7 Sep 10, 7:56 AM
TheSilverFox
UK(GU), 2 yrs
   |
tazallie wrote:
Had a real look at it now and perhaps the most important part is not that we are classed as merely non-normative but that
1) to be classed as having a paraphillia such as masochism etc is no longer a psyciatric disorder, but the paraphillia must be causing distress of some kind and it is this distress that results in a disorder being diagnosed. So if your happy with your paraphillia your not suffering from a disorder.
2) where someone involves a non-consenting person in their paraphillia then they can be classified as having a disorder (only applies to certain catagories though such as sadasim, exhibitionism etc). It's great to see that consent is finally being recognised (now we just need the courts to follow suit!!)
|
I thought I'd let those who were interested get to that bit...
But yes, that issue of consent and the differentiation between merely a Paraphillia and a Paraphillic disorder are critical! "The art of being a Gentleman is knowing when not to be"
Quote:TheSilverFox - Circa 1986
Interested in running? Join us at the @Kinky_Running group
|
7 Sep 10, 11:14 AM
Eleuther
UK(DH), 3 yrs
|
So does 'normative' mean exactly the same as 'normal' in a psychiatric context? (In my field - moral philosophy - 'normative' means something close to 'prescriptive': it's about what you ought to do, which might be very abnormal. I just wanted to check we're reading 'normative' in the right sense here.) 'They weren't dreams like ours (in the midst of the darkness, we dreamed of more darkness, because nothing else came into our minds); no, she dreamed - from what we could understand of her ravings - of a darkness a hundred times deeper and more various and velvety.' (Qfwfq)
|
7 Sep 10, 4:13 PM
CaptainQuo
UK(AB), 2 yrs
|
This is good news given that the DSM and ICD tend to influence and be influenced by one another.
Denmark had altered its attitude quite some time ago and Norway has recently followed suit, so I suppose it was just a matter of time. Web board topics are like Pokemon. Promote discussion, debate and let them evolve; they'll grow stronger.
|
7 Sep 10, 6:50 PM
TheSilverFox
UK(GU), 2 yrs
|
Eleuther wrote:
So does 'normative' mean exactly the same as 'normal' in a psychiatric context? (In my field - moral philosophy - 'normative' means something close to 'prescriptive': it's about what you ought to do, which might be very abnormal. I just wanted to check we're reading 'normative' in the right sense here.)
|
Normative by my understanding in this sense is as in a statistical norm. ie.. "The usual or standard thing" (Oxford English Dictionary) "The art of being a Gentleman is knowing when not to be"
Quote:TheSilverFox - Circa 1986
Interested in running? Join us at the @Kinky_Running group
|
7 Sep 10, 7:06 PM
TheSilverFox
UK(GU), 2 yrs
|
For others who are interested.... here is the link..
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/Sexu...
"The art of being a Gentleman is knowing when not to be"
Quote:TheSilverFox - Circa 1986
Interested in running? Join us at the @Kinky_Running group
|
7 Sep 10, 8:28 PM
lady_night
AU, 2 yrs
|
Thanks for the links, this is good news to hear. I'm not tense, I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
|
7 Sep 10, 11:36 PM
AstronautMikeDexter
UK(E), 2 yrs |
I don't really understand what the "good" news is here. The wording has essentially not changed between the DSM-IV-TR and the DSM-V
Compare and contrast:
Sexual Masochism
DSM-IV-TR
| A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer.
B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. |
DSM-V
| A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent and intense sexual fantasies, sexual urges, or sexual behaviors involving the act of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer.
B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Specify if:
With Asphyxiophilia (Sexually Aroused by Asphyxiation)
In Remission (During the Past Six Months, No Signs or Symptoms of the Disorder Were Present)
In a Controlled Environment
|
And Sexual sadism
DSM-IV-TR
| A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person.
B. The person has acted on these urges with a nonconsenting person, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. |
and DSM-V
| A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent and intense sexual fantasies, sexual urges, or sexual behaviors involving the physical or psychological suffering of another person.
B. The person is distressed or impaired by these attractions or has sought sexual stimulation from behaviors involving the physical or psychological suffering of two or more nonconsenting persons on separate occasions.
Specify if:
In Remission (During the Past Six Months, No Signs or Symptoms of the Disorder Were Present)
In a Controlled Environment
|
Simply the reality is that there has been no positive move towards acceptance of SM practices by the psychology community at large. In fact you could argue that in removing the term 'arousing' they lower the bar for patholigising said behaviours.
Really the only good end point, as with homosexuality, is the removal from the DSM of such practices as pathological. Not really going to happen any time soon as heaven forbid that the DSM should be based on anything as radical as evidence based science. Edited 8 Sep 10, 2:26 AM by AstronautMikeDexter
|
