From the Civilization Where “Marriage” Means Anything

Weird semi-female who seems like a washout for the lead in “It’s Pat” wants to marry roller coaster.  We’re all expected to pretend that’s not weird or anything.  Because “marriage” is now a word that means whatever anybody says it means to them.

Which is another way of saying “marriage” means nothing.

A civilization in which the family means nothing is a civilization that will soon be dead.

Cue jokes about relationships having a lot of ups and downs.

"“Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, ‘If you could only ..."

Not coincidentally….
"No. I used "God-damned" with exacting theological precision to refer to God-damned sins, not sinners. ..."

Not coincidentally….
"Robert Woodman is claiming that Mark has been cursing and using God's name in vain ..."

Not coincidentally….
"So much for hating the sin and loving the sinner. Boy was Augustine dumb."

Not coincidentally….

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Thomas Boynton Tucker

    Holy cow. I can’t tell from reading this if it’s satire or not. It’s giving me vertigo.

  • LSpinelli

    Speaking of “It’s Pat”, SNL couldn’t get away with that in 2013. Some random genderqueer (the concept of which still eludes me) somewhere would be offended!

  • wlinden

    This assumes that the Telegraph is any more trustworthy on this than when it reports on “TheVatican”.
    “The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country should be run by another country, and the Telegraph is read by the people who think it already is.”

  • Pavel Chichikov


  • Edith Stein
  • “Semi-female”? Way to be a jackass, Mark.

  • lavallette

    Get with the message Mark: “All you need is Love (lurve)”

  • Rebecca Fuentes

    If they adopt and later divorce, will the roller coaster get visitation rights?

  • Rosemarie


    I hope it is satire. Unfortunately, the whole objectum séxuality thing is very real. There was a time when these people would have been considered mentally ill and given treatment. Now, because some psychologists have apparently decided that nothing séxual is abnormal in any way, they are told it is an “orientation” and encouraged to carry on with the delusion that an inanimate object can love them back or even respond to them “séxually.”

    A cable show called “My Strange Addiction” recently featured a guy who is in love with his car. Now, most people who appear on that show are told that their behavior is dangerous and encouraged to quit doing it (like if they’re eating cat food or huffing moth ball fumes). But this guy was brought to a psychologist who said he was A-okay, just objectum séxuality, nothing wrong with it whatsoever. This despite the fact that the guy really believes that his car *responds* to him!

    One of the creepier scenes shows him stroking part of the car and seductively saying something like, “Oh yeah, you like that…” Normally, if someone talks to an inanimate object and thinks it responds to him, a psychologist will suspect mental illness. But, apparently, if you talk *dirty* to an inanimate object and think it responds to you, you’re perfectly normal..

    Stop the world, I want to get off.

    • Patrick J Loveless

      Oh my God… has this world just gone insane, or what? It’s as scary as it is bloody hilarious.

      • Rosemarie


        Sometimes it does seem as though the world has gone insane. That’s why we can’t figure out whether this article is real or satire. Some elements of today’s culture are beyond parody.

        • kenofken

          I think most of you have a vested interest in not finding out whether its real or satire. You’re quite heavily invested in the idea that gay tolerance and marriage are slippery slopes to madness, and you don’t want to risk losing a story, however unlikely, that might support that narrative.

          • Rosemarie


            Like I said, whether this particular story is satire or not doesn’t change the fact that there really *are* people out there claiming to have a sexual orientation toward inanimate objects. And there really are psychologists that agree and are helping them try to get “objectum séxuality” recognized as perfectly normal and natural.

            So this story is not “unlikely” at all. It could very well be true. If “objectum séxuality” demonstrates that acceptance of homosexual behavior and “marriage” is a slippery slope, then I’d say the narrative is already well supported regardless of the truth of this particular story.

            However, even apart from its connection to acceptance of homosexuality, the whole “objectum séxuality” thing bothers me on another level. These people are obviously delusional, thinking that an inanimate object can experience and return their affections, and even get aroused by their behavior. Yet some psychologists are happy to let them live with their delusions for the sake of “tolerance” of “sexual diversity.” Rather than try to treat mental illness – which I thought was the purpose of psychology – some counselors are encouraging it. That’s disturbing.

            • kenofken

              Can you cite any evidence that psychiatric professionals are endorsing truly delusional behavior? There appear to be a tiny handful of these people who claim romantic involvement with objects, and I find mention of exactly one person, Amy Marsh who is advocating that object sexuality be defined as an “orientation.” She hardly seems to be a heavyweight representative of the psychiatric profession.

