Davecat se oženio lutkom ali i ljubavnica mu je lutka; Erika La Tour Eiffel, možete zaključiti po prezimenu, udala se za Eiffelov toranj; osnivačica pokreta, Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer, također je jasno iz prezimena, udala se još 1970. za Berlinski zid itd. Graham Harman govori o filozofiji usmjerenoj prema objektu, no ovi su ljudi otišli korak dalje.
www.objectum-sexuality.org/
This international website about objectùm-sexuality, (widely
known as Objektophilie in Germany), is designed to offer a support network for objectùm-sexuals
(Objektophile) and education for friends and family about objectùm-sexuality
(Objektophil), and insight into our
way of accepting, living, and adapting as individuals who are in love
with objects.
The internet offers amazing resources to make connections with
others; old classmates, lost family members, and like-minded
individuals.
Twelve years ago, Eija-Riitta Eklöf from North Sweden
took a chance and braved hoards of criticism from faceless critics on
the internet in an effort to find others like her: people who love
objects...
objectùm-sexuals...
aka OS people, also known as objectophiles.
Since then, Oliver Arndt from Germany and Erika Eiffel from America have
built the largest network of objectum-sexual people from different countries.
This website is not
meant to change the minds of people… We are not looking for a following,
rather a reckoning of other objectum-sexuals so we may provide support,
realization, and hope to one another. Thank you for opening your
mind and looking over the Fence.
What is OS?
NOTE: There is little known about OS other than data our community has
gathered from our personal relationships with objects and from a small
number of professionals interested in this topic. So we are
not claiming to have solid clinical basis, only the practical knowledge
gained from each other and recent studies. We welcome and currently seek professional
input and study in regards to OS. We are not looking for a cure
but more comprehension into our make-up as an emerging part of society.
Objectùm-Sexuality is
an orientation to love objects.
Sexual orientation
is defined
as the nature of sexual preference while
the prolific definition stands as:
the direction of
someone's sexual desire toward people of the opposite gender, people of
the same gender, or people of both.
This does not include objects.
However,
orientation itself is defined as:
a complex mental state involving beliefs and
feelings and values and dispositions to act in certain ways.
This does include
objects as we see it.
We love objects on a very significant level and many of us in an intimate way.
This feeling is innate.
Objectùm-sexual
love comes for most in a similar awakening as other sexualities at the start of
puberty. This is often followed by an acute awareness that we do
not relate to peers due to the source of projected feelings.
Often
objectùm-sexual
people feel outcast or pressured by mainstream sexuality with a
helpless feeling that we cannot change what comes so naturally to us.
What is the natural
feeling of OS?
Just as mainstream are attracted to certain types of people,
physical/intellectual, objectùm-sexuals develop strong feelings towards
objects possessing, in particular, certain geometry/function.
Often this attraction is regarded as an obsession to a degree that
provokes criticism.
What makes OS
different from an obsession?
Truly there is not much difference. Love is a feeling that preoccupies
one's thoughts. This in its own right describes a degree of obsession
where all focus is on the one desired. Because it is so unorthodox, our attraction
and devotion to the object of our affection is what devotes our interest
to a level that appears merely obsessive to others.
How can one love an
inanimate object?
Indeed, the meaning of love comes into question. However, there is
no single definition because this feeling has many levels and crosses
every part of the spectrum. Virtually every "one" and every "thing"
can be loved. Love does not have any rules that requisite to "whom"
or to "what" we express this multifaceted emotion, as long as it causes no
violation or harm to the subjected.
The spectrum of love is so vast; one may relate it to a bell curve.
In the middle appears the majority of those whose relationships can be
characterized by the similarities to whom and how they love. Objectum-sexuality finds its place
at one end as a minority which facilitates the criticism of
our way of love and life. But none-the-less, we
still fall under the curve of the enigmatic emotion known as love.
OK, so the question isn't answered for those who strongly believe that
love must be reciprocated to be in and have a relevant
relationship. Naturally, if one sees objects as inanimate, then
objectum-sexual
love and our relationships would undeniably be scrutinized.
Indeed, there are cases of love being one-sided as with any orientation,
but in general we do feel love in return.
How can one love a
public object?
We do not all love public objects but certainly the ones who do, they may face
complications similar to people in long distance relationships.
Unless there is regular contact, such as working for or around the
object, distance can pose a difficult problem for the development of a
connection. To overcome the challenge, many
objectum-sexuals
build or acquire
scale models. While models cannot replace the original, they
provide a link as an extension of the object. Similar to people
carrying photographs or articles such as jewelry to remind of their
distant lover. Naturally, whenever possible, we prefer to be with
the object we love.
How does one
communicate with an object?
One must learn a structure of language to speak fluently with others.
This comes naturally as a form of adaptation when we are younger or
later in life due to impairment of core communication skills. It is via
our intense feelings (naturally noted as obsession by most) that our
interests are driven in everything related to the object. The more
knowledge we learn and internalize, the more we develop a clearer ability to
sense the object. Many OS people are Animists.
Communication comes in many forms besides verbal. Many
commune with the object via sensations. However,
this does not imply that we can converse with all objects.
People communicate better with some people, and less or none with
others, just as we do with objects. Even so, that does not stop
some
objectum-sexuals
from talking aloud to objects as a basic means to communicate for a
person.
Intimacy, Sex, and OS.
As a matter of course, this is the topic that rouses the most curiosity.
The issue of sex with objects stirs a certain inquisitiveness in people
that often leads to censure. And to ask whether we do "it" is like
asking whether all couples in love are intimate. Most often the answer
is yes but in some cases, as with any loving relationship, sex is
not always present for whatever personal reason.
It
should be noted that the term sexuality in OS does NOT imply the
physical act of sex with an object just as it doesn't for other
orientations. The term sexuality coupled with hetero,
homo, or
objectum
implies the inclination
towards such.
Also the definition of sex comes into question which is why we often
steer away from this term. We use sensuality or intimacy to
describe physically related expressions of love as this offers a broader
definition considering our partners are not human and cannot be
generalized. However, intimacy is very broad and what may be
sensual for some may not be so for others.
What is the difference
between OS intimacy and masturbation?
Clearly one of the most irritating questions we entertain when a
person gets a mental image of us in “the act” with an object.
Naturally, it would seem there is no difference because the question is
being posed by one who does not love the object. OS intimacy is not instrumental manipulation to self pleasure.
In
the case of a person utilizing some object in this manner, the object is
none other than a means to an end. To an OS
person, our intimate focus is
on the object we love.
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.
Marsh Spectrum of Human/Object Intimacy
Are there factors
that cause one to be OS?
Of course, we have
all asked the question WHY to ourselves time and again but currently
no definitive answer can be found to explain our tendency to form
relationships with objects.
However, we do have some potential explanations:
Asperger's
Syndrome and OS
As we grow as a community, we have internally discovered
a growing percentage of OS people are diagnosed with Asperger's
syndrome, a spectrum of autism.
Any
existing relationship is still being studied but it is possible that
objectum-sexuals
with Aspergers syndrome relate to certain objects of interest better
than with people due to impaired social functioning from early childhood when
mainstream social bonds are influenced and conditioned.
Sexual Trauma and OS
Recent data indicates so few cases
exist amongst OS people and within those cases the OS tendencies predate the trauma.
More study is needed but it seems clear that any link would indicate
more prevalence of OS as many people have this form of trauma.
Gender
Dysphoria and OS
There is also a
denominator of gender dysphoria amongst a small percentage of
objectum-sexuals.
We can only hypothesize that when one loves an object which obviously
has no physical gender, it can call into question ones own gender as
there is no polarity. More study is also needed here as well.
Synesthesia and
OS
One of the recent
denominators that has been discovered through the generous work and
study of Dr Amy Marsh
is that many OS people have cross sensory perception where additional
senses respond to one sensation such as seeing color in words or tasting
when hearing certain sounds.
Animism and OS
While animism is not
a condition, it is the most common reason objectum-sexual people with no
notable psychological condition have for loving and connecting to
objects on a significant level. The innate belief that objects are
not inanimate but possess a spirit, soul, or energy to which one can
connect with.
Love's Outer Limits:
People Who Love Objects Part I
Are there fears
regarding OS people?
Sadly, the media has
a blatant history of sensationalizing the sexual aspect and portraying a
false sense that we are openly sexual, thus raising fears of objectum-sexual people
behaving inappropriately in public. When in reality, most OS
people
are very keen on preserving the integrity of the object and clearly respect
that intimacy is private. This is even more so for those who love
landmark objects.
Why do OS people love landmark objects?
Understand that only
a very small percentage of
objectum-sexuals
love well-known landmarks due to the complexities involved. It is
often least desired to love an object shared with so many.
However, the
presence of a landmark draws more attention and may offer the OS person
a deeper sense of connection due to the pronounced
availability of information about the object. There stems a likelihood
that interest could develop. Beyond that, it is between the person
and the object if a relationship ensues.
Do
OS people love more than one object?
Indeed, polyamorous
relationships exist amongst
objectum-sexual individuals and may involve objects that are
related via structure, location, and/or function.
Are all
OS people female?
No. Early
numbers suggested most objectum-sexual people were women. Perhaps
that women are more prone to visual emotion. However; more
recent numbers reveal a growing number of men are stepping forward and
relating to being objectum-sexual.
The Red Fence
- Röda Staketet
The
decision to use the Red Swedish Fence or Röda Staketet as our
emblem of Objectùm-Sexuality:
The
Pioneer
Eija-Riitta Eklöf has been living out her life in North
Sweden, the village of Liden where she was born and raised. At 54
years old, she has braved every censor of her orientation.
However, in the early days, Eija-Riitta did not face retribution for her
connection and relationship with objects. Her family and village
did not pass judgment. Why should they? She was a well
adjusted and talented model-builder who was not offending anyone and
most importantly, she was happy.
Eija-Riitta had hundreds of pen-pals all over the world and was very
open about her sexuality with little to no reprisal. She wanted to
educate people and to include a typed flyer explaining her sexuality.
So, in the early 1970’s, Eija-Riitta with two close friends, Lars and
Frank, decided on a term for the orientation to love objects, a name she
could tell people that summed up her sexuality. They chose
"Objectùm-Sexuality" and it is this Latin terminology that we still use
today and often the acronym OS.
June 17, 1979, Eija-Riitta Eklöf followed her heart and married the object of
her true desire, the Berlin Wall, unofficially adding
Berliner-Mauer to her surname.
In 1996,
Eija-Riitta started the first website dedicated to OS in 4 languages.
More or less a personal account of her own life and sexuality but also an
informative site directed at the nature of OS. It was from these
early hand-coded pages that objectùm-sexuality became known in the trenches of the
internet.
In 1999,
Eija-Riitta launched the first internet group with an extended invitation
to anyone interested in discussing objectùm-sexual issues. People poured in but it was
unclear if they were actually OS or simply curious and discussions
never developed. While this
first attempt failed to bring about an open dialog, Eija-Riitta decided
to close and reopen another in 2002 with focus directed at providing a
more private environment for discussion. Membership required
approval and from this selective process came the first active and
sincere members of the Objectùm-Sexuality Community.
