate, to avoid dealing with the actual argument at hand.

It seems to be avoiding the argument - that an informer can pass on a fact, that they saw someones partner kissing someone else, without having to force their own moral views on someone else - by trying to muddy that argument by getting into a philosophical debate about facts/truth.

One eyed Jack · 26-07-2015 02:44PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

We're talking about strangers here though, Jack, and so what could they gain from telling you? Even if it was for retweets on Twitter, so what? I wouldn't care what some stranger's motives were for, as long as they told me something that I could verify and they didn't just come up to me as I'm buying Cornflakes and whisper: "You're girlfriend's a whore. You need to know dude" and then walked off. I mean, being told they have a man stored in their phone under a girls names and that they should check the messages sent to that person, is pretty damning and easily verifiable, and irrefutable evidence of infidelity and so of course I would want someone to give me a nod to something like that going on and of course I would do likewise for somebody else if I seen them being taken for a ride. Life's too short.

Well if it was a complete stranger, tbh I'd give them even less time as I'd view them the same way as the two, what IMO are simply spiteful women in the case in the OP. There was absolutely no need for them to interfere in something that was absolutely of no concern to them.

When we talk about trust right, well, from my perspective at least, or my understanding of trusting someone, then if someone approaches you with what they claim is incontrovertible evidence that your partner has been cheating, and all you have to do is take say an envelope from them containing all the details; it's at that point that the trust has broken down in the relationship as far as I'm concerned, because you're putting more trust in the word of a complete stranger, than you are in the person who you're actually in a relationship with.

At what point do you question the loyalty of the person you're in a relationship with? When you see it for yourself that you cannot trust them with your own eyes, rather than taking the word of a third party who claims they're only doing you a favour by informing you because they feel you need to know.

You're right that life's too short, and that's why I don't spend my life entertaining busybodies who see it as their imperative to interfere in my relationship, and I respect my wife's privacy and trust that she isn't stepping out with people when she goes for a bloody coffee with her mates or a few drinks or whatever. Either you trust the person you're with to treat them as an adult, or you don't, and in that case you should probably let them go and be on your own if you're always going to value the interference of a third party in your relationship over putting your trust in the person you're with.

In order for a relationship to work, trust has to actually mean something, and isn't for me at least, just a meaningless platitude that can be discarded on a whim. Where does that "you need to know" standard stop?

Would we inform someone that their partner were a lesbian and that they need to know? Or should we let the person themselves be guided by their own conscience as to how much their partner needs, or doesn't need, to know about them?

That's why this "I know something you don't" mentality always came across to me as very immature and childish, and why I have no time for it, and why I have even less time for someone who thinks it's morally acceptable to "out" someone like that because they find that person's behaviour morally unacceptable.

You kinda have to wonder (well I do anyway) - because life is so short, have these people nothing better to be doing with their time?

Fat Christy · 26-07-2015 02:53PM

Scarleh for them if they weren't actually a couple or if they were in an open relationship.

26-07-2015 02:57PM

God forbid people have empathy for others indeed

NachoBusiness · 26-07-2015 04:08PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There was absolutely no need for them to interfere in something that was absolutely of no concern to them.

Not suggesting they needed to tell them but there is no real need not to tell them either.

When we talk about trust right, well, from my perspective at least, or my understanding of trusting someone, then if someone approaches you with what they claim is incontrovertible evidence that your partner has been cheating, and all you have to do is take say an envelope from them containing all the details; it's at that point that the trust has broken down in the relationship as far as I'm concerned, because you're putting more trust in the word of a complete stranger, than you are in the person who you're actually in a relationship with.

Oh come on. Millions of people cheat in the world. You're just being naive.

So if you were the man here and got this note, you would rip it up and never think of it again?

At what point do you question the loyalty of the person you're in a relationship with? When you see it for yourself that you cannot trust them with your own eyes, rather than taking the word of a third party who claims they're only doing you a favour by informing you because they feel you need to know.

But you would be seeing it with your own eyes, that's the point. Those girls, seen the messages being sent to a man, under the contact name of a female. They highlighted this and so they are not simply asking him to take their word for it. They are telling him where he needs to look to find the proof.