              The credentials I see are “clinical sexologist” and hypnotherapist, and the study concerning the matter was published in an online journal run by an unaccredited for-profit institution. I don’t think that translates to a widespread phenomenon of acceptance or any link whatsoever to homosexuality. There is very little solid research on object sexuality as it is vanishingly rare. They have virtually no ideas on how it might be treated. In general, modern psychiatry doesn’t define fetishes as disorders unless they cause distress to the individual or harm to others.

              • Rosemarie


                When modern psychiatry first accepted homosexuality in the early 1970s, that acceptance wasn’t a “widespread phenomenon” – yet. Look at how things are now, just forty years later. These things take time. Give objectum sexuality four decades.

                It’s obvious that these people are taking a page from the gay rights playbook. Insist your feelings and urges are perfectly normal, call yourself a “sexual minority,” demand understanding, tolerance, acceptance. The link is clear; they’re doing what gay activists did and succeeded at..

                >>>In general, modern psychiatry doesn’t define fetishes as disorders unless they cause distress to the individual or harm to others.

                Which is part of the normalizing of sexual deviancy that’s going on in modern psychiatry. Even with pedophilia, some are arguing that there’s nothing wrong with it as long as the pedophile doesn’t feel bad about it and doesn’t hurt a child. Yet there is still something wrong with it. And there is something wrong with objectophilia as well, if these people actually believe that an object loves and responds to them and they have zero interest in relationships with other people. There’s something very wrong there.

                • kenofken

                  Gay activists succeeded because medical science has never come up with any credible evidence that homosexuality is a disorder in the scientific sense of the word.

                  Objectum sexuality has had next to no study. Clearly, it diminishes the capability of these people to truly experience some forms of human intimacy and to participate in that give and take of romantic relationships (which gays can do).

                  On the other hand, if they’re not unhappy about that, what do you propose we do? We can’t even keep up with the people who have disorders we know how to treat who are imminent dangers to themselves and others. We can’t even get a consensus in this country to not sell firearms to psychotics.

                  Do you have the time and money to run down the world’s few dozen people who want to marry their cars and fix them against their will? I sure don’t. Nor do I see any real threat to the body politic from their unchecked “deviancy.” I just don’t see a lot of folks abandoning their human partners to date inanimate objects because we failed to maintain a stigma. I don’t even see it playing into the marriage debate. Whether we indulge their beliefs or not, an inanimate object is not a person under contract law or the law as a whole. We should try to study these people to figure out what’s going on with their wiring, and to see how many, if any, actually have this inclination/disorder versus those who are just attention-seeking performance artists and social media junkies.

                  • Rosemarie


                    Gay activists initially succeeded because they protested and disrupted the APA’s 1970 and 1971 annual meetings, as well as other medical meetings, loudly demanding that the DSM be changed. When the change was finally made, it was more for political reasons than scientific ones.

                    But what if medical science never comes up with any credible evidence that Objectum sexuality is a disorder in the scientific sense of the word? Then should we accept it? There is truth beyond what science can discover; just because “medical science” can’t say that something is disordered doesn’t mean it’s not.

                    You don’t have to tell me that our society is doing an extremely poor job dealing with the mentally ill. I kept bringing that up on this forum after the Sandy Hook shootings. Again, though, we see politics getting in the way. Dangerous psychotics should be institutionalized but all to often that doesn’t happen. Sometimes it seems the system itself is arranged to prevent that or make it as hard as possible. Which a big reason is why our country will continue to see more Sandy Hooks, Auroras, Tuscons and Virginia Techs.

                    Yes, guns should be kept out of the hands of psychotics, which would be much easier if they were humanely institutionalized as in times past. Absent that, it is much more difficult. Of course, even if you take all their guns away, there’s always pressure cooker bombs. All the more reason psychotics should not be kept in the general population.

                    Policing objectophiles is not my job, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be “stigmatized.” Not even people with same sex attraction. People with sexual disorders should be treated with compassion, not hated, degraded or beaten up. The latter un-Christian behaviors are what got us into this mess, with all supporters of traditional marriage now assumed to be hateful and intolerant. If we had truly loved our neighbor things might have been different.

                    My point is that we’re seeing the same scenario playing out as occurred with gay rights. Or at least an attempt to do so with both objectophiles and pedophiles. I don’t know whether it will succeed, but they’re doing their darndest to gain acceptance that way.

        • Patrick J Loveless

          So… this could be Poe’s Law?

          • Rosemarie


            Guess so.