Object sexuality

I have clearly said from the very begining, that exactly what you described is the problem.

There is nothing wrong with loving the item. But the somehow believing it loves you back, when it clearly cannot may be a problem. Same as if it was a person.

I accept your apology. But seriously, I truly thought you meant obsession along the lines of OCD, and were implying it was easil controlled.

 

...
So, You can't feel love from an object.
That is because, to them, love from an object is what they know. They love the object, and so it loves them back. The fact that it would be unhealthy from one of a different sexuality to believe that an object loves them is unhealthy in no way proves it is unhealthy for someone with OS.

Why? Because sexualities are different. Your definition of what needs to be in a relationship, or what love is, is not the same as someone with OS. Why will you not understand that love does not have a universal definition? It changes, it fluctuates, specifically with people of different sexualities! This is how they love.

 

i personally don't think it's very healthy. i could be wrong about this, but to me, it seems like a coping mechanism for something else. i remember watching a video about a guy who marries a video game character and it's just weird.

 

Ok, let me try a different way of reasoning.

I believe that the premise of falsely believing something loves you, when it in fact does not: Is a sign of that the relationship is not healthy.

It does not matter if they feel loved, if anything, feelin love when you are not loved -is- the key component something is wrong.

Ill site realistic examples, one of which has already been discussed, of an abusive relationship where the victim belives they are loved. The other is, if a child is raised by a narcisist (someone who has difficulties nurturing love towards other people) the child grows up not knowing what love is, and wil have severe emotional problems for life. And worse yet, oftentimes the child grows up believing they were loved by their narcisistic parent.

I base my case off these real word examples that believing you are loved, when yo are in fact not, can either be a self destructive pattern set about by trauma of the past, or it can actually cause trauma. If either of these are correct (not neccissarily both, either) the individual should not be deemed emotionally healthy.

Can you state real world examples, outside our conversation, of other types of relationships to suggest that one person believes they are loved, but in fact are not, which is neither a self destructive pattern nor a cause of emotiona trauma?

 

It has nothing to do about being loved, it is about loving.

I think you should read this. The full text is linked. I have taken some things from it.

I am human but my partner is not…

Expressed by A.L. (translated)

^ This is my point. It's not a sign of mental illness or trauma, it's simply feeling love towards an item. It's not about being loved back, it's about loving something. Also, an abusive relationship is nothing like OS. Nothing like it what. so ever. You can't possibly draw a line between them, as an abusive relationship you love something that hurts you. A building may hurt you by collapsing, but it doesn't hit you.

 

Probably the most solid argument on your side of the debate.

Noroz, I will not argue with you. In the scenario you presented, its more harmless than the scenarios Fuzzy and British are highlighting. Thanks for making your point clear.

However, it does alienate their arguments as I have highlighted below.

Spoiler

I took my stance based on the arguments listed above.

 

This has replay made me think of the autistic kids I've worked with, and I can't help but see something between this and them.

Autistic people have born behaviour and thought process, something that can develop but will never change largely. They will be stuck with behaviour that makes them stand out from the crowd, makes their simple hand movements how they stand, just seem all wrong. The way they take words to its literal meaning is quite funny, but it is somethin they are born with and the rigidity of their thought process means that won't change easily.

They are born with this inability to act normal in society, some of them will never be able to assimilate into society properly. And it's sad that society will never be able to fully accept them, sure you may say hi and donate a bit of money, but to be able to live day by day with them, and socialise with them society wouldn't be able to adjust to that easily.
And so the kids I work with are taught and trained to act the way society wants them to be seen as: normal. No matter how much it goes against who they are they have to be taught to be normal. It's so sad to see some of the good kids fearing to act out in some way because they've been taught not to. They know no better, it it makes me feel bad that I can't allow them to be more then they are, otherwise they may not have a chance at a better life, all because society won't let them be normal.

What I'm getting at is how surprising perfectly normal people who are accepted into regular society readily make choices that make them a part of the irregular of society. These people who fall in 'love' with objects are making themselves feel something they could find elsewhere if they worked on it hard enough, looked for like minded peo, formed real bonds with them then attachment to objects that are cold, unmoving, stagnant, dead.

