How about this. My inclination is to be monogamous. You're might not be. Maybe you (not you personally) are a swinger. That's all fine. I don't care what kind of lifestyle you have... UNTIL you step over my boundaries and bring your free swinging ways into my backyard. Or bedroom. Then, I'll want to confront you about what you did. Yeah, I might "bully/coerce/shame others into accommodating" to my inclination, but only in this case. You KNEW my inclinations, you KNEW my boundaries, and yet you STILL did it. (And yes, the woman who breached my boundaries is on this forum, so read up , bitch.)
Well that's different. When a person agrees to enter into a monogamous relationship- and they didn't get bullied/coerced or in any way manipulated to
enter into the agreement- urging them to keep their word/agreement is not the same thing as coercing them into an agreement.
The comment you quoted (I'm not sure if this is in response to that particular paragraph, or the bigger point of my posts) was in context to situations where someone doesn't allow for a longer processing time. But the larger point was that people have a tendency to crank up the volume on whatever means they have of communicating dissatisfaction or hurt or anger- if they don't feel heard, they do the same thing 'louder', instead of figuring out why they're not getting heard. They might be doing it to vent frustration, it might not be their intention to bully/coerce/manipulate others- but regardless, it can have the
effect of bullying/coercing/manipulating others. <- And
that is treating people like they are objects to be used, enlisting others into a reality you (not YOU specifically, "you" in general) expect to be able to dictate and get compliance for.
[Just like entering into an agreement with someone- and then breaking the terms of that agreement while expecting the other person to stay committed to the agreement- is similarly treating other people like they are objects to be used/belying an inflated sense of entitlement to dictate someone else's reality. And it really sucks to be treated that way. But this is kind of a digression.]
Even where the person in question has done something clearly 'wrong' (or thoughtless, inconsiderate, whatever)- like breaking a very important agreement that was made- the way communication about it is approached is important. If the goal is simply to vent, to purge hurt and frustration without regard for whether the connection can be repaired afterward- then by all means, cut loose and breathe as much fire on the person as you need to in order to feel relief. But if there's any hope of reconciling the different POVs- and one of the people in question has a deep seated fear of aggressive behavior, and they get avoidant at the slightest indication of it- then (even if
they did something very, very hurtful or wrong) hurt and anger must be expressed in a more careful way (e.g. the "Seven Guidelines for Speaking Your Uncomfortable Truth" I copy/pasted into my last post).
The tl;dr version:
We don't get to dictate how much overt conflict other people can handle. If we want them around, we have to work with their threshold. If we can't accept their threshold, we need to accept that we don't actually want them around.