Objectophilia / Objectum Sexuality: Loving & 'Marrying' Inanimate Objects

I simply cannot accept that objectophilia is a genuine condition on any level other than demonstrative projection and obtuse self-centricity.

I've said this before, and perhaps the only thing that would truly change my mind would be some form of polygraphic monitoring system results, proving that the supplicant is genuinely aroused / motivated by their purported focus of desire.

This disturbing video does nothing to shake my boring reductionist postulation (nb I was almost as shocked by the presence of one of the wedding guests as I was by the ceremony and participant(s) themselves.....watch and you'll see what I mean.....I'd recommend you have something to hide behind, whilst you're watching this video)

[Media]

The real mystery is how this play-acting can be sustained by the sufferer's friends & family....and the world. We have friends & family to tell us we're fools, especially in our younger years: this is somewhere between delusion & pantomime.

But this action is inarguably unhealthy, if it's being earnestly-undertaken (sorry - I'm infinitely broad-minded: but I cannot accept any sentient society where we calmly and sincerely tell our elementary school children that it's ok as a life-option for anyone to love / marry / copulate with a plastic toy &/or a hologram as a lifetime commitment)
 
Ermintruder said:
I simply cannot accept that objectophilia is a genuine condition on any level other than demonstrative projection and obtuse self-centricity.

I've said this before, and perhaps the only thing that would truly change my mind would be some form of polygraphic monitoring system results, proving that the supplicant is genuinely aroused / motivated by their purported focus of desire.

This disturbing video does nothing to shake my boring reductionist postulation (nb I was almost as shocked by the presence of one of the wedding guests as I was by the ceremony and participant(s) themselves.....watch and you'll see what I mean.....I'd recommend you have something to hide behind, whilst you're watching this video)

[Media]

The real mystery is how this play-acting can be sustained by the sufferer's friends & family....and the world. We have friends & family to tell us we're fools, especially in our younger years: this is somewhere between delusion & pantomime.

But this action is inarguably unhealthy, if it's being earnestly-undertaken (sorry - I'm infinitely broad-minded: but I cannot accept any sentient society where we calmly and sincerely tell our elementary school children that it's ok as a life-option for anyone to love / marry / copulate with a plastic toy &/or a hologram as a lifetime commitment)
Click to expand...
It's definitely some form of mental illness, although I'm not sure what.
Must cause some social problems for these people, even in Japan.
 
And surely, since the object of desire cannot give informed consent to the relationship, it's some kind of form of coercive control? Maybe linked to a desire to enforce one's will on a partner but being unable to do so with humans so sort of moving that desire sideways?

After all, a bridge/car/chandelier can hardly say 'no' or 'sorry, I just don't fancy you', can it?
 
catseye said:
And surely, since the object of desire cannot give informed consent to the relationship, it's some kind of form of coercive control? Maybe linked to a desire to enforce one's will on a partner but being unable to do so with humans so sort of moving that desire sideways?

After all, a bridge/car/chandelier can hardly say 'no' or 'sorry, I just don't fancy you', can it?
Click to expand...
Also as i mentioned earlier in the thread, an object cannot say 'i do' at any 'wedding' so how are these 'weddings' official. (If they even are, idk)
 
Souleater said:
Also as i mentioned earlier in the thread, an object cannot say 'i do' at any 'wedding' so how are these 'weddings' official. (If they even are, idk)
Click to expand...
I doubt very much if these 'weddings' would hold up legally. As you say, there's no second party consent, no signature, no birthdate (how could we even prove that the chandelier wasn't bigamously married?). I think these 'marriages' are very much a publicity exercise - although I suppose we'd never know about all those 'other' 'marriages' that didn't hit the headlines.
 
catseye said:
And surely, since the object of desire cannot give informed consent to the relationship, it's some kind of form of coercive control? Maybe linked to a desire to enforce one's will on a partner but being unable to do so with humans so sort of moving that desire sideways?

After all, a bridge/car/chandelier can hardly say 'no' or 'sorry, I just don't fancy you', can it?
Click to expand...

