MAP Forum

I am not a MAP but an objectophile instead. Yet, I feel solidarity towards other types of paraphiles. I believe that pedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles and objectophiles are similar to each other due to the nature of our potential partners. I'm aware that the term 'pedophile' may be offensive so feel free to edit it out. Personally, I am reclaiming the term 'objectophile' as I believe paraphilias shouldn't be pathologised nor stigmatised.

I am aware that objectophiles are privileged because their love is not criminalised. However, I still relate to the MAP/pedophile experience as we both have non-normative sexualities. Objectophiles and MAPs are both ostracised by others, considered mentally ill, and our partners are deemed illegitimate. MAPs do have it worse since they receive death threats, while objectophiles are simply bullied.

You may be wondering why an objectophile is posting in a MAP forum instead of an objectophilia forum. I have 3 reasons.
1. The objectophilia forum doesn't seem to be active nowadays.
2. The term 'objectophile' has been replaced with 'objectumsexual', as objectumsexuals believe 'objectophile' is derogatory. I cannot relate to the objectumsexual community anymore since I realised the nature of our attractions are different. (For anyone interested, it's because objectumsexuals anthropomorphise objects by drawing faces. I cannot stand it as I am only interested in inanimate objects, not anthropomorphised ones.)
3. I relate to the anguish that no-contact MAPs may have. Even though there are no laws prohibiting object relationships, I am unable to partake in certain acts with objects, much like MAPs. I am attracted to shiny, expensive objects which are often ornate items. I fear of tarnishing them through 'rigorous actions', so I only allow myself to partake in romantic acts rather than sexual. I am aware this may be a mental block, hence I am willing to learn more from my fellow paraphiles.

Interesting.

Welcome to the forum!

Oh, cool.
Personally, I’m more in favor of removing the negative meaning from a term rather than replacing the term with a more “positive” one. I think it’s extremely easy for people to shift the negative imagery onto the new term anyway, and in the end you just end up accumulating term after term as each one turns into a slur.

I don’t know if it’s really the same thing, but I see some similarities in point 2 with the whole furry vs. zoophilia issue—where, in the end, they’re two different groups with just a few people who happen to belong to both.

Cool. Is the romantic attraction to objects similar to amulets? And it's not a form of animism, right?

Welcome!

I don't think necrophiliacs should be mistreated or discriminated against, nor do I think there's anything wrong with the mere sexual attraction to a corpse, but I do think there's something wrong with the fetishization of dead bodies as dead bodies because it seems to necessarily negate valuing someone's happiness (in a perfect world, no one would ever die. Death is good insofar as it protects us from pain but undesirable insofar as it deprives us of any hope for possible future happiness. If I love Jane Doe, in the altruistic sense, I want her to be happy which requires her being alive so maybe I have a reflexive sexual response to her dead body; at least in theory, the stress of her death might block that, but I can't see how I could be turned on by her death per se and it seems likely to me that necrophilia, in practice, is about breaking a taboo rooted in respect for the dead and the 'shock'/forbiddenness that comes with that). You could maybe apply the same logic to objectophilia since, even if there's an afterlife, I think the ideal preference should be for a partner who would share the experience and enjoy it as much as you do. I won't claim to know otherwise but I also have to think that objectophiles are turned on by the idea of sexual contact with inanimate objects without actually being sexually attracted to their physical appearance/attributes but I could be wrong and, ultimately, I don't really make a distinction between who one is attracted to and what one is turned on by (unless maybe the latter says something about one's values). The leftist ideal, even if it's not applied consistently, seems to be to accept unconventional sexuality without scrutiny for the sake of tolerance but I can't really agree with that (coming back to edit this I see I left something unwritten but I have no idea what I wanted to say).

