Jump to content

This article states that objectiphiles are asexuals!


Orbit

Recommended Posts

Hallucigenia
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?

Yeah, that makes sense - it's like the asexuals who have fantasies about people but would never carry them out. Except with fish instead of people. But that doesn't really describe the people in the article. :?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Yeah, that makes sense - it's like the asexuals who have fantasies about people but would never carry them out. Except with fish instead of people. But that doesn't really describe the people in the article. :?

Exactly. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the article doesnt even say anything about asexuality, but the "asexualising of society".

From what I have read and heard from Professor Sigusch, who gave this controversial quote in the text, he would very much support asexuals organising (probably because it helps out of isolation into trusting and intimate relationships of all sorts) and considers asexuality a legitimate orientation, a neosexuality. As far as I understood it, he claims that during the sexual revolution more and more "neosexualities" came visible with homosexuality being the first, then bisexuality,..., voyeurism/exhibitionism becoming more legitimate, then objectophilia, loving (non-sexual) relationships with animals starting to become institutionalized and finally asexuality being the most recent. All the sexualities, which happened to be declared pathological and pervert in the past get more and more accepted. And he thinks asexuality is going to be the last one and the sexual era comes to an end at the same time. That does not mean we would put an end to all the sex in the world ;) It just means that our existence questions the last of the remaining presuppositions - namely that no matter who or what or how many genders/items one is sexually attracted to, there *must* be sexual attraction. And to allow for questioning this just took a lot of time. Now there is nothing more in the sexual area which still needs visibility.

At the same time and in parallel society appears to become asexualized. No carneval has previously been as "asexual" (without actual sexual intercourse with a partner) as the love parade in Germany ;) Everybody inscenes him/herself as sexual, but the actual act loses more and more of its significance. People come out of the closet, who have "unpartnershipped" sex, eg. because they prefer objects, pornographic material, masturbation in parallel with their partners, have long-distance relationship etc. I would say "Asexuality" in the text means the separation of sex and a loving, human partner. So society can "be asexual", though none of its members is. Would this explain it?

From what I have learned when talking with objectophiles they themselves would not necessarily consider themselves asexual, but want their relationship with their special object be seen as legitimate loving (sexual) relationship. I hope an objectophile stumbles across this thread and corrects me here. We have some on the German forum, who posted they could identify as asexual with regards to humans, but not when it comes to their object. So it would be pretty much like: "I'm a heterosexual woman identifying as asexual towards other women, but not men". Consequently not necessarily an asexual here.

I would agree with Octarine here, that their is a difference if I perceive the item as a masturbation help like my hands or a phantasy would be or if I perceive the object as sex partner, a full-fledged individual who I feel sexually attracted to. In the first case my libido/arousal and I are alone with each other, in the latter I would perceive a partner, his/her/its state of being and strive for some sense of communion through the sexual act. The latter I would consider sexual attraction...

But after all thats not the question anymore. The article does not claim objectophiles would be asexuals, but that they contribute to the asexualizing of society. I would see more reason to protest about this on the side of objectophiles, who are implicated to be "socially isolated", just because their partner happens not to be human. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hallucigenia

Xaida, I like most of your post, but this confuses me.

Everybody inscenes him/herself as sexual, but the actual act loses more and more of its significance. People come out of the closet, who have "unpartnershipped" sex, eg. because they prefer objects, pornographic material, masturbation in parallel with their partners, have long-distance relationship etc. I would say "Asexuality" in the text means the separation of sex and a loving, human partner.

I dunno about the first couple things on the list, but masturbating in parallel with your partner (as opposed to having intercourse or whatever) doesn't stop them from being loving and human.

Neither does being in a long-distance relationship with them. I'm in a long-distance relationship, and I don't think it is any less loving or less human (or, come to think of it, less sexual) than it would be if we lived in the same town. Long-distance has many frustrations, of course, but not those ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thanks for liking it ;) Im really just dipping a toe into these shark-contaminated waters of critical sexual sciences - its really just sad :?

What I was trying to say up there is: by all these new lifestyles, choices of partners (things) and sexual practices society is just asexualizing, not that it is a-intimate or a-human. Sexual intercourse with a partner loses its significance and does not occur as often as generally assumed. Thats not necessarily something negative.

However, I completely agree with you, that when all of these phenomena are all of a sudden equated with social isolation and a lack of intimacy - like in the text - we need to dispute this with our own experiences. But thats not just a job for asexuals to do, but for all new lifestyles and identities that would constitute the "asexual" society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Brückendamen

Hello Xaida... I stumbled across this thread... and I am OS (Objectum-Sexual/Objectophile) and I love your post!

