>>105527710not that guy but no, no it isn't
rental depends on there being a contract between two parties, one, the landlord, two the tenant; where rental is for some other item - a car, a piece of equipment - the terms may change but the underlying basis of a contract does not
there must first be two parties; they must be equal at law (this is the basis of all contracts and is non-negotiable - any part of a contract which would make one party unequal is unenforceable, or the whole contract is frustrated and, subject to a failure to renegotiate, void), there must be an exchange of money, goods, or services between them at a rate agreed mutually (this is sometimes mistaken for it being ok to be unequal in a contract, but in fact you accepting a buck fifty to suck your dad's dick when the going rate is five seventy isn't the same thing as being unequal - that's the price you negotiated), and third and in direct reference to your statement, in order for something to be "rent free" it must be offered for rental at no cost of any kind to a party who would ordinarily rent it
since your statement carries the implication that the "rent" is in fact being paid in terms of raw obsession, it is not by your own definition rent free; nor is it "rent free" by any other definition, since nothing was offered for rental - you agreed no terms and had no contract
>muh idiomsfirstly you stated that it was "the literal definition" of "rent free", which has been demonstrated to be anything but the case
secondly your idioms are stupid and betray your lack of understanding of the laws that govern your existence
get better idioms, idiot
