This is so weird that I have to post it. It is even weirder than religion. Some people have Objectophilia, a fetish where a person feels sexual desire for an inanimate object. Here is a documentary on people who love bridges, towers, walls… I know we see a lot of weird people in religious videos, but I think this tops them all.
The woman in this documentary fell in love with her archery bow, but then fell out of love with it and ended up marrying the Eiffel Tower in a private ceremony:
It’s hard not to think this a SNL skit. Especially when she talks about having sex with her archery bow. The rest of the series can be found here.
(via)
I shudder to think about where that archey bow has been…
uhm…ew.
Dear Daniel Florian;
I stumbled onto this web site about a week ago, and have been here every day since. Some of the banter back and forth is not only entertaining but down right refreshing and intellectual.
I, myself, am a recovering Christian. My story starts with the simple rejection of religion. Then, after the whole California Prop. 8 thing. I started to reject the church it’s self. Now, I don’t know if there is a god or not, but evidence seems to piont to NO.
I just wanted to thank you for starting this site. I still have a lot to think about, but this site and the information there in are helping me greatly.
I hate to disagree but, I’m not sure this is “even weirder than religion”. Aren’t both of them (objectophilia & religion) just instances of misdirected emotion ?
Where exactly does the difference lie between ‘falling in love with your archery bow’ and ‘falling in love with a magic invisible sky fairy’ ? Why is marrying the Eiffel Tower qualitatively different to a nun who marries creepyjebus ?
I am not remotely sufficiently qualified in psychology to support my argument here, but it does seem to me that they are two related mental conditions
I wonder if more women are in love with their right hand than men…..
I can only imagine what a love triangle would be like.
At least people who love God love something that doesn’t actually exist. That’s marginally less weird than loving something that does but just…sits there.
Does she get half of the tower’s assets? Is France a community property country?
that CAN NOT be real….
that has to be the weirdest thing i have ever seen in my life.
The disturbing part is that there’s an archery bow out there getting laid more than I am.
I wonder…can you rape an inanimate object? Is there any laws of consent? What if the archery bow…didn’t want to? Can it say no?
Also, is there going to be a PETA-like organization to speak up for the heretofore oppressed inanimate objects? I figure that since PETA speaks up for video game animals, that there should be another PETA-like group that defends the interest of the aforementioned objects since, if nothing else, they actually exist.
And this is why we can’t have gay marriage! /sarcasm
I can’t watch the video in one sitting. The background music make me feel, man, I can’t find the word to describe it.
I hope 40 people after some years won’t be 400 million people.
Objectophilia is real. A woman who fell in love with the Twin Towers was reported to be despondent after September 11. No joke:
http://lettershometoyou.wordpress.com/2007/05/25/in-the-land-of-the-blind-the-one-eyed-man-is-king/
My neurons stop firing in a split(DID) moment. I am still lost of words except hoping not one human is in that state in my own perception after that split moment.
You know, human sexuality is so delicate and subject to random strangeness. I was reading a study recently that seemed to indicate that our particular ‘kink’ is generally established sometime between the ages of 2-4 years old, long before we are even aware that we will someday be sexual creatures.
I’m so happy that I lucked out and my particular kink is having sex with adult human females. It could so easily be otherwise. And while I have no problem with any sexual activity engaged in by consenting adults, I realize how much easier life is when you fall comfortably within the parameters of the group with the largest membership.
I mean, I could have just as easily been one of those guys who can only get turned on by watching women stomp on things. While that seems pretty harmless to me, it does seem to leave the person with a pretty limited future romantic life.
I hope she will find an understanding man to love her for who she is in the future, personally as I see her, in arguments, though, as a “victim”, that I will not enter into arguments.
Hmmmm….let me analyze this.
Now, I’m sure we’ve all known someone (or do this ourselves) who names an object ( a car, a boat, etc) and is exceedingly fond of that object. So, there is some level of this that is considered normal. These folks, for whatever reason, take that trait to the ultimate extreme, to a patholodical level, in my opinion. I haven’t the slightest idea how it could be corrected.
When compared to religious belief I must say at least this (object love) is based in some reality. The object of the love, does, indeed exist. Saying that the object has a gender and feelings of love back to the person who loves it, is clearly delusional, however.
Very interesting indeed. I had not heard of this disorder before.
