#anti-objectum

[stormxthephantomsrevenge]

Arguing against the 2 main anti-objectum arguments used to invalidate us

I noticed flaws with some anti-objectum arguments, so I made this post to argue against them under the cut.

“Objects aren’t mentally capable of consent!”

^ Scientifically yes, but they do not need to as they are considered non-sentient and aren’t considered beings by science. While some objectums are POSIC (essentially believing objects are sentient in a way) including myself, that is a spiritual belief, not a scientific one.

“It’s a para!”

^ This argument usually comes from people that cannot separate just simply having a paraphilia and a paraphilic disorder. According to the DSM-5, a para only crosses into harmful territory (a para disorder) if:

— It causes significant distress in important areas of life

— Involves another non-consenting individual or individual’s distress

( ^ this is based off of Criteria B because many people only fit Criteria A + Criteria C and are therefore ineligible for the diagnosis of a para disorder)

Even then, not all objectums have a para disorder, and there is a chance you might have a non-disorder related para yourself as they are a normal part of sexual diversity.

The “it’s a para argument” also ignores objectums that are exclusively platonic if we are going by the clinical definition.