does that mean now that john needs to divorce his wife because she betrayed his trust when wrecking his beautiful car even though she promised to bring it home in one piece?
Ho boy. That you think THAT is a 'gotcha' question is kinda low-key hilarious. But sure, I'll bite.
The answer is:
Depends on the context.
Genuine accident? Almost certainly not. Accidents happen, that's what makes them accidents.
If it was a preventable accident? If the wife had been operating it negligently? If the car was say, a passion project (e.g. resto muscle car)? Then maybe don't let her drive the expensive toys anymore, but not like you need to force her to take the bus to work everyday.
If the car was some point of contention in the relationship (e.g. it was an obsession or a money pit, wife wanted it gone because of competition for time and attention), and she wrecked it on purpose? I mean, sure, that's an abject betrayal of one's trust for another's gain. That's the kind of shit that can absolutely end relationships.
mina started the whole thing at the first meeting in the coffee shop ("ohhh i like loooong hugs!! hihihi uwu"). then she invites edwin to shopping, playing dress up for him, and then she wears the outfit he liked the most when meeting the next time. then she kisses him "for acting", before letting him fondle her tits while ahegao-ing.
and then she found the usb stick
The only thing that maybe crosses the line is the kissing, which again, was practice for something she was gonna do anyways as part of her job. She's an actress, and not all roles are as celibate monks devoid of on-screen intimacy. It was a hot scene were Mina losses herself a bit in role and in response to Edwin's actions. Otherwise, unless you're a supremely insecure fuck-up that demands absolute obedience from and control over their partner (in which case you want a slave, not a girlfriend), the rest of that is fine.
Mina is gregarious, and that doesn't make her unfaithful. Long hugs are not cheating, nor is having a bubbly personality (even if that is a mask, she's hardly the only one with different public and private 'faces'). Did you perhaps not get hugged enough growing up? Raised in one of those super conservative cloistered cults where a lady showing some ankle is absolutely scandalous, and talking to another man without her keeper present is being an unabashed slut?
The shopping part was entirely platonic and incredibly tame (unless Edwin has the Voyeur trait, in which case Mina is annoyed with his peeking and is not at all flirty), and occurred because Ian blew off her and her plans. That's because Ian was blasted and giving out free face-rides to not-his-girlfriend the night before. Also, Edwin doesn't have to cover for Ian being missing, nor accept Mina's invitation to go shopping. The event occurs because Edwin reciprocates. If you're gonna paint Mina as a whore for simply hanging out with a male friend, then Edwin must be a home-wrecker for the very same. I have noticed however that you haven't been at all critical for the role Edwin plays here; Mina is not acting in a vacuum.
You also forgot the club, where Ian is actively flirting with another girl (the violet haired Amber, the other part of Ian's threesome with his nanny, and drunk Ian face-ride recipient). Also when Edwin is asked if he knew about the cheating and he's honest, Mina thanks him for not lying and tells him that she's partially to blame for having ignored it herself up until that point. She knew, and had known, for quite some time; the USB drive was just the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. That was the final betrayal so obvious and arresting in its totality that it demanded confrontation. The problem could no longer just be brushed under the rug, hoping that it would go away or fix itself.
Let also not forget that Mina and Ian's relationship is a gauged by a literal variable in the game's code. In order to progress down Mina's path, it requires you to be honest with her at key decisions to earn enough point to erode away their relationship score. Edwin is an active participant in this endeavor, Mina is not just throwing herself at Edwin for sex regardless of his actions.
what trust?
didn't edwin just go there naively for interviewing her and then she asked him for sex? iirc he was under the impression that she would not be allowed to participate as a carnation if she wasn't good fucking him. so if he didn't fuck her and would also be a sincere person and didn't lie to the owners about it, he would have put her in a precarious situation.
or are you the kind of person who finds it wrong to accept "dubious goods" but lying to the bad guys is ok if its about saving the damsel in distress?
Rosalind was being setup, and Edwin comes to realize it. She was instructed to have sex to ensure her position at the club, but Edwin wasn't told the same; indeed Chuck explicitly told him that he'd respect Edwin's decision ("I'll honor whatever decision you come to regarding the lass. Talk to you later."). So Edwin knows he has the decision making power here, and he's smart enough to put 2-and-2 together and can pretty easily surmise that Rosalind is being coerced to be there.
So again, does Edwin become complicit in the machinations of the club to get laid, or does he respect Rosalind enough to treat her like a human being? Edwin knows that he can just approve her without fucking her, and by the magic of video-games, we the audience can see that play out by choosing to not take advantage of her. I mean, do you just not understand what coercion is and how it works? The fundamentals in unequal power dynamics in human interaction? Or are you really naïve enough to think that Rosalind is there purely of her own volition, and that outside circumstances (again, being manipulated by the Carnation Club itself) have zero role to play here? People do not operate or make decisions in a vacuum.
I kinda get the impression that if a school bully shook a kid down for their lunch money, and said bully beat up the kid for refusing, you'd blame the kid and not the bully cause 'the kid had a choice'.