I’d hit it.
This gives the quiverfull movement a whole another meaning. :)
For anyone unfamiliar with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
After watching the whole show, it actually makes quite bit of sense, or at least inasmuch as I can infer from the two women they focused on. They both seem to have suffered some trauma that kept them from relating to, or wanting to bond with other humans. For one it was molestation, childhood neglect and abandonment, and the other shared the latter in combination with Asbergers. As we humans are still social beings, I am not surprised that they found companions in objects. They are safe, can’t hurt you (really), don’t talk back. AND they can control every aspect of the relationship, including dialog, much in the way a child might with an imaginary friend. They can fulfill the need for companionship, especially sexual companionship (arguably where we are at our most vulnerable), that doesn’t put them at risk.
I am sure that there is much more to it than that, given that human sexuality is so fragile and complex, as was stated above. The thing that really struck me was that all the women they followed seemed very comfortable with who they were. And although to most of us would see this as sexual deviance, that there is any need to correct it. They seem to have acknowledged and moved on from their emotional scars, and their delusion, unlike Christian delusion, doesn’t hurt anyone.
So that’s my two girl cent (sorry if there were others, hard to tell from some handles)
Does anyone watch Nip/Tuck? They had an episode this season that dealt with this same topic. They brought in a guy to replace Christian (who was going to be dying of cancer) and he fell in love with the couch in Christian office. They caugh him having sex with it. The episode was hilarious (not that I’m saying these people are funny or should be mocked…the episode was just…hilarious). :)
Just….wow.
http://www.berlinermauer.se/
The personal website of the woman who married the Berlin Wall. It’s actually well worth a look, for an insight into her mind. I feel a little sorry for her, but mostly I don’t – she seems happy enough to love her wall (even if she has apparently cheated on him with a fence.) I come from the point of view that as long as your sexual predilections do not cause harm or distress to others, and all involved are consenting, then go right ahead. Although I’m not sure how a wall gives consent…
It’s weirder because it’s rarer. :)
I suppose, though, this could be seen as less weird because at least these objects actually exist!
Christ didnt teach a “sky-God”, quite the opposite.
It’s weirder because nuns very rarely actually have sex with the cross. Also, God is meant to at least have an actual consciousness and clearly is thought of as a thinking, animate being. A bridge or a wall is obviously dead and still and assigning thoughts, emotions, names, genders, and other characteristics only held by intelligent creatures is a little more insane.
That’s great to hear, J.R., thanks!
Hi JR! I hope you are well! :)
J.R.
Leaving “religion” is a good thing. Religion is an external behavior modification technique that always fails to satisfy and to change us. Christ is not “religious”, not external. The true message and offer of Christ is more akin to an internal change of nature, His within, a great restoration to how things were in the beginning. Unfortunately, the institutionalized church actually opposes, hinders the spiritual life that Christ offers, the love, the peace, the joy found in Him.
So go ahead and give up on the “church”, the buildings, the priests, all that junk…but leave room for the Lover of your soul, Jesus Christ to show up in ways that will astound you. Your journey is not over yet, this is just a temporary detour on the journey of life. He has to lead us out of religion so He can give us His life…within because…Christ IN you is the mystery of the ages. Colossians 1:27.
There is more…there is a life.
J.R.: Welcome to a community of people for whom Christianity failed.
If your doctor or dentist or mechanic or even therapist fails, you don’t listen to him blather, “you just didn’t believe in me hard enough, you just didn’t do the things right, you weren’t a True Customer(TM), you actually failed me“. You search for one that actually works and actually accomplishes something!
Welcome!
I imagine that a love triangle would be very acute.
Don’t be so obtuse!
Of course she would, but the problem is that the tower doesn’t really have much of an income.
Acute and obtuse in two straight posts?
Soon I’m going to be a paranoid trapazoid…
;)
Don’t fret. I’m done with the puns.
bwahahaha, classic…now that was funny
Funny!
I’m not sure what we should all have: Bow Envy or Arrow Envy?
I take it the bow was more flexible than her past boyfriend.
And the Eiffel Tower… it’s so… so… big!
But yeah: unlike the Christian God, they’re real.
Gotta be a parody or satire – unreal!
Really? You’re still on this one?
Even after Ty pointed out that the word Christ used for “heaven” literally means “sky”? Even after all the references to birds flying in heaven and rain falling from heaven?
