what would mina have lost if she shared her bucket list and the relationship did then collapse?
as long as ian is secretive? what has his cheating to do with it?
I hope you never have your vulnerability abused by someone whom you trusted. But given your inability to recognize untrustworthy behavior and other obvious warning signs that someone cannot be trusted, it is only a matter of time before that happens.
the one trust is connected to ones spouse being a sexual greedy person and unable to resist it
the other trust is connected to being assured that ones spouse is secretive and not a malicious person towards oneself
Simple. If you can't trust your partner to put your needs before their own, to not betray your trust for selfish ends; what is to prevent them from demonstrating that VERY SAME ACTION in other aspects of your relationship? Someone who cannot be trusted to respect their partner enough to maintain monogamy in a monogamous relationship, should not be trusted to respect their partner in other capacities; indulging keeping potentially damaging secrets confidential.
A relationship is a commitment. A monogamous one is committing to each other exclusively. To break that commitment is to violate your partner's trust that you would remain faithful to them and the mutual agreement of exclusivity. If you want to fuck around, then don't be exclusive. Just be single, or try to make an open relationship work. But committing to monogamous relationship requires both partners be exclusive with each other, and failing to do so (i.e. fucking around/cheating) is an explicit abuse of trust of the other partner in the relationship.
When someone gets caught embezzling funds from their job, you shouldn't also be surprised to find they were stealing people's lunches out of the fridge in the break room. Likewise you don't just move them into a different position within the company so they no longer have access to funds or materials to embezzle and trust them to not steal again,
you fire their assess and press charges.
men don't cheat because they want to harm their spouse, but because they wanna fuck.
Doesn't matter what harm they did or did not intend, harm is exactly what it does. It's a selfish betrayal of their partner's trust, and belies how little they care for their partner's wellbeing. Again, not a hard concept to grasp. Or at least it shouldn't be...
unless an affair is only willing to fuck in exchange for sharing ones spouse's secrets i don't see a connection here.
Wow, you really just don't get intrapersonal relationships, do you?
fidelity and secrecy are different character traits. so to me it makes no sense logically. but maybe some women think like that these days
Or, it's almost like people who are comfortable lying to someone about one thing are perfectly capable of comfortably lying to them about other things too! Almost like people who are demonstrably shown to be untrustworthy, shouldn't be trusted; especially when they have a history of betraying that trust for their own selfish gain.
you mean the sharing of the list with nice edwin instead of cheating ian?
if thats the case this would be prime fan service to the nice guy mindset
but i dont think its necessarily presented that way iirc
Mina doesn't have a formal relationship with Edwin in the same way she did with Ian. Likewise, Edwin hasn't really given her reasons to doubt his trustworthiness, unlike Ian. Edwin still has the potential to abuse that trust, and I imagine we will see those consequences play out eventually.
Edwin can show that he cares for Mina and places her wellbeing above his friendship for Ian (e.g. not actively playing a part in covering for Ian's fuckups, and being honest when asked directly if he knew), and that demonstration of trust by Edwin is crucial to forming the bond that allows Mina to be comfortable with proposing to share her Taboo Kink Bucket List with him. Remember that Mina doesn't start to reciprocate Edwin's advances until after she found the USB drive with evidence of Ian having a threesome with his childhood nanny. The bond had been shattered, the circle of trust broken. Whether formally ended or not, Mina knew that her relationship with Ian was effectively over and done, because Ian had evidently checked out long ago.
how did edwin abuse rose's trust?
didn't he just accept her being offered by the club and then agreed to her own proposition?
Rosalind was sent to the club under the auspices of being interviewed by Edwin for the club, something he was entirely unaware of being setup. She was told to meet Edwin, and to have sex with him; and she did so under the instructions of Ian, as part of Mrs. Pullman's larger plan for the Carnations. She was told that her admittance to the club hinged on Edwin's approval, which was a lie. She's desperate, and she trusts that doing so will ensure her a spot in the club, and the powers that be in the Carnation Club are using that to get her to do what they want (which is to help manipulate Edwin into the fold).
She's basically been setup, sent their under false pretenses. So Edwin has the option to become complicit in the scheme, to take advantage of her for his sexual gratification; with her not getting into the club being the Sword of Damocles hanging over the whole event. She is very much being put into a coercive position, and Edwin can choose to indulge and violate Rosalind's trust. We know this explicitly, as we the audience know has has no reason to deny her because he says as much to himself in his own thoughts. So for Edwin to play on that threat to get his dick wet?
That is absolutely an abuse of trust. He held a position of power over Rosalind, and used it to coerce sex from her.
Again, it's one of the themes of the game playing out. Where does Edwin draw his ethical line in the sand? How comfortable is he with using others for his own benefit? What is he willing to do with the trust others place in him?
If there was no deception, if there was no chance to abuse Rosalind's trust? The decision wouldn't be anywhere near as important or impactful. It wouldn't say anything about Edwin's ethics, his moral compass (or lack thereof). Remove the ethical dilemma, and the choice to have sex with Rosalind or not becomes one of simple preference; does the player (through Edwin) think Rosalind is attractive enough to want to see her performing sex acts? It would be a far less interesting choice to make.
