Divergent sexualities

[Ahriman]

I know damn well my tulpa ain't a person.....she don't have anything that a person would have EXCEPT a voice. She does have that. But nothing else.

[Foxaèr]

If there is no consent and no reciprocation, there is no real relationship.

[The Grand Nudger]

Even in the hypothetical, there is a person explicitly imagining that these personal qualities or attributes are present. So I guess it would stand as a brute fact that such a person, so explicitly deluded, would be in love with said object just as I love a person. It would be a fact, but what a lawyer would call a bad fact.

[FrustratedFool]

If there is no consent and no reciprocation, there is no real relationship.

Assuming animism etc is false (I believe so), there is no reciprocal relationship with an object, dream character, god, tulpa, imaginary friend, fictional character etc, I agree.  The word 'real' is vague, but that doesn't really matter.

There is, however, the illusion of a relationship (which an animist/religionist OS would believe is reciprocal) or a psuedo-relationship. This can be a powerful illusion (consider your dream state).  The sense of a relationship may be as real to an OS/religionist as their human relationships.

Love (as in the emotion) will, however, be real.  The brain chemistry will be equivalent and the internal sensation the same.  The OS will, then, be every bit as much 'in love' with a beloved object as with a human lover.  The relationship may be illusory or pseudo-, but the love will be non-illusory: love chemicals are love chemicals.

Consent can only exist between conscious beings and is not required (in a sexual moral sense) of non-agents (like rocks, dolls, dildos, condoms, dream characters, imaginary friends, etc).  An animist OS may have the illusion/belief of consent being given by their god/object etc, a non-animist OS will realise that consent is not a moral issue for sextoys.

I hope that addresses all your points.

[Foxaèr]

Even in the hypothetical, there is a person explicitly imagining that these personal qualities or attributes are present. So I guess it would stand as a brute fact that such a person, so explicitly deluded, would be in love with said object just as I love a person. It would be a fact, but what a lawyer would call a bad fact.

Just as teacher imagines Lolita gives consent.

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn't seem like anyone is disagreeing. We're comparing actual relationships to psuedo-relationships. Actual love to the illusion of love. Deluded people to rational people. All bad facts.

I assume there are also people who do not refer to person-alike illusions as an explanation for their psuedo-relationships - and just feel the way they feel, knowing it's not exactly the same thing that other people might be talking about.

[FrustratedFool]

Even in the hypothetical, there is a person explicitly imagining that these personal qualities or attributes are present.  So I guess it would stand as a brute fact that such a person, so explicitly deluded, would be in love with said object just as I love a person.  It would be a fact, but what a lawyer would call a bad fact.

Just as teacher imagines Lolita gives consent.

Are you equating OS with pedophillia?

Given how that is a weaponised line against transfolk, and has been historically used against homosexuals, it is sad to see it here.  I have seen it used multiple times against OS folk (and myself).  Both as a parent and a member of the queer and non-cis communities it is particularly upsetting.

Please, again, can we be sensitive about how we talk about people of this sexual minority and can we try not to demonise or other them, even if unintentionally or through ignorance.

[arewethereyet]

Oh FFS.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, another failed attempt to swing the libsmasher 9000.

No one is equating os with pedophilia (or with delusional ideations)...but you. It's your example. Think it through.

[arewethereyet]

Edgelord alert.