This article states that objectiphiles are asexuals!

[Orbit]

So does this article mean that if you say you're 'asexual' the assumption is going to be that some object sexually arouses you?

I'm very, very uncomfortable with that notion, but it looks like at least one 'expert' is using the term 'asexual' to include any sexuality that doesn't involve another person. That seems WAY to broad to me...

So because the objectiphiles consider that they have relationships with objects just because they are sexually aroused by them, the sexologists concludes that asexuals are unable to have intimate meaningful relationships with other people...

Has he even visited this site to see that there are plenty of us who not just want intimate(but non-sexual) meaningful relationships with PEOPLE but that there are plenty of us who have them?

Very irritating...

OBJECTOPHILIA, FETISHISM AND NEO-SEXUALITY

Falling in Love with Things

By Frank Thadeusz

Some people love their laptops more than anything else in the world. Others are sexually aroused by musical instruments or buildings. Experts are trying to understand a bizarre sexual obsession known as objectophilia.

Sandy K.'s relationship to the Twin Towers is somewhat unusual.

Nov. 9, 1989 was a terrible day for Eija-Riita Eklöf-Mauer. A rampant horde stomped on her husband in Berlin, mauling him with hammers and tearing entire chunks out of his body. "With the emotional bonds, deep love, good memories together with him ... the only way to survive is to 'block' this terrible event," the traumatized Swedish woman wrote on her Web site years later.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Berlin resident Sandy K.'s beloved was publicaly executed on the streets of New York. The scenes and dates of the two crimes may be far apart, but what unites the two women is a strange and obscure obsession.

Back in 1979, Eklöf tied the knot with the Berlin Wall and legally changed her name to mark the occasion ("Mauer" means "Wall" in German). Ever since she was eight years old, Sandy K. was hopelessly in love with New York's Twin Towers. Neither of these two monumental lovers were known for being particularly talkative. Nor did they seem to be blessed with qualities of seduction. But to their admirers, the buildings were male, sexy and extremely desirable.

For 25-year-old Sandy, the attraction to things is so overpowering, she confesses: "When it comes to love, I am only attracted to objects. I couldn't imagine a love affair with a human being."

Her radical renunciation of love between two people didn't turn the young woman into a loner. She gained admission long ago to a circle of like-minded people, all of whom have devoted themselves to the love of things. They call themselves objectophiles or objectum-sexuals. Experts are now faced with the task of interpreting the phenomenon.

The retired professor and former director of Frankfurt University's Institute for Sexual Science, Volkmar Sigusch, is one person who believes he has unraveled the mysteries of objectophilia. He has extensively probed this attraction to objects as part of his research into various forms of modern "neo-sexuality." The sexologist views this inclination as proof of his hypothesis that society is increasingly drifting into asexuality: "More and more people either openly declare or can be seen to live without any intimate or trusting relationship with another person," Sigusch says, adding that cities are populated by an entire army of socially isolated individuals: "Singles, isolated people, cultural sodomites, many perverts and sex addicts."

Not Just Fetishists

"We're by no means just straightforward fetishists," Joachim A. insists, and he immediately explains the difference: "For some people, their car becomes a fetish which they use to put themselves in the limelight. For the objectum-sexual, on the other hand, the car itself -- and nothing else -- is the desired sexual partner, and all sexual fantasies and emotions are focused on it."

Joachim A. has been pretty faithful to his steam locomotive recently.

The 41-year-old recognized and accepted his inclination when he was just 12 years old. It was then that he fell head over heels "into an emotionally and physically very complex and deep relationship, which lasted for years." His partner back then was a Hammond organ -- he has now been in a steady relationship with a steam locomotive for several years. Since he is particularly aroused by the inner workings of technical objects, repair jobs have often led to infidelity in the past. "A love affair could very well begin with a broken radiator," the now monogamous lover says, remembering how his earlier affairs began.

Joachim gradually realized that "you can reveal yourself to an object partner in an intimate way, in a way that you would never reveal yourself to any other person." That includes the desire to "experience sexuality together," he adds.

