OS vs Materialism

TL;DR OS isn't materialism at all. Materialism is the want of material goods to improve your socioeconomical status or for the sake of owning them, and OS is the desire to possess a genuine relationship with the object, not the desire to be materialistic.

Philosophical materialism, if I'm not mistaken, involves the idea that there only exists physical matter, and that matter exists without spiritual significance. The traditional definition of materialism involves the preoccupation of material goods, accumulating them for the sake of owning them, or as a status symbol. Materialists do not "care for the object" itself; they care for the secondary aspects of the object, such as what it does for them directly (its use) or indirectly (it as a status symbol). Materialists do not respect the object itself--at most they simply take care of it because it has material value (i.e. a price), or that the object indirectly means something to them (for instance, a hard drive with precious pictures). With fungible commodities, materialists wouldn't even think twice about discarding the object as soon as it no longer serves a use to them. The commodity exists to please them, to be used, to serve them. To them, "loving" an object usually refers to "loving" what it does for or to them, be it materially, socially, economically, etc. usually with them not genuinely caring for the object itself.

Of course, occasionally you find people with actual sentimental attachment to objects, in the sense of being attached to an object emotionally for what the object actually means to them, instead of being attached to the object for what it does to or for them. For example, if you were attached to a special item that once belonged to someone very close to you that they gave you, it wouldn't necessarily be materialistic, as the item exists as more than a tool to serve you, and it instead exists as an item of sentimental feeling. The item exists as a direct or indirect connection to something or someone you genuinely care about. Materialistic attachment to objects lacks that emotional connection that sentimental attachment to objects have. If you lose an object, if your first thought is "I have lost something of monetary value" or "my social status has decreased due to losing this object" it is a materialistic attachment to the object. If on the other hand your thought is "I've lost something of emotional and sentimental value" it is not necessarily materialistic, although it is possible to be both sentimentally and materialistically attached to an object. For example, if one's car gets stolen, one may be sad because they actually care for the car, but also because the car possesses material value, and they are losing something of material value. Usually, when one's car gets stolen, while part of their worry is "I've put a lot of time and effort on this car and I care about it very much," their main worry would be that they have lost something of monetary value and that the car is not easily replaceable (i.e. cars are not that fungible of a commodity). Their main concern would be the effect the loss of the object has on their wallet, rather than the loss of the object itself (i.e. the loss of something of sentimental value).
It is easy to confuse strong sentiment for an object with materialistic attachment to an object if you do not know the difference between the two. Materialism is strictly the obsession with objects for the sake of owning them or for the status the objects give you, and not the genuine love, care, and connection one has for and with an object independent of its material worth (i.e. monetary or social value). It's become increasingly hard to tell whether one has a materialistic attachment to an item or whether one has a sentimental attachment to an item, as many people will claim they "love" an object for what it is, but what they really mean is that they "love" what it does to and for them. One may say they love a pair of shoes for what they are, but otherwise show little to no sentimental attachment to them, and their primary reason for buying them is to accumulate material goods and to use the object without really thinking about it. This is what could be considered to be the "classical" idea of materialism.

Now, going back to philosophical materialism, the idea that the only thing that can be proven to exist is matter, and that spiritual aspects are not integrated within matter, we can see how this clashes with another philosophy, animism, in which animists believe that matter and spirituality are intertwined, and that all matter possesses a spiritual significance. Animists will argue that all material goods exists with a spiritual significance and cognizance. Animism and materialism in philosophy are two doctrines that are very different from each other, and in some aspects, are opposites of each other. While materialists would see an object as being entirely inanimate, without spirit, soul, or however one would want to call it, animists believe that object does possess a spirit, soul, and cognizance. Some animists even believe that we can communicate with the objects, and that objects possess feelings and emotions, just as a biological being would.

Now we can view "classical materialism" from an animist point of view. Whereas a materialist would not care for an object beyond what its use is, an animist sees an object as another being, one that should be respected as a sentient being, and one that should be cared for and loved as a sentient being. Animists would take the "sentimental attachment" to objects to the next level. Whereas non-animists would be emotionally attached to an object for what it signifies to them, an animist would be emotionally attached to an object would take it further and sometimes be directly attached to the object itself. Some animists believe that they can pick up on objects' feelings, personality, "gender," and other anthropomorphic traits. Some animists believe that not only will they have sentimental attachment to the object, but the object will reciprocate those feelings. Because of the animist's belief that objects are sentient and objects are able to reciprocate and communicate their own emotions to the person, the animist sometimes develops deeper emotional connections to certain items over another. In other words, an animist would literally fall in love with the object, not in the sense of a materialistic love for an object ("love" for an object not for itself but for its use, which is not really "love" as much as it is a "like"), but instead genuine affection and emotional connection to the object. Not only will an animist fall in love with an object, they will also believe the object is capable of reciprocating those emotions. This isn't the same sort of "love" people throw around to mean the same thing as "like." This is a romantic love, similar to that a human would feel for another.

When a person falls in love with an object, and develops a significant relationship with it, one could refer to them as an Objectum Sexual, i.e. a person who forms romantic, emotional, and occasionally (but not necessarily) sexual relationships with objects. Objectum Sexuals do not believe their relationships are unidirectional. OS people truly believe their object partners are capable of loving them back, and that the objects in fact do love them back. The objects possess anthropomorphic qualities they can pick up on, and they believe that the objects have the capability of picking up on theirs. Some OS people believe they can telepathically "talk" to the object, and that strengthens the connection they have with their object partner. While OS is heavily rooted in animism, not all OS people are animists; however, the love the non-animist OS people feel is exactly the same as the love the animist OS people feel, although for the non-animists, relationships are often a bit tougher because the don't believe the object is actually capable of communicating with them--but it doesn't make the relationship any less real. The good majority of OS people are animists.

One could argue that OS people are extremely materialistic, but this would be ignoring what materialism actually is. One would have to understand that from the perspective of an OS person, the object reciprocates the feelings they have for them, and they're not simply loving the object for its monetary or social worth. Even non-animistic OS people do not love objects for their monetary or social worth, and even though they do not believe the object is sentient (or has the capability of communicating said sentience to them), they do believe the object deserves the highest degree of romantic love one could possibly express to them. To say that OS people are materialistic is to completely ignore the value of the romantic and emotional relationship they have with the object, assuming they want the object for the sake of having the object, regardless of whether one believes the object is sentient or not. It is to say that OS relationships aren't real, that they simply are obsessive over material goods, or that they are fetishistic in nature. Some may argue that OS relationships aren't "real" relationships because the object isn't sentient, but that is from their perspective, and they don't realize to the OS person, who has the opposite worldview of matter's spiritual significance as a philosophical materialist, the object IS sentient, and the relationship is indeed reciprocated. In the case of the non-animists, they treat the object as though it were sentient, and give it attention as such.

OS isn't the preoccupation of material goods, where one desires to accumulate objects for the sake of owning them; it is the emotional and romantic attachment to an object, with deep-set feelings for that object, often involving the belief of reciprocation of those emotions from that object. It is important to make the distinction between a desire to own an item to use it and as a status symbol, and a desire to have an actual relationship with the object. One is materialism, based on expressing one's socioeconomical class, and the other is Objectum Sexuality, based on genuine romantic love. I hope this clarifies things for some people who believe that OS is materialistic in nature.