S c h a d 3 n f r e u d e
(?)Community Member
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 01:57:19 +0000
Jason0690
i are plushie
Jason0690
I can't tell you for sure, but Rosie may be able to - I think the criteria for the DSM-IV is that you have to have three of those circumstances met? It's still a large leap in the right direction from where they were 18 years ago.
And to be fair, that's how most "obscene", "strange", and "deviant things become mainstream - through gradual desensitization.
As for your question, if the s-type and D-type both say it's consensual, and the subbie doesn't appear to have Battered Spouse Syndrome, or Stockholms Syndrome.
And to be fair, that's how most "obscene", "strange", and "deviant things become mainstream - through gradual desensitization.
As for your question, if the s-type and D-type both say it's consensual, and the subbie doesn't appear to have Battered Spouse Syndrome, or Stockholms Syndrome.
I don't have the DSM-IV, as I'm not yet licensed (and I'm not an uber-fan of looking for it online), but I do know that for other "sexual illnesses" such as "sexual sadism" only one qualification must be met to classify a person as "suffering from that illness;" however, it (and I think this is true for majority of disorders) must be recurring for a minimum of 6 months, must be considered intense or distressing... i.e., causing some serious effects.
It is definitely a large leap from where the classifications were 18 years old. Blowjobs used to be illegal at one point in time, but today... well, that statement doesn't really need finishing. xD
I personally think the issue that comes into play with consenting subs, and the legality of whether or not that consent is made without any sort of a detrimental mindset, is determining whether or not that consent came as a result of some psychological and/or physical trauma. Beyond that, with the DSM-IV current classification... it's pretty hard to prove that there's no "sexual dysfunction" when the basis of determining such is comparing the relationship to your everyday vanilla one. If that makes any sense.. not sure how well my wording will come across. n u n;;
It is definitely a large leap from where the classifications were 18 years old. Blowjobs used to be illegal at one point in time, but today... well, that statement doesn't really need finishing. xD
I personally think the issue that comes into play with consenting subs, and the legality of whether or not that consent is made without any sort of a detrimental mindset, is determining whether or not that consent came as a result of some psychological and/or physical trauma. Beyond that, with the DSM-IV current classification... it's pretty hard to prove that there's no "sexual dysfunction" when the basis of determining such is comparing the relationship to your everyday vanilla one. If that makes any sense.. not sure how well my wording will come across. n u n;;
Made enough sense to me. In that case, it should at the least be dropped to parole until sufficient psychological evaluation - or 48 hours with psychological eval.
I lean more to parole, to be honest - when you're on parole for certain crimes, you'll be red-flagged and can't buy guns from any reputable shop. Theoretically if the states wanted to, they could do the same. That's a huge theoretical though.
S c h a d 3 n f r e u d e
submissives aren't the only ones who can be abused. Dominants can be as well.
True, but most of the time the Dom is the one that gets jailed for being "the abuser", much like if a dude defends himself from his wifey beating him with a tire iron - the Mr. gets a hospital visit and shipped to the jailer, usually.