No Limits to Erotic Experience

True, the outward shape of the lover can pose problems for the consummation of the partnership. But those problems are solved in a highly pragmatic way by most objectum-sexuals: Sandy K. had a model of the Twin Towers manufactured on a scale of 1:1,000. The façade consists of anodized aluminium, just like that of the original -- "so that the model feels true to life." The metal miniature has another tangible advantage: It doesn't rust when Sandy K. takes "a pleasant bath with it."

Apparently there are hardly any limits to the human capacity for erotic experience: "You snuggle together in bed," she explains, "which can be very exciting."

Psychology student Bill Rifka -- who is 35 and in a relationship with an iBook -- admits he has "often flirted with many a sweet laptop on eBay and felt true desire." Like all objectum-sexuals, Rifka also attributes a clear gender to his partner: "To me, my Mac is male. I'm living in a homosexual relationship, so to speak."

Bill Rifka shares his homoerotic inclination for objects with 41-year-old Doro B., who fell for a metal processing machine while at work and "immediately sensed a female presence." The machine has been enticing her with its "sweet hum" ever since. But sometimes it also makes Doro worry: "My sweetie had one of her tantrums and junked her measuring appliance," she noted fearfully in her online journal.

In everyday life, Doro has to limit her displays of affection "to pecking and caresses -- then it's not so bad if someone sees." When she's home and wants "more," she takes out a component or a model of her playmate. But, she adds, "that's not a substitute; it's more like a supplement. That's why it doesn't count as cheating. The model serves as a kind of fax machine that conveys my feelings to my beloved."

Sexologist Sigusch doesn't want to classify such odd behavior as pathological. "The objectophiles aren't hurting anyone. They're not abusing or traumatizing other people," he judges. And then he asks mildly: "Who else can you say that about?"

[KAGU143]

Interesting. :?

I think the author has jumped to some incorrect conclusions, but I also think that objectiphiles could fit part of AVEN's definition of asexuality.

-GB

[Orbit]

I also think that objectiphiles could fit part of AVEN's definition of asexuality.

What definition are you thinking about?

Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction.

Doesn't seem to me that it includes people who experience sexual attraction to (and want 'relationships' with) objects and things.

[Brodertun]

Of course since we weren't given the source we can't really do anything to show the readership that a large portion of asexuals break away from his defination.

Actually I'm willing to bet there is a good chance he doesn't know about the population currently identifying as asexual

[Orbit]

There's a link on the title of the article, I just forgot to put an underline on it like I usually do...

[Busrider]

During one of my rare visits there, I once spotted objectophiles on German AVEN.

Here I have already seen a broad variety of asexuals and can only identify with some of them. I really see no difference between "You aren't straight, so you must be gay" and "You aren't interested in humans so you must be objectophile"

Anyhow, since AVEN is already occasionally cooperating with GLBT, why shouldn't it end at GLBTAO a few decades from now until a small minority will have a forum because they consider themselves being something extremely weird and kinky as straigth vanilla sexuals?

As a minority we shouldn't bash others.

[GammaRays]

Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction

There is this possibility.

Asexual means a person who doesn't experience sexual attraction to the same or opposite sex. But maybe some Asexuals only experience sexual attraction to objects like musical instruments like the article suggests.

I am sure there are many forms of Asexuality as I am Asexual-Aromatic-Straight-Repulsed

An Asexual person may not be attracted to another person sexually but may be to an object that doesn't relate to a human being or animal. Just a plain ordinary everyday item

Anyone see my point? I know it is confusing.

[Orbit]

Objectiphilia is a version of sexuality, not a version of asexuality for the simple fact that there is sexual attraction present.

[mindlife]

"More and more people either openly declare or can be seen to live without any intimate or trusting relationship with another person," Sigusch says, adding that cities are populated by an entire army of socially isolated individuals: "Singles, isolated people, cultural sodomites, many perverts and sex addicts."

Cultural sodomites . . . what language. I never thought I'd hear that out of a scientific thinker.

No objectophiles are not asexuals, although there are bound to be some asexuals who are objectophiles.

We already concede that a number of asexuals, but not all asexuals, have fetishes, this is no different.

