Woman wants to marry light fixture

 

That gender spectrum continues to expand:

A British woman plans to marry a chandelier she bought online — and admits she’s hooked on “kisses and cuddles” with the dusty antique.

Amanda Liberty, 33, isn’t fazed by the whopping 57 year age gap between her and the tarnished light fitting, who she has dubbed “Lumiere.”

Speaking of her wife-to-be, who she spent over $500 shipping over from Europe in 2016, she said: “As soon as I saw Lumiere on eBay, I knew immediately that she was the one for me and it was love at first sight.”

…..

“I couldn’t stop thinking about her and how beautiful she was — she has such a beautiful shape and I could feel really amazing energy coming from her.”

….

As an Objectum Sexual, someone who is sexually attracted to inanimate objects, all sorts of bits and bobs have caught her eye.

My first instinct is that this is some type of attention-seeking hoax.  But if not, and this person truly has romantic feelings for a chandelier, then I would have to conclude she is mentally ill.  This doesn’t mean she should be forced to seek out treatment.  But it does mean I am under no rational obligation to treat her illness as something that is normal.

Is someone like Amanda Liberty supposed to be evidence of the “gender spectrum?”  If so, that’s the type of evidence that would call the reality of the whole “gender spectrum” into question.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in post-modernism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Woman wants to marry light fixture

  1. Dhay says:

    I’d say she’s on the mental illness spectrum rather than the “gender spectrum”:
    http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/16062/1/All-About-Objectum-Sexuality.html

    Whether or not she has DSM-type delusions, she is plainly deluded in the common language sense: in Britain both marriage and civil partnerships require full free consent from both parties (each party being interviewed separately by the Registrar beforehand to ensure this.)

    As I imagine it, such an interview of a chandelier would resemble a Monty Python sketch; and with marriage, and civil partnership likewise, being an explicitly “solemn undertaking”, I don’t see the chandelier passing the interview stage.

    I see she’s already love-ratted the Statue of Liberty, so with such fickleness I doubt any marriage would last. Particularly interesting (if the marriage ever does go ahead) will be the divorce and the 50:50 division of combined assets.

  2. Ilíon says:

    Since “Lumiere” is apparently female, I can’t but wonder how long it will be before she’s complaining, “You’re personifying me!”

  3. grodrigues says:

    @Dhay:

    The problem for the atheist left is that it is no good to say that she is mentally ill, or that marriage needs consent or whatever. That ship has sailed long ago with SSM, where the central argument is that marriage is merely a social contract that can be redefined at will according to the current social whim. Why exactly does marriage need consent? Why exactly does marriage need two persons as opposed to a person and an object? Why exactly is she mentally ill while a gay man, sexually attracted towards people of the same sex, is not? Does the sacred scriptures of the atheist liberals ever prescribed such things? On what authority? There is of course no possible sane response to these questions, because the logic of the central argument precludes it.

  4. pennywit says:

    There is of course no possible sane response to these questions, because the logic of the central argument precludes it.

    Contract Law 101: A valid, enforceable contract requires offer, acceptance, two parties who have the capacity to contract, and consideration. Otherwise, the contract is a nullity. This is black-letter law.

    Why exactly does marriage need consent?

    Offer and acceptance.

    Why exactly does marriage need two persons as opposed to a person and an object?

    Capacity. Otherwise, it’s a nullity.

    Why exactly is she mentally ill while a gay man, sexually attracted towards people of the same sex, is not?

    Can’t speak to this woman, but the current consensus, as I understand it, is that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. I’m willing to accept that consensus of expert opinion. If you are not, go argue it with the mental-health professionals.

    Does the sacred scriptures of the atheist liberals ever prescribed such things?

    Atheism == no sacred scriptures. There is a lovely pamphlet, however.

  5. TFBW says:

    I’m willing to accept that consensus of expert opinion.

    An expert opinion is still just an opinion. And in the case of whether certain things should be classified as mental illness, that’s influenced far more by social factors than anything else. The “experts” in the Soviet Union classified dissidents as mentally ill. Is that an expert opinion you accept? Probably not, right? Probably because it’s transparently politically motivated. Well, how about the in-flux attitudes towards transsexual behaviour? The only thing that’s changing surrounding that is the liberal/progressive push for normalisation of it. It’s primarily a political thing too.

    Atheism == no foundations, no core principles; do what seems right at the time in your own eyes. You can’t even stand by a principle like, “I’m willing to accept that consensus of expert opinion,” without making ad hoc exceptions, I’ll warrant. You’ll accept that consensus of expert opinion, but not because it’s a consensus of expert opinion as such; rather it’s an opinion which is personally palatable to you, and it also just happens to have the imprimatur of experts on it, giving the epistemic cover of warranted deference.

    Am I wrong?

  6. pennywit says:

    Atheism == no foundations, no core principles; do what seems right at the time in your own eyes.

    I would argue that my “core principles” regarding morals spring from the same sources yours do: social conditioning and a certain amount of evolutionary biology.

    You’ll accept that consensus of expert opinion, but not because it’s a consensus of expert opinion as such; rather it’s an opinion which is personally palatable to you, and it also just happens to have the imprimatur of experts on it, giving the epistemic cover of warranted deference.

    Am I wrong?

    I’m willing to accept some consensuses (consensi?) because a) I recognize that the people who offer them are experts in their fields; b) they offer their work for examination by peers or by others, and I can evaluate it if I so choose; and c) I have the ability to determine the consequences of a particular opinion or consensus.

    I do not think it is materially different from, say, evaluating the consensus of the College of Cardinals regarding religious doctrine. People do this all the time.

  7. TFBW says:

    I would argue that my “core principles” regarding morals spring from the same sources yours do: social conditioning and a certain amount of evolutionary biology.

    I’m afraid that this only serves to demonstrate that you don’t know what a “core principle” is. What you have described is a natural disposition, not a core principle. Natural dispositions arise from biological and sociological influences; a core principle is an ideal to which one holds somewhat firmly as a matter of reason. Core principles and natural dispositions can come into conflict: one might hold to non-initiation of violence as a core principle (often cited by Libertarians), yet encounter a situation where one’s innate biological impulse is to initiate violence. At this point, reason must come into play and reassess the core principle in the light of the new experience, deciding whether to abide by it, or abandon it. If it doesn’t stand up to a lot of challenges like this, then it never was a very good core principle (much like a scientific theory isn’t very good if it doesn’t withstand the arrival of new evidence).

    I submit that atheism is a lack of core principles, leaving only natural dispositions. The fact that you fail to recognise the possible existence of core principles in others serves only to reinforce my claim that you lack them yourself.

    I do not think it is materially different from, say, evaluating the consensus of the College of Cardinals regarding religious doctrine.

    If I were to do that, it might be prompted by natural dispositions, but it would be argued on the basis of principles. The principles they apply would be different from mine, in part, because of differences in principle between Catholics and Protestants. If I were to judge their claims entirely on the basis of my emotional response to them, or even use one-sided reasoning to defend that emotional prejudice, then you would have a point.

    The mere act of evaluation does not imply that there are any core principles at work; evaluation can occur in the context of emotional response, cultural conditioning, pragmatic motivations, or abstract principles. The first three of those four find a home in the grounds you have described, but the fourth is removed from biology and culture in the same way that mathematics is.

  8. Michael says:

    As far as “expert opinion” goes:

    It is only recently that academics have started to carry out research into OS. In a 2010 issue of the Internet Journal of Human Sexuality, clinical psychologist Dr. Amy Marsh described what she claims is the first ever research study conducted on a group of 40 “objectophiles” of which 21 English-speaking participants shared their experiences. On US television, Marsh revealed that she supported OS as a legitimate sexual orientation.

    I’m shocked.

    Sorry, but I think we need to come to grips with the growing realization that much of social science is intellectually inbred cargo cult science.

  9. TFBW says:

    … much of social science is intellectually inbred cargo cult science.

    Or simply progressivism of various sorts operating under a veneer of scholarship, making proclamations about reality ex cathedra. As Jonathan Haidt has pointed out, many universities now hold a greater commitment to Social Justice than to Truth.

  10. Michael says:

    many universities now hold a greater commitment to Social Justice than to Truth.