The
Breakthrough
From the
founding OS members, Oliver Arndt, a talented artist from Essen started
the largest network in Germany for Objektophilie in 2002. These objektophiles have been actively
educating the public and courageously addressing the media for many
years.
Another
founding member was Erika Eiffel, a world class archer and martial
artist. She travelled extensively to
meet with Oliver and having a kinship love for the Berlin Wall also met
with her close friend, Eija-Riitta, in 2006. Later Erika set out to
meet all the OS membership in an effort to gather data and learn more
about the enigma of objectùm-sexuality. Together, Oliver
and Erika successfully adapted their German OS group for English speaking objectum-sexuals in 2004.
In
September 2006, Erika came out about her long-time affection for the
Berlin Wall and also iron Bridge structures, including the matriarch of
Bridges, the Eiffel Tower,
which she unofficially married April 8, 2007. Erika later founded Objectùm-Sexuality
Internationale and started a new international forum in February 2008
inviting the assistance of Oliver and Eija-Riitta to help to share the hope started so long ago... to know we are not alone.
The Symbolism...
The Red Fence is
cherished by Eija-Riitta as an object she holds dear to her heart.
As a tribute to her courage and devotion,
Röda Staketet
is to the
objectùm-sexual
community... our
symbol.
The Meaning...
Fences
exist throughout society. We put them up to protect ourselves but
not to shut people out. One can look over a Fence and see what’s on the
other side. If the grass is indeed greener or not… this we
decide for ourselves.
Married to the Eiffel Tower
If you thought that men in love with real dolls was strange, wait until you see Married to the Eiffel Tower, which follows these fetishists (all of them, for some reason, female).
Interestingly, Objectum Sexuals – they call themselves OS people – believe their love with the objects are reciprocal and that they can telepathically communicate with them.
Naisho is married to the Eiffel Tower. She has a passion for inanimate objects, and her mission is to fight the stigma surrounding the disorder and create a global network of sufferers – like Amy, in love with a church organ, and Eija Riita, who married the Berlin Wall.
In this compelling documentary about objectum sexual disorder the characters describe just what it’s like to be in love with a highly public structure. - topdocumentaryfilms.com/
Interestingly, Objectum Sexuals – they call themselves OS people – believe their love with the objects are reciprocal and that they can telepathically communicate with them.
Naisho is married to the Eiffel Tower. She has a passion for inanimate objects, and her mission is to fight the stigma surrounding the disorder and create a global network of sufferers – like Amy, in love with a church organ, and Eija Riita, who married the Berlin Wall.
In this compelling documentary about objectum sexual disorder the characters describe just what it’s like to be in love with a highly public structure. - topdocumentaryfilms.com/
People Who Love Objects Part I
by Amy Marsh
Quasimodo
had the bells of Notre Dame. Pygmalion had his statue. Erika has the
Eiffel Tower, and, being unabashedly polyamorous, loves the Golden Gate
Bridge and the Berlin Wall, too. That said, you may now park your “OMG!”
at the entrance (an empty cultural reflex that will take us nowhere
fast) and enter instead into that state of humbling wonder so necessary
for passionate inquiry into all matters of human intimacy.
And
so I found a very small group of people who are in love with objects,
sometimes even engaged in unspecified erotic activity with those
objects. They call themselves "objectophiles" or "objectum sexuals
(OS)."
There is a little boy of my acquaintance who loves the Sutro Tower.
He is autistic. Last Valentine‘s Day, he sent my own children a drawing
of Sutro Tower as a person, surrounded by hearts. “How sweet,” I
thought, remembering how my own kids made friends with houses and
furniture when they were little.
The next day, a sexologist chum alerted me to a YouTube video,
something about a woman who married the Eiffel Tower. Watching it, I had
an overwhelming sense of a fated and fateful "ah ha!" And thus I went
into curiosity and research overdrive.
Fortunately, there was a website. And so I found a very small group
of people who are in love with objects, sometimes even engaged in
unspecified erotic activity with those objects. They call themselves
"objectophiles" or "objectum sexuals (OS)." You might wonder, is this
like, you know, using a vibrator? (And who among us has not?) Or is it
more like people with shoe fetishes? Neither, according to the OS International website.
The Objectum Sexuals say this is actually a sexual or emotionally
intimate orientation, an orientation they donʻt feel can or should be
changed.
And I tend to agree that Objectum Sexuality is something above and
beyond paraphilia or fetishism, for a few reasons. First, this sexual
minority, like any other, has the right to define itself based on its
own experiences and understanding. Secondly, the OS Internationale
website mentions that quite a few of its members have Asperger‘s
Syndrome (a condition on the Autism spectrum). Aspergerʻs Syndrome is a
special interest topic of mine. Iʻve done a sexuality survey of people
with Asperger‘s Syndrome and some of their partners. I have a pretty
good sense, what with research and client work, of the intense
intellectual investment that ‘Aspies’ have in their “special interests”
and collections of objects. Itʻs something that frustrates a lot of
their partners, who find themselves competing with their partnerʻs
obsessions with computers or 18th-century railway schedules or
collections of fisheye buttons. I find it easy to see the erotic
potential of such fixations. For me, this connection between OS and
Aspergerʻs was like hitting sexological paydirt.
I wrote to OS Internationale and offered to do a small, freebie
survey for them, so they could have real information to show to health
professionals and the media. With the gracious consent of Erika Eiffel
and the participation of twenty-one of the English-speaking members of
community, I find myself in possession of sexological data pertaining to a
group that no one else has ever researched. And my preliminary findings
agree with the framing of OS as an orientation.
As a sexologist, I begin to see Objectum Sexuality as part of a
continuum of human/object interactions. Casual sex toy users are waaaay
over there one end of the scale and OS folks are waaay over there on the
other side - with hearts, souls, bodies and brain wiring all conspiring
to keep them firmly oriented to things the rest of us conspire to
consider inanimate. Fetishists are somewhere in the middle. I‘ve created
a scale to describe all this, which I call the Marsh Spectrum of Human/Object Intimacy.
Meanwhile, Objectum Sexuality is in the news: most recently on The Tyra Show (Oct. 2, 2009) and Good Morning America
(April 8, 2009). As the only “OS expert” in existence (if you don‘t
count all the people whose lived experiences make them the true
experts), I appeared on both programs with Erika. However, social and
professional understanding of OS has lagged behind media and Internet
exposure.
The big story, the one which has so far eluded the OMG! set and the
right wing bloggers, is not that people are in love with objects, but
that objects may be in love with them. Follow? In another time and place
and culture, the OS folks would be shamans, and there are still a lot
of places where OS would not be considered that weird. In our modern
industrial countries, where quantum physicists proclaim the
consciousness and decision-making capacities of subatomic particles -
who am I to say that matter intrinsically imbued with consciousness (I
am, therefore I think) is not also imbued with erotic consciousness?
Chew on that while I tell you a little more about my research results.
I used an online survey program. Respondents ranged from eighteen to
sixty years old. They included fifteen biological females, two biological
males, three transgender men, and one intersex person. Most of the
respondents said they were aware of their attraction to objects for more
than ten years. Twelve have known since childhood. Most consider their
attraction to objects as an “orientation,” though not necessarily a
sexual one. As I mentioned before, most reject the labels of “fetish” or
“paraphilia.” Most express happiness with their relationships and only
wish to feel more accepted by society.
The study participants were attracted to a wide range of objects,
including transportation, small structures, large buildings and
landmarks, machines and appliances, technology, sporting goods, and
statues. To express their affection, eighteen OS people take pictures of
their objects; six make models; and nine create other forms of visual
art. Some make websites or write poems. Most enjoy non-sexual human
contact - friendships within and without the OS community. Only two
people desire sexual relationships with human beings. Eleven have never
considered it and never will. Contrary to the popular perception of OS
being “caused” by sexual trauma, only four report a history of abuse or
coercion. I still need to do some careful analysis, but it appears that
interest in objects either pre-dates or is not connected to the trauma.
As for Asperger‘s Syndrome: five people reported a diagnosis of
Asperger‘s Syndrome and one of Autism. Four people without a diagnosis
identify as having Asperger‘s Syndrome. Three say they have “some
traits” of Autism or Asperger‘s. Respondents also reported ADD or ADHD,
sensory integration issues, and Tourette‘s Syndrome. Two suffer from
post-traumatic stress and one from depression. No one has indicated any
delusional psychiatric disorders.
As you might expect, most of the respondents report an overwhelming
lack of understanding from family, friends, employers, health
professionals, and society. So far, media exposure and the Internet have
not given the OS community much except the ability to find each other.
And that is mostly due to Erika Eiffel and a few others brave enough to
step into the glare of public ridicule. In my own naivety, living as I
do in that realm of humbling wonder and passionate inquiry, I was not
prepared to be villified on numerous right-wing and Anglican blogs after
my comments aired on Good Morning America.
But more on that, and other complexities, next week.
People Who Love Objects, Part II
by Amy Marsh
"I don't know who's worse, the Whack Job in
love with buildings, the Whack Job "sexologist" who thinks this is some
new form of sexual orientation or GMA for airing this crap!” Comment on the Good Morning America website.
“My wife is an inanimate object during sex.” Comment on DVD Talk Forum.
“Perhaps one way to look at the Object-sexuals is that they're not
so much reacting to the love from the objects but the love of God that
supports those objects. That object-sexuals are sensing the love of God
on the quantum level of reality and then returning that love on the
physical plane.” Whitechapel blog.
“Never trust a ʻsexologistʻ.” Catholic blog.
“[W]hat next you gone (sic) talk about people havin (sic) sex with animals it is just gros [sic].” Comment on The Tyra Banks Show website.
And my personal favorite:
“Osama bin Laden must be laughing his ass off, thinking how easy it's going to be to finish us off...” Comment on Babalu blog.
The
above comments have been gathered from various blogs or websites in
reaction to videos and articles about Objectum Sexuality. I have the
honor of being the “sexologist” (a word which always seems to show up in
quotes) in question, and when the Good Morning America piece
aired on April 8, 2009, I was not prepared for the venom that awaited me
or that wrapped itself in googles around my name. Erika Eiffel, of
course, was already used to public reaction in the form of sneering
insults and cheap phallocentric jokes (mainly about the shape of the
Eiffel Tower).
Hostility
to objectum sexuality took me by surprise. I had force myself to step
back and view it as a sexological and sociological phenomenon, one I
could study as a “window” into the public soul.
After Good Morning America aired its piece, I knew enough to turn down an offer to appear on the Laura Ingraham Show. (Whew!) But I then made the mistake of appearing on live radio, the Dom Giordano Show,
in Pittsburgh, on April 9th. I hadnʻt checked out the station schedule,
only Giordanoʻs bio, and so was not aware that Dom was rubbing airwaves
with Hannity, Limbaugh and their ilk. Boy, did I learn in a hurry. Once
on air, he didnʻt want the facts of my research - he just wanted to
push me up against a wall, as he was so very incensed about reporter
Kate Snow and ABC bringing the topic of Objectum Sexuality into American
homes over breakfast. (That he was bringing the same topic into
American homes was somehow supposed to be okay.) I had to assure him
that Objectum Sexuals (those happy few) were not going to be running
rampant in the streets, contributing to our collective moral decay.
