Kimi W. sent me the documentary “Married to the Eiffel Tower” (originally found at Mental Floss) which documents objectum-sexuals, or people who have relationships with inanimate objects.
[vimeo]https://vimeo.com/19783541[/vimeo]
I find this just fascinating, particularly the way most of the individuals describe the inanimate objects in insistently gendered language–they may be taking part in an unusual type of sexuality, but it is generally a specifically heterosexual one. (A couple of commenters pointed out that the Eiffel Tower was referred to as she, but most of the objects are described as he.)
I don’t quite know what to make of the fact that these are women who express some discomfort or dissatisfaction with men and/or sex. Given the small number of people interviewed, that may just be a fluke rather than a tendency among objectum-sexuals (I have no idea what proportion are male and female, have or haven’t had sex with humans at some point, etc.). I suspect most people will watch the video and just conclude that they are crazy women with emotional issues who pick often phallic-shaped objects to create elaborate sexual fantasies around. I mean, I teach all about sexualities and social constructions of “normal” and “abnormal” and all, and my first reaction was still “Uh, WTF???” Among other things, in several sections of the documentary the women just seem really sad and lost, particularly when the one talks about childhood sexual abuse, family dysfunction, and so on.
The videos might be useful for talking about the medicalization and regulation of sexuality–who gets to define what types of sexualities are “normal” or healthy? Do these women need mental health treatment? Are they hurting anyone? Is it the fact that they are turned on by physical objects or that they claim to love them in a deeply romantic way that is most disconcerting, and why? Are we partly uncomfortable that women are speaking so openly about sexual desire and having orgasms as a result of being around or thinking about objects? Are these women having “real sex” with the objects they love? By what definition?
Thanks, Kimi!
Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.
Comments 12
anna — February 13, 2009
yes! i saw this in december and have been thinking about it since. what is most interesting to me is how (i think) all the reported "Cases" of this are female...
Anonymous — February 13, 2009
"it is a specifically heterosexual one"
The Eiffel Tower was called a she.
ldl — February 13, 2009
The Eiffel tower may be phallic, but, as the above comment notes, it is a "she." Also, the Berlin Wall, apparently a popular lover, is not (in my eyes phallic). But this brings up an interesting observation: these women all seem to be polyamorous; they have multiple lovers, and do not seem bothered by sharing their lovers (like the Berlin Wall) with one another.
Ash — February 14, 2009
I saw something about this a few months ago on TV. While this video claims all known objectum sexuals are female, I seem to remember seeing a few cases where men had loving, sexual relationships with objects as well, in one case a car and in another an airplane. I wish I remembered where I saw this video, but I doubt I'll be able to remember. Does it ring a bell to anyone?
ms liberty — February 14, 2009
For me, the definition of a healthy attraction is one in which both parties can set boundaries - that's why pressuring for sex with outside powers, sex with children, et cetera are wrongedy wrong wrong. Now, I wouldn't say these women are hurting anyone, because I personally don't believe their fences have personalities. But - for example - when Nischa (sp?) just traipses up to that red fence she finds by the 1001 Nacht and starts getting hot and heavy with it, is the fence really into it?
Her argument would probably be that since it's about exchanging energy, the fence has to be into it for it to work. But I'm not so sure. Most people with alternative sexualities don't even have as many partners simultaneously as these women do. And that's what leads me to think this is probably about wish-fulfillment.
But hey, if more people with messed-up pasts fulfilled their wishes this way instead of inflicting them on others in horrible relationships, the world would be a much more sexually healthy place.,.!
Tyrone — February 14, 2009
Ok, I actually did think this was a comedy sketch at first. It made me think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zu0vAMkpag
Joan of Archetype — February 14, 2009
Yeah, as far as sexual relationships I tend to base my acceptance/rejection on consent.
Like sex with an animal is wrong(imo) for the simple reason that an animal cannot give consent.
So I don't know what to think of this.. the objects can't consent, and yet, I don't believe they are beings in the first place, so.. is it hurting anyone?
Because I equate getting consent with being sure not to hurt others..
thoughtcounts Z — February 15, 2009
Wow, this video challenges so many assumptions. I'm still trying to get over the WTF factor, but I do see so many interesting questions being raised. I was surprised by the apparent promiscuity, despite these women being deeply in love with other objects over the long term. (ms liberty mentions this as well, above.)
To those of you worried about consent, I'm curious what you think about people using sex toys. That is arguably a sexual relationship with an object. Is it only acceptable if no one says "I love you"? That seems a little bit backward in terms of what a "bad" or "wrong" relationship looks like.
cakey — February 15, 2009
wow. that's hot.
jks. Im also quite confused by the fact that they have multiple sexual partners at one time, and are more than one OS 'sufferer' married to the same object? And what is the legitimacy of these marriages?
Quite confusing, but as someone said earlier, if it doesn't hurt anyone, why not?
Fernando — February 15, 2009
I won't say that they NEED psychological therapy, but I'll say that if they want to seek any help, there should be someone qualified to help them.
ldl — February 16, 2009
re: promiscuity and legitimacy of multiple marriages. Would you take these women more seriously if they we in monogamous relationships?
victoria — March 1, 2009
I found this programme really disturbing but feel very sorry for the woman involved,people say they do this as they are scared of being hurt by people if they have a realtionship with a person,but then the programmes says that amy was rejected by the church and people who knew about her and also ridiculed shouldn,t this show them that no matter what you do or who you love you will suffer rejection and ridicule at some time,i think these people need some kind of counselling