Maybe that's the point, you can treat an inanimate object however you wish, no consequences, no fear of rejection, just the utterly narcissist delusion that you are being unconditionally loved for the attention you're bestowing on your doll/car/bridge etc.
 
catseye said:
And surely, since the object of desire cannot give informed consent to the relationship, it's some kind of form of coercive control? Maybe linked to a desire to enforce one's will on a partner but being unable to do so with humans so sort of moving that desire sideways?

After all, a bridge/car/chandelier can hardly say 'no' or 'sorry, I just don't fancy you', can it?
Click to expand...
That's certainly an intriguing way to look at it!
 
hunck said:
Was objectophilia a 'thing' before the days of social media or has it all happened since then? We've had stories here about airplanes, chandeliers, both of which existed before, probably some others I've forgotten, so it should be possible. Or is it just a way of making your presence in the world apparent for a while which was impossible before social media? A kind of exhibitionism.
Click to expand...

I've only heard the term "objectophilia" recently, or, more accurately read of it: in this thread. If you're asking about people actually "loving" or being attracted to objects, I'm pretty certain that's been covered (at least in passing) in FT, going back to at least the 90s. I'm pretty certain I've seen it mentioned on TV at least that far back as well.
 
Mythopoeika said:
It's definitely some form of mental illness, although I'm not sure what.
Must cause some social problems for these people, even in Japan.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't know if it needs it's own classification or if it is a similar phenomenon to "stalkers", though without a victim.

One imagines the planes, chandeliers, lamps and Eiffel Tower aren't especially bothered by it any way.
 
Ogdred Weary said:
I agree, I don't know if it needs it's own classification or if it is a similar phenomenon to "stalkers", though without a victim.

One imagines the planes, chandeliers, lamps and Eiffel Tower aren't especially bothered by it any way.
Click to expand...
I can kind of see the appeal if you really don't want anyone answering back.

Perhaps they have been badly hurt so find safety in a non talking building/tower or whatever they have developed an infatuation with.
 
There hasn't been much research into objectophilia, but the studies done to date suggest it's not demonstrably correlated with childhood trauma or sexual abuse.

It does seem to correlate with social isolation, social awkwardness and / or shyness.

This survey study yielded notable correlations linking self-identified OS folks with autism and synaesthesia:

Simner, J., Hughes, J.E.A. & Sagiv, N.
Objectum sexuality: A sexual orientation linked with autism and synaesthesia.
Sci Rep 9, 19874 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56449-0

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56449-0

Another characteristic claimed to correlate with OS is a belief or openness to animism or animistic attributions (i.e., the notion that inanimate objects are imbued with spirits, personalities, genders, emotions, etc.).
 
Aren't we all encouraged to form a connection to objects from our earliest ages? Teddy bears, cuddly toys, etc? Maybe some people never grow out of that "safe" relationship, which is essentially with yourself.
 
EnolaGaia said:
There hasn't been much research into objectophilia, but the studies done to date suggest it's not demonstrably correlated with childhood trauma or sexual abuse.

It does seem to correlate with social isolation, social awkwardness and / or shyness.

This survey study yielded notable correlations linking self-identified OS folks with autism and synaesthesia:

Simner, J., Hughes, J.E.A. & Sagiv, N.
Objectum sexuality: A sexual orientation linked with autism and synaesthesia.
Sci Rep 9, 19874 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56449-0

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56449-0

Another characteristic claimed to correlate with OS is a belief or openness to animism or animistic attributions (i.e., the notion that inanimate objects are imbued with spirits, personalities, genders, emotions, etc.).
Click to expand...
Interesting, thank you!
 
GNC said:
Aren't we all encouraged to form a connection to objects from our earliest ages? Teddy bears, cuddly toys, etc? Maybe some people never grow out of that "safe" relationship, which is essentially with yourself.
Click to expand...

Definitely! Whenever we wail for attention, the teddy bear (etc.) is immediately placed into our arms as a surrogate comfort. When I undertook clearance of the family home as executor of my late brother's estate I was asked how I was going to prioritize the massive task. I wasn't joking when I said my #1 priority was locating and securing my teddy bear, even though I hadn't seen it in circa 40 years.