    I listened to the whole tape of the Lindsay Shephred interrogation (been too busy to blog about it). During the middle, Professor Herbert Pimlott scolds her by informing her that his views are backed up by peer review and we should never teach anything in the class that is not supported by the peer reviewed literature. In other words, he tries to sound sciencey.

    First, Pimlott confuses peer review with reproducibility. He claims that have a paper peer reviewed means the research is reproducible (if my memory is correct). That’s a huge, stinking mistruth.

    Second, what good is “peer review” if 90+% of your peers think like you do? Peer review becomes an echo chamber good for mutual back scratching.

    Third, check out Pimlott’s page:

    Another of my lifelong commitments has been to social justice and fairness. Integrating storytelling and language use with social justice activism is, therefore, fundamental to both my research and my pedagogy.

    And his peer reviewed papers?

    In 2015, I had the opportunity to reflect upon my approach with other activist scholars as part of a day-long seminar on “Activism and Communication Studies Scholarship,” sponsored by the Canadian Communications Association (CCA) and supported in-kind by Mozilla. This resulted in my latest paper, “‘Engaging Class Struggles’: Preparing Students for the ‘Real World’ by Teaching ‘Activist’ Cultural Production in the Classroom,” which was published in a special issue of the Canadian Journal of Communication (vol.42, no.1, 2017).

    I will say it again – true scholarhip and activism are incompatible. If you are an activist, you are not a scholar. Of course, you can do research to find ways to become a better activist. Which would simply make you an expert propagandist.

  11. TFBW says:

    I will say it again – true scholarhip and activism are incompatible.

    Indeed. True scholarship can have no Cause other than Truth. And yet the universities are now utterly infested with Social Justice Activists. This will not end well.

  12. grodrigues says:

    @pennywit:

    “Contract Law 101: A valid, enforceable contract requires offer, acceptance, two parties who have the capacity to contract, and consideration.”

    You quite obviously have not payed attention to what I said: this merely *assumes* that marriage is a contract between *two* parties able to consent. The central SSM argument closed that door, something which your subsequent comments only reinforce: there is no essence to marriage. Drawing the line at two persons able to give consent just shows that you are a prejudiced bigot who is against the love of a person an an object (or a person and an animal or a person and himself — cases of his have already happened — or whatever arrangement one pleases, since that is the central contention, that the human when it comes to sexual matters is the measure and rule of all). What is it to you if someone marries an object? Does it destroy your marriage? *ALL* the argument that the SSM sect hurled against their opponents can be made for marriage as whatever arrangement one pleases, *ALL*.

    “Can’t speak to this woman, but the current consensus, as I understand it, is that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. I’m willing to accept that consensus of expert opinion.”

    Current consensus! That gave me a good hearty laugh. For it to be characterized as a mental illness, it would have to be the case that the sexual proclivities of a person has some definite, proper limits, which of course is what is being denied every day.

    “Atheism == no sacred scriptures.”

    You seem to be tone-deaf to irony. On the other hand, thanks for confirming that there is no authority or expert opinion to decide these matters for the atheist sect. There is in fact, and as I said, “no possible sane response to these questions”, your non-arguments not withstanding.

  13. pennywit says:

    I’m afraid that this only serves to demonstrate that you don’t know what a “core principle” is. What you have described is a natural disposition, not a core principle. Natural dispositions arise from biological and sociological influences; a core principle is an ideal to which one holds somewhat firmly as a matter of reason. Core principles and natural dispositions can come into conflict: one might hold to non-initiation of violence as a core principle (often cited by Libertarians), yet encounter a situation where one’s innate biological impulse is to initiate violence. At this point, reason must come into play and reassess the core principle in the light of the new experience, deciding whether to abide by it, or abandon it. If it doesn’t stand up to a lot of challenges like this, then it never was a very good core principle (much like a scientific theory isn’t very good if it doesn’t withstand the arrival of new evidence).

    You delight in floating a term without defining it, then insulting person because he didn’t embrace your own definition, don’t you?

    I submit that atheism is a lack of core principles, leaving only natural dispositions.

    I think this bears repeating. There are atheists who want to forge some kind of cohesive political or social identity around non-faith, but atheism, in itself, is agnostic on core principles, natural dispositions, and everything else. “Atheism” just means “I don’t believe in a god.” Anything else that an individual atheist brings — core principles, natural dispositions, or a pepperoni pizza — is part of that own atheist’s personal and cultural identity.

