Object sexuality

Noroz, you were quick to dismiss necrophilia as illegal, and imply its wrong as such, nor did you address my issue with the death, mute, blind, mentally disabled person. I do not see how either are more harmfull than object sexuality. Explain. I explained how they were similar already.

 

Necrophilia is wrong because it was a living being. There is a difference between a dead human and a laptop, reason: The human most likely have family left behind.

Also, with the blind, mentally disabled etc. person; Is it wrong? It depends, is this person not able to defend him/herself? Is it to the stage of what they call "vegetable"?
If so, they are unable to fend for themselves, but they are still human! The keyword we are looking for is this: HUMAN. If a person is dead, or completely "gone", they are still HUMAN. That's why I dismissed your argument, because to me, it's not a valid comparison.

 

I'm not focusing on the other party, but the animated one. If someone meets a corpse,and falls in love, is something wrong wth the living party? Same with the "vegetable"?

 

I'm sorry, are you equating a human being (dead or alive) with an inanimate object? (I'm not really referring to the debate you're having with Noroz specifically.)

Do you honestly think that a human is equal to an object? Do you objectify humans? These are honest questions. I'm genuinely wondering is that is your mindset in general.

Also...As mentioned before, (directed more at May Kitsune) there is scientific research that has been done about Object Sexuality. Purposely not educating yourself on the subject and deeming the concept of doing so as 'insulting' is bordering deliberate ignorance on your part. In other words, it's just being stubborn. There are two sides of the argument. Educate yourself on both if you're going to try to come up with a valid argument, otherwise it's not fair to anyone and the debate is pointless. This applies to everyone.

​

 

If it's a dead person? Yes, because dead means unable to fend for self. A dead person means an "easy target". If you have sex with a dead person, I would call it rape. How would you feel if someone had sex with say, your dead sister/brother? It would be not only to you, sickening, but it would also be a sign of extreme lack of respect. I would call necrophilia more fetish/desperation. Is a person in wrong in being attracted to it? Technically, No. Would they be in the wrong in acting on it? Yes.

With a "vegetable"? It depends. If you actually knew the person before, and you were actually married/engaged/etc all the diff. types you can be with someone, then it might be justified and understandable. I recall a fairly recent story from a man you have probably heard of, Chris Medina, who if not necessarily stays with her for sex, stays with her because he loves her. (I don't think she became a complete "vegetable", but you should get my point)

However, if it's just with a "vegetable" you met, I'd say its the same as with someone who happens to be dead (not that they are, but the same idea goes for it), they are unable to fend for themselves, which makes it an "easy target" and this is a conscious human being, and thus; rape.
If you are unable to gain consent, it is wrong.
However, if it's technically wrong to be attracted to it? No. Would it be wrong to act on it? Yes.

 

Jayn, Noroz: neither of yu are getting my post. I NEVER said the act itself is wrong.

I said I was concerned about the condition of the animate party. I spent the last couple pages repeating myself. I'm leaving the thread. Goodbye.

@Jayn specifically: I was making the point tht there is something flawed emotionally if someone loves anything (human or no) which is truly incapable of ever expresing love in return. If you couldn't see it, I'm insulted again. Additionally: why don't yoou read a book on emotional disorders.

 

I never said anything about you saying it was wrong, I don't think. x:

It was a video, not a book. They linked you to a youtube video earlier, but I've taken several classes involving emotional disorders as well as independent study. I was going into psychology at one point, so yeah. I have.

But I think it's a good idea to leave the thread if you're truly insulted by the debate itself. No one is personally out to insult you, as I'm sure you're not trying to personally insult anyone else. It's friendly discussion/debate, despite differing opinions.

Edit: Sorry, for further clarification that's why I said;

"This applies to everyone," earlier. I don't think it's fair to debate on one side and refuse researching the other in general. ​

 

Meh. Late to The End. Essentially, what I've been trying to say is the human is healthy. There is nothing wrong with them. Despite your presumptions, it is how they live, and there is nothing wrong with it. It may be strange, but it is how they function. It is healthy. Since you were stubborn and left the thread you won't see this, but it is true. Not all people are the same.

 

I've done this quite a few time already, but ^
This.

No sexuality is wrong, nor unhealthy. Your sexuality is something hard-coded into you. You cannot change object sexuality any more than homosexuality or heterosexuality.

