On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:26:54 -0700, Beth Benoit wrote: >Since I teach a course in Human Sexuality, I did a little follow-up search >on this story, and found this story which includes a documentary about this >young woman. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/277168 > >"Objectum sexuality" is not unheard of apparently, but I don't see it in the >DSM-IV (I don't have V yet - does anyone who has V see it there?), nor >in my textbook on Human Sexuality. It seems to have some of the >characteristics >of fetishism, but doesn't fit comfortably in that definition either.
A search of pubmed.gov turn up nothing on "Objectum sexuality", in fact, the word objectum is rejected as a search term. A Google search provides a variety of hits, including that old stand-by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality Quoting the entry: |The term objectum-sexuality was coined in the 1970s by a woman |named Eija-Riitta Eklöf Berliner-Mauer from Liden, Sweden, who |was married to the Berlin Wall.[1] Objectum-sexual individuals also |believe in animism, or the belief that objects have souls, intelligence, |feelings, and are able to communicate.[2] So, it doesn't seem to a term that you're likely to find in DSM. There is also a website devoted to the topic: http://www.objectum-sexuality.org/ I guess one would have to ask researchers in sexual behavior what their take is on this and whether there is a more suitable "mainstream" categorization. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
