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

[Netzach]

I don't understand why either would . . .



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"

Ahhh....

yeah, ok. I agree with that too.

I think we actually agree on a lot of this -

I've always held the belief that it's not about saying "look I wear rubber, I've beaten men for a living and for pleasure, I don't find sex as much fun unless I'm in control of the dynamics and I like to hear my sex partners whimper in pain and arousal - I'm totally JUST LIKE YOU!"

That has never worked for me.

It's more about saying, yeah, I'm not like you at all. And yet I am entitled, as long as I'm not *harming* the non-consenting to be left the hell alone, freak that I am.

 

[HottieMama]

yeah, I'm not like you at all. And yet I am entitled, as long as I'm not *harming* the non-consenting to be left the hell alone, freak that I am.

Netzach...Can i borrow that for my signature?

 

[YourCaptor]

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.

Thats not true.

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.

Thats exactly the problem with the current definition of a mental disorder.

Honestly, I get the feeling homosexuality is far more prevalent then the current consensus says it is. I would even say that about half of all people, if their was no stigma, would get involve in a meaningful homosexual relationship at one point.

If you look at historical cultures in which homosexuality was not a taboo like it is now, you really do see a lot of it. Unfortunately western people tend to looked towards conservative Christian authors for the most accurate depiction of the times.

In actuality, the Roman legions, consider to be one of the most “manly” military forces ever, engaged in plenty of homosexual activity. And no, that is not what lead to the fall of Rome.

In the end it all comes down to perspective. Whatever the “truth” of the mater is we may never know simply because we all see a version of it. Modern science has tried to get past this, but once it finds itself in areas where you can’t test something to be either true or falls it becomes pseudoscience.

So, to sum it all up, in the end what I think is wrong with the definition of a mental disorder is the definition of normal.

 

[EmpressFi]

So, to sum it all up, in the end what I think is wrong with the definition of a mental disorder is the definition of normal.

That's because..those in "charge" are usually the ones defining "normal"

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Thats not true.

It is one of the more important requirements. Unless it causes the person to suffer or places others in danger it's rare for it to be classified as a disorder.

Honestly, I get the feeling homosexuality is far more prevalent then the current consensus says it is. I would even say that about half of all people, if their was no stigma, would get involve in a meaningful homosexual relationship at one point.

Thats a random guess and you know it.

If you look at historical cultures in which homosexuality was not a taboo like it is now, you really do see a lot of it. Unfortunately western people tend to looked towards conservative Christian authors for the most accurate depiction of the times.

In actuality, the Roman legions, consider to be one of the most “manly” military forces ever, engaged in plenty of homosexual activity. And no, that is not what lead to the fall of Rome.

Bushido encouraged the same thing as did the Greeks. However in those cases it had less to do with being gay and more to do with ridiculous levels of sexism. The same likely applied to the Roman legionaries, best to foster relationships between the men then have them worrying about a wife. Not that they didn't have any homosexuals of course but in many instances there was a stigmata against male/female relationships in certain social sectors.

In the end it all comes down to perspective. Whatever the “truth” of the mater is we may never know simply because we all see a version of it. Modern science has tried to get past this, but once it finds itself in areas where you can’t test something to be either true or falls it becomes pseudoscience.

I agree.

So, to sum it all up, in the end what I think is wrong with the definition of a mental disorder is the definition of normal.

So go change it.

 

[HottieMama]

I get the feeling homosexuality is far more prevalent then the current consensus says it is. I would even say that about half of all people, if their was no stigma, would get involve in a meaningful homosexual relationship at one point.

Perhaps this is a different discussion, but a "meaningful homosexual relationship" does not make someone a homosexual.

 

[DeservingBitch]

*note to self: do NOT, i repeat do NOT get involve in this thread. No DB, resist the temptation and DO NOT get involve in this thread. Get the fuck away from this thread. Now.*

*Walks away*

 

[NoLeafClover7]

*note to self: do NOT, i repeat do NOT get involve in this thread. No DB, resist the temptation and DO NOT get involve in this thread. Get the fuck away from this thread. Now.*

*Walks away*

I seriously did not mean for this much of a shitstorm to develop from this thread. *laughs*

 

[The_Fractal_King]

*note to self: do NOT, i repeat do NOT get involve in this thread. No DB, resist the temptation and DO NOT get involve in this thread. Get the fuck away from this thread. Now.*

*Walks away*

Please take me with you

 

[YourCaptor]

It is one of the more important requirements. Unless it causes the person to suffer or places others in danger it's rare for it to be classified as a disorder.

