Wow, multiple posts with multiple points.
It does seem by some of your responses that you are a bit desperate to make this the normal type of relationship.
Multiple partner-type relationships have died out? This is news to me.
For the most part YES, they have. However, the place they do thrive is relationships such as the middle east where a single male dominates everyone else in the relationship.
Do you think muslim or FLDS/mormon women are empowered enough to disagree with their male owners?
Have you heard of "honor killings"?
So where are all these relationships where people can honestly make the choice freely on their own?!
Read the bible some time and you'll see that 1 man and many women was the normal type of "marriage" in the early days. Move more to Jesus' day and those types of relationships are in the minority.
If the benchmark for a type of relationship's usefulness is that it continues to occur, then open-type relationships are continually useful to some segment of the population.
Open relationships do happen, but they aren't common or the norm.
I think you're confusing jealousy with avarice, which is the desire to possess. As long as avarice remains the top goal of humanity, attempts at entering into and sustaining open-type relationships will continue.
Because I'm not a whore and don't want a whore for a partner, that means, according to you, that I need to posses my partner?!
Your stance is more than clear on this topic.
I'm going over this last point of yours again because I feel it's a very important one that you've made – one for a suspension of belief -- and it deserves more than just a passing glance from me. Your assertion is that we should suspend our belief of people who say they weren't coerced because they may be "just saying that" and not really meaning it. Thus, (and duly noted by you above to have been shown before) anyone who says they weren't coerced should not be taken at face value - because we cannot know for sure if they're telling the truth. More importantly though, and I suggest overlooked by you, is that this line of reasoning requires us also to "not believe" people who say that they were coerced, and offer this "not-believing you" equally amongst the other people who said that they were coerced - because your line of reasoning requires us not to- and makes mandatory the suspecting of anything that anyone says because they may "just be saying it." In other words, the only knowable thing about a given is that it can never be known, a proposition of yours that I would argue is absolutely correct.
Now if i have followed you correctly (and I hope that I have) is what I've paraphrased above right? Or is it more your point (and I'm guessing that it probably is) that anyone who says that they were coerced should always be believed while anyone who says that they weren't coerced is a liar.
Go back to the hundreds of millions of muslim and FLDS/mormon women and tell me they had an honest say in their situation they found themselves in.
Oddly, you want us to believe all the muslim women that under threat of stoning to death (FLDS/mormons have other ways of dealing with their women) when they say in front of their husband that they are willing partners, but anyone who claims they were coerced/forced is a liar.
Until you can get rid of the billions of women throughout history that were forced into polygamy, then the weight of proof is heavily stacked on my side.
If these same people said that they didn't agree, wouldn't that also mean that pro rata the same people could have just "said" that they didn't really want it, but really did? Couldn't it also mean that they actually did agree and didn't mean it simply because "they just said it"?
People will say and do anything to make their partner happy, even if it makes them miserable. It's part of human nature and the thing we call love.
A lot of hetero men eat pussy because their women want them to, not because they like it. Same thing goes with blowjobs.
