A very interesting, important, and well written post from Feministing.com about the issues surrounding the up coming revision of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-R).
Raymond Blanchard has some proposals for expanding the “paraphilia” section including naming anything outside of “genital stimulation or preparatory fondling” as a disorder. Also included is changing “Transvestic Fetishism” to “Transvestic Disorder” – specifically if you are a heterosexual, cisgender male.
Another frightening aspect of Blanchard’s proposal is that any sexual interest other than “genital stimulation or preparatory fondling” is now, by definition, a paraphilia. In his presentation, he claimed that paraphilias should include all “erotic interests that are not focused on copulatory or precopulatory behaviors, or the equivalent behaviors in same-sex adult partners.” Copulatory is defined as related to coitus or sexual intercourse (i.e., penetration sex). So, essentially, all forms of sexual arousal and expression that are not centered around penetration sex may now be considered paraphilias.
These suggetions only further gender and sexual stereotypes that hinder and shame the sexual experiences and gender identities of everyone. Please read the post linked to above and become aware of this important current issue.
May 6, 2009 at 2:58 pm
This could all be easily resolved if we just stopped copulating. There would be no need to monitor everyone’s sexual experience if we just became asexual, genderless, amorphous units. The psychiatric institution has bigger fish to fry than just a few people feeling a little too comfortable in dresses– over half of our population suffers from “feeling good in a dress” syndrome! This paraphilia is called “femininity” and has gone unrecognized for far too long.
May 6, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Is this just the American DSM, or is it international?
May 6, 2009 at 3:08 pm
The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and therefore has a North American/Western bias. However, it also stands as an example to other diagnostic publications internationally.
May 6, 2009 at 3:32 pm
NO WORDS.
So much for any kind of, you know, evidence-based practice. *Expanding* already dubious definitions to include things that are in no demonstrable way actual disorders is either fundamentally bigoted, a money grab, or both.
Okay, this is seriously something I am going to need to get involved with. Hell, I just confirmed my membership with the Canadian Psychological Association.
WTF. Dammit, *this* is why there’s a need for critical dialogue in every damned academic discipline. Stats and ethics, people — you can’t get by without them.