I am married to the Berlin Wall
March 6, 2002 7:36 AM   Subscribe

I am married to the Berlin Wall (and have been since 1979).
posted by Pinwheel (20 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
At least she apparently spared us pictures of the wedding night. . .
posted by Danf at 7:56 AM on March 6, 2002

Link is bad.
posted by password at 8:06 AM on March 6, 2002

Woah! It was there a minute ago... I managed to capture the text if anyone wants to read it in full. Should I post it here before this page dies?

"To be objectúm-sexual and having sex with an object, is NOT the same thing as masturbation, because in masturbation one doesn't see the object as LIVING..."

Huh? It's a WALL.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:20 AM on March 6, 2002

The Google cache of the page is here.
posted by thewittyname at 8:21 AM on March 6, 2002

I "divide" all objects according this:
1. The construction (the object itself).
2. The purpose of the object.
3. The time period the construction is/was used in.
This way I get the object free-standing from the rest.

Who says Germans are methodical and pretentious?
posted by argybarg at 8:24 AM on March 6, 2002

This is the same woman who used to be in love with a guillotine named Fressie. She's clearly an objectum bigamist.
posted by rcade at 8:29 AM on March 6, 2002

They make a cute couple.
posted by ColdChef at 8:31 AM on March 6, 2002

I wonder if it's a monogamous relationship? Or an open marriage?

Sort of adds a new dimension to that old Eagles tune....

Why don't you come to your senses
You've been out riding fences
For so long now
Oh you're a hard one
But I know that you've got your reasons
These things that are pleasin' you
Can hurt you somehow

posted by groundhog at 8:37 AM on March 6, 2002

Saw this over at cruel.com a couple s years ago. Still
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 8:44 AM on March 6, 2002

This reminds me of that Peanuts subplot from the 70s where Linus was having a relationship with the school building...anyone else remember that?

I'm actually to young to have read it as it was coming out, but I read it in the anthologies...
posted by bingo at 8:45 AM on March 6, 2002

"If one can see objects as living things, it is also pretty close to be able to fall in love with them."

My first reaction was to assume this is a joke, but I think the woman's serious, which is more unsettling to me. I'm trying to find links that discuss or define what constitutes life, but what I'm finding in my searches are a lot of links I wouldn't bother linking to, because they consist of discussions where people don't seem to fully understand what the true definition of life is, or rather they argue that there is no concrete definition for life. I thought to say something is living, it should be required to procreate and defecate. That's not a full definition, but I thought that was sufficient. Even plantlife procreates, but does it defecate? Now I'm really confused.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this objectum sexuality concept but I'm failing miserably. To be honest, I've had arguments in the past with homosexuals and they rarely ever appreciate my attempts to understand where they're coming from. I mean I'm not very good at understanding where they're coming from, but at least I try. I have made some progress, though some homosexuals still see me as a bigot. Hey, I'm trying okay? Not that perhaps one should lump homosexuality and Objectum-Sexuality together - but until recently my limited mind has seen heterosexuality as one thing and then all the other sexualities are in an "aberrant behavior" category. It's something I've fought with over the years, but this is just how I'm personally wired.

I'm admittedly prejudicial and bigoted. I call myself a recovering homophobe. I try to tolerate the concept of homosexuality despite the fact it's personally an immoral thing for me. That's my trip, okay? It works for other people. More power to them. I disagree with homosexuals but that's both my choice and just the way I'm wired, and though I disagree, I would would fight for their rights to live as they see fit so long as their lifestyle doesn't adversely harm other people.

However, I just can't seem to ...I mean it's a WALL! This Objectum-Sexuality thing is just... wow! Ow it hurts my head. It's a freakin' wall!

Compared to sexually-aware animism, homosexuality makes a lot more sense. I mean at least one is connecting with a fellow human being and appreciating them as a fellow living thing with emotions and thoughts. Now my concern is this: if I tolerate homosexuality, does it not end there?

