With the caveat that I'm new to the discussion and I've not read every post in this thread I'm inclined to agree with @Auric's post 100% Right. And there are layers of meaning to this conversation since, one the surface, you are talking about wine but you are really discussing the possibility of a relationship so "not tonight" is really about the bounds of the relationship. And a died in the wool monogamist would say something like "I think this bottle only has enough for two glasses"
But there are two problems with making the assumption that this is foreshadowing to her being open to share. 1. She only drinks wine with you and has a very romantic kiss with you that has her completely infatuated with you afterward. There is no sex sharing implied.
You are right that it's just . But but "no, not tonight" is not "no, not ever" and that's significant in the context of the conversation.
In act 1, she's attracted to you, but she's not interested in a relationship because she's still devoted to Shar and throughout the story, that changes and she falls in love with you. The "no, not ever" is written in act 2, by her declining an open relationship with ALL other companions. That's character development.
What it foreshadows is that she changes and only wants you when she falls in love with you. It literally foreshadows the opposite of what you seem to think it does.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Really? I think it's in the choice of partners - the sex workers are no threat her status as primary. Neither is Halsin who seem like something of a relationship anarchist.
Then why don't they write that? Why is there no question to ask her why she's okay with Halsin and not the rest? Why's there no question to ask for a compromise with the rest?
Because it's not the case. I can't make it easier than just saying that things that aren't there.. aren't there.
