I agree with your statement that database row objects are fine intermediate level objects, and often not too well suited for most really high level objects.

That said I find it curious that you complain about not seeing where DB queries happen, and at the same time bemoan the missing abstractions. Abstractions are all about not caring what happens on the low level, so it sounds like you have conflicting goals.

One more thing: you write about an object representing a table - that's not what the usual ORM does. Most really represent use objects for rows. DBIx::Class is a notable exception, it has both the concept of a "result class" (an object of which is a row), and a "result source (class)", an object of which can stand for a table, or intermediate results from DB queries (ie a set of rows).

Having this distinction helps to remove some of the confusion around objects, tables and rows, but of course it doesn't help when you really want higher abstractions.