Your Holiday Feel-Good Story of the Day

[Neil]

It's a sexual preference.  The psychiatric community doesn't consider these illnesses anymore.

And excellent point.  What makes pedos less deserving of their rights than homos?

[Martinus]

And why have psychiatrists classify "deviant sexual practices" and not, say "deviant musical tastes" or "deviant dressing habits"? It all smacks to me too much of Victorian-era mentality.

Particularly since they're not wrapped too tight themselves.

I mean, the list Syk posted just seems completely arbitrary to me. I am all for treating sexual behaviors that are harmful to oneself or others (pedophilia is a clear example), but putting it on the list next to stuff like fetishism is just fucked up.

It's like coming up with a list of "deviant culinary behaviours":

1. Eating iron nails.
2. Eating glass.
3. Eating raw meat (steak tartare).
4. Eating raw fish (sushi).
5. Refusing to eat meat (vegetarianism).
6. Eating human meat (cannibalism).
Etc.

[CountDeMoney]

Don't worry, Marti...your toe thing is safe.

[Martinus]

It's a sexual preference.  The psychiatric community doesn't consider these illnesses anymore.

And excellent point.  What makes pedos less deserving of their rights than homos?

I know you are trolling, so not going to answer this obvious question, but a better thing would be to explain for people who didn't think about it why sexual orientation is considered to be something different, psychologically, than, say, fetishism.

The best comparison I have come up with is that sexual orientation is like the operating system, whereas stuff like fetishism, pedophilia, necrophilia, kinks of various kinds etc. are the equivalents of applications.

So homosexuality is not a "deviation" of heterosexuality - it's an alternative set of fundamentals (in terms of numbers, and qualities of typical users, I'd say heterosexuality is like "Windows" and homosexuality is like "Mac OS" ). You can have applications (such as foot fetish, or sado-masochism) running on both of them, but they are derivative of the basic system.

[DontSayBanana]

I am curious why stuff like fetishism is considered a "disease". I mean, isn't it like considering "likes Thai food" or "likes sushi" a disease too? 

And why have psychiatrists classify "deviant sexual practices" and not, say "deviant musical tastes" or "deviant dressing habits"? It all smacks to me too much of Victorian-era mentality.

If you take a view of sexuality as something to occupy yourself on Friday night and have a little fun, fetishism is just a little something to keep from getting bored (usually).  If you're looking at it in the sterile context of sexuality as either a release valve or a way to simply impregnate women for survival of the species, fetishism is a little off.

[Martinus]

I am curious why stuff like fetishism is considered a "disease". I mean, isn't it like considering "likes Thai food" or "likes sushi" a disease too? 

And why have psychiatrists classify "deviant sexual practices" and not, say "deviant musical tastes" or "deviant dressing habits"? It all smacks to me too much of Victorian-era mentality.

If you take a view of sexuality as something to occupy yourself on Friday night and have a little fun, fetishism is just a little something to keep from getting bored (usually).  If you're looking at it in the sterile context of sexuality as either a release valve or a way to simply impregnate women for survival of the species, fetishism is a little off.

I wish you sometimes read your post before pressing "Post" - because it wouldn't be so easy to refute, maybe.

First of all - the "impregnate woman for survival" thing - if that was the case, why not consider using a condom (not to mention, "homosexuality") as a deviant sexual practice then? After all, a guy who needs to be sniffing a chick's panties while he fucks her is still more likely to get her pregnant than a guy who uses a condom for vanilla sex.

And the part about "release valve" - I have no idea what you mean - how is a fetish sex less likely to be used as a release valve than vanilla sex?

If you paid attention to my examples about food, then if you consider the object of eating to get nutrition, then both vegetarianism or, say, disliking Brussel sprouts, should be qualified as "a little off".

Please think before posting sometimes. You are a smart kid, but too often you just post the first thing that comes to your mind, without realizing it's bullshit.

[Razgovory]

I am curious why stuff like fetishism is considered a "disease". I mean, isn't it like considering "likes Thai food" or "likes sushi" a disease too? 

And why have psychiatrists classify "deviant sexual practices" and not, say "deviant musical tastes" or "deviant dressing habits"? It all smacks to me too much of Victorian-era mentality.

Because "liking Thai food" isn't likely to cause impairment in their cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning.  Luring children to the back of your van is.

[Martinus]

I am curious why stuff like fetishism is considered a "disease". I mean, isn't it like considering "likes Thai food" or "likes sushi" a disease too? 

And why have psychiatrists classify "deviant sexual practices" and not, say "deviant musical tastes" or "deviant dressing habits"? It all smacks to me too much of Victorian-era mentality.

Because "liking Thai food" isn't likely to cause impairment in their cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning.  Luring children to the back of your van is.

Are you trolling me or are you just dumb? Because I said in the onset that this does not apply to behaviours that are "harmful to oneself or others (pedophilia is a clear example)".

Seriously, arguing on Languish feels like herding cats. Drunk, addled, mentally-retarded cats.

[Strix]

He clearly paid his debt to society. Why was he punished further by being placed on a sex offender registry? He is being accused because of the prejudice surrounding ex-sex offenders.

[Razgovory]

I am curious why stuff like fetishism is considered a "disease". I mean, isn't it like considering "likes Thai food" or "likes sushi" a disease too? 

And why have psychiatrists classify "deviant sexual practices" and not, say "deviant musical tastes" or "deviant dressing habits"? It all smacks to me too much of Victorian-era mentality.

Because "liking Thai food" isn't likely to cause impairment in their cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning.  Luring children to the back of your van is.

Are you trolling me or are you just dumb? Because I said in the onset that this does not apply to behaviours that are "harmful to oneself or others (pedophilia is a clear example)".

Seriously, arguing on Languish feels like herding cats. Drunk, addled, mentally-retarded cats.

But the root cause is the same.

[DontSayBanana]

I wish you sometimes read your post before pressing "Post" - because it wouldn't be so easy to refute, maybe.

First of all - the "impregnate woman for survival" thing - if that was the case, why not consider using a condom (not to mention, "homosexuality") as a deviant sexual practice then? After all, a guy who needs to be sniffing a chick's panties while he fucks her is still more likely to get her pregnant than a guy who uses a condom for vanilla sex.

And the part about "release valve" - I have no idea what you mean - how is a fetish sex less likely to be used as a release valve than vanilla sex?

If you paid attention to my examples about food, then if you consider the object of eating to get nutrition, then both vegetarianism or, say, disliking Brussel sprouts, should be qualified as "a little off".

Please think before posting sometimes. You are a smart kid, but too often you just post the first thing that comes to your mind, without realizing it's bullshit.

I could make the same claim about you; going back to your food thing, it's the "eat to live" versus "live to eat" debate.  As a survival mechanism, nothing will do except unprotected vanilla intercourse (I never said anything about contraceptives in my post, so nice strawman there).  Nutrition for survival's sake is usually covered in developed countries, though, so we don't view finicky eating habits or predilections for expensive foods as so severe a vice as in undeveloped or in developing communities.

The same goes for sexuality; sexual "deviance" is more likely to be actually considered harmful where survival is more difficult.  As a biological function for survival of the species, fetishism just lowers birth rate and makes it harder for the species to survive.  The definitions of the WHO and DSM IV are clinical and related more to biological survival instinct than modern sensitivities.  That's the only point I was making. 

[KRonn]

So sad. So very, very sad. The poor girl, and her heartbroken, devastated family.