Object sexuality

This argument is fairly solid, and I don't see any reason to question it. If they were linked, then the data would work in both directions, but it does not. If nine people makes up fifty percent, then how accurate can your statistics be? And if you take out the four who only identified, then your ratio becomes 5:18, which is thirty six percent of the subjects. That is a twenty four percent loss with only eighteen subjects. The loss will vary and may grow larger with more people. I don't see any correlation on a larger scale given these arguments.

At best, this illustrates that people who cannot understand social norms are more likely to ignore them and embrace their attractions.

Oh, now this is interesting. However, with thirty nine percept being rather close to thirty six percent, the ratio seems very similar, but in the second case it is people without autism that are winning. Fourteen percent is more reasonable, but again, I would like to know why I should accept the notion that fourteen percept of 'healthy' children do not show sexual interest in objects. Being brought up with an ability to understand normalcy, they will take after their parents and the people around them, and that does not rule out object sexuality as natural. In nature versus nurture, I have heard it said on several occasions that most sexuality is learned. Children who have trouble learning are more likely to get attracted to objects because of this, but not because it is unhealthy to do so. If your parents are openly attracted to objects, then I bet you will be too, or at least partially.

That may be because people are considered unhealthy for being attracted to objects? Psychology is very shaky, and you can derive many things from an attraction to objects by itself according to Freudian psychology and other things, and that in itself may be grounds to call people autistic according to some psychologists. I hold to my argument that there is not a specific link, and that someone who cannot understand normalcy is more likely to ignore it and express attraction whenever they feel like doing so.

 

It doesn't? But... but...

*Clicketh for you pointing out it going both ways... with narration.*

Spoiler

Your math is off. The number of test subjects was 21. Which is why I corrected my math to fourty something earlier. But going off your math, it still adds up to 23.8~% of subjects (all of whom had OS) had Autism. Still a large percent.

39% of people who have autism have OS.


Makaze... there is a link. You yourself posted it. If you are autistic, you have an usually high percentage of having OS. If you have OS, you have an unusually high percentage of autism.


Now, lets contrast it to see where my "unusually" high percentage comes from. Autism affects one out of 150 people.

About .66~ percent. Even by your conservative calculation (assuming those who professed themselves autistic were incorrect), that's about comparing 23% to .66%. About 35 times higher. For those still doing math, that's 3500% more likely that a person with OS will be autistic. Now, that's a small percentage.

Unfortunately, I do not have accurate percentages of people with OS. But I bet it is much higher in people with autism.

Are you arguing sexuality is learned and not genetic? That is what it sounds like. You won't win a popularity contest with that. You gotta back up that argument.

 

People with autism ignore social norms.
People with OS [have] ignore[d] social norms.

The resulting correlation does not necessarily mean that they are linked. The percentage of people that either acknowledge or embrace social norms is incredibly large, so any group that ignores them is more likely to think or like eccentric things, or develop such things as OS.

I am arguing that the majority of it is learned, specifically the romantic aspect of it. I haven't taken any classes, but from what I understand sexuality plays a large role in how we perceive experiences and vice versa. Sexual orientation is a bit different, and if you read the opening post, OS is about romantic love and not a sexual attraction to said objects; this is not established as an orientation. When one comes to love something romantically, fetishism might come into play, I do hold that fetishism is learned, and not genetic. Do you deny this?

 

So... you're saying they are the same. I don't see how this helps your case.

So, you do not believe it to be an effect, not a cause? Many OS communities do not agree.

You say OS is romantic attraction. Fetishism should not be brought into the conversation unless I brought it up. I do not recall mentioning fetishism. Why are you bringing it up now?

 

I stated that they shared a rare trait. This in no way states or implies that they are the same.

OS communities exist? And how would you know this?

I do believe it to be one. If they do think otherwise, then we simply state different things and both arguments remain possible until countered.