“This sounds like it worries you, Dom. Would you like to talk about it?”
Iʻm not really trained as that type of therapist, but I feel this was
my best line of the all too brief interview. He cut me off when I
brought up the connection with Autism.
Hostility to objectum sexuality took me by surprise. I had force
myself to step back and view it as a sexological and sociological
phenomenon, one I could study as a “window” into the public soul.
One man included OS in his homophobic tirade posted in the comments section of the Spectator
(UK) website: “Homosexuality will lead into a complete free for all -
incest, zoophilia, sado-masochism (sic), polygamy, pan sexuality,
objectum sexuality, necrophilia and much more.” I hate to tell this guy,
but, sexologically speaking, human history has been a kind of “free for
all” all along... we just havenʻt wanted to admit it.
Sometimes though, you gotta slog through the blogs to hit pay dirt or
at least a tantalizing hint on the treasure map. And I did hit it, yes
indeed.
“The Eiffel Tower is married, but the Berlin Wall is a total slut. But, who am I to judge?” Comment on The Tyra Show website
Who indeed?
Youʻve heard of people who taste colors or hear numbers? You could
say this is a real life “extra sensory perception,” with at least sixty
reported varieties. Itʻs called “synesthesia.”
People who experience ordinal linguistic personification synesthesia
detect personalities mostly in letters and numbers, days of the week and
months of the year, and more rarely, personalities in objects. You can
ask those folks about the virtue of the Berlin Wall. Theyʻd probably be
able to tell you.
So this was my serendipitous pay dirt: the link to synesthesia. I
stumbled across a blog written by a woman Iʻll call “Martha,” who
wondered if synesthesia could explain why she persistently and
consistently perceives gender in her common household objects. “I get a
clear sense of the gender of many inanimate objects. The toaster is
male, the teaspoons are boys, the coffee pot is matronly. It's always
been this way in my head, and I assume it's just a weirdo form of
synesthesia. But not all inanimate objects are clearly gendered (I think
my laptop is a neutered male but I could be wrong, and where would I
look to check?).” I emailed her to see if I could use her quote in this
column. Though Martha senses gender, she emphasizes that she is not an
OS person and says that kind of attraction is foreign to her. She did
mention her daughter senses gender in objects too. (Synesthesia seems to
run in families.) Martha says her husband wonders if weʻre “basically
all hard-wired to be animists.” Objectum Sexuals and people with quite
small children (who animate everything) would tend to agree.
Wikipedia says synesthesia
is neurologically based, showing - and involves two or more “sensory or
cognitive pathways” triggered by stimulation. It is estimated that some
form of synesthesia occurs in about 1 out of 23 people, with a higher
incidence among people with Autism and epilepsy. Psychedelic drugs and
certain kinds of strokes are also associated with synesthesia. According
to diagnostic criteria established by neurologist Richard Cytowic,
synesthesia is “involuntary and automatic,” “consistent,” “highly
memorable,” “laden with affect,” and often tied into a certain place or
location. Location, location! Could this explain, in part, the appeal of
the tower, the wall, the bridge, the stationary machinery? Landmarks,
anyone?
Synesthetes feel very natural about their perceptions, though they
eventually become aware that others might not understand that “two is
yellow and four is green.” Synesthesia is not considered a mental
disorder, by the way, and the people who experience it often enjoy this
special gift.
Mixed Signals, a
synesthesia website asks, “Do you dislike the personality of your
bedroom’s doorframe?” Unfortunately, I did not ask my OS survey
respondents about objects they disliked, only about ones they loved. I
may have missed a great opportunity there—because if attraction for some
objects is possible, then so is repulsion, and it would be interesting
to hear about that too.
So if one can perceive the gender of a teapot or the personality of a
doorframe, is it that much of a stretch to anticipate the gendered
attraction that for some people, just might be inevitable?
Could Objectum Sexuality be (at least in part) a “sexual synesthesia?”
Some of the responses to my OS survey provide a good reason for
asking that question, because there are hints of it, here and there.
I asked the respondents what attracted them to their objects: “His
smell, colors, shape some parts that attract me sexual (sic). I love to
be with him, he is my 'good star'.” “His looks and personality.”
One of the hardest things for a non-OS person to understand is how an
OS person can feel that the object is “alive” and communicative. But
thatʻs often how the OS people perceive their lovers. One of the FtM
transgender respondents said, “The object I love is independent. It (has
its) own identity and it is never a part or symbol of another human.” A
woman said, “Unlike human-human, vocal communication is not the
preferred method. Our communication is based on vibes and sensations
received through various senses.” Another had a similar response,
“telepathy and sometimes verbally when on my own with them. I also touch
them when I'm near them.” Some expressed a sense of “knowingness” about
the objects. However, others said they donʻt communicate with their
objects at all, and donʻt expect communication from them.
Remember that synesthesia was described as “highly memorable” and
“laden with affect.” OS relationships are often very emotional and
deeply committed. A woman who took the survey said, “The object I loved
the longest was part of my life and we could be together with no
questions asked. We worked together, we played together, and we loved
together.” Another said, “[B]ecause weʻre always there for each other
and I feel that I can tell him all my problems without being judged by
others and heʻs never let me down.”
Most of us would agree that love like this is as good as it gets—at
least weʻd agree if we werenʻt so biased in favor of relationships
between two human beings. One person described her relationships this
way: “They are real. They are complex. They are no less and no more of
value than other romantic relationships.” I read this quote on Good Morning America.
OS relationships are not uniform in character. They may be happy or
sad, monogamous or polyamorous. They might be rather platonic and tender
or unabashedly sexual. One man praised, “[T]he absolute beauty of my
objects. Light, colour, design and the fact that the very sight of them
makes me want to cum.” When asked to describe “the best thing about
Objectum Sexual relationships,” a few people had responses suggestive of
trauma, such as, “the object can't hurt you.” Most expressed
contentment and satisfaction: “It makes (me) dang happy!”
The striking commonality, with regard to my survey research, is that
attraction to objects seems to feel as natural and right to OS people as
attraction to humans feels to those who are attracted to humans of
various kinds. For OS people, to do, to be otherwise, is almost
incomprehensible. This is why I think we can understand it best by
generally referring to OS as an “orientation.”
And we want to understand, what makes an erotic orientation feel so
foundational? The “innate” quality of object attraction, described and
experienced by the OS people, must certainly involve specific kinds of
neurological “wiring” and brain activity and hormonal cascades, combined
with possible links to the Autism spectrum and sensory integration
issues, and even a kind of “sexual synesthesia.” Wouldnʻt you love to
see some brain imaging studies and have some really good data? I know I
would! In the meantime, letʻs stick with the attitude expressed by
another Tyra Show viewer, who wrote, “[H]ey whatever works for them is
kool with me.”
For Part III and my final column on this topic (for now), Iʻll take
you a little deeper inside OS and the Aspergerʻs Syndrome connection
“My wife is an inanimate object during sex.” Comment on DVD Talk Forum.
“Perhaps one way to look at the Object-sexuals is that they're not so much reacting to the love from the objects but the love of God that supports those objects. That object-sexuals are sensing the love of God on the quantum level of reality and then returning that love on the physical plane.” Whitechapel blog.
“Never trust a ʻsexologistʻ.” Catholic blog.
“[W]hat next you gone (sic) talk about people havin (sic) sex with animals it is just gros [sic].” Comment on The Tyra Banks Show website.
And my personal favorite:
“Osama bin Laden must be laughing his ass off, thinking how easy it's going to be to finish us off...” Comment on Babalu blog.
People Who Love Objects, Part III
by Amy Marsh
“I feel...noticed by my lover. Feel his present
[sic]. I communicate seldom in speaking words. I communicate in minds
and with touchings. Touchings at special hot spots... I feel a short
flash of energie [sic] during the touching. If I´m stroke [sic] the
metal skin of my lover, first it feels cold but more and more I feel a
warm floating.” Survey respondent from Germany
Sexology
is a rich mix, consisting of data on human sexual behavior, clinical
practice, history, anthropology, psychology, sociology, human rights,
erotology, entrepreneurism, anatomy and physiology, education, medicine,
law, politics - just about anything can be simmered in a sexological
stew. Pondering Objectum Sexuality has allowed me to conceptually toss
some really interesting ingredients together. In this three-part column,
Iʻm offering you a few choice morsels, even as the main course
continues to cook. Academically, this is rather premature. However,
there has been so much sensationalized coverage and ignorant public
commentary that I reckon most researchers are avoiding Objectum
Sexuality as a freak show unworthy of their attentive inquiry or they
simply toss it into “paraphilias” and have done with it. A pity, because
this topic has many intriguing aspects. Itʻs time to bring them into
play.
So letʻs take a closer look at the “ingredients” (so far) in our main dish of Objectum Sexuality.
Daddy, That Dresser is Leering at Me!
Earlier this week, I unearthed a reference to “object-personification
synesthesia” in an article called “When ʻ3ʻ is a Jerk and ʻEʻ is a
King: Personifying Inanimate Objects in Synesthesia,” (Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
in 2007). This article describes two experiments concerning a teenage
girl who experiences objects “as having rich and detailed
personalities.” She apparently disliked some objects so much that she
asked her father to remove them from her bedroom.
What I want to know is, has she ever had a crush on an object?
Discovering a link to synesthesia, or determining that object
personification synesthesia is a possible cause of OS, does not diminish
the nature of this kind of attraction. It simply gives us a way to
understand or explore the neurological mechanisms that may be involved
and expands our opportunities for inquiry. Ultimately, why one person
loves one bridge and not another is just as mysterious as the
attractions and dislikes of people for other people.
Married to the Bells
Literary or historical references are so sparse, theyʻre simply
“seasonings” added for flavor. Examples include the myth of Pygmalion
and his love for a statue as well as the Hunchback of Notre Dameʻs
passionate love of cathedral bells. Victor Hugo writes most explicitly:
“Claude Frollo had made him the bell ringer of Notre-Dame, and to give
the great bell in marriage to Quasimodo was to give Juliet to Romeo.”
Animism and Quantum Physics
Many people have held the belief that everything, even inanimate
objects, contains a soul or spiritual essence. This belief can be found
in modern utterances, such as the Bioneers motto, “itʻs all alive, itʻs
all connected.” It rubs up against certain findings of quantum physics.
Years ago, halfway through The Dancing Wu Li Masters, I called
the author, Gary Zukav, in great excitement. Sub-atomic particles make
decisions? Communicate over immeasurable distances? Wow! He listened for
a little while, then gently referred me to an organization of
science-minded artists.
