Are objectum romantics part of the lgbtq community?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi!
My name is Luke! I own a very rare misato 1997 Takara Tomy doll from Japan and she’s my girlfriend (I’m an objectum romantic). I was wondering if objectums are welcome in the lgbtq community.

"Object sexuality or Objectophilia is a group of paraphilias characterized by sexual or romantic attraction focused on particular inanimate objects.  Individuals with this attraction may have strong feelings of love and commitment to certain items or structures of their fixation.  Some do not desire sexual or close emotional relationships with humans." -- Wikipedia

Perhaps part of the 'Q' or 'Q+' community . . . ?

The only "genderizations" (if they can be called that) not welcome here (AFAIK) are pedophilia, necrophilia, and rape.

So, the Ancient Greeks believed that there were around seven or eight types of love.

Eros (Sexual / Physical attraction)
Philia (Deep Friendship)
Ludus (Playful Love)
Agape (Love for everyone)
Pragma (Longstanding love)
Storge (Love of family / emotional connection to family)
And Mania (obsessive love)

Now, Sexual Orientations typically describe someone's Eros or lack thereof. An attraction to the opposite sex, the same sex, both or neither. In certain languages, the concept of asexuality translates to immune to physical attraction and I think that's kind of neat.

Philia has changed a lot in meaning over time. It used to mean deep friendship but it is now used as a suffix to mean an intense and unusual interest or obsession with something. This can range from being a big fan of books (a Bibliophile) or an Objectophile like the OP. It does unfortunately include concepts such as Pedophilia and Necrophilia which are obviously not a part of the LGBT community.

Now, Philias in general are not considered to be a part of the LGBT acronym. Language wise they're considered closer to an intense interest / obsession rather than an orientation.

You could argue that certain Philias could be considered queer since queer is a fairly open-ended term. It's a bit like how there are a fair amount of arguments about what is and isn't neurodiverse. It really depends on how you define it.

Further, you could argue that instead of philia it is a form of romantic attraction. There is the split-attraction model that some people use where their sexual attraction might not line up with their romantic interests. Some asexuals might not want to have sex, but they are still interested in romance. So, a heteroromantic for example would want to date people of the opposite sex but may not want to have sex with them.

However, personally I don't think the romantic suffix quite works when applied to inanimate objects and I would argue that it is closer to a philia rather than an orientation.

TL;DR: It's complicated but essentially Objectophilia is N / A to LGBT since it is a philia rather than a sexual orientation or gender identity.

Objectum is a kind of aromantic/asexual attraction (you have a desire which is not directed to a person).

You ought to be included in queer communities but unfortunately many queer communities are bigoted against asexual/aromantic people. At a deeper level, queer institutions are structurally a-phobic.

In my opinion, a lot of the structural bigotry of the queer and lesbian communities boils down to the anti-psychiatry movement, and attempts to demedicalize homosexuality. In my opinion, in attempts to demedicalize homosexuality queer activism often reinforced ableism and threw disabled people under the bus.

It's worth noting that homosexuality was historically classified as a paraphilia, and so was transvestism/transsexuality. Fetishes are still classified as paraphilias today. Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with being disabled. So I don't think homosexual people should fight to be considered non-disabled. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a disabled body or sexual drive.

Regardless, you're still likely to face a lot of stigma in queer spaces unfortunately. You'll probably want to look for asexual/aromantic spaces anyhow.