• Announcements

    • Kisa the Cat

      World Watch Archiving Project

      Hello everyone, Please read this thread before posting to World Watch Thank you.
    • Kisa the Cat

      Avenues May/June   05/09/17

      Hello AVENites! The newest edition of AVENues is now ready! Our theme this time was "ace connections".  May/June
Lorna81

Ecosexuality

46 posts in this topic

I recently read this article on The Guardian on ecosexuality - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/15/nature-ecosexual-annie-sprinkle-porn-star-queer

 

I'd be interested to hear your perspectives on whether you think the expansion of the concept of sexuality from human-human to human-nature is a positive thing or, more negatively, a further sexualisation of an already oversexualised world.

 

I guess in some ways this is nothing new as pansexuality has been around for a while?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... is this for real?

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_st

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sprinkle and her partner, Beth Stephens, co-creator of the ecosexual movement and an art professor from the University of California, Santa Cruz, have staged about 15 large-scale weddings to the likes of the Earth, the moon, the sun and the sea. They “came out” as ecosexuals in 2009 after their wedding to the Earth. Until then, the word “ecosexual” had been kicking around as an obscure dating category. But now, with the advent of Donald Trump’s presidency, things have moved up a gear.

I like how Trump gets attributed to this.  It might end up being the greatest thing he's known for that wasn't even directly his doing.

 

But yeah, they're still kooks.  Marriage, as far as I'm concerned, is something that needs mutual feeling and consent to be valid.  Something the earth, the sun, the moon, the Great Wall of China, etc. all can't provide.

 

Quote

... is this for real?

Yes.  People have been "marrying" inanimate objects for a while now. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally feel that this is just adding to the over-sexualisation of the world today. 

Is it possible to find something in nature sexually attractive? (I guess being ace I especially find that hard to imagine)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhhmmmmm..... 

 

what she describes is more on par with dendrophilia, a tree fetish. ie not a sexual orientation. what this person is saying is total horseshit and makes actual queer people (like asexuals, demisexuals, pansexuals, bisexuals etc) be taken less seriously. to an extent, nonbinary people as well since we´re often lumped in as the "special snowflake" category. 

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they really attracted to the entirety of nature or are they just using this as a 'fun' way of getting people into the eco movement? I actually can't tell...

 

6 hours ago, Philip027 said:

But yeah, they're still kooks.  Marriage, as far as I'm concerned, is something that needs mutual feeling and consent to be valid.  Something the earth, the sun, the moon, the Great Wall of China, etc. all can't provide.

 

Yes.  People have been "marrying" inanimate objects for a while now. 

We objectum (a)sexuals already know we're freaks, no need to rub it in our faces, thanks.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We objectum (a)sexuals already know we're freaks, no need to rub it in our faces, thanks.

Attachment to objects is a lot more normal and valid than maybe even you think.  Getting "married" to them is not.

 

Unless, as I said, you think it's cool to be able to marry things without their consent.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Attachment to objects is a lot more normal and valid than maybe even you think.  Getting "married" to them is not.

 

Unless, as I said, you think it's cool to be able to marry things without their consent.

Objectum (a)sexuality isn't just 'attachment' to objects any more than being a gay man is 'attachment' to other men.

 

And on the consent thing, not even going there on this thread cos that's way off topic. Needless to say if I was going to marry anyone they wouldn't be a biological organism.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be GREAT if people didn't turn shit into sexual orientations to get attention? Feeling connected to nature in a profoundly deep way doesn't have to be sexual. We don't need to fetishize it.

11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Objectum (a)sexuality isn't just 'attachment' to objects any more than being a gay man is 'attachment' to other men.

Thinking you can share a sexuality with something that isn't sentient / doesn't possess any inherent sexuality, whether or not that's on account of not being sentient / lacks (compatible) sexual organs... I feel that's kooky too, if you really wanted to go there.

 

I was really focusing more on the marriage bit, though.

 

Quote

And on the consent thing, not even going there on this thread cos that's way off topic.

Did you even look at what I quoted?  These people "married the earth" and unless I'm supposed to believe the earth magically replied back with "I'm down with that", how am I supposed to interpret this as anything but a huge joke?

 

It's very much on-topic.

 

Quote

Wouldn't it be GREAT if people didn't turn shit into sexual orientations to get attention? Feeling connected to nature in a profoundly deep way doesn't have to be sexual. We don't need to fetishize it.

Yes, thank you, at least you get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Thinking you can share a sexuality with something that isn't sentient / doesn't possess any inherent sexuality, whether or not that's on account of not being sentient / lacks (compatible) sexual organs... I feel that's kooky too, if you really wanted to go there.

 

I was really focusing more on the marriage bit, though.

 

Did you even look at what I quoted?  These people "married the earth" and unless I'm supposed to believe the earth magically replied back with "I'm down with that", how am I supposed to interpret this as anything but a huge joke?

 

It's very much on-topic.

I feel I could be playing OS bingo here.

 

The off topic remark was in regard to the rest of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved from Intersectionality to The Grey Area.