Though a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this column, I
want you to know that Objectum Sexuals and Object-Personification
Synesthetes are experientially located somewhere in the middle of all
this. If we wanted, the rest of us could consider these people as having
special, wonderful gifts, which might even turn out to be an ability to
experience another facet of the nature of reality.
Marginalized Sexual Minorities
Then there are all the issues associated with being marginalized and
misunderstood: lack of acceptance, a dearth of informed medical and
mental health care providers, discrimination, and so on.
In addition to the above challenges faced by people who identify as
part of a sexual (or emotional) minority, there are the special
circumstances experienced by a community beginning to emerge from
obscurity and advocating for itself. This includes tension between those
who want to “come out” and express themselves in a burst of no-holds
barred glory (once called “letting the freak flag fly”—nowadays called
posting a YouTube video), and those who advocate a more moderate and
decorous emergence into (or alongside) the mainstream.
Within the OS community, “sexual minority issues” are not just
limited to OS. Among the twenty-one people who took my survey, I heard
from two transgender men; one “pre-op gender neuter” person; at least
two or three people who consider themselves asexual; and several who are
gay, bisexual, or polyamorous.
Autism, Aspergerʻs Syndrome, and Other Neurological Factors
Autism spectrum conditions are another important consideration among
the people I surveyed. Most of you have heard about Autism, and most
probably have some idea what it is. Some of you may have also heard of
Aspergerʻs Syndrome (AS), which is often compared to “high functioning
Autism.” Some experts distinguish between the two by saying AS people
are generally more interested in social interaction than people
diagnosed with Autism. While Aspies want to have successful
relationships with friends, lovers, co-workers, and bosses, they
typically have difficulties with many of the basic rules of social
interactions as well as the emotional nuances of human relationships. AS
people often struggle with how to conduct a conversation that doesnʻt
develop into a monologue about their favorite topics; how to read body
language; how to dress or move in a way that attracts others; and very
importantly, they often have difficulty in shifting their attention away
from their all-consuming special interest passions and back toward
interactions with the people in their lives.
A couple of years ago, I did some student research into Aspergerʻs
Syndrome and sexuality issues—surveying about 100 people. Most were
either diagnosed or self-identified as having AS. The survey also
included a few “neurotypical” partners. As a result of this research, I
feel that for many AS people, the intellectual pursuit of their special
interest is equally or more pleasurable than sex or emotional intimacy.
It takes a lot to pry them from it, even temporarily. (I get this way
while writing!) I initially came to my inquiry into Objectum Sexuality
with a bit of an assumption that object relationships were the “special
interest squared”—a way to combine intellectual perseveration with sex.
Now I understand that this explanation is inadequate. It might be
partially true for some, but itʻs not the whole story.
In my OS survey, five people had a diagnosis of Aspergerʻs Syndrome,
one a diagnosis of Autism, and four identified as being on the Autism
spectrum even though they did not have a diagnosis, for whatever reason.
Three people said theyʻd been told they might be on the Aspergerʻs or
Autism spectrum, or said they had “some symptoms” but didnʻt feel they
were pronounced enough to merit a diagnosis.
There were other neurological complexities: six people reported
sensory integration problems, which means that certain sounds, fabrics,
colors, types of touch, smells, etc. can disrupt a personʻs functioning
and processing of other sensory information. Three people said they had
attention deficit disorders. One had executive function issues. One
person reported Touretteʻs Syndrome. Another reported an unspecified
pervasive developmental disorder. (Autism is also classified as a
pervasive developmental disorder.)
Disability and Sex Issues
This means that in addition to the specific challenges of the above
conditions, a large number of the people I surveyed are dealing with
general disability issues, which often also include stigma and
marginalization. Small wonder that a few people reported depression,
anxiety and post traumatic stress.
Sexual Trauma
Thereʻs a popular misconception that OS people love objects because
they are turned off human beings after suffering sexual trauma. In my
survey, four people reported having been coerced or forced sexually at
some point in their lives. I did not ask for details as to severity or
type of force or coercion. This number seems less significant to me than
some of the other “ingredients.” It seems to be similar to the sexual
trauma percentages Iʻve heard for general groups of women. And again,
depression, anxiety and PTSS would be associated with this.
Human Relationships
Another misconception is that OS people “donʻt like” other humans or
canʻt get along with them, but this is not the case. While they might
reject sexual contact with humans, most report enjoying the company of
family, co-workers, and friends (particularly other OS friends). Though
eleven people said they have never considered a sexual relationship with
a human and never will, fifteen of the twenty one said they enjoy or
would like to enjoy emotional, non-sexual human companionship in
addition to their object relationships.
Seven people had a history that included one to five sexual
relationships with humans. One person reported more than ten. Some of
these people have since decided that human sexual relationships are not
for them. However, two people did report having a sexual relationships
with a human lover, concurrent with their object loves.
Sensory Integration Problems with Human Lovers
“Shelly” says her boyfriend is fine with her OS relationship—thatʻs
not the trouble. Instead, the two of them are grappling with her sensory
integration issues, which affect their ability to be comfortably
intimate. Shellyʻs ability to enjoy human sex is often short-circuited
by her reactions to certain fabrics, fluctuations in skin temperature,
certain kinds of touch, and other sensations. Her boyfriend struggles to
understand her responses. A touch or activity that seems fine one day
may be all wrong the next. Lack of consistency makes it hard for him to
take Shellyʻs sensory difficulties seriously. Shelly loves both of her
relationships, but her object lover has an advantage in that she does
not trigger Shellyʻs sensory difficulties.
As a child, Shelly narrowly escaped a diagnosis of Autism, but as an
adult she has been diagnosed with Aspergerʻs Syndrome. Shellyʻs sensory
integration difficulties are shared by many people on the Autism
spectrum. However, such difficulties are not limited to Aspies and
Objectum Sexuals, and are not addressed by sexologists and sex
therapists as often as they should be!
Objectum Sexuals or Objectum Emotionals?
In my survey, not everyone identified as “objectum sexual.” Some
preferred “Objektophile,” “gay man,” “mechasexual or car lover,” and
“bisexual.” One person said, “[O]bjectum-inspired, -fascinated,
affectionate (not romantic either).” Another simply stated, “As a
person, my sexuality is not who I am.”
Masturbation or Partner Sex?
Seven of the respondents said they have never masturbated, ever. One
woman said, “I don't feel any sexual attraction to humans, this (and
human bodys [sic] in this context) disgust me!” Others told me clearly
that any sex they have is partner sex with their object, not
masturbation. However, we need to understand that what OS people
consider partner sex is likely to be quite different than our
human-to-human concepts.
Aside from a few general questions, such as the masturbation
question, I deliberately did not press my respondents for intimate
details. I understand some of the irritation and anger this community
feels, due to enormous amounts of impertinent and insulting comments and
inquiries. Therefore, I controlled my avid desire for more explicit
information.
And again, some people did not consider their feelings for objects to
be sexual or even romantic. Yet, they were still engaged in a
relationship.
The Best Thing About Human/Object Relationships?
I asked this question and the answers fell into two broad categories.
The first category of answers stressed advantages of OS love over human
to human intimacy (perceived as more difficult, constraining, and
dangerous):
- “The object can't hurt you.”
- “More freedom, perhaps.”
- “Possibility for multiple lovers and more freedom on my own side. Other advantages are the same as non-OS relationships.”
- “I´m independent from all the human sexism.”
- “Safer than with people.”
- “Not to have the problems I would have in a normal relationship.
I [donʻt] have to lie to the object I love. I don't need to have
headache when I don't want to have sex.”
- “Partner doesn't cheat with other women.”
Interestingly, most of the people who gave these answers had an Asperger or Autism diagnosis or identified as such.
The second category of answers focused the joys of OS love:
- “The best thing about any relationship is simply having it. Just
because I don't love people in a romantic way... should not dictate
that I must be alone.”
- “[T]hat it makes us (me and my lovers) feel so good, and happy.
[I]t is the most wonderful thing... [I] really donʻt know what [I] would
be doing.. if [I] didnʻt have my OS. [I]t is a big part of me, and my
life.”
- “My beloved and also my beloved place are there everyday all the time. I draw my strength from that.”
- “I don`t know. OS relationship is difficult. To have a
relationship makes life attractive. It lets me feel that I`m alive. To
fall in love is such a wonderful gift. For all kinds of relationships
and for all ways of love.”
- “Laying in bed with my lovers, spending time with them, watching
movies with them, always having somebody there for me that truly
understands me. To have somebody like that that I'm also sexually
attracted to is a huge bonus. We have a very well-rounded relationship.”
- “Mutual loyalty and understanding.”
- “The contact with my beloved object, admiring the strengthness
[sic], power and technology, touching and caressing... showing the
object that there's somebody loving and respecting it.”
- “The love.”
- I have been touched in many ways by my contact with members of
OS Internationale. The people responding to my survey spent a great deal
of time giving thoughtful and sometimes detailed answers to open-ended
questions. I particularly appreciate the way in which the Europeans with
limited English labored over my survey, with a dictionary, in order to
express themselves as accurately as possible. For some, I hear this took
hours.
I have also appreciated my discussions with Erika Eiffel as well as
her generosity in bringing me into the realm of media. It has been
fascinating to see firsthand how Erikaʻs articulate and sincere
presentation is often able to win over determined sceptics, even
including several people attending last Julyʻs Sexual Attitude
Restructuring (SAR) Program at the Institute for Advanced Study of Human
Sexuality.
I am looking forward to expanding and deepening my communication with
this community. In the spirit of passionate inquiry, I encourage others
to pursue a respectful dialogue with this very interesting group of
people. - carnalnation.com/
OS
Expressions
The Thing with a Soul - by Rudi from
Germany
'Married' to the Eiffel Tower? - by
Erika Eiffel
I am Human but my Partner is Not - by A.L.
Thoughts from Me... an OS Person - by D. from Berlin
A few
more thoughts... - by D. from Berlin
The Only Love for Me... by B.C. Hall
Love Letter to
Letters... by Eva K. from The Netherlands
My Ode to the
Magic Being of a Word... by Eva K. from The Netherlands
An Introspective View of Objectùm-Sexuality - by
Adam M. from USA
|
ANIMISM - coming 28 Sept 2013 |
"People Who Love Objects" preview |
So-So Magazine - Feb 2011 |
"In Love with the Wall" |
Stuff Mom Never Told You (podcast) - 26 Jan 2011 |
"What is Objectum-Sexuality?" |
Current TV - Jan 2010 |
"Objectum-Sexualism" |
Tyra Banks - Nov 2009 |
"After Dark" |
Photographer Kyrre Lien - Nov 2009 |
"A Concrete Love Story" |
The Globe and Mail - 20 Aug 2009 |
"Love Objects" |
Golden Gate [X]press - 17 Apr 2009 |
"A Date with Golden Gate" |
Good Morning America - 8 Apr 2009 |
"In Love with the Eiffel Tower" |
RTL Punkt 12 - Feb 2009 German |
"Verheiratet mit dem Eiffelturm" |
De Pers - 29 Jul 2008 |
"Objectum-seksualiteit" - English translation here |
Irish National Radio 1 & pt 2 - 4 Jun 2008 |
"Ray D'Arcy Show" two parts mp3 |
Bizarre Magazine - Jun 2008 |
"Wall Love" |
The Sun - 27 May 2008 |
"Married to the Berlin Wall" (sarcastic) |
Kopenhagen.dk - 27 Apr 2008 |
"Berlinmuren" interview with Lars Laumann |
Wunderkammer - 30 Apr 2008 |
"Berlinmuren" art critique |
Bild.de - Apr 2008 German |
"Berlinmuren" exhibition |
der Spiegel International - 11 May 2007 |
"Falling in Love with Things" |
100 Hödjare - 2006 Swedish |
"Sveriges Skönaste Manniskor" |
Documentary - 2000 |
"Miss Guillotine" (glamourized) |
Davecat lives with his wife and mistress, both dolls, and thinks
synthetic partners are ideal for those who don't want to deal with
humans' inconsistencies.
