Other "parafilias" coming off the list any time soon?

Factual Questions
1

Not that I have a personal stake in the matter, but was just wondering if anyone knows what the next, if any, parafilia on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’ list of same may be removed? Some won’t ever, obviously, but others such as fetishism and transvestic fetishism seem to be not as frowned upon as in the past. I know there is more to the criteria than that, but thought I’d bring up the topic anyway.

Anyone know of one that may be added in the near future? When was the last time one was added? Any information on the subject is appreciated!

So what if I think women’s feet are sexy.

2

There is a movement to get pedophilia off the list for paraphilias but I don’t believe it will happen anytime soon. I think many would disagree that S/M should be on that list, but I don’t know if there are any active movements to get it removed. If anyone gets removed, I think it would be ephebophilia, the attraction to adolescents.

I don’t see furries on the list and I could see it being added.

3

Never heard of such a thing until I came across The Geek Hierarchy.

4

Keeping this factual - what are the consequences of a specific paraphilia being on the list? Is someone who enjoys it automatically considered mentally ill without any further evidence being needed?

Fortunately for me, I’m (a) not American (b) mentally ill already, so I needn’t be personally worried about kimera’s suggestion. :slight_smile:

5

Well, this depends a bit.

In order for it to come up at all, it has to be a problem for the patient - eg - A guy has a foot fetish, and his lady won’t indulge him. He sees a therapist - a foot fetish appears in the DSM - no foot fetish does not. Hence, the therapists only option is to work with the person with the fetish.

If not having a foot fetish was put on the list, a therapist may instead try to convince the gf that she should get into feet.

Essentially, it’s a practical thing. Lots of things go on the list, but the only time it comes up is if it presents a problem for the person with that particular paraphilia.

Obviously, the paraphilia being illegal is a problem.

However, in real life terms, a guy with a foot fetish, who meets a woman who likes to have her toes sucked won’t notice if foot fetishism is on the list or not, because it won’t be a problem for him.

Does that make any sense, whatsoever?

6

This part, no.

7

I think I see what you mean - you can’t get treatment for something that’s not on the list? Seems a little pointless, but not as unfair as it could be. :slight_smile:

8

Maybe it’ll help if I repunctuate Alice’s statement. ( I had to read it twice before it made sense to me)

He sees a therapist - a “foot fetish” appears in the DSM - “no foot fetish” does not.

Meaning that the DSM contains a parafilia labeled “foot fetish” but not one which is the opposite labeled “no foot fetish”

If “foot fetish” means “finds feet sexy” - “no foot fetish” means “finds feet unsexy”

9

This article mentions paraphilias which are being reconsidered.

10

Wow, I wouldn’t have guessed pedophilia was being reconsidered, the rest mentioned I suppose some reasonable people could attempt an argument for, but not that one.

11

Apparently “fur fetishism” is considered a “fetish” paraphilia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fur_fetishism – but it’s not the same thing as what “furries” do.

The “Other Paraphilias” list in the Wikipedia article – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia#Other_paraphilias – makes for some interesting reading, even without clicking the links. “Crush fetishism”?

12

From the same article:

Slightly amibiguous about the zoophilia . . . So, is it not considered a paraphilia any more?

13

Agreed. A man who wants to actually have sex with a 12 month old baby (there was a rape case in the UK like this recently) is not mentally ill? Really?

14

I thought he was saying,

“He sees a therapist: a foot fetish appears in the DSM? No. Foot fetish does not.”

There are word puzzles like this; the meaning changes depending on how you punctuate a string of words.

It started with the ancient Oracle at Delphi. Soldiers going to war asked their fortunes. Her unpunctuated answer:

YOU WILL RETURN NOT DIE IN WAR

15

are you sure that wasn’t Yoda?

16

Or a 12-year-old girl/boy, too. At least in my book–and in millions of others.

17

As a Geek Who Writes Erotic Versions of Star Trek Episodes Where I’m The Furry Heroine And Everybody Else Is A Furry Too, Including Captain Kirk (and doesn’t he look sexy in his bunnysuit?) I must object strongly to this Geek Hierarchy. :wink:

18

Perhaps the people in favor of removing the paraphilia think that someone with a prediliction for substantially underage sex objects must suffer from an underlying personality disorder? Maybe diagnose and treat the underlying problem, and accept that ped or epheb iphilia is simply how their problem is expressed at the symptom level?

19

Perhaps it’s a matter of degree too, of how much the condition affects the person’s life. You could be into feet but not so much as to be unable to get off without concentrating completely on them. You could be mildly OCD but still able to leave the house and function on the job and in society.

So when a severe problem is actually hampering one’s life, the DSM would identify it and it’s a place to explore and work on. ??

20

There was a study published in 1998 that argued that not all cases where adults had sex with children should be considered child abuse.

They claimed that males were less affects by “adult-child” sex than females

Since the age range in this study included people who were up to 17 years of age this study can not be used to argue for pedophelia unless you factor out the individuals who had sexual relations after they went through puberty.

This study has been seized by pedophiles who focus on the “positives” and ignore the negatives.