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

[YourCaptor]

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.

A fuck, eh, first off, no offence taken DB, I can understand that. I got to be honest though and say, even though I’m all for equality, mostly I was arguing the “normal vs, real” issue, and how people think you don’t accept the norm because your sick in the head.

I’m so deep in this kind of arguments it’s all I can think off.

I’m working on a paper about Pascal’s wager, now listen to this 400 year old load of garbage.

That is Pascal’s response to the argument that people can’t simply choose to believe in Christianity.

“’And I am made in such a way that I cannot believe. So what do you want me to do?’ ‘That is true. But at least realize that your inability to believe, since reason urges you to do so and yet you cannot, arises from your passions. So concentrate not on convincing yourself by increasing the number of proofs of God but on diminishing your passions. You want to find faith and… etc. Learn from those who have been bound like you, and who now wager all they have. They are people who know the road you want to follow and have been cured of the affliction of which you wan to be cured. Follow the way by which they began: by behaving just as if they believed, taking holy water… etc. That will make you believe quite naturally, and according to your animal reactions.’ ‘But that is what I am afraid of.’ Why? What do you have to lose?’”

Oh I don’t know, how about happiness, life fulfillment, everything.

Here’s a line from my wonderful American Gov professor straight from the tape - “What’s against natural law? Those bondage guys, you know the ones I’m talking about. What’s wrong with those people, come on we all know theirs something wrong with those people, (he snickers) and don’t reveal anything about yourself when you answerer either cause… we don’t want to know! (class is silent) It’s that you can’t in your right mind consent to slavery!! Its stupid!!!!”

What do you know, where all unconstitutional. So much for the founding fathers and their freethinking ways. Also, way to be opened minded professor.

Unfortunately I get the feeling this guy knows his shit, so I didn’t drop him.

Its all very depressing.

Now in an attempt not to steal anymore of your thunder.

Lets higher blackwater and go for militant retaliation, we can call it Civil War II

Ah, but seriously, your making a difference DB, slowly but surely. (checks to see if Netzach is gone)
Keep up the fight.

 

[Etoile]

Ah, just what this thread needed: religion! Thank God I'm an atheist.

 

[KarenDee]

Ah, just what this thread needed: religion! Thank God I'm an atheist.

Thank who???

 

[Etoile]

Thank who???

Yup!

 

[Netzach]

I was just re-watching Times of Harvey Milk last night, it's astounding what 1. has changed 2. hasn't changed and 3. changed for the worse.

 

[Etoile]

I was just re-watching Times of Harvey Milk last night, it's astounding what 1. has changed 2. hasn't changed and 3. changed for the worse.

I haven't seen that in a long time, but I'm looking forward to the new one, Milk, too.

 

[Adakgirl]

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?

A fetish is technically a form of sexual desire in which sexual satisfaction DEPENDS to an abnormal degree on some object or item of clothing or part of the body. (cut and paste, whatever dictionary)

 

[Netzach]

A fetish is technically a form of sexual desire in which sexual satisfaction DEPENDS to an abnormal degree on some object or item of clothing or part of the body. (cut and paste, whatever dictionary)

Thank you, that's a good point. I think most of us would agree that if we could not have sexual satisfaction without the presence of a rubber bath mat, as example, we'd probably have some social hurdles. As a prodomme I've met genuine clinically labeled fetishists and they're not like most people in the SM scene - there's one checkbox on the checklist and it's a -20 on the 1-5 scale. Do these people have to be "fixed" or "corrected" hell no, but if they want to form meaningful romantic attachment to other people there's a skillset and a lot of communication/negotiation that's going to have to happen, for which I'm sure I personally would have to enlist some help, were I in that position. I have to enlist some help and I don't have a clinically defined paraphilia - the fact that I like certain things strongly is not technically the issue and should not be introduced as one, really.

 

[YourCaptor]

A fetish is technically a form of sexual desire in which sexual satisfaction DEPENDS to an abnormal degree on some object or item of clothing or part of the body. (cut and paste, whatever dictionary)

That is the definition of fetish as I know it, so it should in no way be a mental disorder… when the hell was that book printed? And by who?

 

[The_Fractal_King]

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.

Cool beans. I agree and apologize for getting angry at you.

I have no idea why you think that homosexuality should be included in the DSM

Because I'm allowed to have an opinion and, considering I'm not part of the group the writes the DSM or attempting to cure/fix/purge anyone, I can't imagine why you care. May we drop the subject?

A fetish is technically a form of sexual desire in which sexual satisfaction DEPENDS to an abnormal degree on some object or item of clothing or part of the body. (cut and paste, whatever dictionary)

In the DSM-IV-TR there doesn't seem to be any mention of an abnormal degree of dependence in the definition of Fetishism.

"A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the use of nonliving objects (e.g., female undergarments).

