You seem to be implying that there is some necessary reason to try to include co-workers in outside of work, non-work related, personal activities. That is why it appears that you are describing some contractual duty requiring co-workers to engage in personal social events.

Do you have a better word for this required need (than duty) that you say exists?

(By the way, the definition of duty: something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation. That is what I feel you are describing when you say people are required by necessity to include their co-workers. Maybe you should work on your communication skills instead of refusing to acknowledge your claim (a claim that implied employers have a right to police the personal, social events of their employees) was baseless and had no merit at all.)

This is incredible. I come back after cooling down to see whether or not you responded and I see that you've managed to add yet another layer of straw man. This time creating a employer-employee relationship out of thin air when the subject of discussion was about coworkers. I didn't even SAY anything last time!

I'll certainly concede I could have communicated better; that's basically always true anyways because NOT PERFECT. But the idea that I could have gotten through to you, who can't seem to reply without figuring out a way to twist what I've said, is ridiculous.