Is (an extreme?) interest in a BDSM lifestyle a psychological problem?

Since, I'm very new to all of this. I tend to keep very quite, especially about something as charged this subject has become. I did notice that the OP had a large gap between posts and no profile filled out. Re-reading the post, I suddenly felt that I was back on my Shrink's couch. College finals, are fast approaching. Could this be a topic of a Term Paper? OK I have added my two cents. I'm going to go back into my corner and continue to educate myself so and can better at my chosen lifestyle.

Pretty good points Brambles. So if we shouldn't fault people for doing unhealthy things or dangerous things or things that potentially are products of issues from the past that could be resolved then when should we fault people? Or even better; when should we fault out ourselves? When is it a problem? When is it a diagnosis? Only when it is causing serious harm and even then only if its not consentual?

Do answer.


Now as I said I admit and acknowledge the smoking is unhealthy. If I smoked 3 packs a day and told you about it I'd hope you wouldn't feel "It's ok, he can do what ever he wants, he's an adult". I'd want you to be concerned for me, especially if we know each other.


Or is it all about indulgence and individualism?


Oh about public scrutiny: Laws are being relaxed on this subject, it is becoming ever more present on TV (not only the ol 50SoG but the various music videos (Rhiannah, Gaga) and even in fashion). It is even allowed as a public spectacle which may not be suited for children. Frankly it is losing a bit of its mystique. I know of the UK which passed some restrictions a few years ago but that's the only example of an opposite trend that I am aware of.

Smoking and drinking and eating are becoming increasingly serious issues in the public eye. In Japan they want to force older people to do excersises and make health plans if they weigh above a certain weight. In Finland you can't smoke outside on your balcony.

I'm pretty sure you still can fuck on your balcony.

Stella_Omega said:

Then don't bother-- concentrate on the other words instead.

Click to expand...

Well, I think I explained those things adequately in the examples and exceptions and subsequent discussion.

well, if it is, i should go visit a shrink right now!

Wondering_Newb said:

Pretty good points Brambles. So if we shouldn't fault people for doing unhealthy things or dangerous things or things that potentially are products of issues from the past that could be resolved then when should we fault people?

Click to expand...

I dunno. What happens if we don't get to fault anybody? Do we explode from all the pent-up faultingness?

But we weren't actually talking about "fault" up till now; the thread was specifically about BDSM as a psychiatric illness, so I'll answer in that context. There are plenty of things people do which I might consider to be a bad decision without needing to slap a medical diagnosis on it - and without needing to take away their ability to make their own choices.

Or even better; when should we fault out ourselves? When is it a problem? When is it a diagnosis? Only when it is causing serious harm and even then only if its not consentual?

Click to expand...

How about "when the person affected thinks it's a problem"? There might be a few situations where it's necessary to make an exception to that, but I'm pretty happy with that as a default position, and I don't see an argument for making an exception for BDSM

Now as I said I admit and acknowledge the smoking is unhealthy. If I smoked 3 packs a day and told you about it I'd hope you wouldn't feel "It's ok, he can do what ever he wants, he's an adult". I'd want you to be concerned for me, especially if we know each other.

Click to expand...

"Concerned" is one thing. Slapping a mental-health diagnosis on you is quite another.

And that concern would be based on a great deal of epidemiological evidence that demonstrates strong links between smoking and ill-health, early death, etc etc.

Or is it all about indulgence and individualism?

Click to expand...

If "indulgence and individualism" means the notion that people should be allowed to pursue happiness and that individual people are usually the ones best equipped to judge their own needs, then sign me up.

Oh about public scrutiny: Laws are being relaxed on this subject, it is becoming ever more present on TV (not only the ol 50SoG but the various music videos (Rhiannah, Gaga) and even in fashion).

Click to expand...

2010 in re ALEKSANDREE M.M. AND MARIE J.M. Court effectively held that a mother's involvement in a BDSM poly relationship was grounds to terminate her parental rights. (Her husband raped her daughter; there was no evidence that she had any knowledge of this, but the fact of the relationship was taken as evidence that she should've known the child was in danger.)

And yeah, it gets more coverage these days but generally not in a good way. BDSM is used as a signifier for "fucked-up and decadent" or "sex worker about to feature in a murder investigation" or "abusive relationship", or maybe "look at me I'm edgy and if you buy my album you can shock your parents". It's been a long time since I saw it presented as a thing that can happen between a happy well-adjusted couple.

