Objectophilia: When Attraction Crosses Into the World of Objects

By Trinity Barnette

I came across this TLC clip the other night—Nathaniel, a grown man, in a full-blown romantic relationship with his red car. Yes, you read that right. Bro named the car, kissed it, and swore it was his soulmate. And apparently, this isn’t just a “strange addiction” gimmick. There’s an actual word for it: objectophilia (sometimes called object sexuality).

Now, here’s where I have a problem. According to psychology resources, objectophilia isn’t officially classified as a mental disorder. It’s described as a “sexual orientation,” with people experiencing romantic, emotional, and even sexual feelings for objects like cars, bridges, and statues. And the way professionals phrase it makes it sound just as valid as being straight, gay, or bi.

But let me be so serious for a second: how is falling in love with the Berlin Wall not a disorder? How is being sexually aroused by your laptop or a chandelier just an “orientation”? Like, I’m all for respecting human complexity, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. If this isn’t delusion, then what is?

Here’s What the Science Says

According to psychological research, objectophilia (or object sexuality) is defined as a sexual orientation where people feel deep romantic, emotional, and/or sexual attraction to inanimate objects. Not just casual attachment either — we’re talking full-blown relationships, complete with love, intimacy, and commitment. Some even believe the object reciprocates their feelings, attributing a soul or consciousness to it.

Examples aren’t limited to TLC oddities. In 1979, Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer famously married the Berlin Wall, claiming she had an emotional bond with “him.” In 2007, Erika Eiffel (yes, her last name is from her “husband”) had a commitment ceremony with the Eiffel Tower and went on to found a community for people like her. And then of course there’s Nathaniel, who TLC introduced to the world as the man in love with his car “Chase.”

Researchers don’t consider objectophilia a mental disorder, because unlike OCD or psychosis, it doesn’t necessarily cause distress. In fact, many who identify as objectophiles say it brings them happiness, comfort, and fulfillment — the same way a typical romantic relationship might for others. Clinically, it’s framed closer to a sexual orientation than a psychiatric condition.

But Here’s Where It Gets Blurry

On paper, objectophilia gets framed as a “valid orientation.” But when you dig deeper, researchers admit it overlaps with traits we usually do associate with mental health.

• Autism & Synesthesia: Studies show people with objectophilia are way more likely to also have autism or synesthesia. Synesthesia is when your senses cross-wire — like seeing numbers as colors, or hearing music as shapes. In this case, people might actually feel objects have genders, personalities, or emotions. Add autism into the mix (where attachment to unusual objects is already common), and suddenly falling in love with a bridge doesn’t sound so random.

• Sexual OCD Confusion: Another factor? Sexual OCD. That’s when intrusive, unwanted sexual thoughts attach themselves to anything — yes, even inanimate objects. The difference is people with OCD find those thoughts distressing, while objectophiles embrace theirs. Still, you can see how messy the line gets.

• Reciprocal Belief: Some objectophiles go beyond attraction and believe their object loves them back. They assign souls, feelings, or consciousness to what they’re attached to. At that point, is it orientation… or delusion?

So while doctors insist this isn’t a diagnosable disorder, you can’t ignore how much it overlaps with neurodivergence, trauma, and compulsions. That’s where my eyebrows raise. Because if someone told me they were engaged to their chandelier? My first instinct wouldn’t be, “Congrats on your orientation.” It would be, “Bestie, you need therapy.”

Raw Reflections

Here’s where I have to step in with my own two cents. Because while professionals say, “This isn’t a disorder, it’s just another orientation,” I can’t lie — I struggle with that framing.

Let’s be real: society has a long history of pathologizing things that don’t fit the norm. Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM until 1973, and it took years of activism to get it recognized as natural. So I get why psychologists are cautious about slapping the “illness” label on objectophilia. They don’t want to stigmatize something just because it’s rare.

But here’s my problem: there’s a difference between protecting human diversity and pretending every behavior is on the same level of healthy. A man who marries his car? A woman who flies out to visit the Berlin Wall because she misses her “partner”? To me, that screams coping mechanism, delusion, or unmet emotional needs. I can acknowledge the science and still say: this looks like a mental health issue dressed up as a love story.

The tricky part is that objectophilia doesn’t always cause harm. People who live like this often feel happy, stable, and fulfilled. And if that’s the case, who am I to say their happiness isn’t real? But at the same time, it makes me wonder about loneliness, isolation, and trauma — the human need to connect so badly that even an inanimate object starts to feel like enough. That doesn’t read like “orientation” to me. That reads like pain.

At the end of the day, objectophilia is one of those things that makes you pause and think, “Wow… the human mind really said no limits.” It’s easy to laugh (and trust me, I laughed hard at Nathaniel kissing his car on TLC), but it also says something deeper about how desperate we are for connection. When people can’t find it in other humans — whether because of trauma, neurodivergence, or just plain isolation — the brain finds its own workarounds.

Do I personally believe this should be considered a mental disorder? Absolutely. Falling in love with an engine block or a monument isn’t just quirky — it’s a symptom of something bigger going on inside. But psychology disagrees with me for now, and the official stance is that this is simply another orientation.

Either way, I’ll end on this: I respect human complexity, but you will not catch me writing love letters to my MacBook or trying to have dinner with a streetlamp. Respectfully, no.