Lovers are jealous beings. They become very upset when the object of their affections is stolen by another.
I wasn't aware, however, that the same applied to married people.
A case currently playing in the theater of a London court is, however, enlightening me. For it is alleged that Ian Puddick, a plumber who seems to be a star of a TV show called "Bricking It," raised arms against his wife's alleged lover.
He allegedly raised them, then lowered them to his computer keyboard, whereupon he tweeted and created Web sites that railed against his rival.
The Telegraph relays that there was more than one Web site committed to shaming Timothy Haynes, an insurance broker who has admitted that he carried on with Leena Puddick, although there seems to be some disagreement as to the length of the carrying on.
It is said that Puddick used Twitter and the sites to expose intimate text messages (sample phrase: "You are an incredibly sensual girl") sent by Haynes to Mrs. Puddick. It is said that one of the sites was called Timhaynes.co.uk. It is said that another was called Banksyuncovered.co.uk, where visitors discovered a completely different uncovering from the one they expected.
Haynes himself, through his legal team, is saying that this mass online microscope being placed on his being and correspondence, corresponded with extreme distress being heaped upon his friends, family and clients, so much so that he ended up leaving his job. (He did find another one.)
He is therefore suing for harassment.
It is alleged that Ian Puddick resorted to threatening texts and phone calls and was sued for harassment last year, the case ultimately being dropped. It was only then that he allegedly turned to the Web in order to turn over these temporarily sleeping dogs once more.
He allegedly posted many details and accusations about Haynes and continued to call him names on the Web--names such as "toad."
Some are imagining that this case will attempt to define what you can and cannot do to someone else in the wide-open spaces of the Web.
Indeed, according to the Daily Mail, Haynes told the court: "Every medium including Twitter was being utilized to create information about myself and the affair. The whole thing is causing my wife upset and distress. We are very anxious that, with the graphic nature of the website, children do not stumble across it."
One must always think about the children. However, this case might also reveal just how convoluted adult human relationships can be. Where is the boundary between the shaming and the shameful? What if everything that is posted is, in fact, true?
Those who continue to believe in the romantic ideal will be relieved to hear that, at least as I understand the proceedings, both men are still with their wives.