Ienzo is pretty epic. He was a child genius who worked under Ansem during as a key researcher until Ansem the Heartless took over. Oh wait...
I am apathetic on this argument. Thus the reason I posted in third person last time. It would have to be a different thread completely to have that discussion... although, it would most certainly be an ugly argument.
I got the same impression. One could make an argument that all sexuality (even heterosexuality) is a choice.
First The Four Ponies of the Apocalypse begin their ride, then the Zombie Pony army... dear god... we have only one option... Spoiler GEAR UP PONIES! We're gonna do some zombie hunting.
Probably the most solid argument on your side of the debate. Noroz, I will not argue with you. In the scenario you presented, its more harmless than the scenarios Fuzzy and British are highlighting. Thanks for making your point clear. However, it does alienate their arguments as I have highlighted below. Spoiler I took my stance based on the arguments listed above.
Ok, let me try a different way of reasoning. I believe that the premise of falsely believing something loves you, when it in fact does not: Is a sign of that the relationship is not healthy. It does not matter if they feel loved, if anything, feelin love when you are not loved -is- the key component something is wrong. Ill site realistic examples, one of which has already been discussed, of an abusive relationship where the victim belives they are loved. The other is, if a child is raised by a narcisist (someone who has difficulties nurturing love towards other people) the child grows up not knowing what love is, and wil have severe emotional problems for life. And worse yet, oftentimes the child grows up believing they were loved by their narcisistic parent. I base my case off these real word examples that believing you are loved, when yo are in fact not, can either be a self destructive pattern set about by trauma of the past, or it can actually cause trauma. If either of these are correct (not neccissarily both, either) the individual should not be deemed emotionally healthy. Can you state real world examples, outside our conversation, of other types of relationships to suggest that one person believes they are loved, but in fact are not, which is neither a self destructive pattern nor a cause of emotiona trauma?
I have clearly said from the very begining, that exactly what you described is the problem. There is nothing wrong with loving the item. But the somehow believing it loves you back, when it clearly cannot may be a problem. Same as if it was a person. I accept your apology. But seriously, I truly thought you meant obsession along the lines of OCD, and were implying it was easil controlled.
I would just like to clarify something... I said it is a tell tail sign of emotional trauma when people associate love and loving traits with people who do not love them. I did say they felt these emotions. Unless you are somehow trying to say these objects do in fact love them (as in actually) I do not see a key difference between the two. I do believe more case studies need to be conducted. Additionally, people with emotional disorders are not sole caused by trauma, but often a combination of trauma, and genetics. OS may be a very low percentage of genetics. Additionally, to think people obsessed with objects, be if physical or not, and to say "but haven't those obsessives people simply discarded those things as soon as something new and shiny came along?" is frankly the most ignorant thing I read. I have seen firsthand the emotional trauma obsession can do to peoples life. I should derep you for that alone. But I won't since dereping a debate thread is against my principles.
Too much bro love yo.
Spoiler
Yes they were. Screenshot Spoiler There are two members known as Roxas. I think the second Roxas uses symbols so they are not duplicate members. What I learned from senior members... -Roxas usually means the troll. Not at all. Be more verbose. I feel your pain brother. I do most of my forum browsing via phone.
I LOVE THIS GAME! THREE FOUR! SHUT THE DOOR!
YAY! Seriously, I kinda like the whole Celestia theme... i was hesitant at first, and did it to support Princess Luna... but its kinda grown on...
I was just stating what common science puts it as. Object sexuality in itself implies sexual arousal from objects, otherwise it would merely be "Object affection". Calling it "Sexuality" implies a sexual response. I did mention the information was dated, and therefore it wasn't up to current standards. I believe I made -my- opinion clear in the second half of the post which you responded with: I have to disagree. There is nothing wrong mentally with someone who chooses to stay in an abusive relationship. But there -is- something wrong with that said persons emotional well being. Such people who stay in such relationship, typically (not always, but typically) have a history of growing up in an abusive home (physically or sexually) and a history of low self esteem. As such, they view their abusive partner, as a loving caring person. They attribute aspects to their significant other that they themselves do not have, and in severe cases, do not attempt. Albeit, in their own minds, they may be in a healthy, mutually loving relationship. I know connecting an unloving partner and attributing that partner with loving characteristics is a emotional flaw which needs counseling of the victim party to correct. Now, I do not feel its illogical assume that someone in love with an object may be suffering from a similar emotional trauma when they attribute loving characteristics, to an inanimate object which is literally unable to love. I doubt its 100% accurate, but, I do believe the situations are similar enough to warrant more research into my reasoning. Sadly, there are very little case studies (which I found, and was truly looking for) on it. I know someone posted a case study on it being harmless, which I never doubted.
Isn't it beautiful... look at her in all her glory.
Best... post... ever...
