The NCSF and the DSM revision project

The NCSF and the DSM revision project (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Firebirdseeking -> The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 4:44:38 AM)
Is anyone following this? here is an exerpt of what will be changed: Summary Because the scientific evidence contradicts the statements currently within the DSM, we must conclude that the interpretation of the Paraphilias criteria has been politically – not scientifically – based. Because of this, BDSM practitioners, fetishists and cross-dressers are subject to bias, discrimination and social sanctions without any scientific basis. We call on the American Psychiatric Association to remove or drastically restructure the Paraphilias section in the DSM. I think this is really important for mental health professionals, and for anyone who has ever been to a mental health professional, especially involving lifestyle issues.

DarkSteven -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 5:08:31 AM)
That'd be lovely. I've had issues with easily influenced subs paying counselors $100/hour to get told that spanking is sick and leads to moral turpitude. Could you give a link?

LadyAngelika -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 5:18:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven That'd be lovely. I've had issues with easily influenced subs paying counselors $100/hour to get told that spanking is sick and leads to moral turpitude. I guess they weren't kink friendly therapists. Most of the people I know work in this field would have never made such a judgement. quote: Could you give a link? I found 2: http://www.ncsfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_keyword&id=305 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_for_Sexual_Freedom - LA

jstkrs -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 11:22:25 AM)
One thing it seems many psychologists and psychiatrists fail to pay any attention to is this part: In order to be diagnosed with a paraphilia, one must demonstrate the following features: “Recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 1) nonhuman objects, 2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons, that occur over a period of at least 6 months.” The behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning They conveniently forget that part once they read the horribly derogatory descriptions of each paraphilia. I for one had 'significant distress' trying to be vanilla and repressing my true self. I'm all better now.[sm=dancer.gif] And I absolutely agree, the DSM needs a drastic overhaul in these respects.

LadyAngelika -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 11:59:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jstkrs One thing it seems many psychologists and psychiatrists fail to pay any attention to is this part: In order to be diagnosed with a paraphilia, one must demonstrate the following features: “Recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 1) nonhuman objects, 2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons, that occur over a period of at least 6 months.” The behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning They conveniently forget that part once they read the horribly derogatory descriptions of each paraphilia. I for one had 'significant distress' trying to be vanilla and repressing my true self. I'm all better now.[sm=dancer.gif] And I absolutely agree, the DSM needs a drastic overhaul in these respects. "Recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner" Sounds like your garden variety sadomasochism aficionado to me... which is why I'm glad I figured it out for myself and never had to resort to a psychologists and psychiatrists for it. - LA

SuperatusMasculs -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 12:29:51 PM)
How is this research and the opinions set forth by professional doctors affected by our ego-centric society? I say that in a time of myspace, facebook, and all the general image control that captivates popular culture, even learned minds cannot conceive of a mindset that dictates a "you first" code of behavior. Even to the point that interest in this type of behavior is labelled a "mental disorder". In my opinion, anyone presumptive enough to use facebook to keep the world "up-to-date" with what they had for breakfast or what their significant others did/said to/for them has a mental disorder. Where is the DSM diagnosis of an attention whore?

RedMagic1 -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 12:40:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jstkrs The behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning This is exactly why the wording should stay as-is. There's a thread on Fet, from about a year ago, where I and a couple other people had a discussion/debate with one of the national co-ordinators of the NCSF petition drive. Hell yeah you're sick if you're engaging in addictive behavior. The phraseology I quoted above works for alcoholism and eating disorders too -- as well as porn addiction, etc. When I brought this up in the Fetlife thread, the NCSF rep agreed with me, and said she wanted the wording changed anyway, because the existing wording was being used by anti-kink therapists to diagnose kinks as wrong. But that doesn't mean the DSM is wrong; it means those therapists suck! Should we change medical texts because some doctors are quacks? Once you realize that masochism is only diagnosable as a "problem" in the same sense that alcohol-use is diagnosable as a "problem" -- if its presence in your life is fucking everything up -- then this isn't an all-fired big deal. As far as I'm concerned, there are much better places the NCSF could invest their time and money.

lovingpet -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 12:58:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jstkrs In order to be diagnosed with a paraphilia, one must demonstrate the following features: “Recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 1) nonhuman objects, 2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons, that occur over a period of at least 6 months.” The behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning Keep in mind that most of the distress or impairment does not come from the paraphilia itself, but is based on cultural biases. As a matter of fact a lot of cultures wouldn't recognize any of the three categories listed as unusual at all. It begs the question of just how much of this behavior is truly defective and how much is just the projection of certain beliefs onto people. For example, what is a child? Western society is ever raising that age. Other societies have always based it upon certain biological markers or attaining a certain status (engaged/married usually) than upon an indiscriminate number. Society makes certain behaviors unacceptable rather than it being something flawed in and of itself. Where's the science? Needless to say, the DSM could use some heavy revision. Of course, this isn't the only area. I find a great deal of psychiatry to be politically and morally driven and has less to do with real disease. There are real and legitimate mental illness and I would love it if the profession would focus on those and effective, humane treatments and potential cures. I am a dreamer after all. Disclaimer: I am not advocating anything TOS related with this post. lovingpet

