Object Sexuality

Konata

I stumbled upon this documentary last night. I'm curious as to what other people's opinions on the subject are.

When I first seen it I was torn between laughter and confusion. But as I continued to watch it I found myself feeling deeply sorry for these people. I can't understand loving an inanimate object at all, but I can see how difficult a life it must be. So what do you think? Would you consider 'Objectum Sexuality' to be a mental illness or a new sexual orientation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STCOo9Hh5lE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Yuc7XSCJ4

jumpguy

How the fack do you debate about someone loving objects though? I have no understanding of it whatsoever. The documentary If one of my friends told me they were objectum-sexuals, I'd think they're joking tbh.

Davidius

Wouldn't describe it as a genuine sexuality at all, seems like a mental disorder. Paedophilia probably has more of a claim to be named a sexuality and AFAIR it qualifies as a mental disorder. Seems like a case of weird overblown paraphilia to me if it's not some sort of mental condition.

Niall09

It's already been discussed on irc...... :pac:


I kid, this is messed up. I certainly think it's a mental disorder. Something must be seriously wrong in the head if you are sexually attracted to a bow :S

Konata

Here's a news piece on it, mentions what some of the medical experts think around 1.50.

Quote: " Some [medical experts] were skeptical. Most said that they weren't familiar with OS but suggested that it could be classified as a paraphilia, a type of sexual disorder. Some psychologists say that people with OS have been abused, or simply have a fetish - they're not truly in love. But [a] sexologist has a new take. She says that this is not a disorder but a possible new sexual orientation".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUm96h5e1y0

KnifeWRENCH

In fairness, the Eiffel Tower is just a huge metal phallus. I can understand why a woman may fall in love with it. :pac:

Seriously though, I would regard it as more of a fetish than an actual sexual orientation. If it goes to obsessive levels, then I guess it could be described as mental illness. Definitely not an orientation though.

Jamie Starr

Now I know why I've been attracted to women all these years!

/smart answer


Seems plausible, then again after 2 Girls One Cup just about anything related to sexuality is plausible to me now.

Konata

I'm also of the opinion that it's more a mental disorder BUT when you think about it, homosexuality wasn't considered an acceptable sexual orientation for a LONG time. Many people still believe that it is unnatural and a form of mental illness. Could take the same view regarding OS.

Fad

That was one of the odder things I ever watched.

Interesting though.

Wouldnt say it's either, not a mental illness or a proper sexuality.

Not quite able to dismiss it as her deperate attempt to be quirky either though.

phlegms

Is it weird that this is all I could think of while watching those videos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLKvponqV4Q

Ginja Ninja

I'll object YOUR sexuality.....[sorry having one of those days]


.....seriously,there are some messed up people in the world,it is a mental disorder when it physically can reciprocate the love it can't be anything else.[Apparently PYROphilia exists as well,which begs too many questions]

it's not the same as homosexuality at all,that's two people of the same sex together,the eiffel tower isn't even biological[hell in that case it could claim rape,no concent was given :pac:

Pygmalion

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

.....seriously,there are some messed up people in the world,it is a mental disorder when it physically can reciprocate the love it can't be anything else.[Apparently PYROphilia exists as well,which begs too many questions]

Ah now, where do you draw the line between a fetish and a mental disorder in that case?

Ginja Ninja

Pygmalion wrote: »

Ah now, where do you draw the line between a fetish and a mental disorder in that case?

two things of the same species.anything else is a mental disorder,laws biology dude

Konata

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

two things of the same species.anything else is a mental disorder,laws biology dude

Yea but who made that rule? What's to say we're NOT all supposed to fall in love with bridges and cranes? What if THAT'S the natural option? Eh?

Ginja Ninja

Hotaru wrote: »

Yea but who made that rule? What's to say we're NOT all supposed to fall in love with bridges and cranes? What if THAT'S the natural option? Eh?

hey,if that's your opinion,go have fun with that streetlight.

FOR ME,I like to keep things simple,you can't love a tower,a horse,or an underage kid,if you don't like them apples then I've no interest.It's not really my place to say what you can/can't fall in love with,just what I find acceptable

Pygmalion

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

two things of the same species.anything else is a mental disorder,laws biology dude

So if someone enjoys being set on fire by a special someone? Is Pyrophilia grand then, even if there's no sexual contact involved?
Also cross-dressing (although that's usually not just purely sexual is it? I know it is in some cases, although I don't claim to be an expert on weird fetishes), I wouldn't consider that to be a mental disorder.

