Danshi dato Omotteita Osananajimi tono Shinkon Seikatsu ga Umaku Ikisugiru Ken ni Tsuite - Vol. 1 Ch. 4

[AnotherDuck]

Now this is cherry picking mate, this doesn't even specify anything or have any kind of detail

I looked up the word "cheating" which redirected to the base word "cheat". I took some of the most well-known and respected English dictionaries that had a definition that included the context of relationships or anything similar. You calling that cherry picking is misunderstanding what cherry picking is, because those are what people use as the main standard for what's proper English. That's of course ignoring that language is not consistent nor unchanging, but you've been ignoring that from the start anyway.

I could also found some legal definitions where it is explicitly stated that being legally married is the requirement, and that is about a legal contract, not a romantic relationship. I didn't include those because those differ depending on where you live, as some countries punish adultery (which is generally what cheating and infidelity is called legally) while others don't.

By this definition people in open relationships would all be cheaters, which is wrong

They say "secret" or "unfaithful", which is not the case if it is open. An open relationship is an agreement to be allowed to have sex with other people, so doing so is not unfaithful. As such your opinion that those are "the worst definitions" is invalid, because it's based on a false premise.

Also I looked through a lot of different definitions on different sites and they ALL specify romantic relationship

What sites?

Oh also let me rephrase that, their marriage is a marriage for convenience, and not for love (I mean she loves him but that's not the reason why they married, I mean she had hidden intentions but he doesn't know that and thinks it's just a marriage of convenience) so technically it's not cheating since they're not in a romantic relationship

And I'm saying that you're still objectively wrong, with proof. It doesn't matter whether it's a romantic relationship or a marriage of convenience. It's cheating regardless.

 

[Ludd_]

I looked up the word "cheating" which redirected to the base word "cheat". I took some of the most well-known and respected English dictionaries that had a definition that included the context of relationships or anything similar. You calling that cherry picking is misunderstanding what cherry picking is, because those are what people use as the main standard for what's proper English. That's of course ignoring that language is not consistent nor unchanging, but you've been ignoring that from the start anyway.

"Well-known and respected English dictionaries" yet they have little to no detail about the definition
They just say "unfaithful to spouse" and call it a day, yet again I think they're horrible definitions

I could also found some legal definitions where it is explicitly stated that being legally married is the requirement, and that is about a legal contract, not a romantic relationship. I didn't include those because those differ depending on where you live, as some countries punish adultery (which is generally what cheating and infidelity is called legally) while others don't.

That's not what cheating is, open marriages also exist so that wouldn't work out, and if some countries really punish infidelity then that would be full of flaws

They say "secret" or "unfaithful", which is not the case if it is open. An open relationship is an agreement to be allowed to have sex with other people, so doing so is not unfaithful. As such your opinion that those are "the worst definitions" is invalid, because it's based on a false premise.

Ah yes, just ignore the second point I made

By this definition people in open relationships would all be cheaters, which is wrong, it says that if you have a "regular sexual partner" and have a secret sexual relationship with someone else that's cheating, like bruh what? So if you have a friend with benefits and have sexual relations with someone else is that considered cheating now???? These are like the worst definitions

Well first and foremost, some open relationships don't care about having other relationships secret or not, so that's ONE flaw
Secondly, you ignored the point where I said by that definition having a friend with benefits and doing sexual things with someone else is "cheating" so that's ANOTHER flaw in your "most well-known and respected English dictionaries"
This whole argument is so silly

What sites?

I searched up
"cheating in a relationship definition"
"cheating definition marriage"
I looked through a few sites, for example these two top results

Infidelity—also referred to as cheating or adultery—describes the act of engaging in emotional or sexual intimacy with someone outside the agreed-upon boundaries of your marriage or relationship. Infidelity may or may not involve sexual encounters, and can happen in person or online.

Cheating, also known as infidelity, is when a person in a monogamous romantic relationship has an emotional or sexual relationship with someone else without their partner's consent.

