After watching (A)sexual and Married to the Eiffel Tower, I found myself questioning what it meant to be a member of the queer community. Because I was already aware of the struggles and erasure the asexual community experiences within the queer community, the ideas in (A)sexuality seemed to be easier for me to grasp compared to those in the Married to the Eiffel Tower. Because the two films were played together, the ideas that coincide with objectsexuality are much easier to understand and accept, and I would argue that objectsexuality is queer in a sense. Although it does not involve two queer people, per say, it is a form of sexuality that is pathologized and oppressed similarly to how gay and lesbian people were treated in the past.

Relating Married to the Eiffel Tower to Rodriguez’s chapter, “Intro to Queer Futures,” the gestures that the women made toward the objects that they were in relationships with created a resistance toward heteronormativity, whether you believe objectsexuality is queer or not. The acts and gestures that the women made toward the objects did not cause any other people surrounding them harm, and even still, one woman was asked to leave the building she was in a relationship with by security. Besides the possibility of an object being in a public place, there are no real issues of consent because only one person is involved, so there is not really any harm being done by people who are objectsexuals unless they make someone uncomfortable. The discomfort that non-objectsexuals experience is most likely because they do not understand or they pathologize why other people are in love with objects. This is easy to do because of the lack of information on objectsexuality, but with proper education and visibility, this can be changed as it has with other forms of queer sexualities.

%d bloggers like this: