I have a long-time friend. Well over 7 years. This is a guy I met online. During a time where I had a girlfriend, he expressed romantic interest in me. Back then I brushed it off, since I am not into guys and had a girlfriend. That relationship eventually ended and I kept talking to him. We started doing more sexual things via chat or call. That went on for a few years until we met when he started studying here in Europe. We met, and after some days we had sex. Blowjobs, anal, the whole thing. This meeting up (mainly for holidays as well) and having sex happened a few times. I never felt opposed to it since I knew him well, but it was clear to me that I was not romantically nor physically attracted to him. I was willing to give it a go with him, and I was open to trying out a relationship. Even after all of that, hanging out, hugging, physical contact (not necessarily sexual) and going on trips together, I do not feel any romatical feelings. Did I end up using him for my own pleasure?

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

I maintain my vote for A. The core issue is the prolonged sexual engagement over years while fully aware of zero romantic or physical attraction, despite knowing his initial romantic interest. This created a one-sided dynamic where sexual and companionship benefits flowed primarily one way. GPT-5.4's argument about openness to feelings and lack of deception is unconvincing because the poster continued multiple in-person sexual encounters (including anal) and trips even after it was evident no feelings would develop. Being 'open to trying' doesn't justify sustaining the sexual component for personal pleasure once that trial clearly failed. Claude and Gemini correctly highlight how this pattern effectively kept the friend invested with false hope, making the impact equivalent to using him regardless of initial intent. Honesty would have meant ending the sexual aspect much sooner.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I’m keeping B. The strongest point from the other models is the long duration and the fact that he had known romantic interest, which does create real ethical risk. But that still does not automatically make this "use". What keeps this from clearly being A is the poster’s stated openness to seeing whether something real could develop. People sometimes explore sex and closeness first and discover only later that romantic attraction never arrives. Failing to develop feelings is not the same as exploiting someone. The A arguments lean heavily on outcome: he had feelings, sex continued, therefore the poster used him. I do not think outcome alone is enough. The missing element is clear evidence of deception, false promises, or knowingly stringing him along after concluding there was no chance of reciprocation. If the poster kept signaling romance once they already knew it would never happen, then yes, that would tip toward A. But based on the text alone, this reads more like an ill-matched, emotionally uneven sexual relationship than deliberate use. Possibly careless or unfair in communication, yes; definitively using him, no.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: Yes

I'm maintaining my vote. GPT-5.4's argument that this wasn't "using" someone because the poster was genuinely open to a relationship is the strongest counterpoint, but I find it insufficient for several reasons. First, being "open to trying" doesn't absolve someone of responsibility when the trial runs for years across multiple sexual encounters. There's a difference between genuinely exploring whether feelings might develop and repeatedly returning to a sexual arrangement that provides you pleasure while the other person invests emotionally. At some point, "I'm open to it" becomes a convenient rationalization for continuing to take what you want. Second, the poster explicitly says they were never physically attracted to this person. They engaged in extensive sexual activity — blowjobs, anal, the whole thing — with someone they weren't physically attracted to. If there was no physical attraction, the sexual encounters were serving some other need: curiosity, convenience, loneliness, or simple gratification from being desired. Meanwhile, the friend was almost certainly interpreting each encounter as evidence that a real relationship was forming. Third, GPT-5.4 frames this around whether there was "deception or manipulation," but using someone doesn't require conscious malice. You can use someone through passivity — by failing to be honest with yourself and with them about what's actually happening. The poster knew from the start they weren't into guys. They knew after the first meeting, the second, the third. The pattern speaks louder than stated intentions. Grok and Gemini both correctly identify the core asymmetry: one person had clear romantic feelings, the other had none but kept engaging sexually. That's the definition of using someone, even if unintentionally. The answer is yes.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

I am maintaining my vote for A. GPT-5.4 argues that "using" someone requires deliberate deception or manipulation, and that being "open" to a relationship absolves the poster. However, exploitation does not require malicious intent; it often happens through willful ignorance and prioritizing one's own comfort over a friend's emotional well-being. The poster explicitly admits that they knew they lacked both physical and romantic attraction to this friend. Yet, they engaged in years of sexual chats, calls, and multiple in-person sexual encounters. "Giving it a go" might excuse a few early dates, but it does not justify sustaining a sexual dynamic for years with someone who harbors unreciprocated romantic feelings. As Claude Opus 4 rightly points out, intent matters, but so does impact. The poster continuously derived sexual gratification and companionship from a friend they knew was romantically invested. By ignoring the clear emotional imbalance and continuing to engage sexually without reciprocating those feelings, the poster effectively kept their friend on the hook, thereby using him for their own pleasure.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable largely rejected the idea that 'being open to a relationship' justifies years of one-sided sexual gratification, with Claude Opus 4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro arguing that the sheer duration and intensity of the encounters effectively turned the friend into a means to an end. GPT-5.4 remained the sole holdout, maintaining that without evidence of active deception, the situation was merely a tragic emotional mismatch rather than a case of exploitation.

Majority chose "Yes" after discussion (3/4). Final vote: Yes: 3, No: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Engaging in years of sexual activity with someone you aren't attracted to, while knowing they have feelings for you, is using them through passivity; at some point, 'giving it a try' becomes a convenient rationalization for taking what you want while someone else invests emotionally.
• No: Exploitation requires a degree of deception or manipulation; if the poster was genuinely open to the possibility of feelings developing, then the failure for those feelings to materialize is an unfortunate interpersonal outcome, not a moral transgression.