They specify "agreed-upon boundaries" and "monogamous romantic relationship" and also specfiy "emotional or sexual relationship" and don't just say "unfaithful"

And I'm saying that you're still objectively wrong, with proof. It doesn't matter whether it's a romantic relationship or a marriage of convenience. It's cheating regardless.

Do you even know what cheating is? Cheating is breaking the boundaries or trust of a relationship, and usually in a monogamous relationship cheating is having an emotional or sexual relation with someone else. That's the boundaries they have since it's a monogamous relationship, but in a marriage of convenience they don't have those "promises" and boundaries, so it wouldn't be cheating, you just say I'm wrong and call it a day, no proof, no base, no whatsoever
Unless you call those "definitions" proof of course. That would be funny

 

[NightF0x26]

Am I the only one who noticed that the bottom of the cup had ゆいか(yuika) written on it?

 

[AnotherDuck]

Do you even know what cheating is?

I do. You obviously don't. I can even show you what you misunderstand about your own quotes.

Your first quote says, "outside the agreed-upon boundaries of your marriage or relationship," which literally uses the word "marriage", proving you wrong. It doesn't specify what type of marriage, which you claim it does.

Cheating, also known as infidelity, is when a person in a monogamous romantic relationship has an emotional or sexual relationship with someone else without their partner’s consent.

Infidelity, however, doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all definition.

That's the next sentence after what you quoted after. It clearly says that there isn't a single definition for it that encompasses absolutely all cases, which you're trying to argue. So you're again proven wrong by your own source.

You're trying to pick flaws in the definitions I gave by ignoring that the moment you mention relationships with an agreement for an open relationship it doesn't fit those definitions, since those are about going behind the partner's back and being unfaithful to the marriage. You're not unfaithful if you follow the agreement of your relationship.

All answers to the question say it's cheating even if it's an arranged marriage here, here, and here. A lot of people disagree with the idea of arranged marriages, but it's still cheating.

but in a marriage of convenience they don't have those "promises" and boundaries, so it wouldn't be cheating, you just say I'm wrong and call it a day, no proof, no base, no whatsoever

You need to prove your statement that it wouldn't be cheating and that there aren't any such promises by definition in a marriage of convenience. You've not done so far, so at the end of the day, you just say I'm wrong and call it a day, no proof, no base, no whatsoever.

Unless you call those "definitions" proof of course. That would be funny

This is irony. It's funny you call your "definitions" proof.

 

[Ludd_]

I do. You obviously don't. I can even show you what you misunderstand about your own quotes.

Your first quote says, "outside the agreed-upon boundaries of your marriage or relationship," which literally uses the word "marriage", proving you wrong. It doesn't specify what type of marriage, which you claim it does.

It clearly states "agreed-upon boundaries"
What are you smoking mate

That's the next sentence after what you quoted after. It clearly says that there isn't a single definition for it that encompasses absolutely all cases, which you're trying to argue. So you're again proven wrong by your own source.

Well in that case you're also proven wrong, but usually if you'd ask anyone they would say cheating is breaking the boundaries of a relationship

You're trying to pick flaws in the definitions I gave by ignoring that the moment you mention relationships with an agreement for an open relationship it doesn't fit those definitions, since those are about going behind the partner's back and being unfaithful to the marriage. You're not unfaithful if you follow the agreement of your relationship.

LMAO, you keep ignoring THIS fact

So if you have a friend with benefits and have sexual relations with someone else is that considered cheating now???? These are like the worst definitions

One of the definitions you sent say

"(of somebody who is married or who has a regular sexual partner) to have a secret sexual relationship with somebody else"

Regular sexual partner can be a friend with benefits, oh also about the married part, it also doesn't factor in OPEN MARRIAGES, so what do you have to say about this? Yet again I say they're all bad definitions

All answers to the question say it's cheating even if it's an arranged marriage here, here, and here. A lot of people disagree with the idea of arranged marriages, but it's still cheating.