That is an element in the current definition, but its meaningless without the rest of the complete definition.

Thats a random guess and you know it.

No that is not a random guess, that is an informed approximation.

Bushido encouraged the same thing as did the Greeks. However in those cases it had less to do with being gay and more to do with ridiculous levels of sexism. The same likely applied to the Roman legionaries, best to foster relationships between the men then have them worrying about a wife. Not that they didn't have any homosexuals of course but in many instances there was a stigmata against male/female relationships in certain social sectors.

That is ridiculous, sure you can say that politics told them to be gay, but that holds no water. It also doesn’t change the fact that they enjoyed the relationship. Even if you where right, in only proves that you can have a large group that is relatively unknown within the society, such as heterosexuals in the culture you mentioned.

So go change it.

If I knew that, then I would have just said it. A quick run at it in terms of psychology, Normal - someone internally confident who does not harm others. I know it’s not sound, but it’s a hell lot better then, Normal - what conforms to the masses.

Perhaps this is a different discussion, but a "meaningful homosexual relationship" does not make someone a homosexual.

Yes true, I think your making the bisexual and TG point, right?

 

[The_Fractal_King]

No that is not a random guess, that is an informed approximation.

It's based on virtually nothing.

That is ridiculous, sure you can say that politics told them to be gay, but that holds no water.

You're the one who said politics could tell people to be straight.

It also doesn’t change the fact that they enjoyed the relationship.

Been spending much time in ancient Greece, Rome and Japan have you?

Even if you where right, in only proves that you can have a large group that is relatively unknown within the society, such as heterosexuals in the culture you mentioned.

Kay. . .

If I knew that, then I would have just said it. A quick run at it in terms of psychology, Normal - someone internally confident who does not harm others. I know it’s not sound, but it’s a hell lot better then, Normal - what conforms to the masses.

That's essentially Maslow's definition of self actualized. Why not use that and leave normal to what it literally means?

 

[YourCaptor]

It's based on virtually nothing.

:Sigh:
Based on many things, such as a many peoples desperate attempt to bury all things homosexual in an attempt to bury it within themselves.

You're the one who said politics could tell people to be straight.

What, when?

 

[DeservingBitch]

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.

Sure, I get what you're saying.

But the 'disorder' you're talking about is not coming from being queer in itself, but from the social stigma and oppression that comes with it.

And what you're talking about is also not how the DSM used to defined homosexuality as a 'sexual disorder'.

 

[DeservingBitch]

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.

The DSM is about mental disorders, which yes, their identification have a lot to do with how we socio-politically defined what is 'normal'. Which is to say that what is constructed as 'normal' is very much political. "Discipline and Punish" anyone?

But 'abnormal' is NOT the primary criteria of inclusion in the DSM. The DSM is a list of mental disorders and criteria for diagnosis, which conceptualized mental disorder as a "clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome" that causes "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning".

The inclusion of homosexuality in the DMS has indeed everything to do with it being considered 'abnormal', but this 'diagnosis' of abnormality has everything to do with politics and power, and not much with mental disorder.

So, if your argument is to say that everything we, as a society, have constructed as abnormal should be included in the DSM, maybe what you're saying is making some sense. Until you realize that this little book is not innocent, and is more than a grocery list of random 'abnormal' stuff. Sure being homosexual is different than being het or bi or whatnot. But in the world we live in, and in the world of the DMS, saying 'different' is also saying 'not OK'. Last time I checked, suggesting that homosexuality is a mental disorder is something that facist right wing christians are happy to use as an excuse to treat us as inferior human beings and deny us the rights and privileges granted to other 'normal' het human beings.

You mentioned somewhere in the thread that 'different' or 'out of the norm' doesn't mean bad, and we agree on that. BUT, the world doesn't agree with us. Human history is fucking bloody for people who've been considered 'different'. But the main point here is that the DMS is about mental disorders -- which inherently comes with the notion that something IS wrong with you if you happen to suffer from one of those things listed in the DMS, and that you should be treated for it and made 'normal'.

Please take me with you

Nope. I rather not take someone with me who thinks that who I fuck is a symptom of a mental disorder that should be treated to make me 'normal'.