Smoking and drinking and eating are becoming increasingly serious issues in the public eye. In Japan they want to force older people to do excersises and make health plans if they weigh above a certain weight. In Finland you can' smoke outside on your balcony.

I'm pretty sure you still can fuck on your balcony.

Click to expand...

Try BDSM on your balcony and you're likely to have somebody call the cops. If you're very lucky you might get away with indecent exposure.

Meanwhile, I repeat: can you imagine any US presidential candidate surviving the revelation that they liked to be tied up and spanked?

Wondering_Newb said:

In Finland you can't smoke outside on your balcony.

Click to expand...

Yes, you can.

Not that it's an important point in the discussion as a whole, but still.

Wondering_Newb said:

...
it is my sincere wish it stay open and that people discuss
...

Click to expand...

Why?

(Other at least 5 characters.)

I'm just going to drop THIS very interesting article here. Make of it what you will.

seela said:

Yes, you can.

Not that it's an important point in the discussion as a whole, but still.

Click to expand...

Well. Not for very long ? : )
http://yle.fi/uutiset/new_legislative_crackdown_on_balcony_smoking/6909468

And local laws have already been passed, some have been challenged in court though.

Bramblethorn said:

I dunno. What happens if we don't get to fault anybody? Do we explode from all the pent-up faultingness?

But we weren't actually talking about "fault" up till now; the thread was specifically about BDSM as a psychiatric illness, so I'll answer in that context. There are plenty of things people do which I might consider to be a bad decision without needing to slap a medical diagnosis on it - and without needing to take away their ability to make their own choices.



How about "when the person affected thinks it's a problem"? There might be a few situations where it's necessary to make an exception to that, but I'm pretty happy with that as a default position, and I don't see an argument for making an exception for BDSM



"Concerned" is one thing. Slapping a mental-health diagnosis on you is quite another.

And that concern would be based on a great deal of epidemiological evidence that demonstrates strong links between smoking and ill-health, early death, etc etc.



If "indulgence and individualism" means the notion that people should be allowed to pursue happiness and that individual people are usually the ones best equipped to judge their own needs, then sign me up.



2010 in re ALEKSANDREE M.M. AND MARIE J.M. Court effectively held that a mother's involvement in a BDSM poly relationship was grounds to terminate her parental rights. (Her husband raped her daughter; there was no evidence that she had any knowledge of this, but the fact of the relationship was taken as evidence that she should've known the child was in danger.)

And yeah, it gets more coverage these days but generally not in a good way. BDSM is used as a signifier for "fucked-up and decadent" or "sex worker about to feature in a murder investigation" or "abusive relationship", or maybe "look at me I'm edgy and if you buy my album you can shock your parents". It's been a long time since I saw it presented as a thing that can happen between a happy well-adjusted couple.



Try BDSM on your balcony and you're likely to have somebody call the cops. If you're very lucky you might get away with indecent exposure.

Meanwhile, I repeat: can you imagine any US presidential candidate surviving the revelation that they liked to be tied up and spanked?

Click to expand...

Good post
Obviously research needs to reviewed to establish if there should be any concerns or not. Obviously there are concerns with anything going out of hand just like someone pointed out before editing their post :caning:

Arianthe said:

I'm just going to drop THIS very interesting article here. Make of it what you will.

Click to expand...

That's interesting and expands on my thoughts about the rationality around seeking an endorphine rush. It does not say much of having such a relationship (and the source of this) beyond the occassional kink playtime, but nonetheless, interesting indeed.

It also seems to concentrate on only the receiver and very briefly mentions the quote "giver". Perhaps there's more in the full thesis. Shouldn't be to hard to find, thanks.

Wondering_Newb said:

Good post
Obviously research needs to reviewed to establish if there should be any concerns or not. Obviously there are concerns with anything going out of hand just like someone pointed out before editing their post :caning:

Click to expand...

You don't cane anyone without their consent, pup.

Arianthe said:

I'm just going to drop THIS very interesting article here. Make of it what you will.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that! If I recall correctly, Pamela Stephenson-Connolly has also done a fair bit of research on mental health of BDSM practitioners and her findings were consistent with what's published in the earlier Ambler study - BDSMers are pretty normal.

