Andrew Sullivan reacting to Ross Douthat's new column on the Weiner situation and what constitutes infidelity:
But if a married man jacks off to porn, I don't think we should consider him an adulterer, let alone on a route to what Ross calls "barbarism". (And if it is considered adultery, what percentage of American marriages would be intact?) Ditto if someone "kills" real-people-acting-as-avatars on World of Warcraft. That does not convict someone of murder. And if a married man chats online with a paid sex worker, and jacks off on his laptop, is that adultery too? What if he is just playing at wooing or preening with online strangers or fans but with no real intent to, you know, have sexual relations with any of them? In the grand scheme of social ills, these do not rank high on my list. The real-virtual distinction is a meaningful one.
We don't know -- and may never never -- whether or not Weiner's intent was to eventually meet up with one of these women. If he intended to have real sex with one or more of these women, any gray area that might have existed would be entirely obliterated, and the cheating intent would be unequivocal.
Personally, if I were Huma (I'm not nearly as pretty), I would consider Weiner's behavior to be cheating and a serious trespass against the marriage and interpersonal trust. It would be extraordinarily difficult to get beyond this. Hell, I would probably leave were I in Huma's position.
Regardless, where do you draw the line? Masturbating to porn? Internet flirting? Discuss.
Adding... I wonder what effect the new wave of male sexual meds has had on marital infidelity? That douchey "low T" commercial with the dancing shadow man plays on MSNBC all the time, right next to an endless loop of Cialis ads. We're talking about a generation of older men who are now a prescription or two away from being 17-year-old horndogs again -- but with wealth, careers and BMW cars.