Do you have any reason why we should respond to this claim with anything other than pointing and laughing?
Yea, try these:
John 14:17…That Spirit the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him. You know Him, because He remains by your side and is IN you.
John 14:20 states (Jesus speaking of after His crucifixion)…At that time you will know that I am in my Father, and that you are IN me, and that I am IN you.
Vs 23…(jesus speaking) If any one loves me,” replied Jesus, “he will obey my teaching; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home IN him.
John 15:4…(Jesus speaking) Continue IN me, and let me continue IN you.
John 17:21…(Jesus speaking) even as Thou art IN me, O Father, and I am IN Thee; that they also may be IN us…
John 17:23…(Jesus speaking) I IN them and Thou IN me; that they may stand perfected IN One.
John 17:26…(Jesus speaking) and that I may be IN them.”
Ephesians 1:3…who has crowned us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms IN Christ.
Colossians 1:27…Christ IN you is the mystery of the ages.
The surface of John’s brain is made of impenetrable diamondonium, and is utterly immune to the introduction of new information.
winter, he’ll never off that, at least, not until someone ups the dosage on his meds (or gets him a sorely needed prescription).
Those are all metaphorical, John. They’re not to be taken literally.
The ones that are, are the ones that reference “up” and “sky”!
No Sock, this is the great mystery if life, The Lord of glory indwelling man.
This is why I routinely reference Col 1:27 to help you to understand the depth of the offer, its astounding. One of the biggest obstacles to us having this life is that it is just too good, too much for us to believe, to get our hearts and minds around…so must of us dont.
“this is the work of God…that you believe”.
So, you don’t doubt that Jesus literally claimed that God lived in the sky (where birds live, and rain comes from), but you think that’s trumped by other verses where Jesus says that God literally lives inside people?
So Jesus is inside your heart/soul/kidney, and not in the sky?
If he’s inside your heart, how can he have a human body in heaven?
And if he can be both in a heart and in his own human body, then does that mean he’s everywhere?
And if he’s everywhere, then isn’t he in the sky?
And if he’s in the sky, isn’t he a sky-god?
It’s not astounding, it’s annoying. :P Remember, my pet peeve!
You keep harping about this mystical Christ that you fully believe in, but you still fall into the same trap that ALL believers who reference the Bible do.
You ONLY accept the parts of the Bible that reinforce your stance, and you completely discard the parts that oppose it. You make a poor argument when you defend this action, because in the end it just boils down to what you want. And you want your interpretation to be true.
I am off the stance that it is NOT okay to cherry pick from the Bible. You either believe or disbelieve the whole thing. If you pick it apart and keep what you want, then you’re a hypocrite. The Bible is not a semi rotten apple, where you have to carve away the parts that aren’t sweet and delicious.
Pin the first place ribbon on Daniel…he wins the prize for the best example of circular reasoning we have ever heard…lol.
Did you actually just accuse someone else of circular reasoning?
You are the most astonishing hypocrite it has been my displeasure to ever meet. Is it even possible for someone to be that completely un-self aware? Do the things you say actually make sense inside your head?
You make me vacillate between annoyance and pity with every post you make. It’s extremely unpleasant.
Daniel’s statement wasn’t even circular…
Winter…
He does not dwell in temples made with human hands…Acts 7:48
Where have I been saying (ad nauseum) that He dwells Winter? Doesn’t the term “mystery of the ages” seem a little…dramatic, over the top? It’s supposed to be, its the culminating revelation of God’s true intention, to dwell with and in His creation, man(kind).
He who is joined to the Lord is ONE SPIRIT with Him…1 Cor 6:17
Oneness, that’s the goal, the “terminus”.
I don’t worship the Hindu gods any more than I worship yours.
It is an example of the idiocy in asking someone to scientifically interpret mystical mumbo jumbo.
And once again, the point bounces right off of the diamondonium shield protecting your mental state.
Dishonest John C! You have no credibility!
Your saying “I am familiar with Lewis” was apparently meant to mislead people into thinking you had read even one of his books.
If you keep lying fer Jesus, you’re a poor representative. You should be disbelieved, since anything else you say can also be a lie. Neither you nor your invented (I mean, you’re not honest, after all) Jesus have any credibility.
