Feministing, all around cool blog of coolness, recently ran this piece about why feminists should care about the suggested changes being made to the paraphilia portion of the DSM (that’s the big list of psychological disorders used by doctors, psychologists and therapists to decide what’s wrong with people in the head area).
Being a narcissist myself, I of course realized that these changes not only affect women, but anyone who enjoys reading or writing pornographic materials. After all, according to the proposed changes, a parahilia may be defined as:
any intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partner.
Well, that pretty much locks out anything beyond some good old fondling followed by good old missionary. On the page I linked above, narrow-minded Blanchard goes on to define “obscene phone calls” as outside the “normal” range of human sexuality. Phone calls. Because, you know, when my husband is out of town, we never EVER engage in some naughty phone/internet lovin’. Never. Because we’re normal.
He goes on to state that he proposes a new classification system, allowing one to have a “paraphilia” without it being called a “disorder.” Which I guess I appreciate? I mean, why bother? Typically the DSM describes disorders or “issues” that are to be treated in a counseling/medical setting. You don’t see, for example, Excessive Happiness Disorder. If you aren’t going to focus on the paraphilia for treatment, why list it at all? Seems to me it is a sort of underhanded ploy to make any sexual diversity deviant. Have we really gone so far backward that we’re now snickering under our breath when we talk about a little spanking, or a bit of bondage? Really?!
Also, why is anal sex with a dildo NOT paraphilic, but tying your lover’s hands over her head is? I’m just confused by that. Who gets to make the distinction between normal and abnormal? And why is that the line?
And don’t even get me STARTED on the stuff Feministing talks about, the problems with Gender Identity Disorder and Transvestic Fetishism. That only counts if you’re a man, btw. Only men who dress like women have a problem, women who dress like men are fine. AUGH.
Oh oh, and I almost forgot the “phenotypically normal” part. Holy shit people, they are saying that if you somehow do not fit the society’s view of physical normality, you are not to be seen as sexually attractive by normal people. This includes fat folks (well shit), older folks, disabled folks (srsly. If you’re in a wheelchair and I’m hot for you, I’m abnormal. WTF?), gender queer folks, etc. The insanity of this hurts my (apparently very fucked up) brain.
So. Do you read erotica with bondage, ever? Do you read shapeshifting erotica, and get off on it? Do you like to read about fucking machines and tentacles sometimes (oh admit it, we’re among friends) and find the ideas silly but arousing? What about the kinda sexy idea of a vampire sucking your blood? Ever roll played teacher and student (with props)? How about the hot story I read this morning where a dominant gets his submissive pierced–oh crap, I’m crazy! Well, we knew that. Is your partner kinda chubby? Married to someone who doesn’t fit a cisgendered stereotype? You fall squarely in the proposed changes, you are now diagnosable.
Want to complain before these recommendations become set in stone until the next revision (ten+ years)? Let the APA know how you feel.
Just to be subversive, I’m gonna go have some hot threesome fantasies with a side of tied up boys. You?
