When it comes to sex, what does “normal” mean?
May 7th, 2009 | Author: Zille
Today two smart and eloquent people in my daily rss feed posted the following two posts, which for me showed up back-to-back, in this perfect symmetry. Enjoy!
From Pandora’s wonderful blog, a discussion of proposed revision to the DSM, “the official diagnostic list of mental disorders for medical practitioners in the US”…
The proposed revisions risk stigmatizing countless sane individuals with erotic tastes outside a strictly-sanctioned norm. They would lend credibility to those who wish to condemn or discriminate people on these grounds. They would also risk adversely affecting people who are happy in their alternative sexuality but seeking treatment for other mental health problems, by giving judgmental medical practitioners authority to mis-diagnose their sexual practices as being the source of the problem. Labelling any form of gender or sexual expression as a “mental disorder” has the potential to be hugely damaging, and ignores the vast spectrum of natural sexual and gender variation that exists in the world.
The Madhouse, 1812-15, Goya, Francisco…
Buy at AllPosters.com
Then, Fyre has a wonderful post about “Transcending the Norm,”
After all, the ingredients in good S&M play–communication, respect and trust–are the same ingredients in good traditional sex. The outcome is the same, a feeling of connection to the body and the self. Practitioners’ of BDSM thus need to achieve, out of their dynamic, a relationship that produces coherence, which deeply affects each participant through a sense of shared experience within their system of beliefs.
Although people report that they have better-than-usual sex immediately after a scene, the primary goal of S&M itself is not intercourse: “A good scene doesn’t end in orgasm, it ends in catharsis.” It is in our acceptance of the sadistic or masochistic aspects of human nature and their expression rather than repression that provides the cathartic catalyst.
Inherent in our nature is the desire to improve and better ourselves. The process of exceeding our current limitations may be referred to as “self-transcendence.” Self-transcendence embodies the human spirit’s capacity to go beyond our previous achievements, it can apply to any aspect of our being; the physical self-transcendence of running faster; the mental self-transcendence of going beyond self imposed limitations. Anyone who strives for greater perfection and a higher perspective is practicing a form of self-transcendence.
I think Fyre’s quote from Joseph Campbell (The Power of Myth
I think we are seeking the experience of being alive, so that our life’s experience on a purely physical plane will have resonance within our own innermost being and reality, so we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That’s what it is all finally about, and that’s what these clues help us find within ourselves.
and his final thoughts:
The deeper the understanding we have of the dynamics of this complex and beautiful form of human expression, the more our ceremonies, rituals and celebrations will reflect the deepest wisdom and understanding our unique culture has to offer, and the more our shared moments will reflect us, in all our differences.
really should be read by the people working on the DSM, before they make hasty decisions that could effect the lives of so many people!
Northern Spanking
I Feel Myself.com
Hope you have...
Zille, I found Pandora’s post quite disturbing, one would expect such bodies thinking to be ahead of society in general, not so far behind.
Though I haven’t read Fyre’s post or Joseph Campbell ’s writing I agree any experience that causes us to grow, should affect our entire being.
Love and warm hugsw,
Paul.
Z,
Well said. Thank you for compiling these.
P
As a mental health professional I have NEVER seen sadomasochism or fetishism used as a diagnosis, not that it doesn’t happen, but I think it’s gone out of popular usage for the most part. What I have commonly seen is sadomasochism seen as an expression of another disorder or neurosis, such as a personality or bipolar disorder, or in the context of addiction. Or in the case of a person who is troubled by their own behavior, and doesn’t find it in accordance of their wishes and more like a compulsion (ego dystonic), the roots of the fetish/behavior would be teased out of the person’s emotional history and explored. If BDSM or fetishism is a happy part of a person’s sexuality, then I think most GOOD mental health professionals might explore its meaning, but not try to “pathologize” the person as it were. It’s one bit of information among many that make up a person. My belief is that there are just as many healthy, stable BDSM relationships as there are dysfunctional, it’s really like anything else. As for the DSM…well, I hate the stigmatization of anyone, and I would rather sexual behavior be seen as the *possible* expression of other disorders, as it is in common diagnosis, than have this category. It is alienating, and I can understand you taking issue with it.
