In order to answer your question, you have to give more information as to why you think my question is "retarded." Also, I have never been anything but open and honest on these forums, and I can see no reason for you to believe that I am a "resident flamer." I flamer is a person who says things they do not believe simply to get a reaction out of people (usually a negative one.) When have I ever done that? I think if you read my post and my responses, you would find that I do actually believe what I am saying because I present reasoned arguments in favor of my position.

I realize this is a common position to take. I'm just trying to discover the rationale behind it.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you are trying to make with your example conversation. My example conversation was purposely absurd in order to demonstrate the absurdity of a particular position; namely the position that monogamists are monogamous out of a concern for sexual health.

The problem here is that people's values, principles and expectations change over the course of one's life. It's pretty silly to expect someone to have the same beliefs a decade from now as they have right now. Much more so 30, 40, 50 years down the line. What if you get into a relationship and even marry someone who thinks they are a monogamist (like I did before) and then they realize later that monogamy is not how they want to live out the rest of their life. You still love each other, are still committed to each other, but your partner wants to have sex with other people. You've made it pretty clear that you would end the relationship. You would end an otherwise awesome and fulfilling relationship over something as ultimately unimportant as whether your partner has sex with other people sometimes.

A person in a relationship with me would be free to have sex with other people or not have sex with other people. They have the freedom to choose what they want. I certainly would not attempt to persuade them against their will to have sex with other people if they don't want to.

As long as we are writing short dialogues, how about this one:

Larry: I should have the freedom to be openly homosexual
Jim: Well I should have the freedom to not be around open homosexuality!

Jim has simply used the word freedom incorrectly here. In fact, Jim is attempting to exert force on Larry not to be openly homosexual. He wants Larry to change his behavior, to do or not do something. That is force and a restriction of Larry's freedom. Larry is not attempting to exert any force on Jim. Jim is free to continue to not be openly homosexual (or homosexual at all).

"Forcing" someone to not have the power to force me to do things is not actually forcing someone to do anything.

Ultimatums are force. It's not physical force but it is a type of force. It is using a position of power to change someone else's behavior. This is not always bad. If I'm in relationship with someone who likes to stab people, I would certainly set an ultimatum that if she stabs me, I will leave her. Is that force? Sure it is. I am forcing her not to stab me or else suffer the consequences (the ending of the relationship). I think that force is justified because being stabbed would hurt me and possibly seriously injure me.

Having sex with someone else does not hurt me. In fact your partner having sex with someone else doesn't hurt you either. What actually (emotionally) hurts you is knowing that he had sex with someone else. Your bf could have sex with a hundred other people and as long you never find out, no harm ever comes to you (assuming he is engaging in safe sex). That should be kind of a red flag that there is a disconnect somewhere in your belief system when knowing about something is hurtful to you but that thing happening without your knowledge is not harmful to you at all.