I thought we'd risen above this. I guess I was wrong.

[NoLeafClover7]

So I was reading the mental health chapter in my textbook for one of my courses and I was glancing at one of the tables in it and it was giving examples of various mental disorders, and there was one on sexual disorders. I must say, I was shocked to see what it said. It listed paraphilias, (exhibitionism and fetishism), as part of the example, with the other part being something like erectile dysfunction. Are we really still in an era where when somebody has any fetish, that some mental health professionals would regard it as a sexual disorder? If I remember correctly, homosexuality got removed from the DSM-IV in the 70's. So we have been able to move past that. Yet the way this was worded implied that anyone who has any fetish of any sort has a disorder. I find this quite sad, and really quite ignorant if that is what is implied. Anybody with any further psychology background know anything about this? Is any fetish really regarded as a form of sexual dysfunction, or is it just some really conservative mental health professionals who think so?

 

[The_Fractal_King]

So I was reading the mental health chapter in my textbook for one of my courses and I was glancing at one of the tables in it and it was giving examples of various mental disorders, and there was one on sexual disorders. I must say, I was shocked to see what it said. It listed paraphilias, (exhibitionism and fetishism), as part of the example, with the other part being something like erectile dysfunction. Are we really still in an era where when somebody has any fetish, that some mental health professionals would regard it as a sexual disorder? If I remember correctly, homosexuality got removed from the DSM-IV in the 70's. So we have been able to move past that. Yet the way this was worded implied that anyone who has any fetish of any sort has a disorder. I find this quite sad, and really quite ignorant if that is what is implied. Anybody with any further psychology background know anything about this? Is any fetish really regarded as a form of sexual dysfunction, or is it just some really conservative mental health professionals who think so?

You have to realize the point where it becomes a disorder is (or is supposed to be) the point where it causes objective psychological suffering to someone. Also, the DSM-IV does not not my knowledge advocate judgment of anyone it simply categorizes different states of mind. Technically homosexuality should still be in there as it is exactly the same as many mental states listed in the DSM-IV, they're simply much more publicly vocal about finding it insulting. If more people came out (so to speak) and talked about how they disliked being categorized as disordered by the DSM the whole thing would probably have to be rewritten.

 

[Cheshire D]

For all of those paraphilia listings, it also has the caveat (though worded far better) of "patient must be psychologically distressed" about their paraphilia. (This also applies for anxieties and phobias.)

If you're not worried about it, you don't have a disorder.

 

[DeservingBitch]

You have to realize the point where it becomes a disorder is (or is supposed to be) the point where it causes objective psychological suffering to someone. Also, the DSM-IV does not not my knowledge advocate judgment of anyone it simply categorizes different states of mind. Technically homosexuality should still be in there as it is exactly the same as many mental states listed in the DSM-IV, they're simply much more publicly vocal about finding it insulting. If more people came out (so to speak) and talked about how they disliked being categorized as disordered by the DSM the whole thing would probably have to be rewritten.

Are you also suggesting that heterosexuality should be listed in the DSM?

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Are you also suggesting that heterosexuality should be listed in the DSM?

Only if you could find a way in which heterosexuality strayed from common behavior. The DSM isn't about the norm it's about what is outside of the norm, denying that people are different is foolish. From my understanding homosexuality was removed for political reasons, it still technically should be in there because it is outside of common/typical behavior (unless everyone is secretly gay) just like other behaviors listed in the DSM.

 

[Rosie_Riveter]

If anything outside of the norm is defined as a disorder, then folks who exercise and eat well are disordered.

Seems like an unlikely definition of disordered.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

If anything outside of the norm is defined as a disorder, then folks who exercise and eat well are disordered.

Seems like an unlikely definition of disordered.

I mean considerably outside the norm of course.

 

[MechaBlade]

I mean considerably outside the norm of course.

Left-handedness is considerably outside the norm and is affected by a brain's "orientation". If homosexuality should be in the DSM, so should left-handedness.

If they want to have a book of unusual human habits, from homosexuality to voting Green to being Jewish, maybe that should be a separate book than a book of mental disorders.

 

[Rosie_Riveter]

I mean considerably outside the norm of course.

Well, that doesn't clarify matters much. And it's still a very odd way of defining a mental disorder.

MechaBlade, I do hope your change of avatar is merely a temporary response to the primary season and that you'll go back to the other after Super Tuesday.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Left-handedness is considerably outside the norm and is affected by a brain's "orientation". If homosexuality should be in the DSM, so should left-handedness.