 

TheAP

Intersectionality Moderator

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what the fuck

 

why is this a sexuality

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel this even has to do with sexuality at all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their intentions seem to be good, but the execution is... lacking, to say the least. If they're trying to make a political statement using an artistic medium, there are definitely better, less cringe-inducing ways to go about that.

 

Quote

“grassilingus”

What does this even mean? Are they going to sit on the ground and seductively lick grass? Not going to lie, the image of a bunch of self-proclaimed "ecosexuals" lying on a university quad licking grass is pretty hilarious. :lol:

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ofc its california. can't wait to leave this god-forsaken state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't finish reading the article, no, the first paragraph...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Certainly a nature walk with a former porn star who keeps encouraging me to find my Eco spot (or E-spot) is much more exciting than anything I’ve seen on Countryfile or read in a Naomi Klein book.

What the hell is this bullshit? How on earth is listening to some nutcase porn star talking about fucking trees better than reading about how Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are responsible for Donald Trump's victory?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2017 at 6:24 AM, Snao Çoñé said:

Wouldn't it be GREAT if people didn't turn shit into sexual orientations to get attention? Feeling connected to nature in a profoundly deep way doesn't have to be sexual. We don't need to fetishize it.

I didn't actually read the article (in a hurry) but I saw a documentary ages ago about two people with, er, extreme attraction towards certain objects. One lady had this thing for, I think, trains? And the other for fences. It was very, very sexual, clearly a type of paraphilia (not a sexual orientation, just a strange sexual obsession) .. The lady with the trains was like, sucking and licking the oil out of it's pipes and very clearly, er, getting off. She was also deeply emotionally attracted to it. And the fence lady.. well... you know.. she kind of sat on the, er, picket things and yeah, I'll stop there. Anyway, I don't know what they're talking about in that article, but I know that some people do get extreme sexual and emotional attraction to certain objects while being utterly unable to experience the same emotions for people. I don't know if these ladies were turning their fetishes into orientations, but yeah, they were clearly deeply sexually obsessed with these objects. It was so weird to watch T_T

 

urgh, wait I tried to find the vid, but I can only find Ethan and Hila's reaction to it and don't have time to search properly. It was amusement park rides, not trains, my bad. Supper funny and weird vid though lol

 

 

 

 

*shudder*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a sexual orientation; that's a fetish. 

 

@Pan. I couldn't even get through this video (and now I feel like vomiting) but thank you for bringing this delightful bit of insight to us (I think I regret pressing play but that's okay) 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/05/2017 at 11:33 PM, madscientist04 said:

I personally feel that this is just adding to the over-sexualisation of the world today. 

Is it possible to find something in nature sexually attractive? (I guess being ace I especially find that hard to imagine)

 

Almost anything can be sexually attractive to someone if they develop a paraphillia for it! I met a guy on AVEN once who could only get turned on by sneezes. Like, hearing and seeing sneezes lol. If that's possible then anything is! (sneezes smell so bad *shudder*)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2017 at 9:15 PM, Law of Circles said:

What does this even mean? Are they going to sit on the ground and seductively lick grass? Not going to lie, the image of a bunch of self-proclaimed "ecosexuals" lying on a university quad licking grass is pretty hilarious. :lol:

...at least until they realize they're probably licking grass that dogs have recently pooped on!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Pan. said:

I didn't actually read the article (in a hurry) but I saw a documentary ages ago about two people with, er, extreme attraction towards certain objects. One lady had this thing for, I think, trains? And the other for fences. It was very, very sexual, clearly a type of paraphilia (not a sexual orientation, just a strange sexual obsession) .. The lady with the trains was like, sucking and licking the oil out of it's pipes and very clearly, er, getting off. She was also deeply emotionally attracted to it. And the fence lady.. well... you know.. she kind of sat on the, er, picket things and yeah, I'll stop there. Anyway, I don't know what they're talking about in that article, but I know that some people do get extreme sexual and emotional attraction to certain objects while being utterly unable to experience the same emotions for people. I don't know if these ladies were turning their fetishes into orientations, but yeah, they were clearly deeply sexually obsessed with these objects. It was so weird to watch T_T

 

urgh, wait I tried to find the vid, but I can only find Ethan and Hila's reaction to it and don't have time to search properly. It was amusement park rides, not trains, my bad. Supper funny and weird vid though lol

 

 

 

 

*shudder*

 

14 hours ago, flowerage said:

That's not a sexual orientation; that's a fetish. 

 

@Pan. I couldn't even get through this video (and now I feel like vomiting) but thank you for bringing this delightful bit of insight to us (I think I regret pressing play but that's okay) 

 

Umm, no, if there's an emotional connection and not just 'getting off' (as it is with the fence and theme park ride ladies), it's objectum sexuality which is an orientation. Of course the media is going to focus on the sexual part because 'Hey, hey! Look at these freaks! Click on our link!'.