To make that choice, when other people have no choice in who they are, it makes me feel... Annoyed. But I understand why this happens, it's just seeing different people with different lots in life becoming the opposite of each other... Life is a mad jokester.

 

Are you implying that their sexuality is a choice? Or did I misinterpret?

 

I got the same impression. One could make an argument that all sexuality (even heterosexuality) is a choice.

 

One could argue, but one would be wrong, sexuality is genetic.

 

I am apathetic on this argument. Thus the reason I posted in third person last time. It would have to be a different thread completely to have that discussion... although, it would most certainly be an ugly argument.

 

Stepping in again to say it has been scientifically proven that sexualities are all genetic. So, case closed on that little disussion. And OS is a sexuality, thus why the case should have already been closed on this one.

 

Lets not go into this. Where did you source it was genetic? I saw a number of sources saying it was normal, but not genetically proven that OS is in the genes.

 

Well, first, read through this. Don't complain about "Give me the information". You'll learn a lot more from reading it.
Also, some have called it a paraphilia, but this was before any research. Also, checking back at my earlier post, you can see a scientific website calling it a "rare sexuality".

 

I've got sources.

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained

Why Gays Don't Go Extinct (I really hate that title)

Is There a 'Gay gene?'

Mothers' genetic skew linked to gay sons

Gay from the Womb if Biological older brothers matter

EDIT: This is homosexuality, but still a sexuality.

 

Interesting reading...

I guess its not as traumatic as I thought... tho... my concern is still there. Nearly half those studies had some for of autism. Sad really. I say more case studies should be conducted.

Btw: autism is genetic.

 

I already saw the tyra banks show about 2 years ago before the show ended... the thing with her and the way she ACTS I don't believe anything she says and the way she is she just seems like she IS doing it for publicity... I can tell when someone is a liar or is acting very easily and she gives off strange vibes like she's a computer and studied to have something to reply to the questions so it makes it sound real... ALSO This just adds on to it being a kind of hoarding and kind of attachment as the researcher was saying that it's like a kid with a toy and that leads me back to in this society how people think that objects are more important than family n stuff... <_< ALSO they said they DO NOT know if it is something your born with so even more proof that it happens later on in life.... and I think it's mostly things that you're most comfortable with that give you good memories that people get that whole attachment to... I have that with my own blanket that iv'e had my whole life but I don't think of it as a partner at all I think they are just raising the level a bit much and are just generically confused. Yes people I still have my blanket and have cried over it even till this day when I can't find it and It's an addiction to an object that isn't good at all but it makes me happy and calm so I don't stop the addiction or even attempt to.

 

Um. Okay, so she's a talk show host, and the doctor was the one explaining things, she was just on Tyra's show. It has nothing to do with Tyra. The link was for the research. I'm going to kindly direct you to these posts.

My overall stance is:

Whether it's 'healthy' or 'not', we don't have a right to judge this person unless they're being a (violent/harmful) disturbance to society. Acknowledge their lifestyle without ignorance or deeming something wrong with them just because you don't understand. It's immature. They are a human being that deserves an equal amount of respect as the rest of us. I don't want to debate over whether or not a human with a different sexuality deserves respect and compassion from us. We should all know better. You don't have to like it, or understand it, but don't be intolerant to it just because it's different. Just like homophobia or racism. That's it.

Edit: That last paragraph is not stated directly at anyone.​

 

Yeah I know I was saying that I saw that episode before the show was canceled and I didn't believe a word that came out of that Eiffel lady's mouth. But you don't get it Dx I'm not saying IT IS bad for them; no one really exactly knows yet I'm just saying what I think about it hence the point of this topic and me personally I think it's unhealthy. I'm not being immature at all either. I'm thinking logically to find the answers. If it IS an actually sexuality that is normal and is genetic then okay I really don't care but if it's bad for the person isn't it better to have them healthy than have something actually wrong with them? because then it isn't a sexuality if it's chosen and it shouldn't be something that a civil rights activist gets upset about and instead actually worries about the person.

 

But it is an actual sexuality, thus making your argument absolutely null.

We've given you an incredible amount of sources over the past few pages.