Wondering_Newb said:

That's interesting and expands on my thoughts about the rationality around seeking an endorphine rush. It does not say much of having such a relationship (and the source of this) beyond the occassional kink playtime, but nonetheless, interesting indeed.

It also seems to concentrate on only the receiver and very briefly mentions the quote "giver". Perhaps there's more in the full thesis. Shouldn't be to hard to find, thanks.

Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding snarky: perhaps next time you might consider doing this sort of background reading and research before showing up on the forum and advocating for diagnosing people with a mental illness? It might save everybody a lot of annoyance and/or embarrassment.

Amateur researchers that don't actually delve into the scholarship before coming up with pet theories are fucking hilarious.


And by hilarious, I mean annoying and a dime a dozen.

Bramblethorn said:

At the risk of sounding snarky: perhaps next time you might consider doing this sort of background reading and research before showing up on the forum and advocating for diagnosing people with a mental illness? It might save everybody a lot of annoyance and/or embarrassment.

Click to expand...

Nah. I think I'll proceed the way I did and smirk at these passive agressive replies.

I thought masochists developed tougher skin with time? <g>

It's funny how both you and CM turned rude at the reply where I agreed with you respectively or thought you had a few good ideas of your own. But it was to be expected, I sorta got what I needed from this thread anyway, thanks.

I mean I could provide you with the documents for the toughening of the British law on this subject or historic diagnoses from III which go much further than I wanted to discuss. I could also point you to the fact that there was not one attempt to advocate anything. But I doubt your self-righteous butt would care ^.^

Also, ever heard of original research?
Anyway this is neither, just probing to hear some opinions, that's all. Feisty!

PS: If it keeps you and your partner truly happy then that's good enough for the real me

Wondering_Newb said:

Also, ever heard of original research?

Click to expand...

This is not how reputable academics gather interviews and research subjects. We're not dumb.

Good. Cause I'm not researching.

Anyway this is neither

Click to expand...

Dime a dozen people like yourself, too!

Wondering_Newb said:

PS: If it keeps you and your partner truly happy then that's good enough for the real me

Click to expand...

See, NOW you've hit the nail on the head! That the most sensible thing you've said yet and is all you need to take away from this discussion!

All the research in the world isn't necessarily going to give you insight into why consenting adults find satisfaction and happiness practicing BDSM or D/s. Fortunately, you don't need to understand it, or even support it. You just need to respect our right to practice it.

I agree the psychology underlying BDSM is an interesting subject. Debate it by all means! But please, for the love of God, come to it with an open mind. Consciously ditch your preconceptions and refrain from making assumptions. Don't ask questions then dismiss the answers because they don't fit neatly into your preconceived psychological framework. It does not work that way! Your starting premise needs to be that we are NORMAL, not mentally ill.

Keep in mind that BDSM practitioners are not particularly susceptible to categorisation! I, for example, am a sadistic service top, yet I identify as a slave. I find no inconsistency in this whatsoever. I'm also a disgustingly well educated, functioning member of society with no background of child abuse. I'm me, I just happen to be wired this way and I love it!

I know comes across as a rant, but it really isn't intended that way.

Well I didn't come out with a preconception. It's just that someone has to argue for the other side. I'm missing all those conservative christians someone mentioned seeing alot!


What is a sadistic service top? Do you mean in bed and bed only? Cause while you may call yourself what ever you want that one really did confuse me. Being a slave too, I mean.


Like you said, it is an interesting subject. I've got a few more spoofs on it such as why men in positions of power more often than the general population are drawn to these type of settings. It's easy to claim that something is somewhat scrambled here. A cause and effect. But does it need to be "fixed?" and wouldn't the fixing itself be a type of mindchanging experience. That goes back to the very essence of our own understanding of who we are. Are we ever, can we ever be our purest self?

Some try to meditate to find out, Yoga and all of that. Others get high on drugs. Maybe some just want to let go of their control for a few moments and balance things out. Then again, maybe all of us are fucked up in one way or an other? At least those with brains enough to question themselves.


Ah, what if one partner is much more intelligent than the other? Could a relationship like this then more easily lead to manipulation of the less intelligent? Compared to what...? Aren't there tons of examples of manipulation and abuse in vanilla relationships, and tons of examples of healthy BDSM ones?

See I can deabte myself, it's just sometimes (not always though) more interesting to do it with others.