I think I have relatively normal sexual interests (especially in terms of who I'm attracted to) but I can relate to the MAP struggle in that I am probably always going to have a strong preference for girls and women in their teens, twenties and thirties. I don't know to what extent average straight teleiophile men might be interested in middle aged and older women; do they prefer younger women but not to the point where they can't enjoy relationships with older ones, do the older ones have to be exceptional, do they lack any real interest in them but stay with their wives (or even pursue new relationships in their 40s, 50s and beyond) out of (or for) basic companionship, loyalty and commitment? Even though I'm very self-conscious about admitting to being attracted to these hos in general to begin with, I just can't stand the idea of pretending I'm not attracted to teenagers and the stigma around middle-aged and elderly men being attracted to young women. Every once in a while I'll watch a movie or tv show with a presumably prepubescent girl that I find very beautiful (cute face, smooth skin, shiny hair, shapely legs, ); and obviously they tend to have really sweet and endearing personalities, so it's not 'pedocuriosity' on my part, but there are other times when the idea of being with a prepubescent girl actually seems somewhat off to me (not morally, I don't feel guilt or shame about fantasies where my partner enjoys the intimacy as much as I do and I'm taking pleasure in her happiness, but in the sense that they're not really my cup of tea), so it's not really a strong or stable attraction either (maybe I felt off the last time, what I have in mind, for other reasons). Girls don't start to become really attractive to me until around 12, maybe some 11-year-olds are in an ambiguous transitional zone for me. 13 might be the age when I'm not likely to be unattracted to a girl for age-related reasons (i.e. because she looks underdeveloped), I doubt there are many 'medically normal' 14-year-old girls who aren't at Tanner stage 3 (there are some 10-year-olds who have had their periods and should be at Tanner stage 4 but they seem pretty rare to me, I'm sure I might find them attractive but 'the 'average girl' is a couple of years into puberty at 12). In terms of the conventional social hierarchy and not having access to a legal sexual outlet, people who strongly prefer prepubescent children (as people who prefer prepubescent children), to the point where they can't really get into older people, have it worse than I do.

What I'm really excited by is the prospect of a community built around shared values (someone else suffering from body dysphoria doesn't really build a strong sense of connection for me if they're apathetic to or take pleasure in my body dysphoria, for example, or another example might be MAPs who deeply oppose minor-adult sexual intimacy on principle despite being in the same boat as the people whom their ideas harm). A pro-'promiscuity'/free love community who all agree that everyone's sexual pleasure qua happiness has intrinsic value (in theory such a community already exists, even though I'm not aware of any hedonistic consequentialist message boards that are still running, but in practice I don't think other philosophical hedonists generally see eye to eye with me on issues that I'm really invested in, so if they don't take our worldview to its logical conclusion it's kind of irrelevant that they claim to agree with me that the happiness of all possible sentient beings/only happiness is intrinsically good).

I'm sorry for taking over your introduction thread like a self-centered twit. I'll avoid a minor point about mental illness so as to not make this even longer.

Not Forever,

Personally, I’m more in favor of removing the negative meaning from a term rather than replacing the term with a more “positive” one. I think it’s extremely easy for people to shift the negative imagery onto the new term anyway, and in the end you just end up accumulating term after term as each one turns into a slur.

In this case at least, I'm inclined to agree.

Objectophile wrote: Wed Dec 03, 2025 5:34 am I am not a MAP but an objectophile instead. Yet, I feel solidarity towards other types of paraphiles. I believe that pedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles and objectophiles are similar to each other due to the nature of our potential partners. I'm aware that the term 'pedophile' may be offensive so feel free to edit it out. Personally, I am reclaiming the term 'objectophile' as I believe paraphilias shouldn't be pathologised nor stigmatised.

What is your view on the cold war between pro-c Zoophiles who want to demonstrate how their love is pure, or like any other love vs anti-c Zoophiles who would prefer to normalize sadism rather than having contact with animals?

I know this is a hyperbolic question, as I have seen first hand how that dichotomy has been pushed, as it isn't strictly a dichotomy. My view is that it will result in disaster for anti-c's if they try to cut themselves off along these lines, but obviously I am not a member of that group myself.

Not Forever wrote: Wed Dec 03, 2025 9:06 am Oh, cool.
Personally, I’m more in favor of removing the negative meaning from a term rather than replacing the term with a more “positive” one. I think it’s extremely easy for people to shift the negative imagery onto the new term anyway, and in the end you just end up accumulating term after term as each one turns into a slur.

I don’t know if it’s really the same thing, but I see some similarities in point 2 with the whole furry vs. zoophilia issue—where, in the end, they’re two different groups with just a few people who happen to belong to both.

You are right in that it is pointless to invent new terms instead of reclaiming the commonly used one. Sadly, a lot of people on the objectum reddit think that the term 'objectophile' cheapens their attraction into a mere fetish without the romantic aspect. I would argue that even people with object fetishes deserve to be in the community. However, I could understand their revulsion to the term because it has been used as a slur or the name of a disorder. IMO, the term 'objectumsexual' alienates objectophiles by deeming their love unworthy.

In my situation, I am expanding the meaning of 'objectophile'. The general public and even the objectumsexual community think that objectophiles have purely sexual feelings for objects and only use them for sexual gratification, colloquially known as a fetish. That kind of attraction is valid, but it does not describe me at all because I also feel romantic love towards objects. I don't hold any grudges against those who identify as objectumsexual as long as they don't diss objectophiles. 'Objectophilia' should also mean romantic love towards objects.