We take pride in all sorts of inanimate objects that represent achievement, affluence, status or utility (e.g., vehicles). I've known skilled builders and craftsmen who bemoaned the loss of a cherished tool.

Our materialistic / consumerist social milieu fosters personalization of - and affinities with - our possessions, so I don't find it all that incredible that some folks might project such feelings onto objects that aren't their personal property. After all, advertisers have been promoting the association between joy and possessions throughout our lives.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Definitely! Whenever we wail for attention, the teddy bear (etc.) is immediately placed into our arms as a surrogate comfort. When I undertook clearance of the family home as executor of my late brother's estate I was asked how I was going to prioritize the massive task. I wasn't joking when I said my #1 priority was locating and securing my teddy bear, even though I hadn't seen it in circa 40 years.

We take pride in all sorts of inanimate objects that represent achievement, affluence, status or utility (e.g., vehicles). I've known skilled builders and craftsmen who bemoaned the loss of a cherished tool.

Our materialistic / consumerist social milieu fosters personalization of - and affinities with - our possessions, so I don't find it all that incredible that some folks might project such feelings onto objects that aren't their personal property. After all, advertisers have been promoting the association between joy and possessions throughout our lives.
Click to expand...

Yes but it's quite a jump from cuddly childhood comforts to a chandelier/rollercoaster/bridge etc as an adult. A workman mourning losing a treasured tool I can understand - it's something used over many years which serves a valuable purpose & has proved it's value. Whether they'd want to cuddle it is a different matter.
 
Agreed ... I only wanted to illustrate how the basis for projecting affection / affinity onto objects is endemic to our modern / western / materialistic culture. The intensity and outlets for such predilections will occur in a variety of ways (or not) depending on individual differences and preferences.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Definitely! Whenever we wail for attention, the teddy bear (etc.) is immediately placed into our arms as a surrogate comfort. When I undertook clearance of the family home as executor of my late brother's estate I was asked how I was going to prioritize the massive task. I wasn't joking when I said my #1 priority was locating and securing my teddy bear, even though I hadn't seen it in circa 40 years.

We take pride in all sorts of inanimate objects that represent achievement, affluence, status or utility (e.g., vehicles). I've known skilled builders and craftsmen who bemoaned the loss of a cherished tool.

Our materialistic / consumerist social milieu fosters personalization of - and affinities with - our possessions, so I don't find it all that incredible that some folks might project such feelings onto objects that aren't their personal property. After all, advertisers have been promoting the association between joy and possessions throughout our lives.
Click to expand...
I recently misplaced my favourite hammer and i am genuinely distraught :(
 
A novelist's interest in objectophilia.

The first known case was in 1979. Eija-Riitta had seen the Berlin Wall on television at the age of seven and, struck by its long, parallel lines, fell in love. She tied the knot on their sixth visit together, marrying the Berlin Wall and taking it as her last name—Berliner-Mauer. She regarded the tearing down of the wall as a catastrophe and slept with a 1:20 scale model until her death in 2015.

In 2018, Akihiko Kondo spent two million yen to marry animated pop-idol Hatsune Miku. Miku, a “vocaloid,” was developed in 2007 by Crypton Future Media. She serves as a mascot for a voicebank software, in which users can compose their own songs for the virtual character to sing and dance to. Miku stands 158 cm tall, sports teal pigtails, and has a suggested vocal range of A3–E5, B2–B3. She has appeared as a hologram at concerts, and as a doll at Kondo’s wedding. None of his family attended the ceremony.

These individuals are classified as objectophiliacs. Read: those who hold sexual or romantic attraction towards inanimate objects. It goes without saying, of course, that objectophiliacs are often the target of derision, mockery. But I’d like to expand on objectophilia a little bit, on that idea of love as well. Perhaps even argue that, ridiculous though they may seem, these cases are just the natural conclusion to the relationships the rest of us already hold.

