Just having a phenomenon listed in the DSM doesn't mean it's a mental disorder. According to the article, they're creating a new category that essentially says "These are paraphilias. We recognize that they exist but pass no judgement upon them."

Fair enough. I mean, it goes on in our head/crotch, yeah?

Most of us agree now that gay people are born that way. I've wondered if people who are wired to get off either giving or receiving pain are hard-wired or is it an acquired behavior? If it is an acquired behavior what circumstances produce that end?

I wouldn't call it crazy, but I would call it a kink.

Yeah, but isn't sanity just a one-trick pony? I mean, all you get is rational thinking. But when you're good and crazy? The sky's the limit!

Every time I see the DSM get updated, I am amazed and think "Wow, these people really get to define who is sane and who isn't?"

Sometimes, psychology just seems like glorified philosophizing.

The guys who write the DSM are more fucked-up than any of us.

@4,
"Psychology is the art of making the obvious tedious."

(from a cognitive psych professor at the U of Minnesota).

/I've got an advanced degree in social psychology.
//I agree with you almost 100%

Saw the headline and thought you were going to link to Frank Bruni's column in yesterday's Times, on Amanda Knox and women's sexuality...

Sure they're crazy. Crazy about wanting to have great orgasms.

All definitions are political, and these are no different. They are grounded in subjective judgment and therefore inherently pseudo-scientific. These are indeed, George Orwell's "Sex Crimes".

"... unusual sexual fixations, or 'paraphilias,' will likely get their own category as odd, but not necessarily signs of mental illness. If, however, a person is distressed by a fetish—or if that fetish harms others—he or she will likely be eligible for a diagnosis of a 'paraphilic disorder.'"

That sounds exactly right. What's the problem? Foot fetishists and kinksters are classified as harmless but worthy of scientific inquiry and the dude who wants to eat someone can qualify for insurance coverage.

"Most of us agree now that gay people are born that way."

No we don't. We agree that sexuality is a personality trait that is pretty well fixed at an early age. It is not chosen, nor is it likely to change. But we don't really know or care whether gay people are born "that way" or develop "that way."

The article you linked to has a critical quote from someone, using the word, "othering," meaning to create a distinct boundary from "us" (presumably from us "wholesome, good, normal" people).

I like the neologism. Othering is what keeps us from working together in our common interests, from communicating, and from seeing each other as equals. It's a useful word for calling people out for "othering" others over what's ultimately trivial shit in the scheme of things.

Homosexuality was in the DSM for a looooong time.

So, no.

What I always teach my students is that for a behavior to be considered "abnormal" it has to be some combination of
atypical (doesn't happen a lot)
disturbing (violates social norms/bothers others)
maladaptive (prevents you from living a happy healthy life)
unjustifiable (there's no reason for engaging in the behavior)

I can see how some kinks would bother others and, in turn prevent you from living a happy, healthy life (someone repeatedly arrested for voyeurism, for example). Including that in the DSM simply says "we could possibly help this person get better with therapy" rather than "lock him up/fine him/preventing from living around people with windows." I don't see the problem with the inclusion.

@14 Are you a psychology professor? If so, I am extremely disturbed by what you just wrote. For example:

"Violates social norms/bothers others" is extremely ambiguous. Is this person just fixated on something, say, like socks or dinosaurs? Those would conceiveably "violate norms and bother others". Voyeurism, though, is a non-consensual act. So is murder--although all four of these things fit equally well under your definition.

And why the heck are you saying that unusual interests are inherently bad?

Do you see now why these arbitrary categorizations are dangerous?

We are all crazy. Whether or not we are considered sane by society is only a reflection of how functional we are, in spite of our neuroses.