    The fact that you fail to recognise the possible existence of core principles in others serves only to reinforce my claim that you lack them yourself.

    Tell you what. You come stand in front of me, put a gun in my hand, and place it to your temple. Stay there, unresisting. Are you willing to risk that I believe killing people is wrong? Or do you think me some sort of moral cretin who indulges in evil whenever it suits me?

    If I were to do that, it might be prompted by natural dispositions, but it would be argued on the basis of principles. The principles they apply would be different from mine, in part, because of differences in principle between Catholics and Protestants. If I were to judge their claims entirely on the basis of my emotional response to them, or even use one-sided reasoning to defend that emotional prejudice, then you would have a point.

    I’m not making this point unique to you — merely pointing out that the practice of relying on expert opinion in a field is not dissimilar from your co-religionists’ own behavior.

  14. TFBW says:

    You delight in floating a term without defining it, then insulting person because he didn’t embrace your own definition, don’t you?

    No, I was just using terms as they are normally defined. I have no particular desire to insult someone who shows as much reasonable engagement as you do. That said, I am going to say some things which come across as insulting because I have an unflattering view of atheism.

    On the matter of the words themselves, this is what I find via Google as definitions.

    principle [ˈprɪnsɪp(ə)l/] (n) 1. a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.

    disposition [dɪspəˈzɪʃ(ə)n/] (n) 1. a person’s inherent qualities of mind and character.

    I trust you can see the difference between these. The adjectives “core” and “natural” were simply additional hints; I won’t belabour them. I’m really not trying to get super-technical here or use the words in any way that departs from these common-usage senses.

    “Atheism” just means “I don’t believe in a god.” Anything else that an individual atheist brings — core principles, natural dispositions, or a pepperoni pizza — is part of that own atheist’s personal and cultural identity.

    Lack of a belief in a god usually generalises to lack of belief in the supernatural. Few say “no” to gods but “yes” to angels, demons, and ghosts. (Well, maybe not so few, but can we agree to call them something other than “atheist?” Like “spiritist”, or something?) Lack of belief in the supernatural generalises to belief in nothing but the natural. If the natural is all you have anything to base anything on, then principles, being fundamental truths, have no place to stand. They can not be derived from the tendencies of the physical world in the way that the laws of physics can.

    Take the Libertarian non-initiation of force principle. On atheism, you can adopt such a principle, but it stands unsupported by any reality. Anything which lacks such support suffers from arbitrariness: why this principle, and not its exact opposite? Why would we accept such a principle as “true” rather than “false” or “meaningless for lack of an actual referent?” Reality offers no comment on the matter. One could fall back to a pragmatic position based on desirable outcomes, but then one has already sacrificed the principle for a different principle: “it is right to do whatever produces the desirable outcome.” What if initiation of force produces the desirable outcome in some case? One can fall back instead on dogmatism, and bluntly assert the principle, for what that’s worth.

    Are you willing to risk that I believe killing people is wrong? Or do you think me some sort of moral cretin who indulges in evil whenever it suits me?

    I suspect that your disposition is not inclined towards cold-blooded murder. Few have such a disposition. But is that indicative of a principle on your part? You tell me. Is “killing people is a moral wrong” a fundamental truth on which you have based your reasoning, or are you just generally not inclined to shoot people, all things considered? Do bear in mind that if you claim it is a fundamental truth, then I have some questions about how you come to recognise the existence of such a truth. If it’s just an inclination, then we’re not talking about a knowledge claim, and I have no such question.

    Atheism and principles go together like pickles and ice cream.

  15. Isaac says:

    I sincerely would like pennywit to expound upon the idea that marriage must be a contract between two sentient parties. Is there any logical reason why, from the secular point of view, a marriage can’t be between a person and an inanimate object, with the second party verifying the contract being the State? After all, we have purchase contracts tying cars and houses to their owners. Is there any secular reason why the definition of marriage can’t evolve in that direction, if it makes the human party happy?

    To paraphrase the series of commercials that aired when California was in the midst of the gay marriage debate, “How would you feel if they wouldn’t let you marry the chandelier you loved?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.