Davecat
met his future wife, Sidore Kuroneko at a goth club in 2000, so the
story goes. The less romantic but perhaps more true version is that he
saved up for a year and a half to buy her online. She cost about $6,000.
Sidore is a RealDoll, manufactured by Abyss Creations in the shape of a human woman. She is covered in artificial skin made of silicone, so she’s soft. These high-end, anatomically correct—even equipped with fake tongues—love dolls (or capital-D Dolls) are ostensibly made for sex. But 40-year-old Davecat (a nickname acquired from videogames that he now prefers to go by) and others who call themselves iDollators see their dolls as life partners, not sex toys. Davecat and Sidore (or, as he sometimes calls her, Shi-chan) obviously aren’t legally married, but they do have matching wedding bands that say “Synthetik [sic] love lasts forever,” and he says they’re considering some sort of ceremony for their 15th anniversary.
Davecat considers himself an activist for synthetic love, and the rights of synthetic humans, such as Shi-chan. He’s active online, with an iDollator blog, “Shouting to hear the echoes,” that he updates regularly, and has appeared on TLC’s show My Strange Addiction, as well as in a BBC documentary called Guys and Dolls.
According to the backstory of Davecat’s relationships, his Doll mistress (and Sidore’s girlfriend), Elena Vostrikova, saw Davecat and Sidore in Guys and Dolls and moved from Russia to be with them. Davecat purchased Elena, or Lenka, in 2012, and the three of them now share a one-bedroom apartment in southeastern Michigan.
I spoke with Davecat over email about the ups and downs of synthetic relationships.
When and why did you purchase your first Doll? Were you thinking of companionship at the time, or was it just for sex?
I bought Shi-chan back in 2000. Admittedly, my reasons for purchasing her were 70 percent sex, 30 percent companionship. I've always been attracted to artificial women such as mannequins, and especially Gynoids, which are robots made in the likeness of human females. In late 1998 one of my best friends, showed me the RealDoll website, as she knew I was keen on artificial women. I thought they were gorgeous creations, and having one would not only dispel loneliness, but be excellent for sex as well. And I was right!
When did you start feeling like Sidore was not just a sex toy but someone/something you were in a relationship with?
It actually didn't take me too long to regard Shi-chan as a synthetic person, and not simply a thing; it occurred pretty much when I opened her crate for the first time. I was immediately stunned by her lifelike beauty, and after I mentally collected myself, extracted her from her crate, and sat her down on the couch, I just held her in my arms for a while. It felt so right and natural, if you'll pardon the pun. It seemed perfectly normal for me to treat something that resembles an organic woman the same way I'd treat an actual organic woman.
Part of the (sexual) appeal of synthetics is how much they look like their organic counterparts. If you have a robot shaped like a refrigerator, that won't have as much draw as a robot in the shape of a human; people will be more willing to interact with the human-shaped one. Further still, if that humanoid robot has artificial skin and sounds like a human, most people dealing with it are more than likely to even have a moment where they forget it's a robot. With Sidore, her draw was instantaneous. There was never a moment when Shi-chan—or any Doll, for that matter—was merely an object to me.
Have you always been interested in dolls, and if so, was it always in a sexual way?
I've always been fascinated by the idea of artificial people, specifically artificial women. Before I knew Dolls existed, I'd long identified as being a technosexual, even before I knew there was a word for it. A technosexual is someone who is attracted to robots. Like any subculture, there's many shades within the term. Some technosexuals prefer their organic partners to dress as robots; others are attracted to robots who don't necessarily have a humanoid appearance, such as R2-D2. My preference is for humanoid robots that are covered in artificial flesh, so they look organic upon first glance; both Geminoid-F and the Actroid series of Gynoids by Hiroshi Ishiguro are excellent examples.
Obviously, I’m sexually attracted to synthetic humans, such as Gynoids and Dolls, but the much larger part of their appeal is that they're humans, but they don't possess any of the unpleasant qualities that organic, flesh and blood humans have. A synthetic will never lie to you, cheat on you, criticize you, or be otherwise disagreeable. It’s rare enough to find organics who don't have something going on with them, and being able to make a partner of one is rarer still.
In your episode of My Strange Addiction, you talk about how you're perfectly aware she's a doll, and you're not trying to pretend she's a person. Yet you consider yourself married to Sidore, a marriage/relationship being something that is inherently two-sided. How do you reconcile those two things in your head at once?
Both Sidore and Elena have two backstories. One in which Sidore is the daughter of a Japanese father and an English mother, and was born in Japan and raised in Manchester, England. Elena's is similar; she grew up in Vladivostok, Russia. The other backstory they have is that they're Dolls. Self-aware Dolls, but Dolls nonetheless. In one backstory they have favorite foods; in the other, they don't eat, becaus they don't have digestive tracts... because they're Dolls. You get the idea.
I've had that dichotomy for as long as I've had Shi-chan and Lenka, and it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. As I write their characters, they each express themselves through the Internet; they both have their own Twitter feeds, and Shi-chan has a Tumblr. Playing up the Doll aspect allows me to get comedy from the situation, such as when Sidore wonders why I don't just remove my sinuses when my allergies flare up, but writing detailed histories for them exercises my creative writing skills, and makes them more 'human'. Like I said, the dichotomy probably won't be solved any time soon.
Have you ever been in a relationship with a human woman, and would you want to in the future? Do you find yourself attracted to human women?
I'd been in relationships with organic women prior to, and after, having Shi-chan enter my life. When I say “relationships,” I really mean “affairs where I was the other man;” I've never been in a situation where I was with an organic woman who didn't already have a boyfriend.
I don't consider myself to be a very persuasive person; when I was growing up, my father was always pushing me into doing things that I didn't want to do, and as a consequence, I didn't ever want to be That Guy Who's Being Aggressively Persuasive. So instead of asking whatever lass I was with to consider me as a boyfriend, I simply wouldn't force the issue.
I'm still quite attracted to organic women, at least visually. But just because someone's attractive doesn't mean they have a mindset or a personality that’s compatible with my own. I figure that instead of chasing after an ideal person who either doesn't exist in the first place, or is already with someone else, why not buy a Doll? I don't gamble, and I'm not keen on taking emotional chances. We've all seen relationships where things start out fantastically, and then just end up falling apart. A friend of mine just got divorced after 17 years of marriage. That's an enormous investment of time, money, and emotion, and I'm not interested in having someone in my life who may bail at any time, or who transforms into someone unpleasant. Ultimately, getting romantically involved with an organic woman doesn't seem worth it to me.
In December 2012, you purchased a second Doll. How come? Did you feel like your marriage was getting stale?
Back in the early 2000s, my goal was to purchase at least one Doll from every company that's out there. One of the objectives of my blog is to introduce people who aren't iDollators or technosexuals to the idea of synthetic partners, and having multiple Dolls from various companies would enable me to compare and contrast them, so that people could learn what makes them different, and choose the one that's right for them. Also, I always thought it would be cool to have photoshoots featuring multiple Dolls interacting with each other; doing so would further make them less seem like 'things', and more like people. As it is, however, there are around 20 different companies across six or so countries, and unfortunately, I don't have that kind of money. So now my goal is about five. Short of acquiring a two-bedroom flat, I won't have the space for more than five, either.
In a more fictitious context, I thought it would be nice to get a silicone companion for Sidore, so she isn't lonely or bored whenever I'm away from home. As they're both bisexual, they get to enjoy each other on multiple levels. If anything, adding Elena to our partnership has only improved it, as we all appreciate what each other has to offer. Besides, if and when I manage to get additional Dolls, Sidore will always remain my wife; I've no intention of marrying any of the other Dolls we'll have.
My marriage to Sidore is open in the context of she allows me to do anything I want, as long as it's only with a synthetic woman. Incidentally, those are the exact same conditions under which I'll allow her to do anything extracurricular. Very straightforward, yet simple!
But you say you've been in relationships with organic women "prior to and after having Shi-chan enter my life." Is there a story there? Did a relationship/affair you were having with an organic woman cause problems with your relationship with Sidore or vice versa?
I was seeing an organic lass—a coworker, from several jobs ago—who knew that I had Shi-chan. This was back when I was of the mindset that Sidore would remain my wife, but I'd still look now and again for an organic lass to be friends with benefits with. Our relationship started out alright, but several months into it, whenever I’d attempt to get together after work with her, she'd always have something come up. I was beating myself up over it when I realized: Why am I wasting my time trying to get her to hang out and be romantically involved with me, when I have a Doll who is in love with me at home? Plus, it was a bit of a contest with said coworker, as she was interested in two other blokes while she was seeing me. As I'm not competitive, either, I decided that pursuing her was a wasted effort, especially in light of Sidore not requiring any of that silliness.
Then there was the lass I bought a house with back in 2003. I was attempting to help her out of a bad relationship. She claimed to be one of my best friends. She wasn't the least bit romantically interested in me, but I thought that if I helped her and she and I lived under the same roof, eventually she'd view me more favorably. Turns out that didn't happen, as I later discovered that she was a pathological liar with a coke addiction, and I moved out of the house after living there for only four months. That really drove home to me that I guess I'm too trusting with some organics. Some of them can be far too unpredictable. Synthetics have a consistency that I'm thankful for.
What is a typical week like for you? Do you spend most of your time at home with Sidore and Elena, or do you go out with friends? When you do go out, do you ever bring either of them with you? I imagine people in public would react strangely—does that keep you from doing coupley stuff like going to movies?
Contrary to what most of the TV shows we appear in would have you believe, I actually go out quite a bit! Well, enough, I'd say. I'm not a “people person,” and although I love my friends, it's better for an introvert like myself to spend more time alone. Having said that, though, I always have a fantastic time whenever I'm with mates.
During the week, I'm usually at work—I do data entry and other bits and bobs at a machine shop—then I come home and either catch up on the Internet, or interact with Sidore and Elena. My job has me come in early, so I usually go to bed early Friday evenings, after meeting my friends online for whatever videogame has caught our fancy, or physically hanging out with them. Saturday evenings have me getting together with friends as well, and Sunday, I usually spend time with my rubber troublemakers, taking photos, watching a film or a telly program, writing or doing research for “Shouting to hear the echoes,” or getting up to other things.
