Search Results

I'm not focusing on the other party, but the animated one. If someone meets a corpse,and falls in love, is something wrong wth the living party? Same with the "vegetable"?

Noroz, you were quick to dismiss necrophilia as illegal, and imply its wrong as such, nor did you address my issue with the death, mute, blind, mentally disabled person. I do not see how either are more harmfull than object sexuality. Explain. I explained how they were similar already.

Yes actually. It is incapable of giving a true emotion reciprocation of affection.

Its not. Its a symptom of mental instability if a relationship is not consented too, and is still pushed.

Alright peoples, I gtg. TTYL.

Pacifism was always your moral high ground. Do you wish to give that up?

I really do not have issue here. The law itself is flawed. I kinda wish we did not need law enforcement. But, as long as laws do exist, I shall follow.

Many violent aggressive societies existed for years. Many still do. Since human history has not ended (or else we would not be having this discussion) I cannot say if any will truly last forever.

But if you must ask me for examples. Spain, Rome, Egypt, Russia, United States of America (violence isnt what they want to be known for, but to call them a non-violent state is silly). And the most superlative example, China and Britain.

Sure, many of them have had minor and major changes to their political structure, some have lost a majority of their power, primarily through other aggressive states attacking them. Lets focus on
Britain, they have existed since the fall of the Roman Empire, and throughout the dark ages have acted violently towards Northern Africa, and Europe. Once the Imperial Age their aggression spread world wide. Granted, they lost a colony here and there, but otherwise, their empire has only grown. Now, they are one of the most powerful societies in history. Over a thousand years of aggression and growth. Is it right? No. Could a civilization which does not have an organized police force or military ever stop such a juggernaught arriving at thier doorstep? No...

Dude... read all my post... all along I've been saying it was the sign of something unhealthy.

I'm not going to research your side of the discussion. If you have something to say, say it. I find it insulting that your suggesting I read a book to understand something you are trying to explain to me... insulting to both of us actually.

The mentally disabled, blind, deaf, and mute person would not be able to communicate their wishes in a way easily understood. Much like an object.

And yes, necrophilia is a crime. Its also object sexuality. Unless of course you believe they are alive in their body somehow.

I am curious as to how it goes from "It happens" to "its healthy". Do you have any outside sources to support this?

Sexuality is actually a form of social interaction. Certain types of social interaction can be healthy and unhealthy for both members interacting. In this case... just one.

There's still a human involved. I am concerned for the humans mental and emotional health. Which your post implies consent of concerns. Unless I am mistaking this entire thread. I don't care about the object, its inanimate. The human is the part to worry about.

*Grabs Own Hand* MUST... RESIST... URGE... TO... TROLL!!!!

Ah... Ok...

I am not generalizing, but expressing concern. A textbook healthy relationship involves both partners being able to express themselves equally. Its an advanced chemical reaction where each partner shows mutual attraction towards the other, both in their actions, and chemical makeup. Both partners produce pheromones to signal sexual interest in the other. If the object is inanimate, it is therefore incapable of doing either.

I ask you these following situations: If someone was attracted to an a mentally disabled, blind, deaf, and mute person, would that be a sexually healthy relationship? If a person is attracted towards someone who is dead, whom they did not know in life, is that a healthy person? Such things do happen, and I worry about the mental health of the partner initiating the attraction. Now... look back at object sexuality... Think about it.

Id like to ask how object sexuality is not extreme possessiveness? You literally, "own" your sexual partner. It has no ability to refuse your will. It is the possessiveness to the ultimate degree.

I have had dealings with hoarding. Its not natural.

I am sure most psychologist would diagnose object sexuality similarly to hoarding as a illness. Much like hoarding.

How so? Assigning "unnatural" emotionl weight to an object is a flaw. So, assigning sexual and romantic feelings toward an. Inanimate emotionless object is not?

Allow me to reclarify: my concern is object sexuality not a condition, but a symptom. Much like hoarding is a sign of severe emotional trauma.

@ Both

I thought I was clear, but I apoligize, let me clarify. There is nothing wrong with having affection for an inanimate object. But, I wore for the mental and emotional wellbeing of the individual. I believe this is similar to the emotional condition which causes hoarding. Hoarding is caused by connecting inanimate objects to emotional events or situations. Such becomes a "flaw" when they hoard unhealthy objects, such as trash, or when they hoard so much, it becoms a hazard to themselves or those around them.

What causes hoarding? Severe emotiona trauma and a flawed genetic disposition. I ask how hoarding is not a flaw? And what makes romantic feelings different?

the capital M implies it was the car. I doubt he meant the animal.

I agree with Webhead. it is not healthy. I wil not stop them. But I believe somthing is emotionally flawed with them. Perhaps some psychological counseling will help uncover their feelings towards the objects true meaning. I doubt they have any logical reason to believe the object loves them. I don't think the problem is their relationship with the object, but rather, the problem is why the individual needs to have a relationship with n inanimate object.

you prove yourself wrong. you are also againt violence, yet you advocate violence when it suits your arguement. You are a contradiction. You debate to "win" rather than debate as to what you believe.

My arguement is perfectly relevant. You argue that if people around you behave as they do, there is no need for violent eforcement of the law. I argue, that if people around me act as the do, without fear of anything bigger than a "private security" force, then may (insert all powerful being of choice) help you. Youll need it.

Maybe its because you grew up in a different world than me. People are not peaceful. Makaze, find me one history book showing a peaceful society, that was nevr taken over by an agressive one.

At a glance, I thought the title read 4chan.

I see. Since browsing via my phone is awkward at best, ill look it up later. Or... I could hide behind the technicality that -roxas is permabanned, and therefore not a member. X3

But I won't act stupid. If I did a wrong, please close thread. I just think its odd that he's still a meme for khv.


Edit: Nevermind. I looked it up. Its nowhere under the rules. If staff chooses to close the thread, id still not mind. If someone knows, let me know in someway shape or form.

Wow... just wow...

Both of these characters are redculously overpowered. I've a feeling that the writers of 40k were kinda drunk when they wrote the Primarch digging hi way out of a planets core. Btw Machina, Primarchs are clones of the Emperor. And it is canonized fact that he was stronger than them. His power is suprisingly... cartoonish. x3

As for Enoch, he represents the pinacle of what can be considered "serious". Having the power of a God (deliberate capital "G"). Wow...

I'm actualy a little curious as to how each warrior would react t the others appearance. Who would attack first? Who would be defensive and offensive. How would each eact to the others weapon and tactics?