wow, i remember seeing this a couple of months ago, and then also finding that website. it's really an interesting read. however it looks as if the object sex community disapproves of that programme, from the statement on the front page of that site:
are they seriously trying to say that it was the show that made them look weird? i have a hard time believing that there could be any programme about people sexually attracted to buildings that's not "sensational". it's not the BBC's fault that they come off as freaks, it's an inherent quality of their condition. society has come a long way in accepting alternative lifestyles, but i severely doubt that in 2069 marriage to the Eiffel fucking Tower will be legally recognised. not in the EU, not even in Japan.NOTICE: OS Internationale does NOT sanction the 2008 UK film "Married to the Eiffel Tower" (Landmark Sex).
Despite featuring OSI members Eija-Riita Berliner Mauer and Erika Naisho Eiffel, this film is firmly denounced by the objectum-sexual community for its exploitative and sensationalized take on OS.
after hearing about something like this, one of the first questions that comes to mind is obviously how would they engage in intimate marital relations with their spouse? wonder no longer, because there's an faq on the site that addresses that very issue!
Intimacy and OS.
As a matter of course, this is the topic that rouses the most curiosity. The issue of sex with objects stirs certain inquisitiveness in people that often leads to censure. And to ask whether we do "it" is like asking whether all couples in love have sex. Most often the answer is yes but in some cases, as with any loving relationship, sex is not always present for whatever personal reason.
Also the definition of sex comes into question. It is natural to assume that OS people must have sex like other people to be intimate with an object. This often lends to the fear towards those who love public objects. Our objects are NOT human so sex cannot be defined the same way. Intimacy may be simply touching or more or less for some.
What is the difference between OS intimacy and masturbation?
Clearly the one of the most irritating questions we entertain when a person gets a mental image of us in “the act” with an object. Naturally, it would seem there is no difference because the question is being posed by one who does not love the object. OS intimacy is not instrumental manipulation to self pleasure. In the case of a person utilizing some object in this manner, the object is none other than a means to an end. To an OS person, our intimate focus is on the object we love.
fascinating! so apparently MOST of these individuals have found a way to enjoy physical intimacy with the object of their affections! apparently they don't let things like public indecency get in the way of their love. i would like to know (although i have a disturbing mental picture already) what the "more" end of that spectrum is. how kinky can you get with a building or a wall? what is foreplay and what is the actual act itself? on second thought, maybe i don't want to know the graphic details. although i would like to know how many of these people have been arrested whilst "making love" to their item.
oh, and apparently there's quite a difference between fucking a structure you're in love with and fucking a structure you have no feelings for! maybe it's because i'm an objectsexualophobe, but i have to say that i really don't see what the difference is. no matter what their feelings are, it's batshit insane.