 

Not proven a sexuality unless proven to be a sexuality from years of research. <.<' my point is unless someone does a big research and finally concludes something I won't believe it because we honestly don't have enough knowledge to conclude just yet. That's why I'm going towards it probably is unhealthy.

 

Earlier in the thread, evidence of research was posted. There has been research done on the subject, that's why there's even a term for it and why people who have this sexuality aren't just put in mental institutions somewhere. It's a sexuality, not a mental illness, as discussed and proven earlier by another poster, I beileve. Fuzzy Blue Lights or Britishism posted it. ​

 

I never said it was a mental ILLNESS just a confusion since in society nowadays objects are more important to most than friendship, family, or a lover... and they haven't tested anything with the brain because then people would just get offended and they wouldn't go along with studies and they would say that they are insulting them. That's why they haven't treated it as anything of the sort since people are more open to human rights in today's age. I haven't seen any post that proves that it is a sexuality at all... I just don't see it... for thousands of years why did this "Sexuality" come out of nowhere and become so well known?

 

Because of predgidous, essentially. In the 1700s, would you walk up to someone and say, "Hey. I'm in love with my chimney, I am sexually interested in it." You'd be lynched, or at least hated. There have been historical examples, however, despite their rarity. Same as homosexuality.

About seeing no posts proving that it's a sexuality, I posted a variety of sources from scientists saying it was a sexuality and explaining why it was, and Fuzzy posted a video or two.

 

^ That's what was posted earlier. ...No matter. You could read more on the subject and find those answers out if you actually took the time to research the argument you're opposing. When homosexuality research first surfaced, the people who didn't understand it opposed the research and said that no one is 'born' gay and that people just 'decide' to be and something is wrong with them. There are still people like that. That doesn't make it true, the evidence is there. There is also evidence on this subject. Just because you don't understand it, or you don't get it doesn't mean the research isn't there or that these people automatically have something wrong with them because you personally aren't grasping the concept.

And I hardly think you can tell us that 'they haven't tested anything with the brain for ____ reasons.'. Once again, I really don't think you have any idea at all. You're not a scientist researching object sexuality, how would you know...? Can you source this reasoning? With this mentality, no mental illness would have ever been tested, ever. If scientists really cared about hurting someones feelings/offending them. Really. If you're looking for research on the other side, (again), Britishism and Fuzzy have posted evidence. Do you have evidence that contradicts the sources/opinions you're arguing against? ​

 

Okay... I don't know why it was moved to the debate corner... o.O

But now that it is, I actually have something to prove.

Right off the bat I did some research, as usual, wikipedia showed up first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

It compared it with other sexual disorders such as humiliation of one partners, pedophilia, and non consensual sex. However, some of that information was dated. Although, its logic was sound. I made a hard case about the object being unable to respond to stimulation and give feedback of affection and love. (Perhaps too hard, which caused an backlash.)

I would like to reiterate, I NEVER changed my stance on viewing them as harmless to the rest of society.

But I ask this: Why would anyone want to be in a relationship where there partner does not truly love them? I even ask that of a relationship with two healthy consenting adults, if one does not love the other, is it truly a healthy relationship? I would say, assuming it is a sexual orientation, not a sexual deviation, it cannot be a healthy emotional relationship, as the human partner, does not receive love in return.

 

Ah, yes. But the article states;

Object sexuality is not referring to sexual arousal.

And the specific 'deviations' listed are;

Annnnd, a deviation is defined as;

So even if it was a sexual deviation, all that really means is that it's an orientation that's different from the 'norm' or the standard that's generally accepted by society. It doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the person deviating, it just means it's not the definition of normal. Replying specifically to this;

I don't know. Why does a woman stay with a man that beats her? That's not healthy at all, but that doesn't mean there's something tremendously wrong with her--mentally speaking. In regards to object sexuality, though, no one is hurt from it. The object isn't beating the human and the human isn't harming someone else with the object. I don't believe we can really judge if it's healthy or not. If the human in love with the object is happy, not harming anyone and feels loved by said object, then good for them.