I wasn't talking about arranged marriages, I rephrased myself to marriage of convenience
In a marriage of convenience it's not for love, so by those boundaries it's not cheating

You need to prove your statement that it wouldn't be cheating and that there aren't any such promises by definition in a marriage of convenience. You've not done so far, so at the end of the day, you just say I'm wrong and call it a day, no proof, no base, no whatsoever.

Isn't that what you're doing? You're ignoring my points and just saying I'm wrong
Here's my point, try answering it

"Cheating is breaking your partners trust in a romantic relationship, for example monogamous relationship, if you have an emotional or sexual relationship with someone else that's considered cheating, HOWEVER in a marriage of convenience they don't have those boundaries since it's not for love"

This is irony. It's funny you call your "definitions" proof.

I never did, never will
Cheating, in general knowledge, is breaking the trust/boundaries of a relationship, for example if your boundaries are that you can't have an emotional or sexual relation with anyone else and they do that, that's cheating, but if they are allowed to have sexual but not emotional relationship, and one of them has an emotional relationship then that's cheating, heck if their boundaries are that they can't go out for drinks with the opposite sex, then that's cheating, because that is breaking the boundaries of their relationship and the trust they put in it
And as I said before, in a marriage of convenience, they wouldn't care about that since they don't have an emotional relationship so they don't have such boundaries, so it wouldn't be cheating

 

[AnotherDuck]

Regular sexual partner can be a friend with benefits, oh also about the married part, it also doesn't factor in OPEN MARRIAGES, so what do you have to say about this?

I already said it. You keep ignoring it.

Yet again I say they're all bad definitions

So you say you know better than the most well-known and well-respected sources of the English language?

I wasn't talking about arranged marriages, I rephrased myself to marriage of convenience

There's no difference. A marriage is a marriage. It's a agreement that you are tied together in a relationship by law. That law is the same regardless of what type of marriage you have.

Here's my point, try answering it

"Cheating is breaking your partners trust in a romantic relationship, for example monogamous relationship, if you have an emotional or sexual relationship with someone else that's considered cheating, HOWEVER in a marriage of convenience they don't have those boundaries since it's not for love"

The HOWEVER part is false. It has those boundaries regardless of the type of marriage. Those boundaries are only removed upon a mutual agreement to remove those boundaries, such as if you decide to have an open marriage. However, that is not an implicit agreement even if it is a marriage of convenience. It has to be an explicit agreement.

 

[Ludd_]

I already said it. You keep ignoring it.


So you say you know better than the most well-known and well-respected sources of the English language?


There's no difference. A marriage is a marriage. It's a agreement that you are tied together in a relationship by law. That law is the same regardless of what type of marriage you have.


The HOWEVER part is false. It has those boundaries regardless of the type of marriage. Those boundaries are only removed upon a mutual agreement to remove those boundaries, such as if you decide to have an open marriage. However, that is not an implicit agreement even if it is a marriage of convenience. It has to be an explicit agreement.

Yeah forget it, you're ignoring half of my points and no you did not answer the flaw I addressed of those "well-known and respected English dictionaries" (For well-known English dictionaries they sure have a ton of flaws)
This is going nowhere since you're ignoring most of my points and just saying the same thing over and over
Oh plus the definition of cheating differs for everybody, so technically we're both not correct

 

[AnotherDuck]

Yeah forget it, you're ignoring half of my points and no you did not answer the flaw I addressed of those "well-known and respected English dictionaries"

The points you brought up were not contrary to the definitions. It was just you misunderstanding those definitions, since you brought up scenarios outside of those definitions and claimed they were inside.

Oh plus the definition of cheating differs for everybody, so technically we're both not correct

Well, we were originally talking about this particular marriage, and by how she had to say she would tolerate cheating, it's obvious that their agreement did not include an open relationship where relations with other people were allowed. So that still supports what I said, but not what you said.