[Orbit]

We already concede that a number of asexuals, but not all asexuals, have fetishes, this is no different.

No 'we' don't concede - just a few of you do. ;)

There are degrees and shades of asexuality, and I doubt if many of us are 100% asexual... (I know I'm not)

So that's why many people who have sexual attraction from time to time or in ways that are different that the sexual majority may find they identify with asexuality.

However there is a HUGE difference between identifying with asexuality and folding strong and definable sexual attractions into the definition of asexuality.

In other words, objectiphila and fetishes belong at the TOP of the triangle, not at the bottom with asexuals. People who have these attractions can, however, decide how asexual they are by the strength of their sexual attraction to their fetish or object.

[mindlife]

It's not a matter of "we concede" really.

It's more like, "we have observed"

But this point should be answered by someone in this community who has a fetish or object-attraction.

There are several who have self-identified often.

[Orbit]

But this point should be answered by someone in this community who has a fetish or object-attraction.

I don't see how what someone is or isn't sexually attracted to would help as far as reacing a logical conclusion on if we should redefine asexuality or not...

Now, if you want a conclusion based on sympathy might be better presented by someone with something to lose if things don't go their way.

[mindlife]

Don't confound simple logic with experiential knowledge.

One is certainly not the other.

[mindlife]

Now, if you want a conclusion based on sympathy might be better presented by someone with something to lose if things don't go their way.

Even the simplest computer operates on logic.

Sympathy is something that makes humans higher, deeper, and better than what they create.

[Orbit]

Why don't you explain to me how someone who experiences sexual attraction can better help asexuals redefine what asexuality is...

[mindlife]

I'm not a fetishist.

I do know that fetishists often assert that what they do is not sexual.

[Orbit]

I do know that fetishists often assert that what they do is not sexual.

If you mean when some fetishists are romantically attracted to somethings and there is no sexual element, okay. And I can see some objectiphiles being romanticall attracted to rocks and walls and being asexual.

But, if you mean that some fetishists actually assert sexual attraction, arousal and sexually stimulating themselves with their fetish is not sexual, then I'd have to say that assertion is a contradiction. :?

[Neabsco]

I do know that fetishists often assert that what they do is not sexual.

How so?

I'm not trying to be contrary; I just want a better understanding.

[Octarine]

*looks around nervously*

I'm a fetishist and asexual. It's a fine line.

I'd say these people are not asexual because not only do they fall in love with objects, they want to have sex with them BECAUSE they are in love with them.

Asexual fetishists don't want to have sex with their fetishes, they don't fall in love with them. I don't think about my fetishes or have any sort of abnormal attraction to them except for when I'm masturbating. Otherwise, they're just objects. It's 100% physical. It's like getting a massage and the person pressing a bit harder or something.

There are some things I like a lot for no apparent reason. Fetishes aren't like that. It's not like an asexual building fetishist really likes buildings and learns about them and visits them all the time and then later becomes sexually attracted to them because they love them so much. Lots of asexuals can't connect how sex expresses love, neither can I. It's exactly the same with me. I wouldn't want to have sex with stuff I like at all, it doesn't make sense.

[Orbit]

Octarine, Why are you nervous about this? There is no need to connect asexuality with your fetish in order to feel validated in your sexuality/

I'm a fetishist and asexual. It's a fine line.

Not really, it's a graded shaded area... depending on how much you're attracted. The milder the attraction to your fetish and the less frequently it happens the lower down on the triangle you are. You can have your fetish and be asexual too, but if your sexual attraction to your fetish is a HUGE part of your life, as sex is to much sexuals, chances are you're sexual with a fetish.

I'd say these people are not asexual because not only do they fall in love with objects, they want to have sex with them BECAUSE they are in love with them.

What you are describing is romantic attraction combined with sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction does not need to be in love with whatever/whomever it is that is bringing on the sexual feelings - it's just sexual arousal or interest in sex within the body or mind brought on by whatever it is. The stronger and more frequent it is the more sexual you are...