We might not understand it, or be in that situation ourselves, but maybe to this human they do feel loved by this object. They are happy just being there. It's nothing we really have the right to judge, imo. It's different than something like pedophilia because that is harming the recipient. When it's an inanimate object, the human in question isn't...hurting anybody. They don't get a thrill from taking advantage of someone younger, or having intercourse while strangling someone, or anything like that that would really signify a mental problem. It's just a different kind of love. There's nothing 'sick' or disorderly about it other than the fact that it's not the 'norm'.

Edit: I acknowledge you don't think OS-people cause any harm, and you don't believe it's healthy because the human partaking does not receive love, iyo and such. Any comments of mine are not made with cruel intent, or any disrespect. ​

 

I was just stating what common science puts it as. Object sexuality in itself implies sexual arousal from objects, otherwise it would merely be "Object affection". Calling it "Sexuality" implies a sexual response.

I did mention the information was dated, and therefore it wasn't up to current standards. I believe I made -my- opinion clear in the second half of the post which you responded with:

I have to disagree. There is nothing wrong mentally with someone who chooses to stay in an abusive relationship. But there -is- something wrong with that said persons emotional well being. Such people who stay in such relationship, typically (not always, but typically) have a history of growing up in an abusive home (physically or sexually) and a history of low self esteem. As such, they view their abusive partner, as a loving caring person. They attribute aspects to their significant other that they themselves do not have, and in severe cases, do not attempt. Albeit, in their own minds, they may be in a healthy, mutually loving relationship.

I know connecting an unloving partner and attributing that partner with loving characteristics is a emotional flaw which needs counseling of the victim party to correct.

Now, I do not feel its illogical assume that someone in love with an object may be suffering from a similar emotional trauma when they attribute loving characteristics, to an inanimate object which is literally unable to love. I doubt its 100% accurate, but, I do believe the situations are similar enough to warrant more research into my reasoning. Sadly, there are very little case studies (which I found, and was truly looking for) on it. I know someone posted a case study on it being harmless, which I never doubted.

 

It was moved to the debate corner because, it turned into one.

Plenty of evidence has been posted from each side.
"We might not understand it, or be in that situation ourselves, but maybe to this human they do feel loved by this object."
If you looked at our research. They clearly DO feel loved by this object. From your words, Celest, I take it that you cannot understand why a human being with emotions and feelings would fall in 'love' with an object incapable of such things. Whether we human-lovers understand it or not, they feel that same love, same connection that we feel from our special guy or girl. Some how, some way. They believe that they FEEL that way. Hell, humans can say they love you, but be totally lying, we don't ever know, we have to trust and FEEL that loved one is telling the truth and we have to believe in it. Just like people with OS feel and believe that their object loves them too.

Also, people have been tested. And they did so willingly, without getting offended at all. True, humans have obsessed over objects for centuries, but haven't those obsessives people simply discarded those things as soon as something new and shiny came along? People with OS don't do that, they view their object as a personal lover, to have, hold, and cherish.
And it's called Sexuality because some people do get a sexual response in themselves from the object they care for. However, some do not. Some are simply content being with it.

A doctor did clarify that if trauma was one of the factors deciding if a person had OS or not, then there would be way more people with OS. So trauma, be it sexual or abusive in general, is not a reason a person would have OS.

 

I would just like to clarify something... I said it is a tell tail sign of emotional trauma when people associate love and loving traits with people who do not love them. I did say they felt these emotions. Unless you are somehow trying to say these objects do in fact love them (as in actually) I do not see a key difference between the two. I do believe more case studies need to be conducted.

Additionally, people with emotional disorders are not sole caused by trauma, but often a combination of trauma, and genetics. OS may be a very low percentage of genetics.

Additionally, to think people obsessed with objects, be if physical or not, and to say "but haven't those obsessives people simply discarded those things as soon as something new and shiny came along?" is frankly the most ignorant thing I read. I have seen firsthand the emotional trauma obsession can do to peoples life. I should derep you for that alone. But I won't since dereping a debate thread is against my principles.

 

I clearly said these people FEEL the love from the object. Just like we feel it from other people. Not that the object themselves give or emit it in any actual way.

However, I will admit I gave an invalid statement. I meant obsessive in a fad sense. Going crazy and bananas over something like Americans did over silly bandz. Or another famous or infamous fad. And to even think about derepping someone out of ignorance is spiteful. Correct and/or teach the ignorant so that they can learn. Anyway, I give apologies to any I've offended with my misguided statement.