Divergent sexualities

[Belacqua]

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.

This seems clear to me. Introducing the idea of reciprocity changes the subject from the nature of what love is to something else -- to people's idea about what makes a satisfying relationship. But those two things are different. 

Everybody knows what unrequited love is. Probably everyone has felt it. If I say, "I love that girl but she doesn't love me," then I don't think it's correct for someone to reply "No, you don't really love her because that isn't reciprocal." 

It might be reasonable to say, "You'd better forget about it because such love isn't going to be satisfying." But it's not correct to say it's not really love. 

In terms of love for non-human things -- I had never really thought about this as love before. But I certainly feel strong connections to certain objects and places. They are touchstones in my life, and my soul (for want of a better term) is mixed up with those things. If they were to be destroyed, I would feel very bad. So if we grant that what I feel is a kind of love, then obviously this is not reciprocal, because inanimate objects don't love me. If the garden of Honen-In were to burn down, I would feel bad. But if I burned up, Honen-In would feel nothing -- it can't; it's a garden. In my case it doesn't fall into the category of romantic or sexual love.

If people want to argue that the best type of relationship for human flourishing is a reciprocal love between two living adults, I can understand that argument. It is very beneficial to have someone you can trust, who can tell you when you're being unreasonable, who can give the kind of feedback and support that love dolls can't. 

At the same time, it is not my place to judge other people's arrangements. If for whatever reason someone chooses a relationship that's different from what I want, it is not my place to say "You've failed; you should have wanted what I want." And it's certainly not my right to read their minds and say "What you're feeling seems like love to you but I can tell you you're wrong." 

Non-reciprocal love is real. While old-fashioned people may declare reciprocal love to be the only kind that is good to have, that's our opinion and not something we should be scolding others about.

[arewethereyet]

Of course Bel thinks you can have a fulfilling relationship with a footstool.

Color me surprised.

[FrustratedFool]

[FrustratedFool]

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

That's not a relationship that's just use and while you can't rape an object you can't have a relationship with it either relationship at least romantic or sexual ones are only between conscience beings and animism is simply mystic nonsense. So no consent is the only issue and objects are incapable of giving it so it can't be the case you are in a relationship with an object.

[The Architect Of Fate]

That person should seek help

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes, but is there not a relevant distinction between sexual attraction and the concept of love?

Yes.  
An OS may be sexually attracted to an object without falling in love.  Or an asexual OS may have the reverse.  Many have both experiences.  Same with all other sexualities, I expect.

Considering it's really love it's just used as a relationship requires two thinking entities

[FrustratedFool]

When I was young, people would express incredulity and dismay at homosexuality and consider such love to not be real love and to be inferior.

Since then I've seen the same invalidation and ridicule levied against bisexuality, transgender folk, asexuals, and non-binary people. The same attitudes expressed towards objectums strikes me as just the same pattern and trajectory.

And in the same way homosexuality became far more acceptable and homophobia considered gauche and unpleasant, I believe the same will happen in regard to transfolk, non-binaries, asexuals, and objectums. It has already started, and attitudes towards research things have shifted a huge amount even in just the past few years.

What at present seems weird and unthinkable may in a generation be commonplace. I know many young people, and most have no issue with any of these things.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

If the feeling isn't mutual you are not in a relationship one partner is simply preying on the other. Objects don't feel anything so it's not a relationship you are simply using the object and gods and imaginary friends aren't real they are simply reflections of a person's mind and have no thoughts of their own

[FrustratedFool]

Yes.  
An OS may be sexually attracted to an object without falling in love.  Or an asexual OS may have the reverse.  Many have both experiences.  Same with all other sexualities, I expect.

Considering it's really love it's just used as a relationship requires two thinking entities

The sensation of love, as a state of neuro-chemistry, requires only one being. Theoretically, one could have the sensation of live induced by a drug. After all, if one feels love in a dream (and I certainly have), then that is exactly the same thing.

Of course, if you are using the word love to describe not a particular emotion but a particular type of relationship and a conglomeration of other elements external to the brain, then it becomes a more complex debate. But I think it best to use the term live purely for the inner subjective emotional experience and the term relationship for that more expansive idea of personal ineraction (in that case I've already talked about illusory or psuedo- relationships).