> (and yes, many of the findings are very much evidentiary and demonstrable) You saying that there's evidence, is not the same as citing even a single instance

> (and yes, many of the findings are very much evidentiary and demonstrable) You saying that there's evidence, is not the same as citing even a single instance of said evidence. :P I haven't seen anything that is actual evidence, other than people shouting angrily in text that things simply should be so (which seems to be almost what you're doing). Do you have a chip on your shoulder about this? (i.e., is there someone in your past who you feel took advantage of you via a power differential?) I think full disclosure is necessary. > We therefore don't treat volition as binary, but as a point on a spectrum, signifying how much duress, influence -- the technical term is "power" -- was involved. Fair enough, but you're conflating 2 things here, people who are together because of a power differential and people who are together because of an overridden will. I don't think these are the same thing. I think a person can be drawn to another's power even as that power may wrap around them. To an outsider it may look like an overridden will but to the person on the inside it does not look the same, it looks like a form of seduction. And I think this happens, and HAS happened, all the time. There are millions of stable marriages that are based on a power differential of some sort, whether it's a beautiful woman, a wealthy man, a more intelligent spouse, or some other combination. Usually people are trading one power for another, such as beauty for intelligence. Are you suggesting we mark all of those as invalid?