Also contrary to what most people believe, I don't take Shi-chan or Lenka with me when I go out. For one, they're heavy (78 lbs and 57 lbs, respectively), and for another, I'm not so deluded as to think that taking them out and about with me wouldn't raise more than a few eyebrows. Also, I wouldn't want to put either myself or whichever synthetic lass I'd have with me in danger. I don't trust random people enough to think we wouldn't be verbally or physically attacked. People have a long and sordid history of being violent toward that which they don't understand. Or so I'm told.
What do your family and friends think of your relationship?
The way my friends view my relationship ranges from “Well, that's just what Davecat gets up to, I suppose,” to “Be sure to tell your girls I said ‘Hi!'” Most of them are cool with it; pretty much all of my friends are into quirky things, so they can empathize. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few among them who would rather see me with an organic lass, but overall, they think Sidore and Elena are rather neat. Curiously enough, more of my female friends like them than my male ones. A couple of female friends have picked out articles of clothing for Shi-chan and Lenka on a few occasions!
Of my Mum and Dad, Mum was more open-minded of the two—years ago, when I was in my eyeliner phase, she taught me how to apply it properly—so although she probably would've liked to be a grandmother at some point, she was okay with my unconventional partnership. Dad, on the other hand, to this day categorically refuses to talk about Sidore, Dolls, Gynoids, etc. He's never come out and said it, but he wishes that I were more conventional and acted like everyone else. I wouldn't say that me being an iDollator has driven a wedge into our relationship, as the wedge was already there long before Sidore entered my life. I once told him, half-jokingly, that his attitude is no way to treat his daughter-in-law, but as the man has no sense of humor, he didn't think much of that statement.
A more practical consideration: wear and tear. In the Guys and Dolls documentary, there's a scene where you send Sidore off to a special RealDoll repairman to get fixed. I don't know if you plan on spending the rest of your life with Sidore, but that is the typical connotation of "married" (divorce rates notwithstanding). What would you do if she ever just became broken beyond repair?
That sort of thing has already happened, after a fashion: Sidore's had three bodies since 2000. Her first body lasted from 2000 to 2003, her next went from 2003 to 2010, and she's still enjoying her third body. As are Elena and I! But seriously, if her body becomes too irreparable, I simply save up some money and buy her a new one. She's looked exactly the same from 2000 to now, excepting the fact that her current body looks more like how I wanted her to look to begin with; namely, she's extraordinarily pale. I'd be lying if I didn't say that when her body comes close to falling apart through entropy, I'm pretty cut up about it, as anyone would be when facing the mortality of a loved one.
Up until about 2006, most of the Doll manufacturers used tin-based silicone. Which is lovely and soft, but was prone to tearing. Now, pretty much all of the various companies use a platinum-based silicone, which is much more durable. Part of the issue with Sidore’s previous two bodies was that she did develop tears, which, depending on how severe they are, can be repaired. When Shi-chan got her surgeries in 2006, she also went to have her joints tightened, which is something that every Doll needs sometimes, no matter who makes them.
Sidore hasn't had a single tear with her current body, and her joints are just now starting to loosen. But purchasing a new body for her every couple of years when she needs it ensures a kind of immortality, and ensures she'll be around as long as I'm around.
Looking to the future, I know you're interested in androids and robotics and the idea of, for lack of a better word, sexbots. As this technology continues to develop, isn't it all just moving towards getting dolls to be more like humans? And if your preference is for dolls, isn't that counterintuitive?
Well, yes and no. For me, Dolls trump organics, but Gynoids—which is a much less limiting term than “sexbots”—trump Dolls. A Doll's only failing is that she can't move or speak of her own accord, whereas a Gynoid would be able to, dependenton advances in technology, of course.
My ideal version of Sidore would be a Gynoid who greatly resembles an organic, but upon closer inspection, she'd have silicone skin and slightly stilted movement. Now the important thing to remember is that Gynoids and androids are like organic humans, but they would lack the qualities that make organics difficult to deal with. They would be pleasant, agreeable, non-judgmental, aesthetically and mentally pleasing, and more. In day-to-day existence, most people have to deal with at least one person whom they'd rather avoid at all costs. The way I see things, your spouse should be easygoing and a joy to come home to, in order to counteract having to deal with all manner of undesirables when you're out and about. I think the best way to reach that goal is through humanoid robots. It's like having your cake, and eating it too.
You consider yourself an advocate for synthetic love, is that right? And on your My Strange Addiction episode, you say "I think it's a matter of time before more people are choosing the synthetic option." Why is that? What kind of person do you think this sort of relationship is right for?
I don't just consider myself an advocate for synthetic love, but for treating synthetic humans with as much respect, if not more, than organic humans. Referring to a synthetic as a “thing,” or a Doll as a “sex toy,” is demeaning and unimaginative. For one, it's entirely dismissive toward the artistry that goes into creating synthetic humans. Nearly everyone who sees a Doll in person has to admit that the level of work that goes into them is incredible, and the technology involved in Gynoids and androids who are capable of speech and movement is astounding without question. If animals have rights, and rightly so, why shouldn't we treat something that looks and acts like a human with similar rights and respect?
Regarding the sort of person a synthetic partner would be perfect for: when people are in failed organic relationships, they're invariably urged to dust themselves off and try again. But what most people don't realize is that not everyone is suited for the “try, try again” mindset, and with each defeat, they're less inclined to make another attempt, which leads to more loneliness, which makes them even more depressed, etc. Being in a relationship with a synthetic means that the organic is taking a stand against loneliness on terms which harm no one. Instead of being miserable, they're doing something about it, without having to waste time, money, and emotion playing silly games to win the fleeting affections of someone who might be wrong for them in the first place.
Apart from technosexuals and childfree people, one group of individuals who would be well-suited for synthetic partners are introverts. This is why I always stress the difference between loneliness and being alone; many of us introverts actually prefer to be alone, as the noise and agitation of being around others can be incredibly draining. But being lonely—that is, the state of not having a special someone who you can occasionally be alone with—is something no one should have to endure. Having a synthetic in your life means that you can interact with them whenever you want to, and when you want to do something that requires solitude, you can have that as well, without being made to feel guilty about it.
The movie Guys and Dolls says that most people who purchase RealDolls are men buying female dolls. Why do you think that is?
For one, Dolls aren't exactly light. Abyss Creations has made great strides in weight reduction and all of the other companies have followed suit, but when high-end ‘love dolls’ first appeared in the U.S., they were pretty substantial. Shi-chan is 5’1″, and her current body is about 78 lbs. Her first body from 2000 was the same height, but around 100 lbs. One reason why there’s not a lot of female iDollators out there is because Dolls tend to be too heavy for a lot of women, which sounds a bit chauvinistic to say, but it’s been corroborated with at least four female iDollators that I personally know. Incidentally, of the people I do know that have male Dolls, with the exception of one, all the owners are gay men.
Furthermore, it seems easier for women to find an organic male partner than it is for men to find an organic female partner. Women, by and large, are more selective than men are, and don't seem to have as much of a need to purchase a Doll as a single, open-minded bloke would.
Also, if more men do start "choosing the synthetic option," as you say, and begin having relationships with objects that are shaped like women, do you think that will encourage the objectification of real women?
The belief that the existence of synthetics encourages the objectification of organic women is baseless. If anything, those of us who are iDollators or technosexuals find that it's more a case of personifying objects. But then, 98 percent of the iDollators and technosexuals I know treat their Dolls like goddesses. I can't really speak for those who don't, and it would be safe to assume that those who would objectify an organic woman would've been practicing that behavior long before knowing about synthetics.
A lot of men are lonely because they're misogynist pricks, true, but a lot of other men are lonely because they don't meet women's expectations. The latter group may be entirely nice individuals, and would treat their girlfriends extraordinarily well, but they're shy, or unappealing on some level, or what have you. (I should note that it goes both ways, gender-wise; there are loads of organic women that remain single due to rejection.) But again, with the synthetic option, individuals who've been romantically passed over for whatever reason don't have to remain lonely. And to detractors who say that once Gynoids are more readily available, men will choose them in droves over organic women, that's rubbish as well. Having a synthetic partner is a preference. What’s more, those of us who desire a synthetic companion leave a larger selection for those people who are only interested in organic partners. We're doing you lot a favor!
Also, I have to ask—do you really feel fulfilled? Does it ever get lonely, is there anything that Sidore and Elena can't offer that you wish you had?
At this stage in the game, I'd have to say that I'm about 99 percent fulfilled. Every time I return home, there are two gorgeous synthetic women waiting for me, who both act as creative muses, photo models, and romantic partners. They make my flat less empty, and I never have to worry about them becoming disagreeable. Because of my status as an iDollator, I've met people across several countries and forged solid friendships. I've seen things I would never have seen were I not an iDollator. I've been interviewed for various television programs and websites, and asked to speak in front of a room full of psychology students about the benefits of synthetic partners. I've collaborated with performance artists and sociology teachers. To this day, I still get people contacting me online, saying that they saw how happy I am with Sidore, and they're saving up for a Doll of their own, to pull them out of their own loneliness. It's true that Sidore and Elena wouldn't exist without me, but without them, I'd be a much more reduced individual, so I owe them quite a lot.
However, that 1 percent of unfulfillment? That's only there because neither Sidore nor Elena are Gynoids. Once that technology becomes affordable, I'll have one made in my wife's likeness, and that'll be the final piece of the puzzle. She'd be able to hug me back whenever I embrace her, we'd be able to attend films and concerts together, and do all manner of things besides. There would be genuine interaction. The foundation for the technology is already there, so I'm convinced it'll happen; it's just a matter of waiting. - www.theatlantic.com/
Sidore is a RealDoll, manufactured by Abyss Creations in the shape of a human woman. She is covered in artificial skin made of silicone, so she’s soft. These high-end, anatomically correct—even equipped with fake tongues—love dolls (or capital-D Dolls) are ostensibly made for sex. But 40-year-old Davecat (a nickname acquired from videogames that he now prefers to go by) and others who call themselves iDollators see their dolls as life partners, not sex toys. Davecat and Sidore (or, as he sometimes calls her, Shi-chan) obviously aren’t legally married, but they do have matching wedding bands that say “Synthetik [sic] love lasts forever,” and he says they’re considering some sort of ceremony for their 15th anniversary.
Davecat considers himself an activist for synthetic love, and the rights of synthetic humans, such as Shi-chan. He’s active online, with an iDollator blog, “Shouting to hear the echoes,” that he updates regularly, and has appeared on TLC’s show My Strange Addiction, as well as in a BBC documentary called Guys and Dolls.
According to the backstory of Davecat’s relationships, his Doll mistress (and Sidore’s girlfriend), Elena Vostrikova, saw Davecat and Sidore in Guys and Dolls and moved from Russia to be with them. Davecat purchased Elena, or Lenka, in 2012, and the three of them now share a one-bedroom apartment in southeastern Michigan.
