Talk:Object sexuality

Desires

Hello, I would just like to say that objectum sexuality should not be merged with sexual fetishism as it is a sexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.166.154 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. There is a great article on the German Wikipedia adressing the topic of Objectùm-sexuality Objecktophil and I am trying to share this information in English. I am unfamiliar with the guidelines but do not wish to see this article deleted as Objectùm-sexuality is becoming increasingly prevelent in the media in recent days. I would like to see an authoritive definition that may help alleviate the confusion Objectùm-sexuality is getting on the internet. Objectùm-sexuality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berliner Mauer (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, the example of Babylonia Aivaz toward the bottom of the article should not be included. The marriage was a form of protest - a stunt, more or less - and unintentionally belittles the sexuality when used as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.92.41 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think OS is my thing

because I love Wikipedia. Protector one (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Um. 136.176.105.115 (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Objectophilia

The only reference I can find to this word is Bicycling magazine for May 2008, page 73. Anything better out there? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this article not linked to other sexual themes

It doesn't seem like this is linked to other sexual themes. maybe it can be added to the sex portal.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:OSI Logo avi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OSI Logo avi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:OSI Logo avi.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Object Sexuality

Must I really make an argument? This is crazier than crazy, exactly how is this any more than some lonely wierdo's joke?

'Sexual attraction to objects'

Can you really suspend disbelief, and deny Common-sense to such a degree? - Can you really go this far with this post-modernism?

No, don't merge this page, delete it and forget about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 (talk • contribs)

It's not up to Wikipedia to decide what is crazy and/or crazier-than-crazy, only to catalog things that exist and are notable. The publicity of Erica Eiffel combined with an actual academic paper on the subject makes it notable on its face, regardless of any opinions about it. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Calling someone crazy shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. Object sexuality is a legitimate orientation, and you clearly have a bias against objectosexuals, which makes you not very good of a Wikipedian according to the Wikipedia standards against bias. 2601:98A:400:82F8:DC53:55CE:88CF:3B74 (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

categorization

being a person in the os/or (objectumsexual/object sexuality/object romanticism) community, this article shouldn't be connected to sexual fetishism/paraphilias. its not only incorrect, but kind of rude for objectumsexuality to be put into the same vein as bdsm, infantalism, pedophilia, and cuckolding. Autipsyc (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

So you're the IP seen here and here. Look at the Sexual fetishism article. Object sexuality is a sexual fetish. And a sexual fetish is not always a bad thing. It's a sexuality, but it is not an official sexual orientation. The only reason that it is in Category:Sexual orientation is because of this section. And I see no valid reason that it should be in Category:LGBT, the category you kept putting it in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

'a form of sexual behavior in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, activity, part of the body, etc.' definition of fetish from google. 'Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual fixation on a nonliving object or nongenital body part.' wikipedia definition of sexual fetishism.

Object sexuality is defined as such: 'Object sexuality or objectophilia is a form of sexuality focused on particular inanimate objects. Those individuals with this expressed preference may feel strong feelings of attraction, love, and commitment to certain items or structures of their fixation.'

It's not the same thing, mostly because objectumsexuality isn't based in sexual gratification. And I wasn't just putting it in lgbt, i was take it out of 'sexual fetishism' because its not a sexual fetish. I would suggest looking at this pdf that explain the difference (well enough). All i'm really saying is that our relationships shouldn't be seen as a fetish. Autipsyc (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

edit- this is from the os internationale website.

Is OS a fetish?

No, objectum-sexuality is not a fetish. While a fetishist must have their desired object present as a catalyst to achieve sexual gratification, the love for our object is not based on a habitual psychosexual response. It is the object that captivates us on many more levels besides sexual arousal. Fetishists do not see the object as animate as we do and therefore do not commence to develop a loving relationship with the object. Autipsyc (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal websites are not WP:Reliable sources, and objectum-sexuality.org is included in that. Wikipedia articles are not WP:Reliable sources. See what the WP:Reliable sources guideline states. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be supported by WP:Reliable sources. I pointed to the Sexual fetishism article so that you would perhaps look at some of its sources. The definition you gave for object sexuality (the introduction definition in the Object sexuality article) is currently not supported by a WP:Reliable source. There's not a lot sources on this topic -- object sexuality -- no matter what term is used for it. I do see that some sources note paraphilia in relation to this topic, but I also came across the following: This 2014 "The Expression of Inequality in Interaction: Power, dominance, and status" source, from John Benjamins Publishing Company, page 243, states, "Various forms of sexual fetishism have been documented (for a linguistic study on this topic, see Wilson 2012). However, what distinguishes a sexual fetish from objectophilia is that objectum sexuals do not just see their desired objects as toys for achieving temporal sexual gratification but rather as long-term partners with whom/which they feel deeply and romantically united. It is not surprising that the wider public has tended to view objectophilia as a paraphilia or pathology, often evoking a sexual trauma as a cause, which is a commonly understood as the reason why objectophiles turn from human beings to inanimate objects when searching for emotional or sexual satisfaction."

Pinging James Cantor for his thoughts on this.

As for the LGBT category, you did add this article to that category. Look this revert, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, folks. Happy to share whatever I can, but there isn't really much on this at all. There exist a few scattered cases, and there isn't any consensus on what such cases represent, if anything. It is quite possible that (some) cases are paraphilias, some are Autism/Asperger's symptoms, and some are personality disorders. Although they get discussed together because they can look similar to each other from the outside, there is no evidence by which anyone can declare what it IS or ISN'T. I hope that's a help. — James Cantor (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, James Cantor, like I noted above, I don't see much on this either. I guess the editor can feel free to remove Template:Sex fetish and Category:Sexual fetishism, but such categories do not always mean that the topic is exactly that. Sometimes a category is purely for related/navigational purposes. I mentioned Category:Sexual orientation above, for example. This article is currently in that category even though object sexuality is not an official sexual orientation. I'm not sure that the editor should re-add Template:Sexual identities. Object sexuality does not belong on that template, which is why I reverted inclusion of it there. And the sexual fetishism and paraphilia "See also" links should remain, per WP:See also. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: An editor recently removed the sexual orientation category. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)