 

[Ludd_]

The points you brought up were not contrary to the definitions. It was just you misunderstanding those definitions, since you brought up scenarios outside of those definitions and claimed they were inside.

"Regular Sexual Partner" this does not specify "dating" or "marriage" at all, so no it's not a misunderstanding it's just poor explanation

Well, we were originally talking about this particular marriage, and by how she had to say she would tolerate cheating, it's obvious that their agreement did not include an open relationship where relations with other people were allowed. So that still supports what I said, but not what you said.

Yeah I did address that, it's a marriage of convenience, and according to the definition I found this isn't cheating, maybe according to your definition, but not the one I found, now please, stop being so childish trying to be right (I'm not trying to be right here, I'm just trying to end this stupid argument)

 

[AnotherDuck]

"Regular Sexual Partner" this does not specify "dating" or "marriage" at all, so no it's not a misunderstanding it's just poor explanation

You were arguing against the definitions I brought up, which mentioned "spouse", "husband or wife", "marriage", and one didn't specify, which leaves them all open. Because that's how words work.

according to the definition I found this isn't cheating

Which you cherry picked.

stop being so childish trying to be right (I'm not trying to be right here, I'm just trying to end this stupid argument)

Yes you are, because you're projecting.

 

[Ludd_]

You were arguing against the definitions I brought up, which mentioned "spouse", "husband or wife", "marriage", and one didn't specify, which leaves them all open. Because that's how words work.

Open marriages are still marriages, same as monogamous marriages, saying marriage includes open marriages, as I said it has a ton of flaws

Which you cherry picked.

Hm, I wonder why I'm arguing with a child ignoring my points
One point is that I just picked the first answer I googled, it's not called cherry picking if it's the literal first answer that pops up, please stop being so immature

Yes you are, because you're projecting.

Am I though? I wasn't trying to be right it's called pointing it out, for example "Regular Sexual Partner" does not mean dating, and I said that that is poor wording, another example is that they said having a sexual relationship with someone else when you have a spouse/husband/wife or when you're married that that is cheating, which wouldn't make any sense since open marriages exist, open marriages are still classified under the label "married/marriage" and since they said marriages and not monogamous marriages then that is poor wording

and according to the definition I found this isn't cheating, maybe according to your definition, but not the one I found

^ This is definitely not trying to be right because I said it depended on the definition, it's called trying to end the argument

 

[AnacondaHL]

Am I the only one who noticed that the bottom of the cup had ゆいか(yuika) written on it?

Nice catch! On the same page the other cup says "Shuu-kun"

 

[AnotherDuck]

Open marriages are still marriages, same as monogamous marriages, saying marriage includes open marriages, as I said it has a ton of flaws

What you want is a complete definition that covers absolutely every case, instance, and variation. That's not what dictionaries are for. That's what law books are for. And even they leave things open for interpretation, especially if it's obviously intended.

One point is that I just picked the first answer I googled, it's not called cherry picking if it's the literal first answer that pops up,

But it is if you continuously choose to ignore anything that goes against it.

please stop being so immature

You're coming off as autistic and undiagnosed, as you don't seem to be aware of it.

open marriages are still classified under the label "married/marriage" and since they said marriages and not monogamous marriages then that is poor wording

English is an imprecise language. To be precise in absolutely everything you say is to be excessively wordy. There's a lot of reading between the lines and interpreting the intended meaning of the word rather than just following the literal definition found on some random website you fished up.

^ This is definitely not trying to be right because I said it depended on the definition, it's called trying to end the argument

But you didn't end the argument. You're still here. That's called wanting to have the last word.

 

[Ludd_]

What you want is a complete definition that covers absolutely every case, instance, and variation. That's not what dictionaries are for. That's what law books are for. And even they leave things open for interpretation, especially if it's obviously intended.

No that's not what I want, and I said that the definiton of cheating differs for everybody, but I only said the definition you sent has a ton of flaws, but you can't seem to address those

But it is if you continuously choose to ignore anything that goes against it.