My debut novel, Satellite Love, concerns itself with one such objectophile: Anna Obata, a 16-year-old girl in southern Japan who falls in love with a satellite. Like most writers, I imagine, the concept came to me before any notions of theme. Other than vague ideas of melancholy and escape, I didn’t understand exactly why Anna would fall for a satellite, nor the ultimate conclusions that would come from it. So it was that, through writing, I found myself drawn into the psychology of objectophiliacs. ...

https://lithub.com/objectophilia-on-the-people-who-fall-in-love-with-inanimate-things/
 
I'm sceptical about these marriages to chandeliers and so on. I suspect they are simply manifestations of our era's most common mental health issue: Attention Seeking Disorder.

However, if we forget for a moment the "sex" with the object and the silliness of the "marriage" to it, how many of us have never acted as if we have some sort of relationship with an inanimate object?

Have you never patted your old and "faithful" car on the bonnet and muttered "Well done, old girl" after a long journey? Does your car have a name? Have you ever implored a recalcitrant motorbike to start? Every sailor calls their boat "she" and has a definite feeling that the boat itself is part of the crew. And if you count all this as "sentimentality," then fair enough, but when you stub your toe on a brick, do you swear at yourself, or at the brick?

If, like @Souleater , I had lost a favourite hammer, I would ask "where the bloody thing was hiding," rather than "where I'd bloody put it." (I hope you find it, by the way.)

There are few if any of us who have never acted towards an inanimate object as if it could hear us speak.
 
Mikefule said:
I'm sceptical about these marriages to chandeliers and so on. I suspect they are simply manifestations of our era's most common mental health issue: Attention Seeking Disorder.

However, if we forget for a moment the "sex" with the object and the silliness of the "marriage" to it, how many of us have never acted as if we have some sort of relationship with an inanimate object?

Have you never patted your old and "faithful" car on the bonnet and muttered "Well done, old girl" after a long journey? Does your car have a name? Have you ever implored a recalcitrant motorbike to start? Every sailor calls their boat "she" and has a definite feeling that the boat itself is part of the crew. And if you count all this as "sentimentality," then fair enough, but when you stub your toe on a brick, do you swear at yourself, or at the brick?

If, like @Souleater , I had lost a favourite hammer, I would ask "where the bloody thing was hiding," rather than "where I'd bloody put it." (I hope you find it, by the way.)

There are few if any of us who have never acted towards an inanimate object as if it could hear us speak.
Click to expand...
I talk to my orchids :hungo:
 
GNC said:
At least plants are alive, and there's the idea that talking to them is good because of the carbon dioxide generated, though I doubt it's any more than is generated by breathing normally.
Click to expand...
Yeah I suppose they're living/breathing things in comparison to a building or blow up doll or something like that.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Bodybuilder Yuri Tolochko ...
Click to expand...
Update on Tolochko - the famed poster boy for sexual objectophilia ...

He's recently indicated a willingness to enter a relationship with an actual flesh-and-blood human woman - provided she can accept his dolls.
Bodybuilder who wed two sex dolls is now open to dating humans

A Kazakhstani bodybuilder who wed his sex doll after a whirlwind romance is open to dating a human on one condition: They like his silicone soulmates as well. He dropped the bombshell on the UK-based “The Dating Show” on FUBAR Radio Friday, the Daily Star reported.

“I was in a real relationship in the past, about seven years,” said Yuri Tolochko, who infamously married his sex doll Margo in November after dating her for eight months. A self-professed “pansexual,” Tolochko can reportedly love anything from an “image” to a “soul.”

Nonetheless, “it’s interesting and important for me, and in the future maybe I will have a real person, but it’s important that she or he likes my dolls too,” the muscleman said. ...
Click to expand...
FULL STORY: https://nypost.com/2021/05/31/bodybuilder-who-married-sex-dolls-now-open-to-dating-humans/
 
In fairness I often think a relationship with, say...a plank would be MUCH easier than a relationship with another human.


I just don't want to shag a plank.
 
I was going to say that I'd be hard pressed to find the difference between my last partner and a plank of wood, then I remembered that wood is warm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top