 

[DeservingBitch]

*self to self: good job at walking away from the thread. geez.*

 

[Netzach]

Sure, I get what you're saying.

But the 'disorder' you're talking about is not coming from being queer in itself, but from the social stigma and oppression that comes with it.

And what you're talking about is also not how the DSM used to defined homosexuality as a 'sexual disorder'.

Yep. The problem is that the DSM can be 1. something well intentioned health professionals can use to try and help people live better, less frictive, less painful lives based on their own sense of their own problems

or a way to police the status quo really tightly.

Historically, the headshrinking (ha ha) professions are all about the latter.

The former is new, but I think there are some people in it for the right reasons.

 

[Etoile]

Wow, totally not touching the "homosexuality is equivalent to paraphilias and should be put back in the DSM-IV" argument with a 10-foot pole.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Yep. The problem is that the DSM can be 1. something well intentioned health professionals can use to try and help people live better, less frictive, less painful lives based on their own sense of their own problems

or a way to police the status quo really tightly.

Historically, the headshrinking (ha ha) professions are all about the latter.

The former is new, but I think there are some people in it for the right reasons.

Unfortunalty, it seems those aren't asked to be part of the committee that put the DSM in place!

 

[The_Fractal_King]

The inclusion of homosexuality in the DMS has indeed everything to do with it being considered 'abnormal', but this 'diagnosis' of abnormality has everything to do with politics and power, and not much with mental disorder.

So, if your argument is to say that everything we, as a society, have constructed as abnormal should be included in the DSM, maybe what you're saying is making some sense. Until you realize that this little book is not innocent, and is more than a grocery list of random 'abnormal' stuff. Sure being homosexual is different than being het or bi or whatnot. But in the world we live in, and in the world of the DMS, saying 'different' is also saying 'not OK'. Last time I checked, suggesting that homosexuality is a mental disorder is something that facist right wing christians are happy to use as an excuse to treat us as inferior human beings and deny us the rights and privileges granted to other 'normal' het human beings.

So because there are idiots in the world I'm now automatically part of there inane little world because I happen to think that one ridiculously minor aspect of what they say (that the DSM should include homosexuality) is correct. I don't care at all about what right wing christians say, I don't care with pseudo-intellectual left wing political correctness obsessed sycophants say either. I have my opinion and it's not based on any of what they think. I don't care even remotely who has sex with who or when or where or with what or even why.

You mentioned somewhere in the thread that 'different' or 'out of the norm' doesn't mean bad, and we agree on that. BUT, the world doesn't agree with us. Human history is fucking bloody for people who've been considered 'different'. But the main point here is that the DMS is about mental disorders -- which inherently comes with the notion that something IS wrong with you if you happen to suffer from one of those things listed in the DMS, and that you should be treated for it and made 'normal'.

You seriously think I don't know that? As an Aspie I must say I find the idea that you think I am suffering, think wrongly and need to be fixed because of it. And don't get on your fucking high horse about how gays had to go through the same thing, autistic children are being "fixed" before they ever have a chance to find out who they might have really been, the woman who runs Autism Speaks mentioned publicly that she had considered murder/suicide with her daughter and yet still has her child (dehumanization on so many levels).

I've sat in classrooms and tried to defend the idea that people like me don't need to be fixed, that being different isn't wrong, that you can't judge a person because of something as minor as the way they think, that no one has the right to actively change the way a person thinks without permission. I've had to watch people talk about how people with a mental disorder are somehow diseased with the full knowledge that I've been diagnosed with one. What the hell have you gone through?

Guess what. Even after what I've seen in my life I don't see anything wrong with putting autism in the DSM and I don't see anything wrong with putting homoseuxality there either. It just doesn't matter.

Nope. I rather not take someone with me who thinks that who I fuck is a symptom of a mental disorder that should be treated to make me 'normal'.

They I fail to see the problem of taking me with you. But still, I don't want to go with a person who believe that the very way in which I think is perverse and needs to be fixed.


I'll be on my way now. I don't really care enough about this issue to spend more time on it. Besides in the end no one here is going to actually do anything about any of this.

