From the feminist site Jezebel:
You have got to see this documentary about "objectum sexuals," people who fall in love with objects like fences and amusement park rides, (one woman even married the Eiffel Tower). And they have sex.
If you thought that men in love with Real Dolls was strange, wait until you see Strange Love: Married to the Eiffel Tower, which follows these fetishists (all of them, for some reason, female). Interestingly, Objectum Sexuals - they call themselves OS people - believe their love with the objects are reciprocal and that they can telepathically communicate with them.
22 Comments
I can't wait to see the reactions of SSMers to NOM posting this story
Ash, it's a shame you can't see the laughter for NOM posting this.
Is it not bigotry to deny objectum sexuals the right to have marriage redefined to include inanimate objects too? After all, we don't want to violate their constitutional right to marry whatever they love.
Bill,you may not want to see the point that there should be no exceptions to requiring marriage partners to be adult humans of the opposite sex,but once you gratify one request to revise that critical criterion,you weaken all refusals to go further.
"Otherkin" will likely get very offended at being denied the "right" to marry natural members of the species with which they identify...
Louis, you have been more helpful than you'll ever realize. Thank you for posting.
No, Louis E. This is still just silly, and a little offensive to those people. These OS people aren't pushing for marriage, because they see their relationships in a different way than you do, and 'are able to communicate telepathically' with the objects of their desire. When they start advocating for object-person marriage, that is when I'd step in to argue against them. This is just the propogation of a silly slippery-slope argument.
*and in a different way, I mean in the context of humanity, not heterosexuality.
QueerNE-This brings up an argument you and I had in an older post, where you thought it made no sense to marry objects, where as SSM makes sense...remember? lol Also, in fact you never did prove SSM made sense... Once you open the door to anything goes, this is what you get...
Those silly heterosexuals...falling in love with, of all things, the Eiffel Tower. Talk about marriage corruption.
They are not heterosexuals, Rich. They are objectum sexuals, you bigot!
When a grandfather clock learns how to sign a marriage license, I'll start worrying.
Louis e, why do you have a problem with a male alien marrying a female human? You keep moving the goal posts.
This is ridiculous. I swear these people need some serious help.
What about people who fall in love with their imaginary friends?
If a man wants to marry his chair or TV (despite the fact that such objects can't enter into a contract), let him!
Fact remains that there is no legal reason to marry an inanimate object... and there's nothing wrong with loving one!!
SOA-funny!
QueerNE-now I hope you are getting my point I was trying to make in an earlier blog, where you stated that, “it doesn't make sense to marry an object"...
I replied that, " SSM also doesn't make ", although I agreed with you on the illogic of marrying objects, however, I concluded that, anyone who is out of touch with reality (a delusioNIST) may think otherwise... A mental diagnosis for gay marriage, gays, and homosexuality, adds up to identity, reality disorder. What is reality-not jumping off a cliff knowing well you will die from the fall. What is a reality disorder-someone who believes they can jump off the cliff and land safely without a scratch.
Why is SSM a reality disorder-the two adults in this relationship strongly feel they are no different than marriage be two opposite sexes. Do they real believe that? Yes! WHY? Because they suffer from delusion brought on by their prior environment, sexual experiences, likely forced or due to experimentation, and a host of other coincidental or circumstantial events.
.
QueerNE-now I hope you are getting my point I was trying to make in an earlier blog, where you stated that, “it doesn't make sense to marry an object"...
I replied that, " SSM also doesn't make ", although I agreed with you on the illogic of marrying objects, however, I concluded that, anyone who is out of touch with reality (a delusioNIST) may think otherwise... A mental diagnosis for gay marriage, gays, and homosexuality, adds up to identity, reality disorder. What is reality-not jumping off a cliff knowing well you will die from the fall. What is a reality disorder-someone who believes they can jump off the cliff and land safely without a scratch.
Why is SSM a reality disorder-the two adults in this relationship strongly feel they are no different than marriage be two opposite sexes. Do they real believe that? Yes! WHY? Because they suffer from delusion brought on by their prior environment, sexual experiences, likely forced or due to experimentation, and a host of other coincidental or circumstantial events..
Mas-turbation is a form of Objectum Sexuals? Why would anyone need an object? Who or what (animals?) is someone focusing on during sexual worship? Who would know? Anyway, hard to embrace the Eifell Tower. I would prefer something warmer. But sexuality has an imaginative component which cannot be negated. That's why Christians are instructed to govern their inner (unspoken) thoughts, or they can turn into a vice.
Ubekibekistanstan: Are you the male alien? Which planet are you from?
Randall Reynolds: You got about 1 year of blog posts to catch up on, here. There are solid constitutional reasons why Congress passed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and why many possible ideas of what marriage is have been discarded. Mainly is that government cannot possibly have the funds to regulate all kinds of so-called marriage arrangements. I insist i should be able to marry myself, because i already love myself (can you tell?). Is that blasphemous to you? So, as long as government has the funds to do the regulation, why not? We would all agree. But the government is broke (4 billion a day, more).
Hmm, NOM needs to expand on this idea and examine how Mitt Romney's belief that 'Corporations are people' and have rights may affect the definition of marriage, because if Romney is correct then people should be allowed the marry corporations.
Wahaha that's funny