I think one of the most prominent parts of Rose's article was when he quotes Habermas in the beginning, saying, "each of us carry the sole responsibility for giving ethical shape to his or her life". I think this is a pretty profound remark that takes a firm standpoint in a base argument of bioethics. Who are we to say what's important to someone else? If each of us is responsible for setting our own ethical standards, than there is really no limit to what people will do in the name of discovering their "true-self."
I looked further into the concept of "objectum sexual" after reading Rose's article, in an attempt to understand the reoccurring argument that arises in these bioethical discussions. To me, objectum sexual seems like a clear cut battle for a psychologist before that of a neuro-scientist, or any political or social analyst. I think when a issue (I hesitate to even refer to it as issue in this day and age) like this becomes popular enough to be analyzed, it should begin with the person, rather than the environment, social trends, fads, or really any obstacle that can take focus from the man marrying his pillow. This seems like a matter of real (seemingly normal) people, suffering from a deep psychological void of intimacy, or an unhealthy association of intimacy through physical objects, probably due to a traumatic experience or long-term, unhealthy conditioning.
http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/sunday-review/living/i-married-the-eiffel-tower-832519.html
http://www.objectum-sexuality.org/
The woman in the article "I married the Eiffel Tower" has gained a ton of popularity from her marriage stunt, and it's hard to lay any validity to her claim. Though besides feeling intimate towards the Eiffel Tower, she also was once intimate with her bow "Jake." She was mentioned to have been a world champion archer, which through strict discipline and arduous practice could understandably grow more and more attached to her bow. I say all this with understanding to her general fondness of the bow, being that she has a reciprocal relationship with it through the sport, but the instant it excels to an "intimate" relationship, I think a psychologist should get involved. So in conclusion I guess I don't know where I stand. I'm all for technology being used to improve human's lives, either physically or emotionally, but I don't think we should question if it's OK that someone marries a statue, but rather WHY they want to do it in the first place.
I know I was all over the place in this post, I guess some things are just hard to narrow down!
While I absolutely agree with you that a psychologist should be the first to examine the reasons behind a person marrying an object, I would also place politics high on this list. Obviously, one marrying an inanimate object for love or because they believe they are truly in an intimate relationship with an object is a bit jarring. However, I also am aware that people will do it to make a point about the current state of marriage in society, therefore dragging politics far into this mess. It is not unheard of for one to marry an object just to prove the ridiculousness of the institution of marriage. The fact that that would be allowed but gay marriage is not is one example of politics playing a major role in the 'issue'.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that people who have os should seek help from a psychologist. In the documentary Strange Love: Married to the Eiffel Tower, the psychologist said she has seen a trend in people with os being sexually or physically abused as children.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder though if this will be something that more people will be able to identify with as more people talk about it. After watching the documentary on YouTube links and links kept showing up for more videos, interviews, and news reports on os from around the world.
OK, I KNOW that 'marry' is a social construction. But does ANYTHING go--social-construction-wise? All this (once I get over the Fox-News-ish, Gee-whiz shock value) leads to questions of just how--in particular cases--the phenomenal (love, commitment, binding, partnerships, etc.) link to the social ('wife' 'Husband').
ReplyDelete