Now to something more interesting:

Remember though that happiness is defined by our boundaries. I already gave two examples. A third would be a dark room with a light in the middle of it. If you stay at that pretty light you'll never venture far out to see that there's an ever greater light outside?


So here comes a question to you.
If you're happy with that light is it alright if you never see the sun?
Would it be cruel to pull you out of the room?

Ignore the forum we are in and whether or not it can ever be applied to this. Let's just discuss the meaning of happiness for a moment.


And here's one more. Far more straight; Do you feel that experiencing pain in search of pleasure can take the form of an addictive drug? I really don't even have an opinion of this. But again if I was to play the devils advocate from your perspective I'd say that it it indeed can. The stretching or flogging and thus disfiguring your own flesh or that of your partners, more each time to reach that same discomfort and high. The brains receptors getting used to its own drug (morphine is very similiar to endorphin and clearly causes addiction), the threshold of pain increasing itself as well, a double-edged sword, no?

Perhaps everything in reasonable portion sizes? Does enough rest from play ease the strain? What are your experiences with this?

Wondering_Newb said:

Well I didn't come out with a preconception. It's just that someone has to argue for the other side.

Click to expand...

Do they? Do they really? Did/do you play devil's advocate in the inter-racial marriage or same-sex marriage debate? Because this is the same sort of thing. You may never understand why some people tick the way you do, but it's really unarguable that the practice of BDSM is within the spectrum of normal human sexuality/psychology. Some people are wired this way, some are not and whether they are or aren't isn't susceptible to judgement!

As for identifying "the other side," I sincerely doubt you have enough information and understanding to identify and articulate the concepts you are arguing against. I also doubt you will find much useful information on Lit. In my experience, very few members of this site are real-world practitioners of BDSM. As someone mentioned above, Fetlife is a much better resource. Ideally, you'll go to your local munch and meet real people who do this every day. You'll find the vast majority are as normal, or fucked up, as you or I.

Sorry, I don't have the time to address the rest of your interesting questions. It's 14:12 where I am and I simply don't have the time right now. I'll try to get back to this later, or feel free to shoot me a PM.

2 cents here. My input may be a little shallow compared to some of the comments here, but we'll see.

I identify myself as a slave, (a very, very subjective term.) given to a dominant man by mutual consent. This relationship revolves around love for one another and acceptance that we are who we wish to be in the relationship. I know that "freedom," (another very subjective term) is available to me at any time, but I would not trade my position under the man I refer to as Master for anything. I find my life very fulfilling and I am deeply invested in personal growth.

I have also seen a psychologist for a period of time, partly because, my Master wants to be confident, and wants me to be confident that I am not accepting this role for unhealthy reasons. My psychologist has stated that she sees me as a healthy, productive member of society and through our sessions she has come to an understanding that our lifestyle can be as healthy as any lifestyle, provided that it is by true mutual consent and captivity or fear are not subduing the individual into consent. In other words, in the absense of criminality.

Now, none of that is particularly scientific conclusions, but for my part, the small selection of people I am involved with who are part of a BDSM, (also very subjective,) culture, quite frankly have their lives together better than a lot or "normal" (subjective again) people that I know.

Mental illness or dysfunction crosses over into every societal category. I don't see any way that BDSM can be segregated out as foundationaly a mental illness.

If I missed something here that leaves my comment somehow irrelevant, please forgive me. I read the majority of the thread and some of it was mind boggling in that it seems to overthink the question...either that or it just went over my head.

Wondering_Newb said:

Nah. I think I'll proceed the way I did and smirk at these passive agressive replies.

I thought masochists developed tougher skin with time? <g>

Click to expand...

First: not sure why you're assuming I'm a masochist.

Second: when you come in spouting offensive bullshit without bothering to do your homework first, the fact that you get a hostile reaction isn't about people being "thin-skinned". It's about how acting like an arrogant tosser for long enough eventually gets you treated like one.

It's funny how both you and CM turned rude at the reply where I agreed with you respectively or thought you had a few good ideas of your own. But it was to be expected, I sorta got what I needed from this thread anyway, thanks.

Click to expand...

Ah, the old "joke's on you all, I planned to make a fool of myself all along!" gambit. If you want to explore that avenue further, you could try claiming it was all a big social experiment to see how people would react.

I mean I could provide you with the documents for the toughening of the British law on this subject or historic diagnoses from III which go much further than I wanted to discuss.