LadyAngelika -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 1:15:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: jstkrs The behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning This is exactly why the wording should stay as-is. There's a thread on Fet, from about a year ago, where I and a couple other people had a discussion/debate with one of the national co-ordinators of the NCSF petition drive. Hell yeah you're sick if you're engaging in addictive behavior. The phraseology I quoted above works for alcoholism and eating disorders too -- as well as porn addiction, etc. When I brought this up in the Fetlife thread, the NCSF rep agreed with me, and said she wanted the wording changed anyway, because the existing wording was being used by anti-kink therapists to diagnose kinks as wrong. But that doesn't mean the DSM is wrong; it means those therapists suck! Should we change medical texts because some doctors are quacks? Once you realize that masochism is only diagnosable as a "problem" in the same sense that alcohol-use is diagnosable as a "problem" -- if its presence in your life is fucking everything up -- then this isn't an all-fired big deal. As far as I'm concerned, there are much better places the NCSF could invest their time and money. Anything that causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning You are right. Anything. But I don't see what this has to do with kink. It is about addiction and one can be addicted to anything. I just think that when it follows a statement about a sexual activity which can be properly integrated in every day well balanced life, it takes away a lot from the potential normalcy of the kink. - LA

jstkrs -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 1:23:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: jstkrs The behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning ...When I brought this up in the Fetlife thread, the NCSF rep agreed with me, and said she wanted the wording changed anyway, because the existing wording was being used by anti-kink therapists to diagnose kinks as wrong. But that doesn't mean the DSM is wrong; it means those therapists suck! Should we change medical texts because some doctors are quacks? Point taken.No matter how the wording is presented, those that wish to twist it to their own agenda will do so. A bigoted idiot is a bigoted idiot no matter how many degrees he has. I had a psychology professor who made sure to impress on us that it wasn't a problem unless those two conditions were both satisfied. She was very proactive in squelching the bigoted attitudes by reminding them of that. I thanked her after class for presenting the subject as she did. Once you realize that masochism is only diagnosable as a "problem" in the same sense that alcohol-use is diagnosable as a "problem" -- if its presence in your life is fucking everything up -- then this isn't an all-fired big deal. Wonderful example, thank you. "Keep in mind that most of the distress or impairment does not come from the paraphilia itself, but is based on cultural biases." Absolutely true! I had intended to include that in my initial post, thank you for catching that.

RedMagic1 -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 3:20:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I just think that when it follows a statement about a sexual activity which can be properly integrated in every day well balanced life, it takes away a lot from the potential normalcy of the kink. And yet, I imagine you would see a health difference between "being a cutter" and "enjoying knife play a lot."

LadyAngelika -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 4:07:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I just think that when it follows a statement about a sexual activity which can be properly integrated in every day well balanced life, it takes away a lot from the potential normalcy of the kink. And yet, I imagine you would see a health difference between "being a cutter" and "enjoying knife play a lot." Ok, so that I don't misunderstand you a second time today, can you ask you rephrase that statement please? I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me... - LA

winterrose77 -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 5:25:08 PM)
This is why I'm a Psychology major. I'm sick of 'professionals' who charge you a shitload of money just to tell you you're screwed up and need to give them more money if you wanna feel better. That's not helping people. That's selfishness. It's time for people to be addressed as people, not an assortment of ill-fitting definitions from some manual.

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 5:56:52 PM)
I've been watching a number of video on a site called TED.com, some really interesting stuff in a number of different fields. In terms of upcoming technology and advancements regarding knowing how the brain actually works. It's pretty clear that there needs to be some major changes, the developments from the research have yet to manifest itself fully. It should be rather interesting to see what this decade will bring. Sure we all have seen the technology explosion when it comes to telecommunications and computers. There is a new wave of technological advancements in medicine and in how the mind works that has yet to hit. Society may need to make some major readjustments to this new knowledge. There may or may not be more implications yet to come. I can see potential issues where a number of agenda's by a number of different groups can and/or will be effected. Political, Religious, Civil Rights, Privacy, Drug Companies ... (large list if one thinks about it for a little bit). Not to mention the revisions to the DSM, provided it's not replaced by something else more advanced. It may be a little premature for me to proclaim the DSM is fated for the dust racks next to 8 Track tape decks and other things. However, things such as real time imagining and scans of brain activitity and patterns. Tip of the iceburg. One day in the future people will be looking back to our time period thinking how Barbaric the DSM was.. (I don't think it's all that far fetched).

