MAP Forum

Interesting.

Welcome to the forum!

[Admin - Brian is responding to the OP of a self-deleted user who disclosed objectophilia]

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.

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

I would be utterly distraught if my gold fountain pen has any scratches. If a piece of gold is scratched, it is not as shiny as before. That terrifies me. The most tiny and insignificant scratch gives me a panic attack. I would have intrusive thoughts about the pen being damaged or stolen, which goes against my idealisation of the permanent. Paradoxically, I genuinely love my fountain pen and would write with it every day. Gripping the pen while writing will inevitably cause blemishes, which gives me a panic attack.

(Never used the quote function before hope I did that right)

This sounds a lot like OCD (saying this as someone who has OCD themselves). You say you have brought these problems up with MH professionals many times before and they have all been very dismissive and have said they are unable to treat it. Have you ever tried to discus this with someone who specifically specializes in OCD? If your obsessions/intrusive thoughts are indeed a result of OCD than it should be pretty treatable, or at least should be able to become less of a problem (to clarify, not the sexuality, just the obsessions). I'm very sorry you've had such bad experiences with MH professionals in the past, but this is clearing causing you a lot of distress, and I would strongly urge you to try and find someone who specializes in OCD as I strongly believe they could help a lot with this.

I love the vastness of human sexuality, it never fails to surprise me.
Thanks for coming to us, Objectophile! You have no judgement from me.

I wish you the best!

On the sadism thing, I am actually referring to a trend, most noticeable on paraphile X and Tumblrs, where anti-c paraphiles are pro-sadism, as in expression-of.

In reality, many pro-c's are in favor of expressing sadism, but a small few marginal anti-c influencers seem to have deliberately instigated a "drama" over pro-c Zoos in particular being "puritanical" (e.g. against sadism, against MAPs) while favoring "abuse" of a live animal.

About the 'hedonist' part, I actually identify as a hedonist myself. From a young age, pleasure of all forms has been a priority in my life. I am unsure of which hedonistic philosophy I truly belong in. The closest philosophy I align with is Epicureanism, but I respect other philosophies and would love to try them myself. I don't exactly fit with Epicureanism because, in theory, I disagree with its moderation and resulting sex-negativity. If my life were ideal, I would be indulging in pleasure all the time. I vehemently disagree on the sex-negativity as I believe it is imposed by society. Epicureanism explains that sex increases short-term pleasure but decreases long-term pleasure. Those reasons can be sexual violence, STDs, etc. While it may seem empirical, I question whether this is sensible or fearmongering. Those issues are real, but it is the societal stigma and the lack of safety nets exacerbates them. I was raised in a conservative, religious country where every adult fearmongers about sex to children, me included. (Those adults actually pissed me off because I asked them how would I be harmed if I sought out sex with older women. All they gave were vague responses, "It's dangerous. You can get blackmailed." "How can I prevent blackmail then?" No response from the adults.) Logically, I know that rhetoric is ideologically-driven. But unconsciously, I feel that fear of blackmail. In practice, I am an Epicurean hedonist because I have societal obligations. In theory, I would like to become something else.

I genuinely appreciate long responses like yours, John Doe, because I am guilty of writing long posts myself lol. I wonder what kind of hedonist are you?

I consider myself to be a 'pan-hedonist' (which might not be saying much but that's the term I prefer; in the hopes that the 'pan' makes it clear that I reject egoism and selective compassion, and even the idea that some pleasurable states are qualitatively more valuable than others), at least ideologically. I can send you a free copy of a short book I self-published on my worldview, if you're interested. I've also written a couple of children's short story collections, the first has two stories with hedonistic characters and the second three. My position is ultimately very simple: every possible sentient being's happiness/suffering was, is, will or would be inherently good/bad and only happiness/suffering is intrinsically good/bad and one's personal experience of happiness and/or pain is what justifies this position epistemically (experience being our only source of knowledge).