The opening post mentions fetishism and how it differs, and your argument seems to imply that a sexual orientation is involved which allows for genes and thus autism to be involved, and I argue that any sexual attraction to objects is fetishism at best. Unless you seek to argue which genes orient one to be attracted to objects, then I will not move from this argument.

You asked me why I brought fetishism up but ignored the rest of what I said. Was this intentional?

 

Online anyways...
http://www.objectum-sexuality.org/

FYI: Aspergers is a form of autism.

That's what my argument evolved into. If you do not believe its has anything to do with genetics, then defeat my original argument, rather than the current one. Your argument is sound against my current one, but makes no sense against my old.

My current argument assumes its genetic. My old one assumed it was a learned trait, which other members countered with a case study. The case study in question is the one we've been talking about.

Um... no. I didn't realize there was more to your argument. I believe I covered all the bases. If there was another argument in there please clarify.

 

I thought you meant this. From the OS people that I have met (a very few), they do not feel that this page depicts them and those like them accurately. If memory serves. But we will assume that it is at least partially correct.

In which they agree with me. Read this again.

We both agree that there is a correlation because of a lack of social conditioning, while neither of us have stated that it is because of genetic orientation.

I have no reason to defeat your original argument if I agree with it, so I am countering your current argument. If I do not agree with it, then an explanation is necessary. Is that not how this goes?

You questioned the fetishism comment but ignored the rest of it. That is what I meant.

 

I'm sorry... I still don't get what you are saying.

Are you taking a stance on the subject yourself? Or just inquiring? I acknowledged you bringing it up by asking why you bring it up when you do not take a stance on it in relation to the overall argument.

BTW: My original argument was it was unhealthy. Please go back to my earlier post. If you read them, you'd see how awkward my situation is, as you are making me argue myself.

 

You ignored this and did not counter it. Instead you questioned this:

Do you understand now?

I am taking the stance that it is, shall we say, a matter of choice. If it is unhealthy, this is only because the objects are unresponsive and so nonreciprocating of one's love. It is unhealthy in the same way that any one way love is unhealthy, and nothing more than that. But I am also inquisitive, and would not have posted if statistics had not come into it. I try to pick winning arguments.

If your original point was both that sexual attraction is learned and that OS is unhealthy, then I see an inconsistency in starting. How can a sexual attraction be unhealthy if it is learned? Unless we both argue about it being one way.

Furthermore, both of your arguments assume that the attraction is sexual in nature. The opening post and most accounts directly refute this. That is a central point that needs to be addressed if we are to continue debating.

 

An honest view of yourself isn't exactly a diagnosis. Far too many people have self-diagnosed themselves with asperger's or autism and started to think themselves as such because they wanted a place where they could fit and not all of those people were right about their condition. So unless there was a proper diagnosis, I won't count them.

But the wider class is the majority of the people who don't have autism or some form of it. They obviously don't represent the whole group as well but they can't be ignored. You say that autism may be a factor in having OS yet you ignore that 76% of the people in that case study were never diagnosed with it.

They were mentioned as examples. The first to show how two elements in statistics are questionably linked. The other is to show how even though a percentage of something is small, if the number was relatively huge to begin with then chances are that the number will still be big.

I don't think you understand that even though it's a small percentage, the general population is so huge that even a small percentage of it will still be big. Do you think 47,390,000 is a small number by any chance?

The inverse of what I just said applies as well. And actually it's more like 24% of the people in that case study have autism or some form of it. Would this be considered huge as well?

Nice to see that you see that we agre-

Fack!

That obviously wasn't my intention. The intention was to show how in the end that the "BIG" percentage that you've been flaunting about is actually quite small in the face of the amount of people who might have autism. Like Makaze mentioned, how reliable are your statistics with such a small group of people? If I were to scale up your statistics, then the conclusion that we would've reached is that some people with OS also have autism...but then again, a lot more people with OS don't have autism so I see no correlation between autism and OS. Ignoring social norms doesn't exactly mean you have autism and in the end, we decide what we want to do with ourselves in society. Capiche?