Click to expand...

I for one am tremendously impressed that you know a thing about a law. I think I'm speaking on behalf of everybody here when I say that nobody else here has ever had occasion to look up the laws as they pertain to BDSM, and that knowing a thing about a law certainly counts for more than, say, understanding why it might be problematic to advocate mental-health diagnoses to a group with a long history of being on the wrong end of a politicised MH system.

but I could also point you to the fact that there was not one attempt to advocate anything. But I doubt your self-righteous butt would care ^.^

Click to expand...

Actually, at that stage I'd refer you back to your very first post in this thread:

Wondering_Newb said:

ABut since the point that it is a psychological problem will be in a great minority in this post I will thus act the devils advocate and try to a good job at it until or if it becomes impossible or completely uninteresting.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether I ought to be questioning your honesty or your intelligence here - perhaps you didn't realise that an "advocate" is one who advocates? - but I'm inclined to embrace the power of "and".

But the specific term "devil's advocate", let's talk about that a moment. The term comes from the Catholic canonisation process: obviously people like creating saints and want to believe in miracles, and nobody wants to be the killjoy who says "maybe she didn't actually levitate in church". But for whatever reason the RCC decided the process needed to be a little more rigorous, so somebody got appointed specifically to advocate an opinion so unpopular that nobody was willing to advocate it on their own behalf.

Attempting to represent BDSMers as mentally ill... there are actually quite a lot of people willing to advocate that position already, thank you very much. I don't know whether you actually believe it yourself or whether you just thought this might be a good theme for a bit of pseudo-intellectual wankery, and frankly I don't much care; the stuff you're advocating is just as harmful either way.

Also, ever heard of original research?

Click to expand...

Yep. In fact, "original research" is how I got my PhD, and a big part of how I've earned my living since then.

As anybody who's actually done original research and not just "heard of" it could tell you: the first step of original research is the lit review, checking up on what's already been done in the area. Because if you try to kick off a research project without noticing that the question was already settled five years ago by Dr. Somebodyelse, you just end up looking like a doofus who doesn't know how to work a search engine. (And probably a doofus without a grant, which is even worse.)

Wondering_Newb said:

Well I didn't come out with a preconception. It's just that someone has to argue for the other side. I'm missing all those conservative christians someone mentioned seeing alot!

Click to expand...

Rest easy! You'll be glad to know that you are nowhere near being the only person arguing that BDSMers should be labelled as mentally disordered.

I've got a few more spoofs on it such as why men in positions of power more often than the general population are drawn to these type of settings.

Click to expand...

Before you start asking "why", might be an idea to stop and evaluate "if".

Bramblethorn said:

I think I'm speaking on behalf of everybody here when I say that nobody else here has ever had occasion to look up the laws as they pertain to BDSM...

Click to expand...

raises hand and confesses to having a Juris Doctor...

"Devils advocate" is a term used to describe someone who is arguing on behalf of the other side regardless of or despire their own opinions. I'll give you a gold star for being educated enough to use google though and click on the first link you see to explain it. Have you stoped to think about the possibility of using the word as a neologism? To actually say that I am advocating something you must find me doing so. And while it maybe is possible to nitpick a little peice here and there I doubt you will succeed in this overall and you will fail to respond properly.

For example.
Where have I advocated that you get your head examined which seems to be what you think I am advocating. Where did I say something should be in such or such way? I've said some things easily could be applied if one wanted too and then I wanted to see if you agreed or not.

Sure, I've picked a side but frankly not so much through advocating it but through attempting to scold the opposite side and by default win the argument. Jeanne D'Arc did precisely this when faced with the church as well. She surely had a greater mind than me and sadly still didn't fare well because the entire court and public viewing were already against her. At least my life isn't at stake!


Also what is politicized is only a perspective. Politics IS perspective. So to say that holding an opinion that is for favorable and inclusive regulation concerning a practise is just as politicized as one holding the opposite. In anciet Greece pedophilia wasn't frowned upon (although the idea that sexual molestation was common is a misconception).
In one mexican state it is still legal.

Try to understand that it is only normal that people question you, especially since they are not familiar with all of it. It is even normal that people legislate against you. It's normal for you to react and to fight that. It will be many more spins around our fairly small star until we learn to live together with each other, that's to say if this is desirable at all.