Like everything, it would depend on the circumstances. You can't directly compare emotional and sexual behaviour with business trust. So I would draw a pretty "

Like everything, it would depend on the circumstances. You can't directly compare emotional and sexual behaviour with business trust. So I would draw a pretty "hard" line, in the language of the article. The sex part is almost irrelevant. What would matter is how they did it, just like anything else. If they were a complete asshole about it, I'd "note" that, just like I'd "note" any other obvious asshole-ish behaviour, which is obviously bad. If they were discrete, good natured, trying to meet their needs while keeping everyone happy - isn't that a good thing? Hell, I'd be inclined to look negatively on someone who didn't cheat if they obviously wanted/needed to. Stuck in a passionless marriage and unwilling to do something about it out of fear/devotion to "tradition"/don't want to upset parents, etc? That would lead me to question their ability to act and take risks. If they wanted to but thought they couldn't get away with it, I'd look down on that as being insufficiently devious. Etc. Look, marriage is not perfect or even unambiguously good. It's an artificial institution which, in many cases, is imposed on people by society. We could discuss this all day but bottom line, it's a complex and "tainted" subject and almost completely different from other types of trust and honesty. You might as well ask if you "trust less" someone who cheats on video games. On the other hand, this article rings of self-righteousness. In my opinion, those who make a big deal about the moral deviations of others usually have plenty to hide themselves. So reading that article certainly makes me trust Mr Casnocha less, sure, now that I'm wondering why he feels the need to loudly proclaim his virtue. Regardless, I could certainly do without his sermonising, and lack of understanding of the human condition, if I ever had to do business with him.