Object sexuality

All these things are saying is they do not know so I do in fact have an argument... Therefore I keep my argument in its place.

 

Which of these things say they do not know...?

The sources I've cited, or at least, some of them have definitively stated it.
It is not a mental illness, it is a sexuality. This is stated.

 

They say they aren't completely sure... and most of them are mostly just with information about homosexuals and objectum-sexuals being closely related... I just don't see how it's a sexuality.... Do you see any other animals in the wild falling in love with a place or an object. you do see homosexual animals though.... If it isn't with animals in nature which we are just animals and nothing more then how can you say that it's different for humans?

 

Or its autism, according to a previously cited casestudy...

Which is why I advocate more research.

 

Animals don't have access to private objects, except in stories.
However. There are occasional cases of animals attracted to trees, plants, or public objects. Rarer than homosexuality in animals, but present.

@Celestia, right. I advocate more research too, but at the moment, based on other reaserches, I consider it a sexuality.

 

That's only by the people who are speaking that they get this... There's not any real study of the brain or anything yet because as I said before there won't be because in the time we live in today they will be offended. and no that's just territory just as if someone is robbing your home you threaten them and or call the cops to protect your territory...

 

according to the case study (which is hard to cite back due to posting from cell phone) over 50% of those studied had some form of autism.

Whether it be asbergers or actual autism.

The actual percentage of overall people with autism is much lower.

How do you respond british?

 

So that basically means it's a disability? ._.

 

So, fifty percent of them had autism. Point?
The research had people with autism. Other researches, although less official, have had no autistic cases.

And, in the end, she still classified it as a sexuality, so, despite the fact it may be somewhat linked (sometimes) to autism, it remains a sexuality.

@May Kitsune. Perhaps linked to one, but not necessarilly one itself.

 

lolwut

Are you implying that object sexuality is caused by autism? The fact that only 50% of the people studied(which is how many?) have some form of autism rules out the possibility that autism or some form of it is related to object sexuality because the other half of the group are attracted to objects anyway and show no signs of being mentally unhealthy. Even then, saying that people with Asperger's or autism are mentally unhealthy or unstable would vary from person to person. Just becase some people with object sexuality have autism doesn't exactly mean that it's a factor in causing the attraction to objects.

 

What is autisum exactly...? isn't it where you have trouble speaking sometimes and can't retain information as much as you should be able to? not really meaning it in a bad way towards it I just don't know the exact information of it. Also, If it is linked in an official study 50% then could it mean that they are just confused of what to love and get attached to...? since most of them can't retain information and some act as if they were 5 all of their lives... that's only if autisum is really what I think it is though ._.'

 

Autism is a metal disabiliy which has a range of implications. It can manifest in many ways, for example an absence of knowledge of danger, social conventions, social skills and more. Everyone is on the autism "spectrum" somewhere, but those higher on the spectrum can have Aspergr's Syndrome (a lesser from of autism with less serious implications, though manifesting sometimes in agression, lack of social ability and learning difficulties) or those higher may have full blown autism and may need support from outside help to function, for example not knowing dangers of burning oneself or walking out on the street when cars are coming. It is a mental disability, however, it does not stop autistic people or those suffering from asberger's syndrom from being a p[art of society, it just means that their brain somewhat cannot comprehend ceratin dangers or social norms.

 

Well, 50% genuinely had OS without autism, so it's null, honestly.
Despite the minsicule possibility of some small link, it really doesn't matter.

 

I've seen those studies used in too many discussions to do with homosexuality and genetics, and they still have the same problems, such as:
- carried out on a majority of males, females are rarely discussed or tested.
- the show a link between genetics and homosexuality, but they don't explain the cause
- Culturally biased, may affect results
etc (I can't be bothered to type this out each time I do this type of ****)

Doing Psychology for 3 years you learn that any and every study is at fault no matter what you do. It's not good to put in 100% stock in studies, they are only limited in what they tell.
I myself have never found to be in a particular sexual orientation. I am not hetro, homo, bi, asexual, etc. I just do what I do, so I personally doubt that sexuality for everyone is genetically based, eventually we all have to choose a group we are in, and then over time, that very choice may change into something different.