If they want to have a book of unusual human habits, from homosexuality to voting Green to being Jewish, maybe that should be a separate book than a book of mental disorders.

'-_- It occurs to me I may have offended some people.

Left handedness has nothing to do with how you think anyway. I don't know why you would bring that up. The others are reasonable points to which I have no sufficient answer.

Let me put it this another way. Why do my habits and thoughts qualify me for a DSM diagnosis, medication and talk therapy while other people have much stranger habits? Either the DSM should include things like paraphilias and homosexuality on the grounds that they are very different or it should not exist at all.

 

[NoLeafClover7]

'-_- It occurs to me I may have offended some people.

Left handedness has nothing to do with how you think anyway. I don't know why you would bring that up. The others are reasonable points to which I have no sufficient answer.

Let me put it this another way. Why do my habits and thoughts qualify me for a DSM diagnosis, medication and talk therapy while other people have much stranger habits? Either the DSM should include things like paraphilias and homosexuality on the grounds that they are very different or it should not exist at all.

My personal opinion is that total obsession with paraphilias should be put under the umbrella of hypersexuality, if that's in the DSM-IV. I'm too lazy to go read the whole manual. Someone liking asses or having a foot fetish in and of itself is harmless obviously, but if they're so consumed by it that it affects their life, to me its a form of hypersexuality, and should therefore be classified as such. I think that would solve the problem nicely.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

My personal opinion is that total obsession with paraphilias should be put under the umbrella of hypersexuality, if that's in the DSM-IV. I'm too lazy to go read the whole manual. Someone liking asses or having a foot fetish in and of itself is harmless obviously, but if they're so consumed by it that it affects their life, to me its a form of hypersexuality, and should therefore be classified as such. I think that would solve the problem nicely.

You could look at the index

In the DSM hypersexuality it's classified as "Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder" and placed separate from paraphilias. I'm unclear on what you believe would be solved by expanding that classification to include obsessive fetishism.


On a side note to anybody who has studied this in more detail: Why do Exhibitionism, Fetishism, Frotteurism, Pedophilia, Sexual Masochism, Sexual Sadism, Transvestic Fetishism and Voyeurism get their own special entries? Is it merely social?

 

[NoLeafClover7]

You could look at the index

In the DSM hypersexuality it's classified as "Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder" and placed separate from paraphilias. I'm unclear on what you believe would be solved by expanding that classification to include obsessive fetishism.


On a side note to anybody who has studied this in more detail: Why do Exhibitionism, Fetishism, Frotteurism, Pedophilia, Sexual Masochism, Sexual Sadism, Transvestic Fetishism and Voyeurism get their own special entries? Is it merely social?

What do I think would be accomplished? Instead of saying that all these things that are common to many people are abnormal, by placing them under "Hyperactive Sexual Desire Disorder", it would simply make them abnormal if they interfere with someone living a normal life. This way, having a desire for say voyeurism would be normal, as long as its not consuming your life or causing discomfort to others(I.E. voyeurism without the watched party's consent). Leave pedophilia and other ones that by everyone's standards are very, very wrong, as their own classification, but for any paraphilia that is harmless to yourself and others when done in a normal sense, why make it seem abnormal? Just as a side note, the ultimate irony to me is that more than likely, some of those who continue to do work with the DSM-IV likely practice many of these same fetishes but would never admit it.

 

[Netzach]

Are you also suggesting that heterosexuality should be listed in the DSM?

I would think that if you were worried and socially ostracized and unable to cope with that from being hetero, it would be, by this logic.

Whether we like the stats or not MOST queer people I know haven't had perfectly smooth sailing. What happens to your brain chemically, when you are depressed, is identical whether you're traumatized because your dog died or because your brain just goes there of it's own accord because you didn't win the good gene lotto.

Realize I am not making the same point at all as the other poster, eesh.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

What do I think would be accomplished? Instead of saying that all these things that are common to many people are abnormal, by placing them under "Hyperactive Sexual Desire Disorder", it would simply make them abnormal if they interfere with someone living a normal life. This way, having a desire for say voyeurism would be normal, as long as its not consuming your life or causing discomfort to others(I.E. voyeurism without the watched party's consent).

So you want to redefine paraphilias into exactly what they are now? Brilliant.