 

[Netzach]

So because there are idiots in the world I'm now automatically part of there inane little world because I happen to think that one ridiculously minor aspect of what they say (that the DSM should include homosexuality) is correct. I don't care at all about what right wing christians say, I don't care with pseudo-intellectual left wing political correctness obsessed sycophants say either. I have my opinion and it's not based on any of what they think. I don't care even remotely who has sex with who or when or where or with what or even why.



You seriously think I don't know that? As an Aspie I must say I find the idea that you think I am suffering, think wrongly and need to be fixed because of it. And don't get on your fucking high horse about how gays had to go through the same thing, autistic children are being "fixed" before they ever have a chance to find out who they might have really been, the woman who runs Autism Speaks mentioned publicly that she had considered murder/suicide with her daughter and yet still has her child (dehumanization on so many levels).

I've sat in classrooms and tried to defend the idea that people like me don't need to be fixed, that being different isn't wrong, that you can't judge a person because of something as minor as the way they think, that no one has the right to actively change the way a person thinks without permission. I've had to watch people talk about how people with a mental disorder are somehow diseased with the full knowledge that I've been diagnosed with one. What the hell have you gone through?

Guess what. Even after what I've seen in my life I don't see anything wrong with putting autism in the DSM and I don't see anything wrong with putting homoseuxality there either. It just doesn't matter.



They I fail to see the problem of taking me with you. But still, I don't want to go with a person who believe that the very way in which I think is perverse and needs to be fixed.


I'll be on my way now. I don't really care enough about this issue to spend more time on it. Besides in the end no one here is going to actually do anything about any of this.

Oh sweet Jesus, it's the oppression game show hour. If you've got it worse you win these fabulous prizes...

 

[The_Fractal_King]

The DSM is about mental disorders, which yes, their identification have a lot to do with how we socio-politically defined what is 'normal'. Which is to say that what is constructed as 'normal' is very much political. "Discipline and Punish" anyone?

But 'abnormal' is NOT the primary criteria of inclusion in the DSM. The DSM is a list of mental disorders and criteria for diagnosis, which conceptualized mental disorder as a "clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome" that causes "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning".

The inclusion of homosexuality in the DMS has indeed everything to do with it being considered 'abnormal', but this 'diagnosis' of abnormality has everything to do with politics and power, and not much with mental disorder.

So, if your argument is to say that everything we, as a society, have constructed as abnormal should be included in the DSM, maybe what you're saying is making some sense. Until you realize that this little book is not innocent, and is more than a grocery list of random 'abnormal' stuff. Sure being homosexual is different than being het or bi or whatnot. But in the world we live in, and in the world of the DMS, saying 'different' is also saying 'not OK'. Last time I checked, suggesting that homosexuality is a mental disorder is something that facist right wing christians are happy to use as an excuse to treat us as inferior human beings and deny us the rights and privileges granted to other 'normal' het human beings.

You mentioned somewhere in the thread that 'different' or 'out of the norm' doesn't mean bad, and we agree on that. BUT, the world doesn't agree with us. Human history is fucking bloody for people who've been considered 'different'. But the main point here is that the DMS is about mental disorders -- which inherently comes with the notion that something IS wrong with you if you happen to suffer from one of those things listed in the DMS, and that you should be treated for it and made 'normal'.


Nope. I rather not take someone with me who thinks that who I fuck is a symptom of a mental disorder that should be treated to make me 'normal'.

Oh sweet Jesus, it's the oppression game show hour. If you've got it worse you win these fabulous prizes...

lol, merely lashing out to compensate for really just being an asshole

 

[YourCaptor]

So because there are idiots in the world I'm now automatically part of there inane little world because I happen to think that one ridiculously minor aspect of what they say (that the DSM should include homosexuality) is correct. I don't care at all about what right wing christians say, I don't care with pseudo-intellectual left wing political correctness obsessed sycophants say either. I have my opinion and it's not based on any of what they think. I don't care even remotely who has sex with who or when or where or with what or even why.

Your argument for including homosexuality in the DSM is not logical.

You say, homosexuality is a normal occurrence in some human beings.
Yet you say homosexuality should be on a list of abnormal occurrences in human beings.
It doesn’t make sense

Unfortunalty, it seems those aren't asked to be part of the committee that put the DSM in place!