From what I have learned when talking with objectophiles they themselves would not necessarily consider themselves asexual, but want their relationship with their special object be seen as legitimate loving (sexual) relationship. I hope an objectophile stumbles across this thread and corrects me here.

No need to correct you. I can identify with asexuals in regards to human sexuality matters... but indeed... I do have sexual feelings for my lover... So, as I see it, I am not asexual.

I would see more reason to protest about this on the side of objectophiles, who are implicated to be "socially isolated", just because their partner happens not to be human.

I have already written a letter to the editor of der Spiegel.

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.

Thank you. It is nice to find a group of like-minded individuals in that regard. :D

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).

Flatly impossible? Gee, that's not what my cornflakes told me... :o I guess all these wonderful feelings I have had... well... let's think... ALL of my life... they never existed. So... I guess I am supposed to be alone and unhappy because my lover doesn't fit some mold. Oh what's that again? ... Who am I hurting by loving an Object? Oh, that's right! ... NO ONE ...

Now excuse me while I go chat with a shrink about them talking cornflakes. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
ConspiracyDawg

This is just a really srange thought that hit me, has anyone considered the possibility of asexual objectophiles (ie. they really love their vacuum cleaner, but not, let's say, THAT way).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hallucigenia
This is just a really srange thought that hit me, has anyone considered the possibility of asexual objectophiles (ie. they really love their vacuum cleaner, but not, let's say, THAT way).

You mean people who are romantically but not sexually attracted to objects?

It could happen, I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Oh goody, semantics. :D (No really, I love this stuff.)

Homosexual = sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Not to identical people, objects or anything else. Even though homo means 'same', in this context, just the biological sex of the object of attraction is referred to. It’s possible to be homosexual and ‘attracted’ to many things other than members of the same sex, such as objects, yet these are ignored in the definition of the word, presumably because attraction to particular sexes is, in our culture, the most important and influential over our lives and the one worth mentioning in most contexts.

The same principle applies to the words heterosexual, bisexual and pansexual. Bi means ‘both’; both of what? Once again, both sexes. Pan means ‘all’; not all things under the sun, just all variations of the supposedly ‘two’ sexes. So why would ‘asexual’ (‘a’ meaning ‘not’) refer to anything other than biological sex? It would be linguistically inconsistent, and if there’s one thing that really irks me, it’s linguistic inconsistency. :x :wink: The same is true of the people who decide on official definitions for a living. As grateful as I am to David Jay for all he’s done, he is not, to my knowledge, qualified to be the authority on ‘official’ new definitions outside of his own website. Within that created space, it makes sense for us to speak the same language, but outside of it, the front page of a website does not hold much lexicographical weight, or else the non-libidoist movement might have set up quite a dilemma for those who'll ultimately decide.

Anyway, I question that what fetishists experience is 'sexual attraction'. There is no dictionary definition that I've found, but as with other terms involving the word 'sexual' (apart from, confusingly, 'sexual arousal', which refers to the reproductive organs of the individual experiencing it), most people associate it with what is felt towards people. E.g., Wikipedia (I know, I know, poor source, but I couldn't find it defined anywhere else) claims that:

In a species that reproduces sexually, sexual attraction is an attraction to other members of the same species for sexual or erotic activity.

Fetishes involve arousal of the sex or reproductive organs, but are in no way related to the biological sex of or sexual interaction with other people, and so are not classed by lay-people, in my experience, as 'sexual attraction'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

I know this is old but as an asexual and a fetishist I must let this be know. Like it has been stated, a fetish is not about sexual orientation as anyone can have a fetish. I mean if a bi sexual had a pants fetish they are still bisexual. The difference lies in the interest of the fetish and the person wearing/doing the fetish. An asexual will not find the person wearing the pants seuxlaly arousing but instead find the pants itself arousing. Of course some would argue that since an asexual can get aroused by something then they cannot be asexual. This is hogwash as being able to get aroused has nothing to do with not being asexual. Being asexual means you cannot find any gender sexually arousing and that sex is mostly undesirable. I still have plenty of fetishes, but I am still very asexual as I definately do not find people arousing,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stumbled upon this as Myron has 'bumped' the thread... :)

Maybe it's a case of inaccurate translation and misinterpretation? As Xaida has stated above, Prof. Sigusch is known to be supportive of asexuals and other 'sexual minorities'; he seems to be generally open-minded. I've read part of his publications and my impression of Prof. Sigusch was quite positive. He is a renowned scientist and although that doesn't necessarily add weight to the 'truth about asexuality', I was glad to find such an eminent professor supportive of asexuality.