Incidentally what are your views of people falling in love with statues, as they represent people (+1 to anyone who gets the reference :P), if that's not ok is it ok to find drawings, paintings or photographs arousing?
They all can represent someone of the same species, how "real" does it have to be to stop being weird?

Also sure what is a Mule if not the result of two different species with mental disorders. :P

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

hey,if that's your opinion,go have fun with that streetlight.

FOR ME,I like to keep things simple,you can't love a tower,a horse,or an underage kid,if you don't like them apples then I've no interest.It's not really my place to say what you can/can't fall in love with,just what I find acceptable

Ah now, a HUGE difference between "I don't find it acceptable" and "Anyone who does these things has a mental disorder"

TheCardHolder

If someone falls in love with a building I have no issues with that. I don't judge people. Jacking off to the spire isn't exactly my thing but if thats what someone likes, its what they like. Its not bringing harm to anyone.

I'm just curious as to what category does a cartoon fall under? I remember reading an article about a man obssessed with Marge Simpson and I believe that hentai is a very popular thing nowdays.

When people talk about natural order, they tend to focus more on social norms more than anything i.e what is considered acceptable in todays society. And what is considered acceptable is always growing and the boundaries are always being pushed. Look at whats acceptable today compared to 50 years ago, we can only imagine what will be acceptable in the near future.

TheCardHolder

Also IN b4 shligobrewer:


I find objects sexually attractive.

SligoBrewer

phlegms

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Great post, would read again.

SligoBrewer

phlegms wrote: »

Great post, would read again.

I could say the very same of yours Phlegmmmmmers.

Extrasupervery

The fack? I'd love to be understanding here but I just don't geddit.

A bridge can't kiss back.

Fad

Extrasupervery wrote: »

The fack? I'd love to be understanding here but I just don't geddit.

A bridge can't kiss back.

To be fair, it's quite possible to fall in love with some one who doesnt love you back.

Would someone who has no feelings for you kiss you back? Unlikely tbh.

Same logic can apply to inanimate objects.

Extrasupervery

Meh

I just don't geddit.

Extrasupervery

I'm still trying (and failing somewhat) to understand this concept.

It'd be awful to reject it and therefore ostracise people who identify themselves as objectum sexuals. The media seems to portray them either as pathological...making the subject of that documentary speak about childhood molestation, or they just sensationalise it. 'You're married to the Eiffel tower, eh? Is the sex great?'.

Konata

Extrasupervery wrote: »

I'm still trying (and failing somewhat) to understand this concept.

It'd be awful to reject it and therefore ostracise people who identify themselves as objectum sexuals. The media seems to portray them either as pathological...making the subject of that documentary speak about childhood molestation, or they just sensationalise it. 'You're married to the Eiffel tower, eh? Is the sex great?'.

It is quite difficult to get your head around. It's just hard to understand how someone can claim to have an intimate relationship with something that can't even respond to them. That woman claims that these objects have souls. I just don't get it tbh.

That said, each to their own etc. I'm not going to stop anyone loving a bridge no matter how little I can comprehend the concept.

Jay P

No, that's a mental illness. Plain and simple. It is actually deranged. It reminds me of a video that Agnostic Mantis showed me of these guys who had life-sized dolls and were pretty much married to them (I think). I can't remember exactly, but I also think they thought the dolls were real or something. I dunno. Sexual gratification was involved anyway.

People freak me out.

Extrasupervery

Hotaru wrote: »

It is quite difficult to get your head around. It's just hard to understand how someone can claim to have an intimate relationship with something that can't even respond to them. That woman claims that these objects have souls. I just don't get it tbh.

Yeah, OS, people with os? Whaddever. They believe in animism, a belief I don't share. One I tentatively respect though.

Jay P wrote: »

No, that's a mental illness. Plain and simple. It is actually deranged. It reminds me of a video that Agnostic Mantis showed me of these guys who had life-sized dolls and were pretty much married to them (I think). I can't remember exactly, but I also think they thought the dolls were real or something. I dunno. Sexual gratification was involved anyway.

People freak me out.

People freak me out too. Daily.

SligoBrewer

It's not as rare as we imagined. :eek::eek:

ohthebaby

Jay P wrote: »

No, that's a mental illness. Plain and simple. It is actually deranged. It reminds me of a video that Agnostic Mantis showed me of these guys who had life-sized dolls and were pretty much married to them (I think). I can't remember exactly, but I also think they thought the dolls were real or something. I dunno. Sexual gratification was involved anyway.

People freak me out.

That programme was very amusing. If extremely weird. They were in a way convinced the dolls were real and had feelings back for them.

Davidius

Sounds like it's just an imaginary friend with benefits to me.