Object sexuality

It's just like being stranded on an island alone and talking to object because you are that lonely. It's like in I am Legend how Will Smith's character starts talking to the mannequin in the one store after his dog died. It's equally un-healthy and all leads to being alone and looking for anything.

 

Owning your partner? Not necessarilly. It could be with any object, not one they own, another point I should have brought up. Anywho. Owning them is possession, yes. Possession does not mean obsession. Hoarding is possessing and obsessing. I could obsess over a girl I love and not possess her. And someone could possess their partner and not obsess, or obsess to a small degree.
Stop bringing up points that are only true about a select members of the sexuality.

@May Kitsune, all humans are lonely at some point. They truly love and are attracted to objects. What is wrong?

 

But in I am Legend he has only had the dog... Just because you are sexually in love with an item doesn't make you a-social. Chances are you are a little... out of the normal, but it doesn't make his/her feelings any less worth. As long as the person involved is happy, I don't see the problem.

 

Whoa whoa whoa. :x OS is nothing like that. To them it's essentially like finding the one you love. Just in a inanimate object. A foreign concept to most, yes. But it doesn't make it unhealthy. Because these people are HAPPY and HEALTHY with these things that they love. And as the doctor stated, these people have nearly trauma free lives. They had friends, healthy relationships with their parents. It's just that instead of finding that special boy or girl, for some reason, they found that special bike, or car, or landmark even.

 

Being too possessive about your partner is not healthy either. Do tell me how OS patients are not similar to those who are possessive about their partner compared to one who is definitely in love with their laptop, perhaps.

OS patients love their objects, to the point where they refuse to part with it. Similar case, a hoarder loves his/her objects, and refuses to part with everything he/she happens to own. One vs. many?

OS patients are possessive about their object in case and refuse to let it go. Similar case, an obsessed and possessive man/woman is unwilling to let go of his/her partner. Inanimate vs. living?

 

Also, if I may add, Will Smith's character was already alone.

Give me evidence that people with OS are extremely possessive, more so than a person in a relationship. You are not differentiating between attraction and the wish to own. (Unless that's the point you're trying to make)

 

*Grabs Own Hand* MUST... RESIST... URGE... TO... TROLL!!!!

Ah... Ok...

I am not generalizing, but expressing concern. A textbook healthy relationship involves both partners being able to express themselves equally. Its an advanced chemical reaction where each partner shows mutual attraction towards the other, both in their actions, and chemical makeup. Both partners produce pheromones to signal sexual interest in the other. If the object is inanimate, it is therefore incapable of doing either.

I ask you these following situations: If someone was attracted to an a mentally disabled, blind, deaf, and mute person, would that be a sexually healthy relationship? If a person is attracted towards someone who is dead, whom they did not know in life, is that a healthy person? Such things do happen, and I worry about the mental health of the partner initiating the attraction. Now... look back at object sexuality... Think about it.

 

E

Yeah no. If I find someone I love, it will be sad to let them go, I might protest. "OS Patients", by the way, was the most offensive thing I've seen in this thread.
Anyway. OS people are simply in love with objects. They literally own the one they love (in certain cases), but your point? It is different from what you know as your sexuality. The object, to the person, is the perfect one.
What is wrong with owning them, as long as they don't obsess?

Main point. Everyone obsesses to a small degree over who they love.

@Celestia, Very mature. Anyway, a textbook human/human relationship is that. Human/object, on the other hand, is very different. Hm. On your last point, it's utterly different. Object sexuality is right there, it's legitimate, it's real, it's what happens. And believe it or not, accept it or not, it's healthy.

 

There's still a human involved. I am concerned for the humans mental and emotional health. Which your post implies consent of concerns. Unless I am mistaking this entire thread. I don't care about the object, its inanimate. The human is the part to worry about.

 

I edited my post, by the way.

Back to the reply. The human is healthy, watch the video Fuzzy posted. It is just sexuality. It cannot be an illness.

 

I like how you compare a mentally disabled, blind, deaf and mute person to an object...
If it was love, who are you to tell him/her that they are wrong. Necrophilia is a crime, I believe.
r

 

I am curious as to how it goes from "It happens" to "its healthy". Do you have any outside sources to support this?

Sexuality is actually a form of social interaction. Certain types of social interaction can be healthy and unhealthy for both members interacting. In this case... just one.

 

Cite evidence that these people actually are healthy. Regardless, I am merely trying to draw a parallel to similar cases of mental instability, that can be perhaps closely related to each other. I am not stating that cases of possessiveness and OS is essentially the same. Similar cases do tend to point more to the theory that it can be considered an illness.

 

The mentally disabled, blind, deaf, and mute person would not be able to communicate their wishes in a way easily understood. Much like an object.

And yes, necrophilia is a crime. Its also object sexuality. Unless of course you believe they are alive in their body somehow.

 

Again.
The video Fuzzy posted.
Also, research you could easily do.

Okay, so... Your point from this reply is what, exactly? Your entire point in the thread has been saying it's always unhealthy... And now, you say "Okay. It might be unhealthy sometimes, rarely." Either stick to your guns or fully admit.


@Luna, Argh... Why does nobody pay attention to the video, or even research it?

@Later Celestia, Argh... That's actually incredibly offensive.

 

Dude... read all my post... all along I've been saying it was the sign of something unhealthy.

I'm not going to research your side of the discussion. If you have something to say, say it. I find it insulting that your suggesting I read a book to understand something you are trying to explain to me... insulting to both of us actually.

 

Your point being? That an object, like a laptop is the same as a dead person? I don't see your argument.

They are not unhealthy until proven healthy... it's the other way around. I fail to see how a sexuality is mental instability though.

 

How is educating yourself on something you don't understand insulting? Ah, well.

Quoting a variety of website here...

Point thanks to "objectum-sexuality.org".

 

Yes actually. It is incapable of giving a true emotion reciprocation of affection.

Its not. Its a symptom of mental instability if a relationship is not consented too, and is still pushed.

Alright peoples, I gtg. TTYL.

 

If it was the other way around, wouldn't hypochondriacs always be in the right until proven wrong? And Dr. would waste time on testing them rather than giving them a psych. eval.?

But that is with people! You don't differentiate between a human, romantic, relationship and a human, inanimate, sexual/romantic relationship! There is a difference, however, it's not a sign of a mental issue, nor is it less of a relationship to the one person. There is a difference between a di-human relationship and a human-object relationship.