I'm not ignoring it because it goes against it I am ignoring it because it has a ton of flaws

You're coming off as autistic and undiagnosed, as you don't seem to be aware of it.

Autistic because I'm arguing against you? I'm actually making valid points which you choose to ignore

English is an imprecise language. To be precise in absolutely everything you say is to be excessively wordy. There's a lot of reading between the lines and interpreting the intended meaning of the word rather than just following the literal definition found on some random website you fished up.

To me, this just sounds like a bad explanation to defend a definition that backs you up in this argument, if they're truly "well-known and respected English dictionaries" then they have to be exact with the wordning and not have a ton of flaws

But you didn't end the argument. You're still here. That's called wanting to have the last word.

Not really, I tried ending the argument but then you started arguing further, so how about just ending it now then? Try to be mature and not argue it further since I already know everything you're gonna say since you're just saying the same thing over and over

 

[AnotherDuck]

No that's not what I want, and I said that the definiton of cheating differs for everybody, but I only said the definition you sent has a ton of flaws, but you can't seem to address those

The flaws you mentioned were made up contradictions based on false interpretations. The definitions, literally, aren't exact, but they cover the meaning of the words. You fail to see that if it says "marriage" or "spose", and that cheating is when you have relations with another person, it doesn't include open marriages. This is because, as I've said many, many times, those are agreed upon rules for that couple. But you've continuously ignored that and claimed I've not addressed those flaws. If there's anything else, you need to state what you've missed rather than just whine about there before unspecified flaws.

Autistic because I'm arguing against you? I'm actually making valid points which you choose to ignore

No, because you have a very fixed attitude towards literal interpretations of things, a very inflexible way of thinking, and a lack of understanding the intended meaning behind words. And no, you're not making valid points.

I tried ending the argument but then you started arguing further, so how about just ending it now then? Try to be mature and not argue it further since I already know everything you're gonna say since you're just saying the same thing over and over

At least what I'm saying makes sense. And you're literally telling me to be mature and don't do exactly what you're doing. So you're calling yourself childish. At least we agree on that.

 

[Ludd_]

The flaws you mentioned were made up contradictions based on false interpretations. The definitions, literally, aren't exact, but they cover the meaning of the words. You fail to see that if it says "marriage" or "spose", and that cheating is when you have relations with another person, it doesn't include open marriages. This is because, as I've said many, many times, those are agreed upon rules for that couple. But you've continuously ignored that and claimed I've not addressed those flaws. If there's anything else, you need to state what you've missed rather than just whine about there before unspecified flaws.


No, because you have a very fixed attitude towards literal interpretations of things, a very inflexible way of thinking, and a lack of understanding the intended meaning behind words. And no, you're not making valid points.


At least what I'm saying makes sense. And you're literally telling me to be mature and don't do exactly what you're doing. So you're calling yourself childish. At least we agree on that.

There's your last word, now go away
Oh also I ain't reading all that

 

[AnotherDuck]

There's your last word, now go away
Oh also I ain't reading all that

"You don't address the flaws!" "I'm not reading that!"

Sums your argument and mentality up. Absolutely no substance and all hypocrisy.

 

[abdullah17]

Fmc is okay with mc cheating, even as a joke wtf

She's okay with it! She will just show her inner yandere and kill him right there

 

[kaezeribato]

Am I the only one who noticed that the bottom of the cup had ゆいか(yuika) written on it?

I seem like none of us saw it.

 

[MangaMonger]

How great a manga can be when the male lead doesn't forget his childhood promises... And the female lead is capable of secretly worrying about their relationship without being an emotional wreck or otherwise ruining things.

Looking forward to this just continually gradually having them get to know each other better, slowly deepening their bond until they naturally consummate their relationship. I just hope they don't steadily introduce more and more characters; this should be enough for the author to work with, so he should focus on the core couple now. (I know the novel is already way past this point, I'm just saying that in general I hope that's what he did.)