Autism is linked to genetics of course, but what I mean to say is that autism is not something that can not be altered, sexuality can be altered and changed easily over time. The ability to choose what you are attracted to is not easy but it is doable, it is something we can learn by socialising enough, but with autism, you are born with and live with it, and it can never change no matter what.

What I find mind boggling is how the two contrast between the two.

 

Maybe it could be something linked through that though. Who knows... I still don't think of it as a sexuality because there is still a lot of research to be done but i'd like to see how it turns out after more studies to see if it really is a true sexuality it would be interesting also looking into their brains to see if there are any chemical differences released when a human couple are together whether it be homosexuals or heterosexuals and someone who's "objectum sexual" That would be a good test to see if it really is a sexuality :o

 

Um... in general population 1/150 people have autism. That's about... 0.667% as opposed to 50% of the people done in the case study cited. A difference of nearly 100 times over.

We were discussing if it was a sexuality. Even if it is a sexuality, the fact that its nearly 100% times more likely to be linked to autism is something we cannot ignore. As for those other case studies, you admit they are not as formal. Was questions about autism even asked?

Also, there are variety of different degrees of autism. Perhaps those not diagnosed with autism, may be at a very light degree of autism?

Nearly 50% out of 21. If memory serves me (it gets glitchy with statistics) only 9 of the 21 didn't have aspergers or Autism. Although my mind may have flipped it and it may actually be 9 of 21 who did have it.

And... yes. I am using my deductive reasoning skills to make the assumption it is linked.

Um... there is the .667% vs 50%. Are you ignoring data I highlighted from the case study? I mean... you're complaint all along has been that data isn't provided. I am using the data on the table. BTW: I -did not- place that data on the table myself.

If you do not see that big of a difference as alarming, I must say my friend, you are ignoring the case study entirely... and I can go back to my old argument that its a traumatic self destructive pattern of expecting love from something that will never love you in return. Which... also is in the case study BTW... that they believe the object is loving them. I dropped that argument because of the case study had a very low percentage of abused people who were into OS.

 

1 out of every 150 people may have autism but that doesn't mean that they're all in the same place in the autism scale. Nonetheless your logic is flawed because your use of statistics implies a causal link between two elements when they are not linked or the link is questionable at best. You also assume that a subset of specific members of a wider class is the wider class.

For example, birth rates per head of population are higher in areas where there are more storks — because birth rates are always higher in rural areas, which is where one finds the stork. Is the stork connected to higher birth rates or is it merely a coincidence? Also be aware of the Law of Very Large Numbers. Any fraction of a very large number is likely to be a large number, no matter how small the fraction is. It is estimated that 2,135,000 Americans have used cocaine (including crack) in the past month. But that's only 0.7% of the population! So, is this a lot of people, or not?

0.667% of the general population(which just hit 7 billion recently) may have autism. And almost 50% of the people in a case study about object sexuality have autism. But what link do these two statistics have to each other? Show me what connection these two statistics have because I'm honestly not seeing it. Enlighten me with your wisdom.

Why are you ignoring the other part of the data that you highlighted yourself? The rest of the group didn't have autism. So linking object sexuality to autism is null since all of them would need to have autism for there to be such a link. Plus there are other case studies about object sexuality with subjects that didn't have autism. Are you ignoring these as well? Sure they weren't as formal as the main one but is that reason enough to ignore them completely?