 

@Makaze: If you argue that OS is genetic, I speculate that its genetic because of a link to autism, and therefore is likely a flaw, and should be investigated more.

If you argue that its learned, I argue that it may be unhealthy and should be investigated more. Why? Because believing something loves you, when it does not, is either a self destructive pattern, or a coping mechanism for emotional trauma.

@Phantasm: Let me explain the "large percentage". Its 3500% more likely that someone with OS will have autism than a general person. THAT is the large percentage.

 

I argue that it is learned. If it unhealthy, it is so unhealthy because the results are not profitable, and for that reason only. If a person has no other emotional abnormalities as a direct result of being OS, then it is not unhealthy. It is unhealthy if it impairs you, but a delusion can be perfectly healthy, and who are you to say that they are the ones believing ridiculous things?

 

Existentialism? A solid argument. I won't take it on head on... as I agree to an extent. Which is why I often double talked in my earlier argument.

However, I based my early argument off of real world examples, which is why I myself continually brought up concern for it. Here is my argument I pushed earlier:

In my original argument, I was comparing it to abusive situations where one individual in a relationship believes they are loved, but they are not, due to a misunderstood concept of love. I used the example of a child raised by a narcissist, as narcissist have difficulties having affection for other people. The child often grows up believing they are loved, but truly does not know what love is. Those children often grow up with dangerously low self esteem, and are confused about the concept of love. That's the "effect" of believing you are loved when you are not.

I also argued that there was an unhealthy cause. Low self esteem, or a history of sexual and physical abuse often leads to a series of self destructive relationships. At any sign their partner loves them (showing affection), they end the relationship. Their longer term relationships are ones without love. I hereby say that such a relationship without affection is similar to an OS relationship.

I never made a solid case that either of these scenarios were solidly true, only that such scenarios were realistic enough to warrant more research. However, a majority of the thread insisted that OS was purely genetic, and not learned. They also argued it was purely healthy, and there was nothing wrong with it. They cited a case study, which presented an alarming connection to autism. I could not ignore that, and changed my argument. Anyways... you now are caught up in the short version of the thread.

 

That helps. Thank you.

I agree that these are realistic, but in the first case, you will not harmed by an object. It is not likely to impair you in any way to love an object and believe that it loves you. It cannot deny that it loves you.

Causes do need more research and may be valid, but without the extra emotional problems, it is does not necessarily denote itself as unhealthy. If you are wary of water after drowning, that is hardly an unhealthy response. If the fear drives you to impairment, then it could be considered unhealthy, but simply avoiding water or being uncomfortable around it is healthy enough. I do not see an overwhelming problem with people who use OS as a defense mechanism unless it is harmful in its own right.

 

On the scenario you outlined, avoiding water could be unhealthy, if it becomes aqua-phobia it is emotionally unhealthy.

I just worry that OS may be a manifestation of one of the scenarios I outlined. Also, thanks for not attacking my neutral stance Makaze. I merely expressed concern, and advocated research. My mistake was I used examples which were rather abstracted, and some people got the impression I was advocating necrophilia, or that I was saying that people with OS were somehow demented or evil.

I truly believe that, unless someone was truly inflicting harm upon others to be selfish when it is not needed for survival, there is no "bad". Anything other than that at worst can only be "confused."

 

I do not believe that OS could develop into the kind of impairment that you speak of because it only hinders you from being romantic with other people. Between OS and aquaphobia, aquaphobia is far more dangerous, and therefore more unhealthy.

I am fairly neutral on the issue myself, so no worries. I wasn't going to post if logic didn't come into it, but statistics provided me with an opportunity to deny a genetic correlation.

 

It may or may not happen. I do not believe it will, but rather, it could.

 

Considering the level of impairment that natural love brings to those who seek it, your concern seems a bit unbalanced, to say the least.

 

You have no idea Mak... no idea...

 

How likely is it that a person with OS will not have autism?