You're right that life's too short, and that's why I don't spend my life entertaining busybodies who see it as their imperative to interfere in my relationship, and I respect my wife's privacy and trust that she isn't stepping out with people when she goes for a bloody coffee with her mates or a few drinks or whatever. Either you trust the person you're with to treat them as an adult, or you don't, and in that case you should probably let them go and be on your own if you're always going to value the interference of a third party in your relationship over putting your trust in the person you're with.

That's just head in the sand, la la la la nonsense.

Would we inform someone that their partner were a lesbian and that they need to know? Or should we let the person themselves be guided by their own conscience as to how much their partner needs, or doesn't need, to know about them?

If they were cheating? Of course I would.

That's why this "I know something you don't" mentality always came across to me as very immature and childish, and why I have no time for it, and why I have even less time for someone who thinks it's morally acceptable to "out" someone like that because they find that person's behaviour morally unacceptable.

You kinda have to wonder (well I do anyway) - because life is so short, have these people nothing better to be doing with their time?

You're just running away from the central point all the time.

This is about someone that has cheated and you're turning it into an expose on gossipers and what makes such people tick.

26-07-2015 04:11PM

We aren't even talking about trust
We are talking about telling someone and letting them decide what to do with the information

if they decide to do nothing at least they have decided with more facts

the main reason i probably would not for a stranger is that i don't know if they're in a relationship, i don't know they're cheating, i don't know if that's just a cousin or friend they are with before going off snogging someone else, and if they are a stranger the chances of me finding that out are pretty slim

NachoBusiness · 26-07-2015 04:17PM

bluewolf wrote: »

the main reason i probably would not for a stranger is that i don't know if they're in a relationship, i don't know they're cheating, i don't know if that's just a cousin or friend they are with before going off snogging someone else, and if they are a stranger the chances of me finding that out are pretty slim

Oh absolutely. I wouldn't open my mouth unless I knew what I was talking about..

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I'd want to be 100% on it now though. No way I would risk sticking my oar into waters I had no idea about. If I was to tell someone that their girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or husband was cheating, then I would have to be damn sure of it. But if I was damn sure, fcuk them, they can reap what they sowed

Or as Ricky Roma says:

You never open your mouth until you know what the shot is.

One eyed Jack · 26-07-2015 05:10PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Not suggesting they needed to tell them but there is no real need not to tell them either.

We'll simply have to agree to differ on that one.

Oh come on. Millions of people cheat in the world. You're just being naive.

I know they do, in fact I'm well aware that they do, but I don't see why I should entertain a complete stranger without questioning their motives as to why they would feel it was necessary to inform on someone which I can tell you from experience 99 times out of 100 is motivated purely by the need to humiliate another person and to gloat in their own moral superiority. We even saw it with the two reportees in the OP who didn't give a fiddlers for the consequences of their actions, they simply wanted social media notoriety, and they got it, same as the other chap who done the same thing in the other link you posted. That was less about having any genuine empathy for another person, and more about stroking their own ego.

As much as I find cheating morally repugnant, I find people who go out of their way to humiliate other people, even moreso. Again of course, I'm quite willing to accept that your moral standards may differ or may be there or thereabouts.

So if you were the man here and got this note, you would rip it up and never think of it again?

I used get notes like that in 3rd class ffs! :pac:

Of course I wouldn't even take it, I'd have no interest in thinking of it again or I'd drive myself nuts with paranoia.

But you would be seeing it with your own eyes, that's the point. Those girls, seen the messages being sent to a man, under the contact name of a female. They highlighted this and so they are not simply asking him to take their word for it. They are telling him where he needs to look to find the proof.

No, when I say seeing it with my own eyes, I mean witnessing the physical act for myself. I've never been one for entertaining gossip about people and that's just the way I am. What my wife does with her phones, laptop, facebook or whatever, that's her own private business, and I respect her privacy, and she respects my privacy in return. Basic manners as far as I'm concerned, even if we weren't in a relationship.

You're just running away from the central point all the time.

This is about someone that has cheated and you're turning it into an expose on gossipers and what makes such people tick.

What's the thread title again?

Is that not the central point surely - would you tell a stranger their partner was cheating on them?

Of course I'm interested to know why the hell someone would feel the need to do that to another person.

Would you tell a stranger their partner was cheating on them?

Comments