Sex & Relationships

Woman’s love for a chandelier deemed ‘not a sexual orientation’

If loving a light fixture is wrong, she doesn’t want to be right.

A British woman who claims to be in a long-term relationship with a 92-year-old chandelier has been told that her love affair with the antique fixture is not a protected sexual orientation.

Amanda Liberty, from Leeds, claimed she had been publicly discriminated against after The Sun mocked her relationship with Lumiere, the historic “light fitting,” which she purchased on eBay in 2016 for $500.

But according to the UK’s Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), a news-media watchdog, the newspaper did not breach the press regulator code of conduct — namely their policy against prejudicial or derogatory language in reference to a person’s sexual orientation. Their judgement was that her attraction to the light fixture “did not fall within the definition of sexual orientation,” and thus was not covered in their bylaws.

Liberty, who identifies as an “objectum sexual” — meaning she is attracted to objects, and not people — took offense when The Sun dubbed her the winner of their 2019  “Dagenham Award (Two Stops Past Barking)” — a prize given to those who columnist Jane Moore deems “dim.” Liberty also noted that the outlet had inaccurately referred to her relationship as a marriage — the pair are not yet wedded.

In their defense, The Sun acknowledged that Liberty may indeed be romantically involved with the ornate lamp. However, they argue, press regulation code censors only deprecatory language against those who are attracted to people — as opposed to animals or things.

The news organization also pointed out that Liberty has a history with the media, even before Lumiere came into her life. It had been reported that the woman in her mid-thirties had previously engaged in a romance with the the Statue of Liberty — prompting her name change from Whittaker to “Liberty.” The Sun argued that, since she had agreed to speak publicly about her relationships in the past, Moore was entitled to comment.

IPSO’s complaint panel agreed that the coverage of Liberty had been “offensive and upsetting,” but ultimately ruled in favor of the newspaper, ruling that their code “provides protection to individuals in relation to their sexual orientation towards other persons and not to objects.”