Leave pedophilia and other ones that by everyone's standards are very, very wrong, as their own classification

I know for a fact that not everybody considers pedophilia wrong. In fact I have a friend who finds parts of the PROTECT act to be terribly immoral.

but for any paraphilia that is harmless to yourself and others when done in a normal sense, why make it seem abnormal? Just as a side note, the ultimate irony to me is that more than likely, some of those who continue to do work with the DSM-IV likely practice many of these same fetishes but would never admit it.

Many of the people that work on the DSM-IV probably do have paraphilias. They probably admit it to, they also probably don't care. Abnormal is not the same wrong or inappropriate.

 

[Netzach]

'-_- It occurs to me I may have offended some people.

Left handedness has nothing to do with how you think anyway. I don't know why you would bring that up. The others are reasonable points to which I have no sufficient answer.

Let me put it this another way. Why do my habits and thoughts qualify me for a DSM diagnosis, medication and talk therapy while other people have much stranger habits? Either the DSM should include things like paraphilias and homosexuality on the grounds that they are very different or it should not exist at all.

Considering how prevalent homosexual activity and desire actually is, it's not exactly being outside the bell curve. Nothing homo about a little circle jerk between friends or that girlfriend I had in boarding school.

 

[Netzach]

I know for a fact that not everybody considers pedophilia wrong. In fact I have a friend who finds parts of the PROTECT act to be terribly immoral.

Logical fallacy, although I don't know your friend. There are tons of problem with laws that we come up with in the name of protecting children - my rejection of these oppressive laws has no implication that I believe in sex with people under the age of consent.

And I'm left handed and I *do* have to think differently. There's compelling evidence I am more likely to die in an accident than my right handed counterparts. Who knew.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Considering how prevalent homosexual activity and desire actually is, it's not exactly being outside the bell curve.

The bell curve covers all points. Being outside of it is impossible.

But if simply mean that if something is common enough it should not be considered abnormal then you'll have to pick a specific point where that happens.

Nothing homo about a little circle jerk between friends or that girlfriend I had in boarding school.

Erm, wut?

 

[Netzach]

Abnormal is not the same wrong or inappropriate.

I have to agree. Unfortunately the fascist obsession with normality in the fifties really killed your ability to say to someone "look how abnormal you are" without it being insulting in context.

 

[Netzach]

The bell curve covers all points. Being outside of it is impossible.

But if simply mean that if something is common enough it should not be considered abnormal then you'll have to pick a specific point where that happens.



Erm, wut?

I mean off the hump of the bell curve.


Erm - what I said. If you include the vast majority of human sexuality in its unsanitized self, you are not going to see homosexuality as something all that abnormal.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Logical fallacy, although I don't know your friend. There are tons of problem with laws that we come up with in the name of protecting children - my rejection of these oppressive laws has no implication that I believe in sex with people under the age of consent.

Pedophilia doesn't require sex with children, that's child molestation and statutory rape (or possily just rape). I do know which parts he objects to and they don't have anything to do with poor design of the law.

And I'm left handed and I *do* have to think differently. There's compelling evidence I am more likely to die in an accident than my right handed counterparts. Who knew.

If that's enough to concern you there's probably something else going on . . .

 

[The_Fractal_King]

I have to agree. Unfortunately the fascist obsession with normality in the fifties really killed your ability to say to someone "look how abnormal you are" without it being insulting in context.

Which is why I reject the idea that people who have formed a culture around how they are different

I mean off the hump of the bell curve.

Well now I really feel stupid.

Erm - what I said. If you include the vast majority of human sexuality in its unsanitized self, you are not going to see homosexuality as something all that abnormal.

Sure, but only in relative terms.

 

[Netzach]

Pedophilia doesn't require sex with children, that's child molestation and statutory rape (or possily just rape). I do know which parts he objects to and they don't have anything to do with poor design of the law.



If that's enough to concern you there's probably something else going on . . .

It's not keeping me up nights. But at this point neither is the fact that I like girls, also.

Too bad one "should" and the other "should not".

 

[Netzach]

Which is why I reject the idea that people who have formed a culture around how they are different.

Really?

So it's stupid to do things like post to a "is anyone else..." thread? I'm not following.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

It's not keeping me up nights. But at this point neither is the fact that I like girls, also.

Too bad one "should" and the other "should not".

I don't understand why either would . . .

Perhaps I'm expressing myself poorly.

Really?

So it's stupid to do things like post to a "is anyone else..." thread? I'm not following.

Actually that's an incomplete thought . . . oops

Which is why I reject the idea that people who have formed a culture around how they are different would decide that they are also going to not be different. ie how can someone say "I'm proud to be different but you'd better not act like it"