A woman facing divorce after her husband contracted and transmitted an STI has sought advice on how much truth to reveal to her estranged husband's family, particularly his mother.
According to the reader, identified only as 'Keeping His Secret,' her nine-year marriage ended abruptly three months ago when she was diagnosed with genital herpes. She believes her husband contracted the STI during a work trip when he slept with a prostitute without protection.
Upon confronting her husband, he admitted to the infidelity. The couple, who were previously perceived as having a "perfect marriage," are now divorcing. The reader expressed frustration that her husband is reportedly telling others they "grew apart," a narrative she feels allows him to appear dignified while she is perceived as abandoning a stable relationship.
"My husband has apparently been telling people that we 'grew apart,' which makes me furious because it allows him to walk away looking dignified while I look as though I've abruptly abandoned a perfectly good man," she wrote.
Her husband's mother recently contacted her, urging her to reconsider the divorce. The reader felt compelled to reveal the truth but was unable to do so.
She is grappling with how much explanation she owes and whether to protect her privacy or allow her husband to control the narrative by letting people believe they simply "grew apart."
Columnist Jana Hocking advised the reader that while her diagnosis is private medical information, she is not obligated to share it. However, Hocking suggested the reader should not let her husband's version of events stand unchallenged.
Hocking recommended giving the husband one opportunity to correct the story with his family and friends, stating that he should explain the marriage ended due to his infidelity and the risk it posed to his wife's health, without divulging specific medical details. If he refuses, Hocking advised the reader to use the same explanation: "He was unfaithful and put my health at risk. I'm keeping the medical details private."
For the mother-in-law, Hocking suggested a more direct approach: "Your son was unfaithful and put my health at risk. I won't discuss the private medical consequences, but my decision is final."
Hocking also encouraged the reader to confide in a few trusted individuals for support, emphasizing that while keeping the husband's behavior secret might protect her privacy, bearing the emotional fallout alone only protects him. She stated that the husband does not get to leave his wife carrying both the medical consequences of his betrayal and the blame for the divorce.