By the way, I know he showed up on the map of ace-friendly doctors and therapists but unfortunately, that map doesn't exist anymore :( At least not under the link given...

Edited by unicorn3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Violet_Loves_Iliona

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).

While I completely respect your right to your fetish, and don't judge you in any way for it, for the life of me, I cannot understand how a fetish can be anything other than sexual.

If your fetish is, say, high heels, then you are sexually attracted to high heels, therefore you are a sexual person rather than an ace. If your fetish is (in the case of objectiphiles (or objectumsexuals as I they prefer to be called according to a documentary I saw about it), these people are sexually attracted to objects, therefore they experience sexual attraction.

So, objectumsexuals are definitely not in any way asexual, and could be grey-A no more or less than heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals.

Now, getting back to fetishism generally, I'm curious to hear a response from any fetishist who believes they are asexual.

Violet 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Violet_Loves_Iliona
Anyway, I question that what fetishists experience is 'sexual attraction'. There is no dictionary definition that I've found, but as with other terms involving the word 'sexual' (apart from, confusingly, 'sexual arousal', which refers to the reproductive organs of the individual experiencing it), most people associate it with what is felt towards people. E.g., Wikipedia (I know, I know, poor source, but I couldn't find it defined anywhere else) claims that:

In a species that reproduces sexually, sexual attraction is an attraction to other members of the same species for sexual or erotic activity.

Fetishes involve arousal of the sex or reproductive organs, but are in no way related to the biological sex of or sexual interaction with other people, and so are not classed by lay-people, in my experience, as 'sexual attraction'.

Umm... no.

No. way, whether you're sexually attracted to a person, or whether you're sexually attracted to pebbles on the ground, either way, you're still sexually attracted to something or someone. If looking at a man makes you sexually aroused, then you're sexually attracted to men. If looking at pebbles makes you sexually aroused, then you're sexually attracted to pebbles. Fetishism is most definitely sexual attraction, if the attraction is sexual. What the object of your affection actually is, is immaterial to the fact that you are sexually attracted to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. way, whether you're sexually attracted to a person, or whether you're sexually attracted to pebbles on the ground, either way, you're still sexually attracted to something or someone. If looking at a man makes you sexually aroused, then you're sexually attracted to men. If looking at pebbles makes you sexually aroused, then you're sexually attracted to pebbles. Fetishism is most definitely sexual attraction, if the attraction is sexual. What the object of your affection actually is, is immaterial to the fact that you are sexually attracted to it.

And how are you going to have sex with a pebble? Sexual attraction means you want to have sex with a particular person or persons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
geek-in-a-half-shell

Objectophilia?

I think I have that..

I'm attracted to women.

ZING!

Those kooky sex-therapists. They seem to have something against us asexuals, don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Violet_Loves_Iliona

No. way, whether you're sexually attracted to a person, or whether you're sexually attracted to pebbles on the ground, either way, you're still sexually attracted to something or someone. If looking at a man makes you sexually aroused, then you're sexually attracted to men. If looking at pebbles makes you sexually aroused, then you're sexually attracted to pebbles. Fetishism is most definitely sexual attraction, if the attraction is sexual. What the object of your affection actually is, is immaterial to the fact that you are sexually attracted to it.

And how are you going to have sex with a pebble? Sexual attraction means you want to have sex with a particular person or persons.

No, that is sexual behaviour, not sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction means you get sexually aroused by something or someone, so it is theoretically possible for a sexual to be sexually attracted to pebbles. Asexuality means you don't experience sexual attraction, not that you feel sexual attraction but deny yourself - that is celibacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

An Asexual has no sexual attraction towards other people or sex. Fetishes is not included in that definition. If you really want to be picky about what an a asexual is, then one could argue that any asexual interested in a relationship cannot be asexual. Even if it is sexless, there is still an attraction towards another person regardless if it is romantic or sexual. There must be a latent sexuality lieing inside.

I can understand you find it hard to fathom how a person can be a fetishist and an asexual if you are not one yourself. But an asexual is someone who has no desire for sex or sexual attraction towards another person. Not someone who cannot experience any form of sexual pleasure. That is like saying if you have a sex drive you cannot be asexual, just absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...