 

Thank you for letting us know we're disgusting, because even though I'm not sexual I'm certainly objectum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

 

Umm, no, if there's an emotional connection and not just 'getting off' (as it is with the fence and theme park ride ladies), it's objectum sexuality which is an orientation. Of course the media is going to focus on the sexual part because 'Hey, hey! Look at these freaks! Click on our link!'.

 

Thank you for letting us know we're disgusting, because even though I'm not sexual I'm certainly objectum.

It's not the attraction itself that weirded me out, it was seeing them getting off with the things *shudder* I'm exactly the same seeing two people getting off like that together, or a person with a dildo haha. And these two ladies are definitely extreme, especially the theme park chick. If she was talking and acting the same way about, say, Brad Pitt, we'd still see her as odd (I would anyway) because she's clearly quite obsessed, it's not just that it's a theme park ride she's getting off on. The link was to illustrate that these people do exist, as some people were saying it's not possible to actually be sexually attracted to an object and were ridiculing the idea of it being an orientation. I wasn't sure if it was an orientation or not but that clip proves beyond a doubt that there are people who become emotionally and sexually attracted to objects. These ladies really are being creepy about it and I'd say the same if they were talking the same way about a "juicy penis" instead of a juicy pipe lol. Not saying people who have this type of attraction are disgusting though, just the way these two expressed it squicked me out. Sitting on the fence? (OW)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think object sexuality doesn't really apply in this case anyway. The concept of "ecosexuality" isn't an innate orientation or fetish - it's a political movement masquerading as a sexuality. The women in the article don't seem to experience any innate desire or attraction to the earth, but they present it as a sexuality in order to get people interested in environmental activism. That's my interpretation.

 

That said, I still think it's pretty silly...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies everyone. It's my own feeling that is more an attempt to create a new 'queer movement combining sex and ecology' as stated rather than something rooted in sexual orientation such as objectum or pansexuality.

 

On 16/05/2017 at 11:56 AM, Philip027 said:

But yeah, they're still kooks.  Marriage, as far as I'm concerned, is something that needs mutual feeling and consent to be valid.  Something the earth, the sun, the moon, the Great Wall of China, etc. all can't provide.

Yes, I found the issue of consent problematic too. Did the earth agree to that marriage? Did the grass agree to 'grassilingus'? Does that bit of woodland really want to be your 'e-spot'? I must admit the phrase 'water makes me wet' made me shudder a bit too.

 

On 18/05/2017 at 2:34 AM, Pan. said:

I didn't actually read the article (in a hurry) but I saw a documentary ages ago about two people with, er, extreme attraction towards certain objects. One lady had this thing for, I think, trains? And the other for fences. It was very, very sexual, clearly a type of paraphilia (not a sexual orientation, just a strange sexual obsession) .. The lady with the trains was like, sucking and licking the oil out of it's pipes and very clearly, er, getting off. She was also deeply emotionally attracted to it. And the fence lady.. well... you know.. she kind of sat on the, er, picket things and yeah, I'll stop there. Anyway, I don't know what they're talking about in that article, but I know that some people do get extreme sexual and emotional attraction to certain objects while being utterly unable to experience the same emotions for people. I don't know if these ladies were turning their fetishes into orientations, but yeah, they were clearly deeply sexually obsessed with these objects. It was so weird to watch T_T

*shudder*

This raises the consent issue for me again!

15 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

 

Umm, no, if there's an emotional connection and not just 'getting off' (as it is with the fence and theme park ride ladies), it's objectum sexuality which is an orientation. Of course the media is going to focus on the sexual part because 'Hey, hey! Look at these freaks! Click on our link!'.

 

Thank you for letting us know we're disgusting, because even though I'm not sexual I'm certainly objectum.

I'd be interested to hear more about the consent side in objectum sexuality. How does that work? As an animist I can understand having an emotional connection with a tree or plant or a stone and being able to communicate with them on a subconscious level, but well enough to get consent? When you say you're not sexual I guess your own connections are purely emotional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I must admit the phrase 'water makes me wet' made me shudder a bit too.

"Water is wet" is a snarky retort I like to use when someone points out something incredibly obvious.

 

It's right up there with "People die if they are killed" and "A surveillance camera?!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2017 at 4:51 AM, Lorna81 said:

I recently read this article on The Guardian on ecosexuality - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/15/nature-ecosexual-annie-sprinkle-porn-star-queer

 

 

 Oh please, these are just people looking for attention as "oh hey look we are inventing a new sexuality cuz..why not, Im bored, an science can back it up because plants have sex organs.." This reads more like an Ad than it does news.. and I suggest that woman get breast reduction surgery before she breaks her back humping a tree root..next

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know it's weird, sure.

But as someone who is romantically attracted to robots and other mechanical entities I'm not really in any place to judge. Honestly I don't see what they're doing as inherently harmful, the only thing that really bothers me is that it's...well it's sexual. Sexual stuff is something I still can't wrap my mind around when it comes to love. Beings and 'objects' I have feelings for...sex just doesn't enter the picture. But I am ace, so of course my feelings are a little different than the majority's.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now