I spoke with Davecat over email about the ups and downs of synthetic relationships.
When and why did you purchase your first Doll? Were you thinking of companionship at the time, or was it just for sex?
I bought Shi-chan back in 2000. Admittedly, my reasons for purchasing her were 70 percent sex, 30 percent companionship. I've always been attracted to artificial women such as mannequins, and especially Gynoids, which are robots made in the likeness of human females. In late 1998 one of my best friends, showed me the RealDoll website, as she knew I was keen on artificial women. I thought they were gorgeous creations, and having one would not only dispel loneliness, but be excellent for sex as well. And I was right!
When did you start feeling like Sidore was not just a sex toy but someone/something you were in a relationship with?
It actually didn't take me too long to regard Shi-chan as a synthetic person, and not simply a thing; it occurred pretty much when I opened her crate for the first time. I was immediately stunned by her lifelike beauty, and after I mentally collected myself, extracted her from her crate, and sat her down on the couch, I just held her in my arms for a while. It felt so right and natural, if you'll pardon the pun. It seemed perfectly normal for me to treat something that resembles an organic woman the same way I'd treat an actual organic woman.
Part of the (sexual) appeal of synthetics is how much they look like their organic counterparts. If you have a robot shaped like a refrigerator, that won't have as much draw as a robot in the shape of a human; people will be more willing to interact with the human-shaped one. Further still, if that humanoid robot has artificial skin and sounds like a human, most people dealing with it are more than likely to even have a moment where they forget it's a robot. With Sidore, her draw was instantaneous. There was never a moment when Shi-chan—or any Doll, for that matter—was merely an object to me.
Have you always been interested in dolls, and if so, was it always in a sexual way?
I've always been fascinated by the idea of artificial people, specifically artificial women. Before I knew Dolls existed, I'd long identified as being a technosexual, even before I knew there was a word for it. A technosexual is someone who is attracted to robots. Like any subculture, there's many shades within the term. Some technosexuals prefer their organic partners to dress as robots; others are attracted to robots who don't necessarily have a humanoid appearance, such as R2-D2. My preference is for humanoid robots that are covered in artificial flesh, so they look organic upon first glance; both Geminoid-F and the Actroid series of Gynoids by Hiroshi Ishiguro are excellent examples.
Obviously, I’m sexually attracted to synthetic humans, such as Gynoids and Dolls, but the much larger part of their appeal is that they're humans, but they don't possess any of the unpleasant qualities that organic, flesh and blood humans have. A synthetic will never lie to you, cheat on you, criticize you, or be otherwise disagreeable. It’s rare enough to find organics who don't have something going on with them, and being able to make a partner of one is rarer still.
In your episode of My Strange Addiction, you talk about how you're perfectly aware she's a doll, and you're not trying to pretend she's a person. Yet you consider yourself married to Sidore, a marriage/relationship being something that is inherently two-sided. How do you reconcile those two things in your head at once?
Both Sidore and Elena have two backstories. One in which Sidore is the daughter of a Japanese father and an English mother, and was born in Japan and raised in Manchester, England. Elena's is similar; she grew up in Vladivostok, Russia. The other backstory they have is that they're Dolls. Self-aware Dolls, but Dolls nonetheless. In one backstory they have favorite foods; in the other, they don't eat, becaus they don't have digestive tracts... because they're Dolls. You get the idea.
I've had that dichotomy for as long as I've had Shi-chan and Lenka, and it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. As I write their characters, they each express themselves through the Internet; they both have their own Twitter feeds, and Shi-chan has a Tumblr. Playing up the Doll aspect allows me to get comedy from the situation, such as when Sidore wonders why I don't just remove my sinuses when my allergies flare up, but writing detailed histories for them exercises my creative writing skills, and makes them more 'human'. Like I said, the dichotomy probably won't be solved any time soon.
Have you ever been in a relationship with a human woman, and would you want to in the future? Do you find yourself attracted to human women?
I'd been in relationships with organic women prior to, and after, having Shi-chan enter my life. When I say “relationships,” I really mean “affairs where I was the other man;” I've never been in a situation where I was with an organic woman who didn't already have a boyfriend.
I don't consider myself to be a very persuasive person; when I was growing up, my father was always pushing me into doing things that I didn't want to do, and as a consequence, I didn't ever want to be That Guy Who's Being Aggressively Persuasive. So instead of asking whatever lass I was with to consider me as a boyfriend, I simply wouldn't force the issue.
I'm still quite attracted to organic women, at least visually. But just because someone's attractive doesn't mean they have a mindset or a personality that’s compatible with my own. I figure that instead of chasing after an ideal person who either doesn't exist in the first place, or is already with someone else, why not buy a Doll? I don't gamble, and I'm not keen on taking emotional chances. We've all seen relationships where things start out fantastically, and then just end up falling apart. A friend of mine just got divorced after 17 years of marriage. That's an enormous investment of time, money, and emotion, and I'm not interested in having someone in my life who may bail at any time, or who transforms into someone unpleasant. Ultimately, getting romantically involved with an organic woman doesn't seem worth it to me.
In December 2012, you purchased a second Doll. How come? Did you feel like your marriage was getting stale?
Back in the early 2000s, my goal was to purchase at least one Doll from every company that's out there. One of the objectives of my blog is to introduce people who aren't iDollators or technosexuals to the idea of synthetic partners, and having multiple Dolls from various companies would enable me to compare and contrast them, so that people could learn what makes them different, and choose the one that's right for them. Also, I always thought it would be cool to have photoshoots featuring multiple Dolls interacting with each other; doing so would further make them less seem like 'things', and more like people. As it is, however, there are around 20 different companies across six or so countries, and unfortunately, I don't have that kind of money. So now my goal is about five. Short of acquiring a two-bedroom flat, I won't have the space for more than five, either.
In a more fictitious context, I thought it would be nice to get a silicone companion for Sidore, so she isn't lonely or bored whenever I'm away from home. As they're both bisexual, they get to enjoy each other on multiple levels. If anything, adding Elena to our partnership has only improved it, as we all appreciate what each other has to offer. Besides, if and when I manage to get additional Dolls, Sidore will always remain my wife; I've no intention of marrying any of the other Dolls we'll have.
My marriage to Sidore is open in the context of she allows me to do anything I want, as long as it's only with a synthetic woman. Incidentally, those are the exact same conditions under which I'll allow her to do anything extracurricular. Very straightforward, yet simple!
But you say you've been in relationships with organic women "prior to and after having Shi-chan enter my life." Is there a story there? Did a relationship/affair you were having with an organic woman cause problems with your relationship with Sidore or vice versa?
I was seeing an organic lass—a coworker, from several jobs ago—who knew that I had Shi-chan. This was back when I was of the mindset that Sidore would remain my wife, but I'd still look now and again for an organic lass to be friends with benefits with. Our relationship started out alright, but several months into it, whenever I’d attempt to get together after work with her, she'd always have something come up. I was beating myself up over it when I realized: Why am I wasting my time trying to get her to hang out and be romantically involved with me, when I have a Doll who is in love with me at home? Plus, it was a bit of a contest with said coworker, as she was interested in two other blokes while she was seeing me. As I'm not competitive, either, I decided that pursuing her was a wasted effort, especially in light of Sidore not requiring any of that silliness.
Then there was the lass I bought a house with back in 2003. I was attempting to help her out of a bad relationship. She claimed to be one of my best friends. She wasn't the least bit romantically interested in me, but I thought that if I helped her and she and I lived under the same roof, eventually she'd view me more favorably. Turns out that didn't happen, as I later discovered that she was a pathological liar with a coke addiction, and I moved out of the house after living there for only four months. That really drove home to me that I guess I'm too trusting with some organics. Some of them can be far too unpredictable. Synthetics have a consistency that I'm thankful for.
What is a typical week like for you? Do you spend most of your time at home with Sidore and Elena, or do you go out with friends? When you do go out, do you ever bring either of them with you? I imagine people in public would react strangely—does that keep you from doing coupley stuff like going to movies?
Contrary to what most of the TV shows we appear in would have you believe, I actually go out quite a bit! Well, enough, I'd say. I'm not a “people person,” and although I love my friends, it's better for an introvert like myself to spend more time alone. Having said that, though, I always have a fantastic time whenever I'm with mates.
During the week, I'm usually at work—I do data entry and other bits and bobs at a machine shop—then I come home and either catch up on the Internet, or interact with Sidore and Elena. My job has me come in early, so I usually go to bed early Friday evenings, after meeting my friends online for whatever videogame has caught our fancy, or physically hanging out with them. Saturday evenings have me getting together with friends as well, and Sunday, I usually spend time with my rubber troublemakers, taking photos, watching a film or a telly program, writing or doing research for “Shouting to hear the echoes,” or getting up to other things.
Also contrary to what most people believe, I don't take Shi-chan or Lenka with me when I go out. For one, they're heavy (78 lbs and 57 lbs, respectively), and for another, I'm not so deluded as to think that taking them out and about with me wouldn't raise more than a few eyebrows. Also, I wouldn't want to put either myself or whichever synthetic lass I'd have with me in danger. I don't trust random people enough to think we wouldn't be verbally or physically attacked. People have a long and sordid history of being violent toward that which they don't understand. Or so I'm told.
What do your family and friends think of your relationship?
The way my friends view my relationship ranges from “Well, that's just what Davecat gets up to, I suppose,” to “Be sure to tell your girls I said ‘Hi!'” Most of them are cool with it; pretty much all of my friends are into quirky things, so they can empathize. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few among them who would rather see me with an organic lass, but overall, they think Sidore and Elena are rather neat. Curiously enough, more of my female friends like them than my male ones. A couple of female friends have picked out articles of clothing for Shi-chan and Lenka on a few occasions!
Of my Mum and Dad, Mum was more open-minded of the two—years ago, when I was in my eyeliner phase, she taught me how to apply it properly—so although she probably would've liked to be a grandmother at some point, she was okay with my unconventional partnership. Dad, on the other hand, to this day categorically refuses to talk about Sidore, Dolls, Gynoids, etc. He's never come out and said it, but he wishes that I were more conventional and acted like everyone else. I wouldn't say that me being an iDollator has driven a wedge into our relationship, as the wedge was already there long before Sidore entered my life. I once told him, half-jokingly, that his attitude is no way to treat his daughter-in-law, but as the man has no sense of humor, he didn't think much of that statement.
A more practical consideration: wear and tear. In the Guys and Dolls documentary, there's a scene where you send Sidore off to a special RealDoll repairman to get fixed. I don't know if you plan on spending the rest of your life with Sidore, but that is the typical connotation of "married" (divorce rates notwithstanding). What would you do if she ever just became broken beyond repair?
