To use some words you suggested recently. Would you reply to this sentence "would you like a punch in the face"? With: "not tonight"? Perhaps. But if you did you would probably be making a joke. You'd be playing with irony. Because (with very rare exceptions) people don't enjoy being punched in the face. The answer to that question is "no". No, you want don't be punched. You wouldn't say "not tonight" which implies that perhaps you wouldn't mind if I asked the question again on Saturday night.
While this is likely to get me accused of 'flooding' poly comments again - I was once with someone who kept mentioned another person she had a great sexual relationship with. After they were mentioned about 5 times I asked her if she wanted to involve them and the answer was "not at this point, it would be too confusing". But later . . .
Not relevant at all to the conversation, is it? This isn't what plays out. You are comparing apples to oranges. Stick to the apple we're discussing.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
So, yes, my interpretation is influenced by life experiences - and Auric and Niara are correct to emphasize that we ALL interpreting - all of us. Humans are flawed creatures and we are forced to interpret the world through the limits of our experience. Hell, we can't even see in the dark! In my experience it's not at all unusual to for a relationship to start with two people and then expand.
We indeed all interpret things. Interpretation stops being relevant when facts are out there. I've shown you the facts. Now it's your turn.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I agree with Auric - one SH's boundaries is that she MUST be primary, she is unwilling to be the secondary in the relationship. As someone who is usually the secondary in relationships I found the "spare lover" a bit insensitive but think the author meant it to be coming from a place of pain. In my interpretation - SH who has just had her entire reason living taken from her at the time she commits to the relationship - is looking for an anchor, she needs rock to stand one. But, once her feet are on solid ground, once she feels secure, once she knows Tav won't abandon her she's happy to explore. Backpacking rules - establish base camp before you explore.
Nothing is written in the game to support this, therefore you are making this up. Or do you have evidence from the game to support this claim, and to support who you think she's "threatened" by, and who not?
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
What is obvious is that "not tonight" was said twice - once in wine conversation, once with the twins and then "tonight" happens.
Then you are free to explain to me why she'd be okay with it in act 3, but not act 2 with the very companion she was potentially interested in doing it with in act 1. Go on, I'll wait (I'll see it later, going to be gone for a couple hours). I've posted the entire thing. All the facts are laid bare. And no, I don't want to hear "she's a primary" and thus "threatened", because that's all made up. I want actual proof from something in the game, not in your head.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Btw, how did you extract that text? That was very helpful
I am a serial saver. I have saves for a lot of different scenarios, in case I want to indulge in "What ifs", romance different companions without having to start a new playthrough, et cetera. I played them out again, typed out the text, that's it.