If a heterosexual is to be tolerant of homosexuality, does this mean they should also be tolerant of sexual animism, beastiality, necrophilia, and other forms of non-conservative sexual behavior? If a gay person is against objectum-sexualists, are they being hypocrites? As long as there is no abuse involved, and no one's getting hurt, must we be so tolerant? Where does the line get drawn or should there be no lines drawn?

She claims to have married herself to the Berlin Wall, and now that the Berlin Wall has been taken down, this makes her a widow? Ouch.. I need some Tylenol...
posted by ZachsMind at 8:57 AM on March 6, 2002

The way I go is by who's affected. It's obvious that homosexuality is ok, because they're adults and can consent. A wall can't consent, but it also can't be hurt, as I don't view it as a living thing. An animal can't consent, but it can be hurt, so I don't think bestiality is good on a general basis, the same goes for children.

Necrophilia is kind of like sexual animism, but not really. They can't consent, and can't be hurt, but their family can. I realize that this means if someone consents to it prior to death and their family consents to it, this is ok by my rules. In that case...I just don't want to know, I suppose.
posted by stoneegg21 at 9:19 AM on March 6, 2002

I think I can begin to relate to her when I start thinking of her love in terms of sentience and artificial intelligence.

When we love, it's always mysterious. The more you love, the more confusing it becomes. What is the true object of my love? Her will? Body? A complex algorythmic propensity to make certain decisions?

I kind of respect this woman for being able to refrain from holding prejudice about conciousness in her passions.

I bet the saints, once imersing themselves in the "oneness of God," felt sexual tempation from all manner of God's creation.

And someday, we'll each know the love of a robot.
posted by Pinwheel at 9:39 AM on March 6, 2002

If a heterosexual is to be tolerant of homosexuality, does this mean they should also be tolerant of sexual animism, beastiality, necrophilia, and other forms of non-conservative sexual behavior? If a gay person is against objectum-sexualists, are they being hypocrites? As long as there is no abuse involved, and no one's getting hurt, must we be so tolerant? Where does the line get drawn or should there be no lines drawn?

I take issue with the examples you give of "non-conservative sexual behaviour", homosexuality doesn't really fit in with your examples. You seem to be mixing up paraphilias (like pedophila, bestiality, necrophila, shoe fetishes etc) with sexual relationships between consenting adults of either sex. Most homosexual couples that I know have relationships which differ hardly at all from the heterosexual couples I know, the fact that they have such relationships with people of the same sex as themselves is irrelevant.

When having sex with animals and corpses, there *is* abuse involved, since animals can't give consent and the relatives of the deceased person would probably see someone having sex with the dearly departed as abusive. But if people want to have "relationships" and "sex" with inanimate objects, as long as they're not affecting anyone by it (like by having sex with a public building), I don't think it's anyone's business.

As for "tolerating" homosexuality, I think I understand where you're coming from, but such wording carries implications which I suspect (hope) you don't intend.
posted by biscotti at 9:41 AM on March 6, 2002

Homosexuality isn't "non-conservative". I think you're confusing modern Republicanism with conservatism. The fact that you are somehow drawing a line between bestiality (raping other species of animal) and homosexuality (consenual love/sex between two adult humans) shows that you have a LONG way to go towards "trying to tolerate the concept of homosexuality". If you can't even tolerate the concept then I wouldn't dare ask what you think of the perpetrators.

With that said, this link has been floating around for years, indicating to me that this is a VERY rare occurence, and that this woman is a lot bonkers. I would guess that this indicates some bad wiring upstairs.

Homosexuality has been ever-present in human society since the beginning of time. It's hardly even "weird". Much less something to be compared with sexualizing inanimate objects
posted by glenwood at 9:46 AM on March 6, 2002

biscotti: "You seem to be mixing up paraphilias (like pedophila, bestiality, necrophila, shoe fetishes etc) with sexual relationships between consenting adults of either sex."

That's precisely what I needed to hear. That there is a rational difference between them. Homosexuality among consenting adults is reasonable, because there's no harm no foul.