 

They didn't test to see if it was in their genetic code though... Only if they DID have autisum... Maybe it's linked through genetic code who knows... We just need more study of the subject to really be sure. We're just using logic reasoning we could be wrong but so could you. We all still have barely any knowledge to fall back on so please let us use our reasoning and don't get offended or heated. >.<'



(To everyone no point in getting upset it's jsut a discussion I sense a bit of rudeness from people so please calm down >.<')

 

I tend to get heated in a debate so my apologies for coming off as rude. And I personally hate when people use statistics to decieve people from the truth. It's a pet peeve to say the least B|

First of all, you make it sounds like autism is something extremely rare just like object sexuality when it isn't. While .667% of the general population might sound small, you got to remember that the world's population just went over 7 billion. .667% of 7 billion is 47,390,000 which is small compared to 7 billion but is still a big number regardless. Now 9 out of those 47.39 million autistic people are also objectophiles. That is roughly 1,9x10^-7 or .000000019%. Now that is a small number and why I believe that autism isn't linked to object sexuality. I also looked over the case study just to be certain and only 5 people were diagnosed with autism or asperger's syndrome. 4 more only identifed themselves as such but were never diagnosed.

 

I admit, there are variables, but those who were classified as autistic were either diagnosed autistic, with Aspergers, or, gave an honest view of themselves and admitted having some form of autism. Meaning, they were all aware that they had a form of autistic disorder.

I can only make assumptions off the information given to me. The idea behind case studies is to try to get a broad range of information, and as many volunteers as the study can practically manage. It is not practical to do a case study on every single person with OS. So, yes, it is not the wider class. But it represents the wider class.

Ok... In regards to the stork statistic, there is a valid link, which you pointed out. In regards to the cocaine statistic, I see no reason to post that.

A smallpercentage of the general population has autism. We agree.

A VERY LARGE percentage of the people in the case study (idealy, a sample percentage of typical people with OS) have autism.

Anytime you narrow the subgroup and a percentage of a subgroup within that subgroup goes up, there is the possibility of a connection. I know that was confusing... so let me give an example...

Some people get skin cancer. Light skin toned people get it. Dark skin toned people get it. Not every light skin toned person gets it. Not every dark skin toned person gets it. But when we look at the statistics, and zoom in only on the fair skin tones, we notice a higher percentage of people get skin desease. The result? We can logically scientifically deduce that people with fair skin are more likely to get skin cancer. /example

The point of the argument is autism increases likelyhood of OS. Autism is a genetic flaw. Autism manifest itself differently in different people.

Also, if you need a more clear connection, look at my example again. Not everyone with light skin suffers from skin cancer. Nor does everyone with dark skin immune to it. But, a logical person would reason that given statistics, its more likely to have people with light skin suffering from skin cancer.

I'm glad we agree on this, if there is one thing I dislike is when people misapply information given t-

Fack...

Are you implying that every single person with OS and autism in that study is -EVERY SINGLE AUTISTIC OS- in the world? That's the only way this post would make any sense.

Otherwise...

I don't think you ever studied statistics, or have a clear understanding of how it works. 9 of 21 people had autism in the case study. If you are going to use the example you did and apply it to general population, you would have to use it as of a scale of 21. With one out of 150 odds, you will likely not see a single autistic person. If you start scaling up, they will likely appear. Conversely, I do not see how the 50% (or, since you corrected my statistics 42.85~%) will not scale up. Do you have a case study which dealt with autism and OS together which gives a different set of statistics? If so, I would like to see it.


But... alas... you are right. We need more information. I decided to research it the other way around.

I did some google searching on Object Sexuality and Autism. And found this book.

According to the survey of 100 Professional caregivers, (they did not give the number of patients, but I estimate base on the statistics given close to 335.) 39% of the autistic people surveyed in the survey showed sexual interest in objects.

Of a different survey, within the same book, 14% of of parents stated that their autistic child showed sexual interest in objects.

Unfortunately, I could not find statistics of people with OS who are otherwise considered healthy. Does anyone have that information? I do believe 14% is quite high for people with OS and Autism combined. Let alone 39%.