Divergent sexualities

[FrustratedFool]

I'd be very surprised if OS scans for their beloved objects weren't closer to romantic/sexual love than normal.

[The Grand Nudger]

Me? Yeah. I need both. More to the point, that there's even a "both" to discuss shows why using the same word for the two things will never be productive.

I do have alot of sympathy for the idea that we make alot of choices or selections (assuming there's a difference) that can effect love, though. That can build it up or tear it down. The same is true of our partners - or..at least, the human ones. That we don't choose who we love but we do choose how we love them.

[Ahriman]

Me?  Yeah.  I need both.  More to the point, that there's even a "both" to discuss shows why using the same word for the two things will never be productive.

Yeah, I agree. Sexual attraction ain't love. I "loved" having sex with my girlfriend, back in the day, but I didn't actually "love" her as a person.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, and I love my dog, but not as a person. This has benefits. If my dog shits on the living room floor I don't really blame her. It doesn't make me question the nature of my reality. If my wife dropped trou and popped a squat.....

[Foxaèr]

Why would it not be possible?

A little something known as reciprocation, or lack thereof in the instance of imaginary friends and imaginary deities.

[FrustratedFool]

Why would it not be possible?

A little something known as reciprocation, or lack thereof in the instance of imaginary friends and imaginary deities.

As discussed above, reciprocation is not required to generate the emotion/sensation of love. As is evidenced by the love people have for imaginary friends and deities. And objects.

Consider a little thought experiment (along with the ones previously given): You are in love with a beautiful man, who, unbeknownst to you, is a psychopath who is merely pretending to love you back in order to con you out of your wealth. There is no true reciprocity of love, but your feelings are exactly the same as if they were.

[Foxaèr]

Without reciprocation, how can there be consent?

I mean, you are only raping your own mind, but still......

[FrustratedFool]

Without reciprocation, how can there be consent?

I mean, you are only raping your own mind, but still......

If you don't believe objects can give consent (do you ask your car for consent before driving?) then this is an absurd question. Consent is something only conscious beings can give.

If you believe, as many animists and OS do, that their beloved object has a personality and a soul and communicates with them (like a god or sprit), then they ask consent and receive it.

Eitherway, consent is not an issue.

Are you commiting rape during a wet dream? Do you commit rape when using a condom or sex toy?
Such a line of questioning can easily become a sort of bigotry against OS folk, as well as belittling the true horror of genuine sexual assault.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is the point of this thought experiment to compare being in love with objects to being in love with a gold digging psychopath who doesn't reciprocate?

Or to insist that os are afflicted with a number of silly and objectively delusional beliefs about the object of their obsessions - wherein they specifically imagine that the object is more like a person in order to satisfy that need they also feel..for reciprocity and/or consent... in love?

[FrustratedFool]

I would.kindly ask people to be sensitive in avoiding queerphobic bigotry against OS folk and that sexuality. I know that it is weird to many, but that's how lgbtq+ appear to many cishets too. A commutation test where you replace object or objectum or similar with gay or trans should highlight whether or not your comments may come across as offensive.

Thank you.