affectional

It's not the content of the book it's the affectional value of the book that's interesting.

Humans will most certainly not abandon things of affectional value our lives and most value in life is built up around that.

Those who told you that will also claim, on other contexts, that we have a right to our affectional preferences.

Being alone should be a respected lifestyle choice or affectional preference.

They do, however, have a right to an affectional preference.

They aren't taking any of affectional value either.

Moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian, you want free exchange of cotton and candles and you seek to protect man against woman in the exchange of affectional human passion.

You can't control people's affectional preference.

To suppose that the present family, or any other group, can perpetually vitalize itself through some indwelling affectional tie, in the absence of concrete, perceived functions, is like supposing that the comradely ties of mutual aid which grow up incidentally in a military unit will along outlast a condition in which war is plainly and irrevocably banished.

And then you meet someone that doesn't meet your innate "affectional preference" and what do you do, leave?

People have a right to an "affectional preference" based on physical characteristics.

Also I thought that in 2020 it is becoming more generally recognizes that people have a right to an “affectional” preference.

Also, while a normal person might suppose that all jewellery must be of "affectional value", I doubt the Danish state sees it the same way.