Claid…
Dude you’re worse than me…you keep harping on Lewis…here’s what I have read of his: Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, abolition of Man, Chronicles of Narnia and his anthology of George MacDonald. It’s been a long time since I read the first four, right after I became a believer more than 20 yrs ago…the last one (GM Anthology) I have read in the last couple years.
There, how’s that for confession? Does that satisfy your incessant pestering and doubts?
Can you be (somewhat) nice now or am I asking way too much?
So, you’re saying he lives somewhere other than temples. Like maybe…. the sky? Yes! It’s all so clear now.
Also, doesn’t this kind of contradict the whole “omnipresence” thing?
Winter…
So if He’s the hand and we’re the glove, what can He express (of Himself) through us that He can’t say…through inhabiting the proverbial sky? Now see the verse saying Jesus was the “express image” of the Father but in the garment of human flesh.
There is a verse in Ephesians 1:23 that states…of Him who everywhere fills the universe with Himself. (weymouth trans)
He’s a big God
Nah, you need to pick the parts of the Bible that John C says you can, and Ignore everything else.
Then you will have the right of it.
Works for me!
I thought I had Jesus in my heart.
Turned out to be gas pains.
Am I biased in John C’s favor because I like Einstein Bros. Bagels?
In a larger context, we all have our own biases. I like Ty’s comparison with Hinduism.
John C brings us a message of love and mysticism but does not give us a way to tell the difference between his cultural variant of love and mysticism and someone else’s cultural variant of the same thing.
Personally, I’m not sure how someone who like Einstein Bros. Bagels can be psychotic, but that may just be my epistemological bias showing again.
Dan’s reasoning is not circular unless you really stretch the definition to its illogical conclusion.
BUT – at least he offers reasoning, unlike the unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable) hypotheses and spritulistic mumbo jumbo you have presented to us …
What do you say about those verses TY, what’s your scientific analysis? Your objective conclusion?
I say they are nonsensical mysticism legitimized by florid prose.
Here you go:
“Being compassionate to all the people of this Earth, who are afflicted by a lack of righteousness in this world, as well as having little knowledge of their eternal constitutional position and the understanding of how to achieve it; due to the prayers of Brahma and Shiva; Visnu descended down to the material existence and incarnated as the resplendent Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa for the purpose of disseminating the Ultimate Truth. ”
What do you say about that verse of the bhagavad gita, JOHN. What’s your scientific analysis? Your objective conclusion?
Then go ahead TY…worship whomever, whatever, where-ever…glad to hear you say something at least somewhat spiritually inclined…
Be a “lover of Love”
I don’t worship the Hindu gods any more than I worship yours.
It is an example of the idiocy in asking someone to scientifically interpret mystical mumbo jumbo.
And once again, the point bounces right off of the diamondonium shield protecting your mental state.
Actually, I think my brain is made of Einstein Bro’s toasted blueberry bagels with a strawberry cream cheese shmear and small hazelnut cream coffee with a dash of half & half?
Guys, please, lay off! He has been nothing but polite this whole conversations while you rage at how he’s stupid! I agree that he is wrong but he isn’t insulting or even mean, he’s just devout.
That said, I think it’s never a particularly good idea to quote the bible in order to convince an atheist that God is real. Since we clearly don’t believe in him, we obviously also think the bible belongs in the fiction section.
It’s also true that you have been cherry-picking your bible passages, focusing on the ones where God claims to be with you and completely ignoring the ones where he explicitly says he lives in the sky.
Gaminguy, a lot of history is following John C around.
If you allow gay marriage, then you have to allow people to marry their sister’s cat.
Because CATS ARE PEOPLE TOO, DAMN IT!
This gets funnier by the second.
Ty, if someone marries their sister’s cat, that’s totally incest, which is wrong, silly!
http://www.stevefu.net/hostedstuff/mine/Caturday/lolcat%20Sullivan%20Cromwell%20Aaron%20Charney%20Above%20the%20Law%20blog.jpg
No meds for me Rog…ER, I run on…love!
Dude, you run on pure, 100% stupid. I swear, if we could harness the power of your bloviations, we could power a continent. Electricity in you, the mystery of the ages!
John C, you run on psychosis.
You can’t help the problem because you’re incapable of admitting you can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what’s inside your head.
Blathering at everybody =/= love. I don’t know if you have the mental capacity to be capable of real love as an action.
