If a player character can *emotionally* react in two ways to the same scene, after all, it's only logical that both reactions be somewhat "valid". If both are valid, both are a reasonable response. What would it say about the romance if fear is a reasonable response? That's it abusive. It's natural some people will be vehemently against the inclusion. Having it even be optional is indeed a direct violation of their headcanon. A win-win for everyone is not reasonably possible. Even if you hide the trigger behind a one time dialogue choice, some people will be angry. The knowledge that's it's a supported reading of the same romance they're playing is not something they're able to ignore.
So, like I said, if someone else is going to play with my toy, they have to play with it my way or they can't have it.
Partially yes, but there's also the whole side of people feeling if they see a dialogue choice, and it's not something their character would say, it's "bad" (simplified). This can be extremely reasonable -- going down a dialogue tree can lock you into a perplexing set of choices. Larian has addressed some in the past. It can also be unreasonable, in the sense that people feel having out of character choices is inherently... out of character. Even if there's in character choices available. To a degree, I think we all feel this, but some people can't really rationalise what they're seeing. Nor describe what they're feeling, really. People can't reason themselves out of positions they didn't reason themselves into, it's naked emotion. It's less about being a shared toy than: something exists, it makes them feel bad, they want it gone. Controlling someone else's play style by necessity is a a casuality of having that need met.