I don't know a lot about Epicurus but my understanding is that he was more of a negative hedonist because he defined pleasure as the absence of pain. His moderation approach seems to be related to 'the middle path' (I think that's what it's called) in Buddhism that seeks to avoid both the extreme asceticism of Jainism and overindulgence. This makes sense from the standpoint that desire is the root of all suffering (I don't agree but it is obvious to me that the desire for happiness is the root of A LOT of our suffering- there's no sexual frustration without a desire for sexual pleasure, no boredom without a desire for pleasurable stimulation, no loneliness without a desire for companionship, no shame or humiliation without a desire to feel pride, no grief without valuing some positive thing; not necessarily happiness, that can be lost, etc.). The problem is that I think happiness is worth wanting, in the same way that the suffering of children in Israel/Gaza wouldn't bother anyone if they didn't realize that they deserve compassion but their suffering is inherently bad whether other people accept that or not. Happiness is 'psychologically addictive' by nature, if I introduce a source of pleasure to some already happy person who has no desire for it (let's say that they're not even aware of it as a possible source of happiness) they can suffer from the deprivation of that thing in future as they otherwise would not have, not knowing what they were missing out on. If I'm right and Epicurus is best thought of as a negative hedonist, then it makes sense that his ideal would be the absence of sexual desire since no sexual desire means no sexual frustration and minimizing pain is fundamentally more important than maximizing happiness, from the negative hedonistic perspective. Unlike Bentham, it doesn't seem as though he was of the mind that there is a moral imperative to serve/consider the 'happiness' of all sentient beings, my impression of him is that he was a hedonist more so in terms of welfare rather than as a statement about what is good simpliciter.

Again, I could be very mistaken (you tell me where I've gone wrong, since you probably know more about Epicureanism than I do), I tend to avoid looking into the works of other hedonists because it's a sensitive subject for me, what with the possibility of my worldview being misrepresented; in truth, I hope I never have to deal with other hedonists in real life because it will be much harder for me to process their hypocrisy/inconsistency (with people in general, my core belief system is ultimately how I make sense of my grievances with them. I can't have closure on what actually motivates them or how they rationalize their behavior, values, beliefs or inconsistencies but I can understand why I believe that their behavior is unreasonable. I don't want to expand on this, although I will say that the inconsistencies of other pan-hedonists will bother me less if they're not moral realists or moral realists who justify hedonism under epistemic solpisism. Worst case scenario, there's nothing that other hedonists can do or say that's going to give me a reason to reject hedonism. I have come across some nasty hedonists online though, not that I'm perfectly sympathetic 24/7 myself).

Just out of curiosity, what country were you raised in? I don't consider myself to be sex positive, strictly speaking (I think sex itself is inherently neutral in value), but I am opposed to sex negativity and, obviously, I think that sexual pleasure qua happiness is intrinsically good. This isn't the hill that I want to die on, this might be a simplistic perspective that shouldn't detract from my general argument in regards to child-adult sex if it is lacking, but I don't really understand the idea that adolescents who are capable of reproduction aren't emotionally 'ready' for sex for biological/age-related reasons. I am not making an appeal to nature but, in a manner of speaking, if your body produces sperm or you ovulate (something that only happens if you're capable of getting pregnant, without some kind of infertility issue I mean, it happens because your body is preparing for impregnation) it is trying to get you to reproduce. I realize that 'nature' doesn't care about our long-term happiness but I don't see how, in the absence of specific conditions, someone whose body is gearing them to reproduce is, for hardwired/age-related reasons, primed to be traumatized by sexual intimacy they're not 'ready' for when the need to reproduce is akin to the need for sleep (a better example than the need for food since you won't die without sexual stimulation or even sleep). If a boy doesn't ejaculate, his body is going to release sperm (as far as I can remember I've only ever had wet dreams when I would masturbate without ejaculating and they would come 15/16 days later. I went around one or two months without masturbating once when I was 26 and my anxiety was through the roof with daily panic attacks, semen would leak out on its own when I was sleeping, etc. Sorry to be graphic). It doesn't seem likely that natural selection would favor humans whose brains, in what we call 'adolescence,' are wired in a way to be traumatized by sex despite their being an evolutionary advantage in being capable of reproduction and, by extension, pushed by their bodies to reproduce (I don't doubt that sexual feelings are present throughout the human lifespan; in infants, prepubescent children, post-menopausal women, even, apparently, to some degree in some castrated men, but apparently ovulating women are more likely to have a higher libido, on top of being more conventionally attractive, so there seems to be a connection between fertility and your body trying to manipulate you into propagating your genes), being traumatized by one's first sexual encounter would make it less likely that they'll attempt something that could lead to the propagation of their genes again any time soon. I probably could have better worded this.