*points to the naughty corner*
you go there (:
What I don’t understand is how she “knows” what the bow/bridge/tower is feeling.
Sort of like how xians “know” what god is saying to them, oftentimes.
rule 34
That’s nothing; if you marry Schrödinger’s cat, it’s necrophilia.
Meanwhile, I bring you http://adultsheepfinder.com/ for your delectation (don’t ask me how I know about this site).
“That’s nothing; if you marry Schrödinger’s cat, it’s necrophilia.”
You don’t actually know that until you open the box.
It seems like natural selection would keep this from happening. Its not like they are reproducing! :)
Hmmm… that photocopier looks attractive.
It doesn’t keep it from happening completely, but it does keep it from being popular.
If it’s an entirely genetic phenomena, you’d be right, with a couple of caveats*. As sexuality seems to owe more to experience than to genes, it’s unlikely that it could be bred out of existence.
*If people are forced into relationships with other people in order to hide their true love from a world that just doesn’t understand them, then they may well have kids anyway.
I have internalized the “love thy neighbor” teachings of Jesus Christ.
In my mind, he takes his rightful place alongside Yoda, Obiwan Kenobi, Gandalf, Superman, Atticus Finch, Hercules, Gilgamesh, Captain Picard, Tom Jode and countless other fictional characters from classic and popular media who give insight and wisdom on the human condition.
Internalize the teachings, sure. There’s tremendous power in stories and archetypal characters, but don’t lose sight as religion does (and yes, what YOU bring to this site is indeed religion) that these characters and stories were written by the creativity, insight, and failings of your fellow human beings.
Sorry, that was meant for John C….
Why is the reply button ABOVE the comment?
John C – this is nothing more than spiritulistic waffle mate, makes no rational at all.
Once again you are making some amazing claims so i trust you be presenting some equally amazing proof any time now … hello …. hello … helloooooooo ….
Coffee…
The power, the metamorphosis, the restoration comes from internalizing the Christ (Himself), not merely His teachings. He was as we were in the beginning…a God man(kind). It helps to know the full story from the beginning to understand what we lost, what we are being restored to.
What I have shared (I think you are fairly new? maybe haven’t heard me previously..welcome) is not what they share with you at…”church”. Its actually threatening to them that all you need is…Him, not their priests, the buildings, dogma, etc.
But yes, I agree…love is what its all about.
Frankly, I find Superman and Yoda (well, just Yoda from Empire Strikes Back–before Lucas turned him into a jackrabbitty moron who couldn’t use frakkin’ common sense to figure out that Sidious=Palpatine)to be a hell of a lot more persuasive than Jesus.
Excellent points!
@ Karly: IAWTC. Very interesting. And it’s easy for “normal” people to assume such folks are crackpots, for all kinds of reasons but mostly because these behaviours are unusual, and not only that, but these people are not like us.
Take a person who talks to the golden gate bridge many times each day, says her bridge talks to her, knows how her bridge feels, believes her bridge gives her advice, has sex with her bridge and so on.
Now compare that person with another who talks to her god many times each day, says her god talks to her, knows how her god feels, believes her god gives her advice, ok she probably doesn’t have sex with her god but she DOES allow god to stipulate if/when/with whom she has sex, whether or not she can use contraception etc.
The first person we might think is delusional and/or in need of some mental healthcare.
The second, society in general would probably think was perfectly normal, not delusional at all but simply following her religion like billions of other people.
Yet which person is at greater risk, both of personal harm, and of harming others?
I am well, and leaning more every day. Thank you all who welcomed me.
John C: Thank you for your kind words as well.
“What I have shared (I think you are fairly new? maybe haven’t heard me previously..welcome) is not what they share with you at…”church”. Its actually threatening to them that all you need is…Him, not their priests, the buildings, dogma, etc.”
Bull. Everything you’ve “shared” is absolutely consistent with everything parroted in any church on any given Sunday (Westboro Baptist excluded–all they care about is teh Gayz). Furthermore, where and how did you get all this “revelation” handed down to you? Through what mediums did the “gnosis” that you claim to have (ad nauseum) pass down to you? Or are you going to argue that you’re some sort of tabula rasa that, absent ANY other human interaction, “discovered” Jesus all on your own?
lol, I about fell out of my chair.