Woman’s attraction to chandeliers not a sexual orientation, Ipso says

A woman in a long-term relationship with a 92-year-old German chandelier has been told that her attraction to historic light fittings is not considered to be a protected sexual orientation.

Press regulator Ipso made the ruling after Amanda Liberty, a woman from Leeds in her mid thirties, complained about an article in the Sun mocking her public declaration of love for Lumiere, her name for an intricate lamp she bought on eBay.

She argued that the newspaper’s article breached the regulator’s code of conduct which requires publishers to avoid prejudicial or pejorative references to an individual’s sexuality.

Liberty identifies as an ‘objectum sexual’ – an individual who is attracted to objects. She objected to being included in an end-of-year article by Sun columnist Jane Moore, which nominated her for a “Dagenham Award (Two Stops Past Barking)” prize, simply because of her sexual attraction to Lumiere.

She also raised concerns about the accuracy of the newspaper’s reporting after the article referred to her being married to the chandelier. She pointed out she was in a relationship with the chandelier but not yet married to it.

The newspaper said that it did not doubt that her attraction to chandeliers was genuine, however it said that sexual orientation in the context of the press regulation code covered people who were attracted to people of the same sex, the opposite sex, or both. Since Liberty was not legally able to marry the chandelier, it would not be legally discriminatory to prevent such a marriage.

The Sun also pointed out that Liberty had extensively talked to the media about her attraction towards chandeliers and other objects in the past, having previously changed her surname during a previous self-declared public relationship with New York’s Statue of Liberty.

The newspaper said that since Liberty had previously exercised her freedom of expression in speaking about her relationship, Moore was entitled to comment on it.

The complaints panel at the press regulator sided with the newspaper, saying that they acknowledged that the article was considered to be “offensive and upsetting” by Liberty but that Ipso do not cover issues of taste and decency.

They dismissed her complaint on the basis that their code “provides protection to individuals in relation to their sexual orientation towards other persons and not to objects”. As a result her attraction to an object “did not fall within the definition of sexual orientation” and was not covered by the regulations.