You made a good point about the furry vs zoophilia issue. I would also add 'therian' to the list. I have therian friends who explained to me that therianism is basically having the soul of an actual animal and identifying as one. For example, a furry would wear a tail which is attached to their fursuit; while a therian wants an actual tail attached to their flesh. Objectumsexuals have their own version of therianism, called objectkin. I don't understand much about it, but I gathered that they identify as objects. (I guess the MAP equivalent is age regression.) I am only an objectophile because I don't anthropomorphise nor identify as an object. I have personal disagreements with anthropormorphising objects as I believe it contradicts the object attraction. I am attracted to the appearance of the object; I do not want it to have a human face or body parts, which defeats the purpose of the non-human attraction. I don't want to argue against them because the objectumsexual community is tiny and already suffering from discrimination, so I simply left without a word lol. Additionally, MOST objectumsexuals anthropomorphise objects so I am actually a minority.

Learning to undeny wrote: Wed Dec 03, 2025 4:02 pm Cool. Is the romantic attraction to objects similar to amulets? And it's not a form of animism, right?

Welcome!

I am only sexually attracted to jewellery. The deep colour of a gemstone and its lustre titillates me. I also love the intense yellow shine of gold, and how the metal responds to me as it warms up from my body heat. Unfortunately, jewellery is tiny. I love touching objects with my palms and the small size doesn't give much sensation. Thus, I feel no romantic bond to jewellery.

The objects which I feel both romantic and sexual attraction to, are handheld tools. I fall in love with any fountain pen I see as long as it has a gold nib. Fake gold cannot satisfy me. I will be turned off and betrayed if I discover it's fake, which never happens because I am fairly able to tell real from fake. However, I only enter relationships with objects once it comes under my possession. If there is no hope of owning it (ex. a limited edition is sold out), I dismiss my feelings because it is pointless. I feel a sexual love from admiring the curvy, gold nib up close; and romantic love from touching and writing with the pen. I feel a tactile pleasure from rubbing the smooth metal. The same applies principles to every ornate/ivory/bejewelled walking cane I come across. For canes, the foci of attraction are their smooth curved handles; and the long shaft.

I am not an animist at all. I don't believe that an object has a soul. Even if it does, I am still attracted to its appearance and form. Animist objectumsexuals claim that they can feel an 'aura' emanating from an object, as well as emotions. I feel nothing. The most I feel is an aura of beauty and seductiveness, and no emotions. This is another reason why I don't relate to the objectumsexual community. Most of them are animists, while I am explicitly not. I have a specific rule in which I absolutely cannot say that an object resembles a human body part nor make any comparisons. No offense to humans, but I don't think an object's beauty is comparable to a human's. I don't like it when others do that so I withdrew from the objectumsexual community. I don't hate them for it; we are speaking two very different dialects of the same language that it's best to split.

There is only one object which I somewhat anthropomorphise, merely because she's an art form. Art is created with human culture in mind, hence it can be personified. Her name is redacted but she is a specific Classical music piece. I am attracted to the sound of her notes. When I read the sheet music, I formed an attraction to the notes themselves. Classical music is also my special interest, so I learned more about her history. In my mind, she is a sardonic woman who sways. My personification of her is based on facts. She is sardonic because a musicologist who analysed her said so. She is a woman since her notes are in treble (high-pitched). The music is in a swung rhythm so she sways. Of course, I know my personification is not fact. It only exists in my mind. If someone were to ask me to depict this piece, I would use the original music notes because that is what she is. It is disrespect to say that she is a humanlike figure rather than the notes she is. In short, objects should remain objects. I love objects for what they are; I don't need to be an animist to do that.

Are you attracted to humans too? Are there exclusive and non-exclusive objectophiles like there are with pedophiles?

xeon wrote: Wed Dec 03, 2025 11:47 pm Are you attracted to humans too? Are there exclusive and non-exclusive objectophiles like there are with pedophiles?

I am a non-exclusive objectophile. I am about 70% attracted to objects and 30% attracted to humans. The number of self-identified objectophiles is sparse (less than 300), so I have never even met another one to know if they are exclusive or not. All I have met are objectumsexuals, and some are asexual in terms of their human attraction but allosexual in object attraction. That is basically what I am. I have a weak sexual interest in women and feminine men, but it is still there.

This topic is my most pressing reason to join this community. I am debating whether it is better to become an exclusive paraphile or remain non-exclusive. Can non-exclusive paraphiles become exclusive? Or is it akin to conversion therapy? These are questions for another thread, but people are welcome to answer them here. I have asked these questions to my psychologist. He is empathetic, but I realised he may be biased since society is anti-parahilia. Hence, I would like to get a second answer from my fellow paraphiles.