Academics Debate Which Term Best Describes Those Who Love (in that way) Their Pillows

Years ago we reported on a woman (fat, ugly) who wanted to “marry” “Sky Scream, a rollercoaster at Holiday Park in Hassloch, Germany.” She was in love with it, says one source. Well, women being fickle, you won’t be surprised to learn she dumped the rollercoaster and moved in, or rather with, “a large purple ride called Gravity in Foire aux Plaisirs, in Bordeaux, France”.

Pleasurable Gravity might be a good translation. And is sensible, given it appears the woman gained a lot of weight over the years. She claims to have conceived a baby with the ride. This may be how Tilt-a-Whirls come into the world.

If there can be pregnant men, we ought not to scoff at women who claim fairground rides impregnate them.

Insanity is a constant in man, and this report would be of no large interest, except that it has captured the attention of academics. As the source above says: “Gaëlle is an objectophile – a person attracted to inanimate objects.”

I have tried to explain many times that once we allowed the idea of “sexual orientations”, once you allow even the seemingly harmless distinction of “homosexual” and “heterosexual”, then any and all desires would eventually, and must, be labeled an “orientation”, and so come under the beady eyes of supportive researchers.

A cardinal sin in academia is offending crazy people. This explains the peer-reviewed article “Objectum Sexuality or Objectophilia” (pdf) in the International Journal of Advanced Studies in Sexology, arguing about which name best describes sexual attraction to fairground rides. Advanced studies alert!

It is worth quoting the Abstract:

“Loving Objects” a category of peoples that explores the formation of a newly named sexual orientation, also called objectum-sexuality (OS), are the one who openly declare their desire for objects, loving the objects not like a fetishism, like an amorous partner, even life partners. The fallow material examines some aspects regarding OS behaviour, how they interact in the online environment with the rest of the world, how they perceive sexual intimacy and what rights they demand, the fact that it represents a non-specific paraphilia and that it has links with autism and synaesthesia.

Ah, “rights”. Which logically imply duties. In this case, your duty, dear reader, to be an ally: “Lack of social acceptance for Objectum Sexuality relationships (marriage with objects) is the main problem”. Correct your non-acceptance, Anon.

If you don’t want to learn about “special pillows”, then do not click the link. The author also accuses Quasimodo of having the hots for the bells of Notre Dame. And why not? People who love fairground rides and church bells are in relationships that “are no less and no more of value than other romantic relationships.”

Like I said, academics want in on every new “orientation”, and admit it, as in this passage from an introduction on the subject in the book Silent Partners in Multicultural Education (page xii):

Yet an increasing number of researchers call for inanimates to be taken into account in research, moving away from anthropocentrism (where the human is at the center) and leading to “an object turn.”…Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO, or Triple O) gives objects their due.

At least it’s easy to see how they’ll fit “Triple O” on the sexual deviancy flag.

Here I must ask you to stomach a passage which I believe explains the true mind of a modern academic:

While objectophilia has clearly emerged in other fields of research, education, especially multicultural education, appears to be a bit reluctant to open up its doors to objects. Barad (2007) and Osberg & Biesta (2010) are exceptions in general education research. Karen Barad (2007), philosopher of science, applies her concept of agential realism to explain the complex web of interrelations and intra-activities among human and nonhuman beings in knowing and learning. Osberg and Biesta (2010) rely on centrifugal logic, or rhizomatic logic, according to Deleuze and Guattari (1987), of knowledge-forming processes that take place between humans and nonhuman material artifacts.

Once you have let yourself fall into the clutches of rhizomatic logic you are lost. Even letting yourself write in earnest “knowledge-forming processes” is the death of hope. Only a miracle will save you.

I leave you with this last paper on the subject in my unending plea to defund all universities: “Objects in Human Drag: The Queerness of Object-Oriented Ontologies“. The Triple-O.

This thesis explores the intersections between queer theory and object-oriented ontologies (OOOs) through examining three case studies of objects in human drag: (1) hats, purses and shoes; (2) mannequins; and (3) dildos. I argue that queer theory and OOOs are necessarily connected in that both offer philosophical strategies of resistance to hegemonic structures imposed by binary gender categories, compulsory heterosexuality and compulsory anthropocentrism.

If you will not defund, at least consider nuking universities from space.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use PayPal. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank. BUY ME A COFFEE.