Originally Posted by Frownland

He was asking where you found the word bow in jwb's post because it's too long winded and boring for Batlord to read all the way through.

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

^that's a self defeating argument, because the only reason 'consent' is considered an issue regarding human relations is because humans have autonomy and so without consent you can do something to a human against their will

if your argument is that objects have no autonomy and thus can't consent, then it's a non-issue because consent is only a priority for entities that have a will for you to violate. no autonomy = no consent, no problemo

further, part of the condition/orientation known as objectum sexuality is that people who have this orientation believe they do experience feedback given to them from their objects. the lady in question had the bow grow cold to her and break her heart. so in the realm of objectum sexuals, objects, can and do consent to the relationship, though how and whether they do so is only known to the objectum sexual them self.

so you can cast your aspersions to the credibility of the experiences of these individuals, but as best psychologists can tell they are genuine and born with this orientation, so in doing so you are basically just picking on the little guy, kicking the cripple when he's down, objectum-bashing, etc. which is pretty reprehensible for people who consider themselves open minded and progressive towards alternative lifestyles.

so try harder, bigots