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

C. The fetish objects are not limited to articles of female clothing used in cross-dressing (as in Transvestic Fetishism) or devices designed for the purpose of tactile genital stimulation (e.g., a vibrator)." (cut and paste from behavenet)

 

[Guest]

*Absolutely, totally, completely, not touching this thread*

(closing the door softly behind me as I leave)

 

[DeservingBitch]

Because I'm allowed to have an opinion and, considering I'm not part of the group the writes the DSM or attempting to cure/fix/purge anyone, I can't imagine why you care. May we drop the subject?

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?

Do I really need to point out to you "why I care", or can you make the connections yourself by reading your own words?

Sure I'm gonna drop the subject: because I have no desire anymore to discuss with someone who believes that my prefering eating pussies than sucking dicks makes me mentally disordered and in need of being 'fixed'. I definitively have disorders to be fixed, but being queer sure ain't one.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Do I really need to point out to you "why I care", or can you make the connections yourself by reading your own words?

Sure I'm gonna drop the subject: because I have no desire anymore to discuss with someone who believes that my prefering eating pussies than sucking dicks makes me mentally disordered and in need of being 'fixed'. I definitively have disorders to be fixed, but being queer sure ain't one.

Could you try to stop being so incredibly dense? It's extremely irritating.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Could you try to stop being so incredibly dense? It's extremely irritating.

Dense??? What is incredibly dense in this post? I referred you to your own words, and mentioned pussies and dicks. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's your own words that you can't make sense of.

And stop with the flattery. Telling me I'm irritating won't get you anywhere.

 

[YourCaptor]

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?

DB tried to defend the idea that people like her 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 love, that no one has the right to actively change the way a person loves without permission. She has had to watch people talk about how gays are somehow diseased with the full knowledge that she is gay.



None of us said you cant have your own opinions, but you may not discriminate.

 

[nickollette]

Out of the psychology classes I've taken, when it got to any sexual aspect of the class. We were more under the impression, fetishes and anything "obscene" wasn't so much of a disorder. We were lead to believe that fetishes were kind of like addictions and depression, only really a problem when it interfered with your functioning capability of daily routine life.

In my interpersonal relationship class, we focused more on the why, how and what people go through during a relationship and its various stages and types. I remember that teacher talking about sex and fetishes to be something normal and I was content with that because she was surprisingly open to talking about it and not shunning it like many people still seem to do.

 

[WakoJako]

Never trust textbooks/lecturers as they are always wrong!

 

[Xantu]

Ah, what the hell. ...jumps in to the mud.

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.

It was not that many years ago we were tying children's left hands and/or beating then with rulers to 'fix' this aberration.

So we find ourselves rolling around in the murky mud of labels?

We all live in this community of ours. Our diversity making the soup all that much more delicious. It is the human condition to try to categorize and explain the variety we see around us. Any system of sorting and labeling is going to be biased by the creators of said list. Normal? Abnormal? The DSM is a book written by men. A flawed document useful only in that it can qualify you for some financial benefits from the welfare state, and possible for some laughs... I have read it... we all seem to have a number in there.

Pointing no fingers at anyone other than the girl in the mirror... I cannot help but wonder if the "abnormality" of some of the kinky stuff makes it all that much more delicious. The "bad", the "forbidden", the "nasty", (feel free to add your favorite "naughty" word to the list.) all these things appeal to this girl. Thank god for societal labels and norms... flouting them is such a turn on.

If they made it all acceptable and normal it would be so much more boring. Netzach, you practice your art left handed, it must be all that much more enjoyable.

 

[cati]

Posted by Deserving Bitch

"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"."

Exactly, pulls out her text on "Abnormal Behaviour"... yep, the above statement defines the criteria for a mental/emotional disorder (I do hate the word "mental")
OK so, essentially someone is saying that young gay people who have only just come to terms with their homosexulaity don't experience some amount of social impairment or emotional distress etc.? Come on...

and experience such distress that they often seek counselling?

I just wanted to mention too, as did Fractal King previously that, the single young women of Ancient Rome, led very very sheltered lives. There really weren't any girls to be had, except perhaps the family slave.. I very much doubt that many men had "real relationships" with the young boys/men running around the military training camps in ancient Sparta for example. So I'm going to claim for arguments sake that they enjoyed the "sex" and the release of testosterone. I mean how do you define meaningful? Don't forget the men were gone for months if not years at a time. Granted, they may have had a favourite "boy"and they might have cared for them to some dgree, but to call these dalliances meaningful? Nah.. I don't buy it. Nor would I ever consider the Spartan men pedophiles for this sort of behaviour. To have sex with young men/boys was the cultural norm, considering the circumstances. Totally different ball game IMHO

In closing I wanted to add my own opinion and that is, just because a person has "sex" with another person of their own gender, doesn't mean they are "gay". Sheesh Im so not "gay" chuckles.
So much more involved....

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Out of the psychology classes I've taken, when it got to any sexual aspect of the class. We were more under the impression, fetishes and anything "obscene" wasn't so much of a disorder. We were lead to believe that fetishes were kind of like addictions and depression, only really a problem when it interfered with your functioning capability of daily routine life..

Well that is what is written in the DSM . . .

I'm not sure if addictions or depression are particularly good analogies though.

Dense??? What is incredibly dense in this post?

You highlighted my statement about having no interest in fixing or curing people and then accused me of wanting to cure people. I feel justified in calling you dense, that or you're just looking to be offended.

DB tried to defend the idea that people like her 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 love, that no one has the right to actively change the way a person loves without permission. She has had to watch people talk about how gays are somehow diseased with the full knowledge that she is gay.

Cool. I never said anyone was diseased though.

None of us said you cant have your own opinions, but you may not discriminate.

That's just as stupid and intolerant as homophobia. Especially when directed at a person who has already said he doesn't give a damn about the who/what/how/where/when of sex, but rather thinks it was foolish to politicize something without going all the way.

 

[YourCaptor]

Ahh, I finally understand what “The_Fractal_King” is attempting to say. That a mental disorder is not a disease, hence, according to him, homosexuality is a mental disorder, and so it follows that it is not a disease.

However that is not true, mental disorders are treated to create a healthy mental state. While the DMS is only meant to diagnose a mental disorder, what do you think follows the diagnoses of a disorder?

The cure, or a treatment to improve the quality of life.

and by the way

Disease - a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.


cati...

 

[Etoile]

It occurs to me that homosexuality is WAY too common to belong in the DSM.

 

[cati]

Where am I coming with my post? Read most of the previous items and thought I'd throw out a mish mash of personal sentiments...no harm done *smiles.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Ahh, I finally understand what “The_Fractal_King” is attempting to say. That a mental disorder is not a disease, hence, according to him, homosexuality is a mental disorder, and so it follows that it is not a disease.

However that is not true, mental disorders are treated to create a healthy mental state. While the DMS is only meant to diagnose a mental disorder, what do you think follows the diagnoses of a disorder?

The cure, or a treatment to improve the quality of life.

That's what I have been saying all along.

The DSM is, as its title indicate, a handbook for mental health professionals that lists different categories of mental disorders and the criteria for diagnosing them. The whole purpose of making a diagnosis is so that the health professionals can identify the appropriate treatement to cure or fix what is wrong (disordered) with the patient.

Suggesting that homosexuality should be in the DSM is suggesting that I should be treated, cured, or fixed for being queer, ie, that I should be treated to be made 'normal', ie, heterosexual.

OK so, essentially someone is saying that young gay people who have only just come to terms with their homosexulaity don't experience some amount of social impairment or emotional distress etc.? Come on...

and experience such distress that they often seek counselling?

I have never suggested that. I actually agreed with Netzach who mentioned that this kind of emotional and mental distress is often the case among queer people.

However, it is not being queer that cause this mental/emotional distress. It's the social stigma and oppression associated with queerness that causes it. It is not the queerness that needs to be cured or treated, but rather the possible mental/emotional distress that comes with being queer in our current society. In other words, the young gay boy that suffer from anxiety and depression doesn't need to be treated for being queer -- he needs to be treated for anxiety and depression.

Individuals who are part of oppressed social groups (queer people, people of color, disabled people, women, poor people) are systematically more likely to suffer from mental disorder. However, it is not their 'identity' as queer, people of color, women or poor that needs to be treated: it is the mental disorder that is often the consequence of being part of a socially oppressed group that needs to be treated.

Which of course says something about the individualization of social ills.

 

[cati]

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?

Not sure that I can answer that question for you Fractal, but I don't feel it's social, perhaps it's quite the opposite

According to Freud, during the phases of psycho-sexual development, fixations rooted at one level of sexual adjustment prevent the normal progress to the next stage of development, When one is fixated on a certain object ( a fetish object) attachments are formed in which strong positive or negative feelings are associated with that object, that for most "normal" people would be considered neutral. Fetishes may result from early "positive" attachments.

If the attachment is negative, fears may develope, ie. phobias. Perhaps we can better understand other paraphilias in much the same way. But then why are only certain objects or activities connected to sexual activity? Shrugs.

The behavioural interpretation on the other-hand would suggest that it's a matter of "conditioning", that sexual arousal is linked to some unusual object or activity.
The object or activity is associated with strong emotional feelings that come with their sexual arousal.
In the case of "paraphilias" the individual is compelled to carry out some "extreme" action to arouse sexual feelings in themselves. In Pavlovian terms the "response" of let's say exhibitionism is reinforced by the pleasure one gains from the "resulting" sexual activity.

Paraphilias usually develope as a result of these types of events occurring in the early stages of a person's sexual development. Low self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy, being isolated from peers also has much to do with developing a paraphilia. Again, these are only theories.

Fractal, your question why do fetishes get their own category in the manuals? Do you mean separate from paraphilias?

To sum it all up, people form "fetishes" from early "positive" attachments, while "paraphilias" develope from "negative " attachments. I bet with alot of "anxiety" to go with.

Fetishes=healthy

Paraphilias=unhealthy