« Mermaid in a Burka | Main | Great Global Warming Swindle Back on YouTube »
May 21, 2007
Objectophiles Take the Next Step in Sexual Deviancy
It's time to expand our hierarchical legal system to make room for yet another protected caste: helpless victims of objectophilia.
Eija-Riita Eklöf-Mauer has a bad case of it. Her name was Eklöf before she got married. "Mauer" means "wall" in German. Eija-Riita is married to the Berlin Wall.
Fellow Berliner Sandy K. is in love with the World Trade Center. She consummates her amorous relationship with skyscrapers that no longer exist by taking 1:1,000 scale models of the Twin Towers into the bathtub with her. Sandy reports that the fun doesn't stop there:
You snuggle together in bed, which can be very exciting.
She says she couldn't imagine a love affair with a human being. Not that she doesn't have friends. She's part of a whole community of objectophiles, aka objectum-sexuals. They are not mere fetishists, because the objects they obsess over do not accentuate but actually are the focus of their sexual desires and emotional yearnings.
Volkmar Sigusch of Frankfurt University's Institute for Sexual Science, an expert in "neo-sexuality," doesn't want to discriminate by calling objectophilia pathological. He's found the root of the phenomenon:
More and more people either openly declare or can be seen to live without any intimate or trusting relationship with another person.
Joachim A., who had "an emotionally and physically very complex and deep relationship, which lasted for years" with a Hammond organ, and whose significant other is now a toy train, would probably agree:
[Y]ou can reveal yourself to an object partner in an intimate way, in a way that you would never reveal yourself to any other person.
Joachim likes how he and his inanimate love interests can "experience sexuality together."
Pushing the perversion further still, Bill Rifka's significant other is a same-sex iBook:
To me, my Mac is male. I'm living in a homosexual relationship, so to speak.
The vacuum created by the encroaching death by moonbattery of sexual morality and the traditional family has sucked us to the very bottom. Our hollow deviancy can't be defined downward any further.
On a tip from V the K.
Posted by Van Helsing at May 21, 2007 8:17 PM
Comments
It's true. "once you go Mac, you never go back"
Posted by: fellowes at May 21, 2007 8:31 PM
Frickin sick
Posted by: ToddonCapeCod at May 22, 2007 2:20 AM
Seriously, why is it that you are so obssessed with what turns other people on? So obsessed with what people do in the privacy of their own homes? No one is being hurt here. You are like some sick voyuer. Next you'll want a peak into my bedroom to makes sure I'm doing it "the right way" in the positions you find acceptable. i think you are the one with the problem....
Posted by: westerberg at May 22, 2007 2:51 AM
We obsessed because it's a way to get government funds to treat this. Every single thing in the world is deviancy--all hail diversity! If we're all sick then we all need treatment and I think that I should be the Treatment Czar.
My offices will be bigger than Condi Rice's, and I'll have all that lovely money. My lord, don't you see it? We can advance sensitivity seminars, and coercive ones at that, for objectophiles. And for people who sit in outhouse basements with cameras. My lord and I thought that I was a bit strange, but all I did was take men to bed with me.
But I have a question. If a man takes the WTC to bed with him, is that latent homosexuality and would that be a two-fer?
Posted by: Theocritus at May 22, 2007 5:04 AM
I'm a polygamistic objectophile.
I love my Beretta, my Wingmaster, my Model 94, and my S&W Mod 27 all equally.
But I'm not kinky - I only sleep with one at a time.
Posted by: Jimbo at May 22, 2007 6:34 AM
Remember the good old days when 'moonbat' was just a political epithet?
Posted by: ChenZhen at May 22, 2007 7:29 AM
"More and more people either openly declare or can be seen to live without any intimate or trusting relationship with another person."
We used to call them sociopaths.
Posted by: phil at May 22, 2007 9:31 AM
So obsessed with what people do in the privacy of their own homes? No one is being hurt here.
No one is hurt by necrophilia, either. So is that OK now too?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 22, 2007 10:18 AM
Well the family of the deceased victim of necrophilia might be hurt by it.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 22, 2007 11:10 AM
I "love" mint chocolate chip icecream, but I don't want to MARRY it. Is that so wrong?
Posted by: KHarn at May 22, 2007 11:44 AM
Well the family of the deceased victim of necrophilia might be hurt by it.
Silly argument. By that standard one could again ban miscegenation because it might hurt the feelings of relatives of the participants.
Furthermore, at what degree of relation does a family member lose his say? Should a person who is contemplating an encounter have to poll his family to determine whether or not they approve, to determine whether or not it is acceptable?
Sheeesh. Think before you post.
The point is that some practices (e.g., homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, pedophilia) are intrinsically repugnant, in contradistinction to the moronic New Age-type standard of "if it feels good, and doesn't hurt anyone, do it."
Here's a bonus question: if you steal from someone who doesn't realize that you've done so, have you committed a wrong?
I think you get the idea.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 22, 2007 6:10 PM
i don't know what to say.
Posted by: nanc at May 23, 2007 5:54 AM
What's freakier, the freaks who are in love with objects or the freaks who come on here to defend them.
I can't imagine ever worrying about what one of those freaks says in reply to this.
Posted by: NudeGayWhalesForJesus at May 24, 2007 2:41 PM