K,
There are a significant range of issues with the DSM and the paraphilias (as I think you agree), but I’ll touch on only a few. One of the most troubling is the reality that a patient with unusual sexual tastes categorized as a paraphilia will typically have those tastes seen as a symptom, regardless of the relevance or clinical history.
My favorite illustration of the problem lies in the fact that, say, compulsive hand-washing may be a symptom of OCD, but it isn’t a “hand-washing disorder”. By creating the imprecise taxonomy of the paraphilias, the DSM tries to assert that, because a behavior is sexual, it is somehow more significant than a non-sexual behavior that may be every bit as problematic to the patient.
Most troubling to me, though, is that the DSM contains unsupported assertions in its descriptions of the paraphilias that are either questionably accurate or also applicable to “normophilic” acts. For instance, there’s the “no shit” statement that “Frequent, unprotected sex may result in infection with, or transmission of, a sexually transmitted disease” — true, but is that _really_ a psych issue? Well, OK, maybe it is, but whoever wrote that obviously missed the fact that a single instance of unprotected sex may result in really bad news.
Then there’s “Sadistic or masochistic behaviors may lead to injuries ranging in extent from minor to life threatening” — again, true, but there’s no statement about, say, skiing, riding or parascending may lead to injuries!
The sacred cow of the DSM’s paraphilias is probably pedophilia. BUT there’s a strong argument that the criminal and psych aspects of the issue should be distinct, and the psych condition may well be covered by a blanket “inappropriate sexual attraction” condition.
And that’s really the core problem: the DSM has tried to take a number of behaviors that are “socially abhorrent” and create medical diagnosis to categorize them. But who really would lump sexual masochism as being in any way a similar condition to pedophilia? And why do some acts get a pass (I believe bestiality is A-OK by the DSM)? Others used to be problematic, but at some stage were magically made healthy (homosexuality being the obvious one).
We would all be better served if the DSM would stick with defining conditions based on the problems experienced by the patient, rather than defining types of behaviors as problems, even if the patient is perfectly functioning despite those behaviors.
I mean: there are many, many Americans who’d agree that atheism is a psych disorder…
M
Hi Zille and Boss,
Salient points, all. I am not in disagreement with you on any of this. My point is essentially that the DSM is seen by many of us in the mental health field as a guideline but one that we depart from often and sometimes radically. It is often debated, and hotly, within the community. I received training in a place that didn’t use it as all; when sexual issues came up in supervision around certain clients, I often found myself in the position of educator regarding fetishism and BDSM, having plenty of experience in both communities. While I do believe that sexual behavior *ca*n be very problematic for a person, aside from rape or sexual abuse, I think it is for a client/patient to decide whether it’s a problem meriting attention. Sex is certainly an interesting part of human behavior, but as a clinician I have no interest in demonizing/labeling a person based on what kind of sex they like to have.
I also think that aside from sociopathic/injurious/nonconsensual sexual behavior, a disorder shouldn’t be based on the kind of sex a person has. Addiction is not any use of alcohol or drugs, but a certain set of conditions around that usage, and one that is also, often, hotly debated within the mental health community. The problem with the DSM as a whole is that is often VERY unspecific about a great many disorders. (It’s worth it to note that the DSM is an American invention and while not entirely useless, is seen as bizarre by other clinicians around the world, because people are so complex!). Honestly, because BDSM is usually such an underground lifestyle, I doubt the DSM is going to change its stripes on this anytime soon. Not enough is known about it, it’s still shrouded in mystery and a little scary (for your average Middle American) for all that. So some perv pride is probably a helpful thing, getting it out there so that people can see that there are plenty of successful, happy people merrily engaging in BDSM.