That sort of thing has already happened, after a fashion: Sidore's had three bodies since 2000. Her first body lasted from 2000 to 2003, her next went from 2003 to 2010, and she's still enjoying her third body. As are Elena and I! But seriously, if her body becomes too irreparable, I simply save up some money and buy her a new one. She's looked exactly the same from 2000 to now, excepting the fact that her current body looks more like how I wanted her to look to begin with; namely, she's extraordinarily pale. I'd be lying if I didn't say that when her body comes close to falling apart through entropy, I'm pretty cut up about it, as anyone would be when facing the mortality of a loved one.
Up until about 2006, most of the Doll manufacturers used tin-based silicone. Which is lovely and soft, but was prone to tearing. Now, pretty much all of the various companies use a platinum-based silicone, which is much more durable. Part of the issue with Sidore’s previous two bodies was that she did develop tears, which, depending on how severe they are, can be repaired. When Shi-chan got her surgeries in 2006, she also went to have her joints tightened, which is something that every Doll needs sometimes, no matter who makes them.
Sidore hasn't had a single tear with her current body, and her joints are just now starting to loosen. But purchasing a new body for her every couple of years when she needs it ensures a kind of immortality, and ensures she'll be around as long as I'm around.
Looking to the future, I know you're interested in androids and robotics and the idea of, for lack of a better word, sexbots. As this technology continues to develop, isn't it all just moving towards getting dolls to be more like humans? And if your preference is for dolls, isn't that counterintuitive?
Well, yes and no. For me, Dolls trump organics, but Gynoids—which is a much less limiting term than “sexbots”—trump Dolls. A Doll's only failing is that she can't move or speak of her own accord, whereas a Gynoid would be able to, dependenton advances in technology, of course.
My ideal version of Sidore would be a Gynoid who greatly resembles an organic, but upon closer inspection, she'd have silicone skin and slightly stilted movement. Now the important thing to remember is that Gynoids and androids are like organic humans, but they would lack the qualities that make organics difficult to deal with. They would be pleasant, agreeable, non-judgmental, aesthetically and mentally pleasing, and more. In day-to-day existence, most people have to deal with at least one person whom they'd rather avoid at all costs. The way I see things, your spouse should be easygoing and a joy to come home to, in order to counteract having to deal with all manner of undesirables when you're out and about. I think the best way to reach that goal is through humanoid robots. It's like having your cake, and eating it too.
You consider yourself an advocate for synthetic love, is that right? And on your My Strange Addiction episode, you say "I think it's a matter of time before more people are choosing the synthetic option." Why is that? What kind of person do you think this sort of relationship is right for?
I don't just consider myself an advocate for synthetic love, but for treating synthetic humans with as much respect, if not more, than organic humans. Referring to a synthetic as a “thing,” or a Doll as a “sex toy,” is demeaning and unimaginative. For one, it's entirely dismissive toward the artistry that goes into creating synthetic humans. Nearly everyone who sees a Doll in person has to admit that the level of work that goes into them is incredible, and the technology involved in Gynoids and androids who are capable of speech and movement is astounding without question. If animals have rights, and rightly so, why shouldn't we treat something that looks and acts like a human with similar rights and respect?
Regarding the sort of person a synthetic partner would be perfect for: when people are in failed organic relationships, they're invariably urged to dust themselves off and try again. But what most people don't realize is that not everyone is suited for the “try, try again” mindset, and with each defeat, they're less inclined to make another attempt, which leads to more loneliness, which makes them even more depressed, etc. Being in a relationship with a synthetic means that the organic is taking a stand against loneliness on terms which harm no one. Instead of being miserable, they're doing something about it, without having to waste time, money, and emotion playing silly games to win the fleeting affections of someone who might be wrong for them in the first place.
Apart from technosexuals and childfree people, one group of individuals who would be well-suited for synthetic partners are introverts. This is why I always stress the difference between loneliness and being alone; many of us introverts actually prefer to be alone, as the noise and agitation of being around others can be incredibly draining. But being lonely—that is, the state of not having a special someone who you can occasionally be alone with—is something no one should have to endure. Having a synthetic in your life means that you can interact with them whenever you want to, and when you want to do something that requires solitude, you can have that as well, without being made to feel guilty about it.
The movie Guys and Dolls says that most people who purchase RealDolls are men buying female dolls. Why do you think that is?
For one, Dolls aren't exactly light. Abyss Creations has made great strides in weight reduction and all of the other companies have followed suit, but when high-end ‘love dolls’ first appeared in the U.S., they were pretty substantial. Shi-chan is 5’1″, and her current body is about 78 lbs. Her first body from 2000 was the same height, but around 100 lbs. One reason why there’s not a lot of female iDollators out there is because Dolls tend to be too heavy for a lot of women, which sounds a bit chauvinistic to say, but it’s been corroborated with at least four female iDollators that I personally know. Incidentally, of the people I do know that have male Dolls, with the exception of one, all the owners are gay men.
Furthermore, it seems easier for women to find an organic male partner than it is for men to find an organic female partner. Women, by and large, are more selective than men are, and don't seem to have as much of a need to purchase a Doll as a single, open-minded bloke would.
Also, if more men do start "choosing the synthetic option," as you say, and begin having relationships with objects that are shaped like women, do you think that will encourage the objectification of real women?
The belief that the existence of synthetics encourages the objectification of organic women is baseless. If anything, those of us who are iDollators or technosexuals find that it's more a case of personifying objects. But then, 98 percent of the iDollators and technosexuals I know treat their Dolls like goddesses. I can't really speak for those who don't, and it would be safe to assume that those who would objectify an organic woman would've been practicing that behavior long before knowing about synthetics.
A lot of men are lonely because they're misogynist pricks, true, but a lot of other men are lonely because they don't meet women's expectations. The latter group may be entirely nice individuals, and would treat their girlfriends extraordinarily well, but they're shy, or unappealing on some level, or what have you. (I should note that it goes both ways, gender-wise; there are loads of organic women that remain single due to rejection.) But again, with the synthetic option, individuals who've been romantically passed over for whatever reason don't have to remain lonely. And to detractors who say that once Gynoids are more readily available, men will choose them in droves over organic women, that's rubbish as well. Having a synthetic partner is a preference. What’s more, those of us who desire a synthetic companion leave a larger selection for those people who are only interested in organic partners. We're doing you lot a favor!
Also, I have to ask—do you really feel fulfilled? Does it ever get lonely, is there anything that Sidore and Elena can't offer that you wish you had?
At this stage in the game, I'd have to say that I'm about 99 percent fulfilled. Every time I return home, there are two gorgeous synthetic women waiting for me, who both act as creative muses, photo models, and romantic partners. They make my flat less empty, and I never have to worry about them becoming disagreeable. Because of my status as an iDollator, I've met people across several countries and forged solid friendships. I've seen things I would never have seen were I not an iDollator. I've been interviewed for various television programs and websites, and asked to speak in front of a room full of psychology students about the benefits of synthetic partners. I've collaborated with performance artists and sociology teachers. To this day, I still get people contacting me online, saying that they saw how happy I am with Sidore, and they're saving up for a Doll of their own, to pull them out of their own loneliness. It's true that Sidore and Elena wouldn't exist without me, but without them, I'd be a much more reduced individual, so I owe them quite a lot.
However, that 1 percent of unfulfillment? That's only there because neither Sidore nor Elena are Gynoids. Once that technology becomes affordable, I'll have one made in my wife's likeness, and that'll be the final piece of the puzzle. She'd be able to hug me back whenever I embrace her, we'd be able to attend films and concerts together, and do all manner of things besides. There would be genuine interaction. The foundation for the technology is already there, so I'm convinced it'll happen; it's just a matter of waiting. - www.theatlantic.com/
Meet 'The Woman Who Married the Eiffel Tower': Erika La Tour Eiffel, an 'objectum sexual'
By Rosemary Black /
Erika
is one of a handful of people around the world called "objectum
sexuals" - people who fall in love with inanimate objects. Profiled in a
documentary entitled "The Woman Who Married the Eiffel Tower," she is
shown hugging her "husband" and professing love for him, or it.
An ex U.S. Army soldier, she was reportedly sexually abused while growing up and was diagnosed with a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. Upon "marrying" the iconic structure, Erika actually changed her surname to LaTour Eiffel. In the documentary, she discusses her relationship with the Parisian landmark, and claims to be very much in love.
Yet the Tower isn't her first love. Previously she was in love with Lance, which was a bow, and during that relationship, she became a world champion in archery.
The term "objectum sexual" was coined by a Swedish woman named Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer, who married the Berlin Wall in the 1970s, according to the documentary.
Objectum sexuals are putting up a barrier between themselves and other people, says Debbie Mandel, author of "Addicted to Stress."
"Marriage is about intimacy and being vulnerable," she explains. "These women are not going to be vulnerable, and they have picked these powerful symbols to show, I don't need a man. It can be in my brain. It's brain sex."
The images that objectum sexuals choose to focus their romantic notions on are often very sexual, Mandel says.
The Eiffel Tower's shape has a very visual sexual connotation, she points out, while the Berlin Wall is significant because it's a wall. "The woman who married it is is saying, I am going to fortify myself and no one is going to penetrate me unless I permit it. There is an anger there."
Objectum sexuals can have tremendous difficulty forming a relationship with another person, says psychologist Dorothea Hover-Kramer, which may be why they turn to objects.
"People get carried away and it can get a little excessive," she says. "Normally we form attachments to other people and to pets. But sometimes people can get very attached to their jewelry or to their home. So it's out there. The attachment to inanimate objects is definitely a distortion of more normal bonding."
An ex U.S. Army soldier, she was reportedly sexually abused while growing up and was diagnosed with a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. Upon "marrying" the iconic structure, Erika actually changed her surname to LaTour Eiffel. In the documentary, she discusses her relationship with the Parisian landmark, and claims to be very much in love.
Yet the Tower isn't her first love. Previously she was in love with Lance, which was a bow, and during that relationship, she became a world champion in archery.
Objectum sexuals are putting up a barrier between themselves and other people, says Debbie Mandel, author of "Addicted to Stress."
"Marriage is about intimacy and being vulnerable," she explains. "These women are not going to be vulnerable, and they have picked these powerful symbols to show, I don't need a man. It can be in my brain. It's brain sex."
The images that objectum sexuals choose to focus their romantic notions on are often very sexual, Mandel says.
The Eiffel Tower's shape has a very visual sexual connotation, she points out, while the Berlin Wall is significant because it's a wall. "The woman who married it is is saying, I am going to fortify myself and no one is going to penetrate me unless I permit it. There is an anger there."
Objectum sexuals can have tremendous difficulty forming a relationship with another person, says psychologist Dorothea Hover-Kramer, which may be why they turn to objects.
"People get carried away and it can get a little excessive," she says. "Normally we form attachments to other people and to pets. But sometimes people can get very attached to their jewelry or to their home. So it's out there. The attachment to inanimate objects is definitely a distortion of more normal bonding."
Sometimes you'd like to know if a relationship with someone could work out. Therefore Lovecalculator.life designed this great machine for you. With The Love Crush Calculator you can calculate the probability of a successful relationship between two people. The Lovecalculator is an effective way to get an impression of what the chances are on a relationship between two people.
OdgovoriIzbriši