Romantic attraction does not need to be sexually aroused or bring about sexual interest in the mind or body in order to 'fall in love'. There are a lot of asexuals who have romantic attraction, and many who don't have any. But they are two different and seperate attractions.

Asexual fetishists don't want to have sex with their fetishes, they don't fall in love with them. I don't think about my fetishes or have any sort of abnormal attraction to them except for when I'm masturbating. Otherwise, they're just objects. It's 100% physical. It's like getting a massage and the person pressing a bit harder or something.

Masterbation alone without ideas in your head is 100% physical. But if you need/want sexual arousal through thinking of something, whatever it is, you are sexually attracted to that thing. Again how MUCH you are attracted determines where in the shaded area of asexual you are...

[KAGU143]

I also think that objectiphiles could fit part of AVEN's definition of asexuality.

What definition are you thinking about?

Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction.

Doesn't seem to me that it includes people who experience sexual attraction to (and want 'relationships' with) objects and things.

The key modifying word was "part" of AVEN's definition.

I don't know any objectiphiles personally (that I'm aware of) but if they are not sexually attracted to either men or women or intersexed people or transexuals or any other kind of human being, then yes, I think they could go into the grey area along with others, like some fetishists, hyposexuals, and etc - if they wanted to.

I think they might face many of the same lonliness issues that can plague asexuals, so perhaps AVEN might help them find some non-judgemental and non-demanding friends?

I wouldn't have a problem with it if any objectiphiles showed up here, but I can only speak for myself with any degree of certainty.

I don't see how they could possibly belong at the top of the triangle, though, since that spectrum only encompasses very highly sexed/oversexed people ranging from 100% straight through bisexual and pansexual, to 100% gay.

-GB

[Orbit]

I don't see how they could possibly belong at the top of the triangle, though, since that spectrum only encompasses very highly sexed/oversexed people ranging from 100% straight through bisexual and pansexual, to 100% gay.

-GB

I didn't say 'they' belong at the top, I said 'objectiphilia' does... whomever they are would decide where along the spectrum of gray they belong based on how intense is their sexual attraction to their objects.

And none of what I've said here was ever intended to say objectiphiles or anyone else can't come here and discuss loneliness issues of not being able to have relationships with people who expect sex. I think it's fine even for full blown sexual people who are just sick our oversexed society to hang out, rant and what not.

That is not the issue for me at all.

And I also don't care who calls themselves asexual and who doesn't, that's personal.

All I'm doing is trying to protect the objective bottom of the triangle definition of asexual so it doesn't get muddied away from 'does not experience sexual attraction'.

[Kallan]

I agree with Orbit on this one. An Asexual, from a lingquistic point of view in the context of sexuality, would be a person without sexuality, in this case not having sexual desire or attraction. Objectophiles (most of whom apparently) have strong sexual desires related to their objects, would not be asexual (though I'm sure there are Objectophiles who do not have sexual desire and they would be asexual).

Now, back to objectophiles. Apparently they want to...

"experience sexuality together,"

This is flatly impossible, a non-living entity does not expereince anything. It does not have conscious thought, it does not have self-awareness, and it does not have senses, all of which are required in at least some degree to experience anything.

I know some people may not like this view but I think many of these people should seek some kind of mental health proffesional, they're intensely projecting desires and personalities onto inanimate objects. This could lead to further projecting of the persons own subconscious and unconscious desires. (I'm just thinking of people who go on killing spree's because they're corn flakes told them to).

[Octarine]

Octarine' date=' Why are you nervous about this? There is no need to connect asexuality with your fetish in order to feel validated in your sexuality/

[/quote']

Well, I'm talking about rather private stuff. :oops:

I'm a fetishist and asexual. It's a fine line.

Not really' date=' it's a graded shaded area... depending on how much you're attracted. The milder the attraction to your fetish and the less frequently it happens the lower down on the triangle you are. You can have your fetish and be asexual too, but if your sexual attraction to your fetish is a HUGE part of your life, as sex is to much sexuals, chances are you're sexual with a fetish.

I'd say these people are not asexual because not only do they fall in love with objects, they want to have sex with them BECAUSE they are in love with them.