I agree with DB, but Netzach makes a good point, and that is a lot of scientists are politicians. Actually all of them are but many know that they need to keep their passion in check for accurate science. The later even if their findings, terminology, whatever sound like a throwback to bias issues, should be considered. For all we know homosexuality may be a mental disorder in some individuals, for example, someone who is actually heterosexual and has had traumatic experiences with the opposite sex resulting in an unhappy gay lifestyle. Unlikely in this society, but possible. However something like that should really be classified under a different term. Maybe this already exists, I don’t know.

 

[DeservingBitch]

So because there are idiots in the world I'm now automatically part of there inane little world because I happen to think that one ridiculously minor aspect of what they say (that the DSM should include homosexuality) is correct. I don't care at all about what right wing christians say, I don't care with pseudo-intellectual left wing political correctness obsessed sycophants say either. I have my opinion and it's not based on any of what they think. I don't care even remotely who has sex with who or when or where or with what or even why.

You seriously think I don't know that? As an Aspie I must say I find the idea that you think I am suffering, think wrongly and need to be fixed because of it. And don't get on your fucking high horse about how gays had to go through the same thing, autistic children are being "fixed" before they ever have a chance to find out who they might have really been, the woman who runs Autism Speaks mentioned publicly that she had considered murder/suicide with her daughter and yet still has her child (dehumanization on so many levels).

I've sat in classrooms and tried to defend the idea that people like me don't need to be fixed, that being different isn't wrong, that you can't judge a person because of something as minor as the way they think, that no one has the right to actively change the way a person thinks without permission. I've had to watch people talk about how people with a mental disorder are somehow diseased with the full knowledge that I've been diagnosed with one. What the hell have you gone through?

Guess what. Even after what I've seen in my life I don't see anything wrong with putting autism in the DSM and I don't see anything wrong with putting homoseuxality there either. It just doesn't matter.

They I fail to see the problem of taking me with you. But still, I don't want to go with a person who believe that the very way in which I think is perverse and needs to be fixed.

I'll be on my way now. I don't really care enough about this issue to spend more time on it. Besides in the end no one here is going to actually do anything about any of this.

Dude, instead of listing your street creds of 'mental disorder' and oppression, maybe you could stop a second to think that this whole 'fixing' thing that you don't seem too pleased about is EXACTLY what i think is wrong with categorizing homosexuality as a 'mental disorder' in the DSM. Now mind you, I never suggested that homosexuality is the only 'difference' that has been wrongly categorized as mental disorder or wrongly conceptualized as something in need of fixing. If you actually read what I wrote rather than getting into a oppression olympics with me, you would have realized that my issues with the DSM goes beyond and above homosexuality having been included in it for quite a while. One such things you could have gathered from my post is that I am quite skeptical of our society's desire to 'fix' everything that it sees as 'abnormal'. To say nothing of course of the individualization of social ills and pathologies. But I digress somewhat.

I have no idea why you think that homosexuality should be included in the DSM on the grounds that you and autistic children are -- in your opinion (which I share to a certain extent) -- mistreated by the psychyatric institution and stigmatized by society. WTF? I suffer so you should too? That's your logic?

What about questioning the fucking DSM and the assumptions about mental disorders it rests upon instead?

 

[DeservingBitch]

For all we know homosexuality may be a mental disorder in some individuals, for example, someone who is actually heterosexual and has had traumatic experiences with the opposite sex resulting in an unhappy gay lifestyle. Unlikely in this society, but possible. However something like that should really be classified under a different term. Maybe this already exists, I don’t know.

Why is it that we always hear about this hypothetical/mythologic traumatized straight-turned-gay dude, and never about the hypothetical/mythologic traumatized gay-turned-straight dude?

And for fuck sake, stop with the 'gay lifestyle'. When's the last time you heard people talking about being straight as 'living a straight lifestyle'? Being gay/queer/dyke is a sexual orientation/identification, like being straight. Not a fucking 'lifestyle'.

ETA: my frustration is not directed at you personally YC, but rather at all the bullshit about queerness.

 

[Netzach]

Why is it that we always hear about this hypothetical/mythologic traumatized straight-turned-gay dude, and never about the hypothetical/mythologic traumatized gay-turned-straight dude?

Because the latter is so much more common as to be not really worth a mention? Ha, I dunno. Because hey, it's can't really be what it's not as long as what's on the surface looks straight, right?

I think most people try on heterosexuality as long as they can, till it doesn't work anymore. Then you either develop really weird denial coping mechanisms, kill yourself, or give up on it and live more or less as happily or not as anyone else.