juliaoceania -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 6:06:49 PM)
quote: I think this is really important for mental health professionals, and for anyone who has ever been to a mental health professional, especially involving lifestyle issues. You know, I have not heard anything in the media, etc about mental health care professionals pathologizing kinkiness in quite a long time. I suppose some are out there, but I have not seen it (perhaps I should read the lifestyle in the news forum?). Kinky sex with whips and chains is a rather common thing that people engage in. I would say that the D/s and M/s relationship dynamic would probably not be seen as healthy by most, but that was not covered in the definition you posted, that DSM definition is all about the sex and nothing about the relationship dynamic. I guess my point is that kinky sex has become very acceptable... people joke about it and hint about it, etc... relationships in which another person has ceded a measure of control over other aspects of their life knowingly and consensually are not as common, and most people I know would find them abusive....

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 6:15:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: winterrose77 This is why I'm a Psychology major. I'm sick of 'professionals' who charge you a shitload of money just to tell you you're screwed up and need to give them more money if you wanna feel better. That's not helping people. That's selfishness. It's time for people to be addressed as people, not an assortment of ill-fitting definitions from some manual. The DSM has been useful, because it's better than no manual at all. In many regards it's been helpful is organizing a lot of things into general categories. It's far from perfect, and many people realize and know it's short comings. This is why a lot of money has gone into additional research and development of new technology that has yet to become mainstream. The Manual has been helpful to it's own degree and scope. Again, it has it's limitations but better than no manual at all. It has been useful in helping, and it's also been not useful at all, and some people could say that it's caused harm. It's done far more good than harm. The professionals you speak about vary. Sure some are in it for the money cause it's their bread and butter. Some people are in it because they find this area of work interesting. Some of the professionals had/have issues and were drawn to the field and wanted to help others with similar issues. Still at the end of the day, just because somebody is a "Professional" does not indicate their moral values, nor does it indicate they have a lot of Critical thinking skills. Some people just pull out the Manual and go by that without questioning too much. Any Idiot with an average IQ can become a "Certified Idiot" at something if they go to college. Perfectly Great Colleges pass out Idiot Certifications every year, yet amazing there is something to be said about TV shows centered around if an Adult knows more than a 5th grader. There's a lot of crap people devote to Short Term Memory to cram for a C+ on a test. Trying to engage them in a conversation a year later about the material, forget it. Sure some professionals are in it for a quick buck, but not everybody.

afterforever -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 6:27:00 PM)
Technically sadomasochism is still in the ICD-10 as well, but I don't know many psychiatrists who worry about this stuff unless it's screwing up someone's life, like Red said. I had to do a few days in a sexual deviancy clinic (ok that wasn't what it was actually called, just what the other students called it) as part of my psych placement, and the people who actually deal with this stuff every day seemed to have pretty much the same view as we do, if it's between two consenting adults living balanced lives, all is well. The only repeat customers were paedophiles and people being assessed for gender reassignment surgery, pretty much everyone else I saw were told they were fine in the end, including one sexual masochist. I'm sure the wording in the manuals could be better, and maybe private therapists take it more seriously, but generally I don't think most of us are in any danger of being told we're crazy.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 11:07:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: winterrose77 I'm sick of 'professionals' who charge you a shitload of money just to tell you you're screwed up and need to give them more money if you wanna feel better. Wait.. doesn't that encompass a typical Pro-Domme session?!! [;)][:D]

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/3/2010 11:22:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: winterrose77 I'm sick of 'professionals' who charge you a shitload of money just to tell you you're screwed up and need to give them more money if you wanna feel better. Wait.. doesn't that encompass a typical Pro-Domme session?!! [;)][:D] If you ask me your screwed one way or another.... here's why.. Fork over $100 for a counseling session, they tell you you are screwed up. Fork over $200 for a Pro-Domme session, they will really remind you are not only screwed up but fucking worthless too (added bonus for spending more money I guess) Fork over $100 to a bar tender, to have them tell you that not only you are screwed up but literally screwed up drunk. You go to Church looking for help and end up forking over 10% of your income, you're remined that you're a screwed up sinner. This is truely screwed up ain't it?

wandersalone -> RE: The NCSF and the DSM revision project (2/4/2010 1:36:34 AM)
I think I am agreeing with Redmagic and LadyAngelika here (unless I have misread them [:)] ), to me the issue is not the wording of the DSM IV which I feel is apt, but rather it is the clinical skills of the psychiatrists or psychologists who diagnose. If you have personal experience in having a psychologist or psychiatrist tell you that spanking, M/s etc is wrong or that you are sick, ask to see another person instead and if necessary report them if you feel what they said was inappropriate.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125