What you are describing is romantic attraction combined with sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction does not need to be in love with whatever/whomever it is that is bringing on the sexual feelings - it's just sexual arousal or interest in sex within the body or mind brought on by whatever it is. The stronger and more frequent it is the more sexual you are...

Romantic attraction does not need to be sexually aroused or bring about sexual interest in the mind or body in order to 'fall in love'. There are a lot of asexuals who have romantic attraction, and many who don't have any. But they are two different and seperate attractions.

Asexual fetishists don't want to have sex with their fetishes, they don't fall in love with them. I don't think about my fetishes or have any sort of abnormal attraction to them except for when I'm masturbating. Otherwise, they're just objects. It's 100% physical. It's like getting a massage and the person pressing a bit harder or something.

Masterbation alone without ideas in your head is 100% physical. But if you need/want sexual arousal through thinking of something, whatever it is, you are sexually attracted to that thing. Again how MUCH you are attracted determines where in the shaded area of asexual you are...

I'd say you and I have different definitions of sexual attraction. Arousal is not sexual attraction in my mind. It's totally different. Arousal can be a really really small factor in sexual attraction as a whole. For most sexuals, it's not. But it is possible for it to be a 2 in 1,728. (Does that make any sense at all?)

I'd say that it's not how MUCH you are interested in a fetish, but HOW you are. If it's just a random thing for masturbating then, well, it's not sexual attraction. If you describe it as "falling in love," and because you are in love with it you want to have sex with it (that's how I define sexual attraction) then personally, I'd say then it is sexual attraction.

[Kallan]

I think masturbation is an inherently sexual act. It produces all the same bio-chemical reactions that sex does (though usually in smaller amounts). Though fetishes do not have to be sexual, they are if they are attatched to a sexual act (masturbation included).

[Orbit]

Arousal is not sexual attraction in my mind. It's totally different. Arousal can be a really really small factor in sexual attraction as a whole. For most sexuals, it's not. But it is possible for it to be a 2 in 1,728. (Does that make any sense at all?)

I would say I agree depending on how the arousal is taking place. If you are using some object to arouse yourself physically because it's a convenient shape to do the job, then yeah... that's not attraction, that's physical arousal through physical stimulation.

But if you are using some object to create the desire to masterbate within your mind... such as looking at it or fantasizing about it, IMO that type of non-touching arousal is attraction.

I'd say that it's not how MUCH you are interested in a fetish, but HOW you are. If it's just a random thing for masturbating then, well, it's not sexual attraction.

Hmmm.. we might be on the same page here... I await your response. :)

If you describe it as "falling in love," and because you are in love with it you want to have sex with it (that's how I define sexual attraction) then personally, I'd say then it is sexual attraction.

Here I have to disagree - neither arousal nor sexual attraction need a 'love' or romantic attraction to be present.

[Busrider]

:? :oops: I see a potential need to edit the AVEN wiki which says

"Attraction" in the context of AVEN means a mental or emotional force that draws people together

[Brodertun]

:? :oops: I see a potential need to edit the AVEN wiki which says

"Attraction" in the context of AVEN means a mental or emotional force that draws people together

actually I see a definate need to change that, because it implies you can only be attracted to someone who is drawn bafck to you. And I don't think any sane person would disagree when I say you can be attracted to someone who doesn't like you back, and i that case you and the object of your affection aren't being drawn together is a result of attraction

[andrew_w]

I am another asexual fetishist.

I definitely do not consider my fetish to be sexual ("pseudosexual" is the term that I use), even though I can sometimes get aroused from it and feel a sort of (non-romantic) attraction, because I never masturbate over my fetish or get any desire for sex or orgasm from it (I also lack a sex drive).

[Octarine]

I thought I replied to this a while ago. Whoops.

I think one of the main things about having a fetish without being sexually attracted to it is that I don't want to do anything with my fetish. Say there's someone who's attracted to... fish. They think about fish and become physically aroused. They might masturbate while thinking about fish. But they don't want to have sex with fish. As far as what they actually DO or want to do with fish goes, they are the same as anyone else. Does that make sense?