Perhaps I should replace "tolerate" with another word. "Condone" doesn't work. It's not that my opinion is required or even desired. I'm just trying to cope with its presence for my own social requirements. I like hanging with homosexuals even if I don't like what they do, because I admire their markedly unique perspectives on reality. They're fun to talk to. They challenge my own perception of reality.

"Reasonable" perhaps? "Logical?" No I can't use logical because I still can't see how it's logical. The thesaurus fails me. I'm trying to justify the existence of homosexuality and accept that under certain conditions such behavior is passable without actually adopting it for myself. I don't logically see how there are heterosexual women, come to think of it. I don't see what they see in us. I'm glad they do, but it makes no sense to me. I do understand lesbianism. I mean, what's not to love in women? Even the stuff about women that I don't like, I still like. They're maddening but they're wonderful.

stoneegg21: "A wall can't consent, but it also can't be hurt..."

So it boils down to whether or not it's a victumless action. That would work with my personal opinions about victumless crimes. Like drugs are okay for people if they want to do it, so long as it's in moderation and they don't hurt anyone (including themselves) while under the influence. I think I can wrap my mind around it under that criteria. Drug use is still illegal granted, but I can't see how it's unethical, in moderation.

I personally believe in the possibility that "dumb animals" and plantlife have souls. Even bugs might have souls, but that doesn't stop me from squishing them every chance I get. I've encountered trees in the past which were just so big and awe-inspiring, with a presence that seemed almost tangible. What nature-lover couldn't walk away from, say, a giant redwood unimpressed? I don't assume they have souls, but I accept the possibility that they might.

However, the tree didn't have any boobs so I didn't even entertain the thought of lusting after it; that's just so foreign a concept for me. I draw the line with tolerating people who worship historical landmarks as sex symbols. I reserve the right to make fun of people who fall in love with walls, because it's just flat silly.

Pinwheel: "And someday, we'll each know the love of a robot."

Some people already do. Although "there's a difference between imagining about something and actually doing it."
posted by ZachsMind at 10:03 AM on March 6, 2002

I think you can find examples of people being sexually attracted to virtually any inanimate object...cars, for example. Hell, people treat other people like inanimate objects, why not just cut out the middle-man/woman/whatever altogether?

But actually LOVING a wall? This goes beyond random humping misdirection and indicates a deeply disturbed person. Or a joke.
posted by groundhog at 10:16 AM on March 6, 2002

ZachsMind: First, I think it's a very good thing that you're trying to come to grips with how you feel about homosexuality, it's very openminded of you. Second, perhaps it would help if you simply stop looking for some kind of *action* to take in how you feel about it and just relax and accept that some people do things that you don't understand and that you wouldn't do yourself, but that this doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of who they are as individual people. You don't have to "justify its existence", it exists, it doesn't directly affect you, so why do you have to *do* anything? Your acceptance of other forms of adult relationships shouldn't have anything to do with what you do with your own. I think you need to stop trying so hard and just relax and be flexible.

As for the lady in the story, I've seen her before with the guillotines. I'm evenly split between thinking she's having us on, thinking she's mentally ill, and thinking it's none of my business and at least she's not hurting anybody.
posted by biscotti at 11:31 AM on March 6, 2002

thinking she's having us on, thinking she's mentally ill

The mind is a funny thing, and I'm often surprised how some people's switches are wired. I read an article once about a guy who was turned on by the smell of fresh-baked bread - I think he even brought it to bed with him. The same article talked a woman who was sexually aroused by cold metal. I don't doubt for a second that somebody could be emotionally attached to, sexually aroused by or even romatically in love with an object.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 2:58 PM on March 6, 2002

Bingo, I'm thinking it was Sally, Charlie Brown's little sis, who had the relationship with the school building, but it was a great plot line. The building missed her in summer, and would occasionally drop bricks on the heads of kids who bullied her.
posted by GaelFC at 3:10 PM on March 6, 2002

« Older darwin's famous apostle   |   Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments