|
|
|
Canada11355 Posts
On January 18 2017 02:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 00:46 SoSexy wrote:
Is the difficulty of a 3 hours flight for a pilot the same of a 3 hours drive on a road without other cars to a driver? Presumably similar. Assuming the road is straight and flat. I expect the main challenge to pilots is staying awake (as it is on a 3 hour boooooooooring drive).
Are pilots allowed to listen to music while flying or does that interfere with radio communication?
|
On January 18 2017 03:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 02:34 Acrofales wrote:On January 18 2017 00:46 SoSexy wrote:
Is the difficulty of a 3 hours flight for a pilot the same of a 3 hours drive on a road without other cars to a driver? Presumably similar. Assuming the road is straight and flat. I expect the main challenge to pilots is staying awake (as it is on a 3 hour boooooooooring drive). From what I understand you are constantly making corrections due to wind, air pressure and whatever else. I don't think it is as simple as holding the wheel straight.
I recall telling someone to drive straight once when he asked for directions. His response was:
Forward, not straight, straight is a hetero-normative term.
And I was confused as fuck.
Not related to planes, just recalling a memory.
|
On January 18 2017 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But when you start getting specific--like "wife swap" or "gangbang" it is because you live in a society that has a stake in those ideals/fears. Both those fantasies, for example, are only kinky if you live in a society that expects monogamy to be the norm. If you live in a society where men have 5-6 wives each would gangbang videos be all that kinky if every household already has regular gangbangs?
I get what you're saying but very few polygynists actually do FFM sex. In traditional societies it was rare bordering on nonexistent. And of course polyandry is extremely rare on the face of it; the vast majority of MMF sex that has ever taken place was gang rape.
|
On January 18 2017 03:21 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But when you start getting specific--like "wife swap" or "gangbang" it is because you live in a society that has a stake in those ideals/fears. Both those fantasies, for example, are only kinky if you live in a society that expects monogamy to be the norm. If you live in a society where men have 5-6 wives each would gangbang videos be all that kinky if every household already has regular gangbangs?
I get what you're saying but very few polygynists actually do FFM sex. In traditional societies it was rare bordering on nonexistent. And of course polyandry is extremely rare on the face of it; the vast majority of MMF sex that has ever taken place was gang rape.
Don't misunderstand my observation as a scientific statement. The culture we live in favors monogamy and heavily curbs poly relationships. Usually so much so that cultures that attempt to normalize poly relationships usually get attacked immediately to be stifled.
As such, we fetishize "gangbangs" the same way we fetishize "monobangs/rape." Because neither are accepted as "allowed" but the fact that we have to specifically disallow it means that there is always the feeling of curiosity towards it in the society wherein it happens.
|
If I pooped on a random stranger's baby, would they wipe the baby off first, or hit me first?
|
Where is it on the Bristol Scale?
|
On January 18 2017 05:27 Epishade wrote:
If I pooped on a random stranger's baby, would they wipe the baby off first, or hit me first?
If in the process they'd hit you. If right after, they'd probably still hit you (rage causes action faster).
|
On January 18 2017 05:27 Epishade wrote:
If I pooped on a random stranger's baby, would they wipe the baby off first, or hit me first?
Only one way to find out!
Bear in mind that we need a minimum of 20 samples or so to even begin to get an idea of the frequency.
|
On January 18 2017 07:33 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:27 Epishade wrote:
If I pooped on a random stranger's baby, would they wipe the baby off first, or hit me first? Only one way to find out! Bear in mind that we need a minimum of 20 samples or so to even begin to get an idea of the frequency.
Each sample also needs a control group, so make sure there are are at least 40 such events.
|
On January 18 2017 07:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 07:33 Cascade wrote:On January 18 2017 05:27 Epishade wrote:
If I pooped on a random stranger's baby, would they wipe the baby off first, or hit me first? Only one way to find out! Bear in mind that we need a minimum of 20 samples or so to even begin to get an idea of the frequency. Each sample also needs a control group, so make sure there are are at least 40 such events.
What would the control be here? >_> 
|
On January 18 2017 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 03:00 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2017 02:34 Acrofales wrote:On January 18 2017 00:46 SoSexy wrote:
Is the difficulty of a 3 hours flight for a pilot the same of a 3 hours drive on a road without other cars to a driver? Presumably similar. Assuming the road is straight and flat. I expect the main challenge to pilots is staying awake (as it is on a 3 hour boooooooooring drive). From what I understand you are constantly making corrections due to wind, air pressure and whatever else. I don't think it is as simple as holding the wheel straight. I recall telling someone to drive straight once when he asked for directions. His response was: Forward, not straight, straight is a hetero-normative term. And I was confused as fuck. Not related to planes, just recalling a memory.
Road trip with Plansix?
|
On January 18 2017 07:51 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 07:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 07:33 Cascade wrote:On January 18 2017 05:27 Epishade wrote:
If I pooped on a random stranger's baby, would they wipe the baby off first, or hit me first? Only one way to find out! Bear in mind that we need a minimum of 20 samples or so to even begin to get an idea of the frequency. Each sample also needs a control group, so make sure there are are at least 40 such events. What would the control be here? >_>
"shit" if I know what the "crap" this experiment is about :D
|
On January 18 2017 04:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 03:21 Yoav wrote:On January 18 2017 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But when you start getting specific--like "wife swap" or "gangbang" it is because you live in a society that has a stake in those ideals/fears. Both those fantasies, for example, are only kinky if you live in a society that expects monogamy to be the norm. If you live in a society where men have 5-6 wives each would gangbang videos be all that kinky if every household already has regular gangbangs?
I get what you're saying but very few polygynists actually do FFM sex. In traditional societies it was rare bordering on nonexistent. And of course polyandry is extremely rare on the face of it; the vast majority of MMF sex that has ever taken place was gang rape. Don't misunderstand my observation as a scientific statement. The culture we live in favors monogamy and heavily curbs poly relationships. Usually so much so that cultures that attempt to normalize poly relationships usually get attacked immediately to be stifled. As such, we fetishize "gangbangs" the same way we fetishize "monobangs/rape." Because neither are accepted as "allowed" but the fact that we have to specifically disallow it means that there is always the feeling of curiosity towards it in the society wherein it happens.
Right, but I'm saying there's a strong argument that sex is more a paired off thing for humans in general. Which makes sense, really: contra pornography, most women don't actually want to fuck a woman. Which leaves the second woman with less to do than you'd hope for in sex, because penises are pretty limited and 69ing only works so well (and in a threesome it's hard to find a relaxing way to receive oral sex for the second woman).
|
On January 18 2017 09:47 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 04:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 03:21 Yoav wrote:On January 18 2017 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But when you start getting specific--like "wife swap" or "gangbang" it is because you live in a society that has a stake in those ideals/fears. Both those fantasies, for example, are only kinky if you live in a society that expects monogamy to be the norm. If you live in a society where men have 5-6 wives each would gangbang videos be all that kinky if every household already has regular gangbangs?
I get what you're saying but very few polygynists actually do FFM sex. In traditional societies it was rare bordering on nonexistent. And of course polyandry is extremely rare on the face of it; the vast majority of MMF sex that has ever taken place was gang rape. Don't misunderstand my observation as a scientific statement. The culture we live in favors monogamy and heavily curbs poly relationships. Usually so much so that cultures that attempt to normalize poly relationships usually get attacked immediately to be stifled. As such, we fetishize "gangbangs" the same way we fetishize "monobangs/rape." Because neither are accepted as "allowed" but the fact that we have to specifically disallow it means that there is always the feeling of curiosity towards it in the society wherein it happens. Right, but I'm saying there's a strong argument that sex is more a paired off thing for humans in general. Which makes sense, really: contra pornography, most women don't actually want to fuck a woman. Which leaves the second woman with less to do than you'd hope for in sex, because penises are pretty limited and 69ing only works so well (and in a threesome it's hard to find a relaxing way to receive oral sex for the second woman).
Fantasies, roleplay, etc.. is not really about what happens to one's genitals...
As an example: I have a friend who is in a poly relationship, because she gets turned on by watching her partner fuck other women. So she'd watch him fuck someone else, get turned on, then fuck him afterwards. The other girl, more interested in the guy, simply wants to fuck him. The guy, being fairly typical, gets turned on by threesomes, and so the three of them also engage in that. But its not a pure "this is the way we have sex since we are poly." Instead, each person in the relationship has different wants and needs, and the members of the relationship discuss and engage as to how each member's needs are fulfilled.
But yes, most people I am aware of usually simplify sex into binary experiences, even when fantasizing or roleplaying poly experiences. For example, lots of couples roleplay non-consent scenarios by just talking about what it would be like having a 3rd person show up to threaten one or more of the partners involved, and after their imaginations turn them on, then they have normal sex save for the the images in their mind.
Its super interesting how humans treat both their imaginations and their physical needs.
|
On January 18 2017 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 00:18 JimmiC wrote:On January 17 2017 16:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 17 2017 16:47 xM(Z wrote:On January 17 2017 15:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 16 2017 16:38 xM(Z wrote:
watching hour long pornos for a 30 sec wank ... ; first world problem?.
imo(not really), sex doesn't happen in the brain; it happens in the genitalia area and in the spine.
if you're looking for meaning or context in a porno you're done for. any transposition of "material" from movies to real life = damage.
Edit: and yea, look at the dude that was living and dying by consent getting a hard on on women being tricked/bullied into submission. If you are unable to understand the difference between fantasies and transposition then you really should not be on the internet. People who are unable to see a difference between those two usually are best in mental hospitals. Has your family come to get you yet? the question is, why do you bite?; i'm known to deliver so, this goes like this: - acknowledge that your particular fantasy is a choice(between other fantasies) and that no one forces you to make it; - realize that you make that choice based on something real; something in your brain clicks and goes: yep, this is is, i'm getting excited. - know that if the above doesn't happen you choose another fantasy and if there are none to trigger that response in the brain, you don't watch porn because it does nothing to you. sure you can argue if it's a nature or nurture/culture based choice, but the fact of it being a preference is what makes it go beyond a fantasy, it's what makes it real in some way. did i get it right so far?. You bite based on options provided and what the culture deems good, bad, or unsavory, contextualized by your own biases responding to the rules stated by your culture. For example: people who get turned on by cars do not get turned on by cars because their DNA understands what a car is and is turned on it. A person is turned on by cars because he lives in a society where cars exist, are acknowledged, and are given both a social worth and a social relevance. Hence, how turned on you are is based solely on the social group you are in or attach yourself into. It is a dialogue based on what you believe the world to be, what your place is in that world, and what you want that placement in that world to be. This is super baseline stuff. Its a bit embarrassing that I have to explain it to you, but I understand kids like you are so desperate to sound adult in the internet you'll just say whatever you think sounds edgy. I may be miss interpreting your post because I am reading it out of context (I don't read XMZ posts, he is like JimmyjRaynor is in the sports threads and I can only handle one troll/moron where you can't tell which is which) But I think turn on's have very little to our Culture. I think because it's in our heads and for the most part kept private and intimate the one thing many people will not care about culture. I think it is a nature nurture discussion with the nurture crushing the nature. Like for nature there usually needs some nakedness and sex of some kind. But I think it's experiences that lead to turn ons. Either what made you have your first boner (or turn on for girls) Or some other event in child hood can make what people would consider normal turn ons or odd fetishes. I do think culture plays a roll in some ways. Like people love to be naughty in the porn. If culture was accepting of interracial you wouldn't see "black guy does white woman" as often. It's interesting that often times I'll watch shit I would never want to do in real life, more then stuff I would actually want to do. I agree. XMZ said: if you're looking for meaning or context in a porno you're done for. any transposition of "material" from movies to real life = damage. Suggesting that porn having meaning and context being enjoyed by the viewer is that person trying to transpose the material into his real life. ie, if you watch something you obviously want to do that thing you watched. I am telling him that imagination is not that limited, but that turn-ons are usually limited to what is around you. Can't have an astronaut fetish in the 1200s for example, since there are no astronauts. Can't have a Taylor Swift fetish in 1776, because Taylor Swift wasn't born yet. There will be instinctual things--being straight, being gay, being a man, being a woman, being a man born as a woman, being a woman born as a man, etc... that sets up your initial sensors. But when you start getting specific--like "wife swap" or "gangbang" it is because you live in a society that has a stake in those ideals/fears. Both those fantasies, for example, are only kinky if you live in a society that expects monogamy to be the norm. If you live in a society where men have 5-6 wives each would gangbang videos be all that kinky if every household already has regular gangbangs? It does reveal societal tensions; like your example of Black on White sex being considered a taboo, or Yellow Fever videos, or "Young Co-Ed" Videos, or Non-Consent Videos, etc... It presents a reality that we are supposed to be both okay with something happening even if we also are supposed to not be okay with those same things happening. so you think damage doesn't exist because (sexual)norms don't exist; that's hippie talk.
sexuality is disputed like never before but there is a definition out there(outdated but still): ...therefore, a common definition used worldwide comes from the DSM-IV (which was not redefined in DSM-5):
“recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving i) non-human objects, ii) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or iii) children or other non-consenting persons that occur over a period of at least 6 months” (p.566, [6]). with the followingDue to societal shift on what is defined as sexually deviant the use of ‘paraphilic’ has significantly changed over time, and within cultures, and thus strict definitions of a paraphilia are problematic [10,11], and the chair of DSM-V paraphilias subwork group proposed a new definition of paraphilia as:
“any powerful and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in copulatory or pre-copulatory behaviour with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners” (p.367; [12]). and a closing The lack of a grounded basis as to what paraphilia is has had dramatic implications on DSM-5 and may impact on the future release of ICD-11. Paraphilia as a concept is “vulnerable to societal pressures rather than advances in science” (p.249, [5]), and so diagnosis may be grounded more in societal norms than in psychiatric health. Keenan [18] in her criticism suggests the inclusion of ‘paraphilic disorders’ in DSM-5 as redundant, unscientific and stigmatizing, and may cause personal distress by categorizing engagement in, or urges for, atypical sexual behavior as a psychiatric disorder. Some might think that this has parallels in the way certain states today still persecute gay and lesbian individuals who can legitimately seek asylum in ‘neoliberal’ states such as the U.S. [19]. This raises concerns as to whether such a category should be included at all for psychiatric diagnosis [2], and further needs to be considered with criminal and legal proceedings in mind. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769077/ (because yea, those examples you listed are not fetishes)
so for now the consensus is: don't define stuff because people get hurt ...
as to my point, it doesn't matter on what one gets fixated on(that would obviously depend on <current environment>) but whom or what drives the fixation. Tailor S. doesn't kick start ones fixation. the person with the itch is looking for something to fixate on, finds Swift and goes - ok, that will do; then starts jerking off or something.
when only some fixate, a definition could be made that would see the ones fixating on things as damaged; and there are such definitions. psychopathology does just that: comes up with definitions for things(like personality disorders with symptoms that are an abnormal or maladaptive expression of traits) then has the psychiatrists/psychologists cure them.
both the extent of the damage and the meaning of the word varies from destroyed/broken to blemished/imperfect or from object fixation to human fixation. define normal then you will find the damaged.
as for the desire for (some)fantasies to become true there was a study (via phone + internet) published in " Journal of Sexual Medicine" (related article http://www.medicaldaily.com/defining-sexual-deviance-are-your-fantasies-unusual-and-dangerous-or-just-typical-308650 ) Women can clearly draw the line between desire and fantasy. So while most will fantasize about themes associated with submission, few will actually want to do it. Men, on the other hand, report that they would love their fantasies to come true. and we were talking about internet porn and about wanting to.
(the rest + Show Spoiler +That Christian Grey has unusual sexual preferences is a well-known fact for all fans of “Fifty Shades Of Grey.” But Christian's sexual fantasies are more like a natural a deviation from the mean; on the other hand, there are some fantasies that can be considered atypical.
At least, that's what new research from the Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal and Institut Philippe-Pinel de Montréal, affiliated with University of Montreal, says. In a study published today in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, a team of researchers has attempted to, for the first time, provide a scientific definition for "sexual deviation."
Atypical fantasies are not a new topic. There has been ample amount of literature on the subject, ranging from discussions on incorporating the concept of paraphilia to sexual interest in atypical objects or partners. The fifth edition of the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) explains "anomalous" fantasies while the World Health Organization has published on "unusual" fantasies in defining "paraphilias"—atypical sexual interests that either cause mental distress to a person, or makes the person a serious threat to the psychol;ogical and physical well being of other individuals (according to the DSM-5). While these past efforts address important issues related to the diagnostic criteria of paraphilia, they do not define what comprises an unusual sexual fantasy.
"Clinically, we know what pathological sexual fantasies are: they involve non-consenting partners, they induce pain, or they are absolutely necessary in deriving satisfaction. But apart from that, what exactly are abnormal or atypical fantasies? To find out, we asked people in the general population, as simple as that," said lead author Christian Joyal, in a statement.
"Our main objective was to specify norms in sexual fantasies, an essential step in defining pathologies," Joyal noted. "And as we suspected, there are a lot more common fantasies than atypical fantasies. So there is a certain amount of value judgment in the DSM-5,” he says referring to the fact that the DSM-5 clearly acknowledges that paraphilias may not always be pathological.
The study was conducted on university students. The adults willing to share their sexual fantasies included 1,517 Quebec adults (799 men and 718 women whose mean age was 30 years) who answered a questionnaire describing their favorite fantasy in detail.
Some of the more interesting results:
The general population has varied sexual fantasies. Fantasies can be grouped into rare, unusual, or typical categories. While fantasizing sex with a horse is rare, dreaming of a threesome is quite typical while thinking of “golden showers” is downright unusual.
Men report having more fantasies and were willing to describe them in more detail than women.
A significant number of women dream of submissive sex (e.g., being tied up, spanked, forced to have sex).
Women can clearly draw the line between desire and fantasy. So while most will fantasize about themes associated with submission, few will actually want to do it. Men, on the other hand, report that they would love their fantasies to come true.
Women seem to be generally more faithful than me: while women fantasize having their better halves in their sexual escapades, men more often dream of extramarital relationships.
There were a significant number of males reporting fantasies including shemales, anal sex among heterosexuals, and watching their partner have sex with another man.
"The subject is fascinating," said Joyal. The next step? Joyal says his team will be conducting statistical analyses of the data to" demonstrate the existence of homogeneous subgroups of individuals based on combinations of fantasies." The example he offers is that people who have submission fantasies also often report domination fantasies. In other words, though Christian Grey is ostensibly (spoiler alert) a sadist, he might also turn out to be, secretly, a masochist.
|
On January 18 2017 17:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 00:18 JimmiC wrote:On January 17 2017 16:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 17 2017 16:47 xM(Z wrote:On January 17 2017 15:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 16 2017 16:38 xM(Z wrote:
watching hour long pornos for a 30 sec wank ... ; first world problem?.
imo(not really), sex doesn't happen in the brain; it happens in the genitalia area and in the spine.
if you're looking for meaning or context in a porno you're done for. any transposition of "material" from movies to real life = damage.
Edit: and yea, look at the dude that was living and dying by consent getting a hard on on women being tricked/bullied into submission. If you are unable to understand the difference between fantasies and transposition then you really should not be on the internet. People who are unable to see a difference between those two usually are best in mental hospitals. Has your family come to get you yet? the question is, why do you bite?; i'm known to deliver so, this goes like this: - acknowledge that your particular fantasy is a choice(between other fantasies) and that no one forces you to make it; - realize that you make that choice based on something real; something in your brain clicks and goes: yep, this is is, i'm getting excited. - know that if the above doesn't happen you choose another fantasy and if there are none to trigger that response in the brain, you don't watch porn because it does nothing to you. sure you can argue if it's a nature or nurture/culture based choice, but the fact of it being a preference is what makes it go beyond a fantasy, it's what makes it real in some way. did i get it right so far?. You bite based on options provided and what the culture deems good, bad, or unsavory, contextualized by your own biases responding to the rules stated by your culture. For example: people who get turned on by cars do not get turned on by cars because their DNA understands what a car is and is turned on it. A person is turned on by cars because he lives in a society where cars exist, are acknowledged, and are given both a social worth and a social relevance. Hence, how turned on you are is based solely on the social group you are in or attach yourself into. It is a dialogue based on what you believe the world to be, what your place is in that world, and what you want that placement in that world to be. This is super baseline stuff. Its a bit embarrassing that I have to explain it to you, but I understand kids like you are so desperate to sound adult in the internet you'll just say whatever you think sounds edgy. I may be miss interpreting your post because I am reading it out of context (I don't read XMZ posts, he is like JimmyjRaynor is in the sports threads and I can only handle one troll/moron where you can't tell which is which) But I think turn on's have very little to our Culture. I think because it's in our heads and for the most part kept private and intimate the one thing many people will not care about culture. I think it is a nature nurture discussion with the nurture crushing the nature. Like for nature there usually needs some nakedness and sex of some kind. But I think it's experiences that lead to turn ons. Either what made you have your first boner (or turn on for girls) Or some other event in child hood can make what people would consider normal turn ons or odd fetishes. I do think culture plays a roll in some ways. Like people love to be naughty in the porn. If culture was accepting of interracial you wouldn't see "black guy does white woman" as often. It's interesting that often times I'll watch shit I would never want to do in real life, more then stuff I would actually want to do. I agree. XMZ said: if you're looking for meaning or context in a porno you're done for. any transposition of "material" from movies to real life = damage. Suggesting that porn having meaning and context being enjoyed by the viewer is that person trying to transpose the material into his real life. ie, if you watch something you obviously want to do that thing you watched. I am telling him that imagination is not that limited, but that turn-ons are usually limited to what is around you. Can't have an astronaut fetish in the 1200s for example, since there are no astronauts. Can't have a Taylor Swift fetish in 1776, because Taylor Swift wasn't born yet. There will be instinctual things--being straight, being gay, being a man, being a woman, being a man born as a woman, being a woman born as a man, etc... that sets up your initial sensors. But when you start getting specific--like "wife swap" or "gangbang" it is because you live in a society that has a stake in those ideals/fears. Both those fantasies, for example, are only kinky if you live in a society that expects monogamy to be the norm. If you live in a society where men have 5-6 wives each would gangbang videos be all that kinky if every household already has regular gangbangs? It does reveal societal tensions; like your example of Black on White sex being considered a taboo, or Yellow Fever videos, or "Young Co-Ed" Videos, or Non-Consent Videos, etc... It presents a reality that we are supposed to be both okay with something happening even if we also are supposed to not be okay with those same things happening. so you think damage doesn't exist because (sexual)norms don't exist; that's hippie talk. sexuality is disputed like never before but there is a definition out there(outdated but still): Show nested quote +...therefore, a common definition used worldwide comes from the DSM-IV (which was not redefined in DSM-5):
“recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving i) non-human objects, ii) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or iii) children or other non-consenting persons that occur over a period of at least 6 months” (p.566, [6]). with the following Show nested quote +Due to societal shift on what is defined as sexually deviant the use of ‘paraphilic’ has significantly changed over time, and within cultures, and thus strict definitions of a paraphilia are problematic [10,11], and the chair of DSM-V paraphilias subwork group proposed a new definition of paraphilia as:
“any powerful and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in copulatory or pre-copulatory behaviour with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners” (p.367; [12]). and a closing Show nested quote +The lack of a grounded basis as to what paraphilia is has had dramatic implications on DSM-5 and may impact on the future release of ICD-11. Paraphilia as a concept is “vulnerable to societal pressures rather than advances in science” (p.249, [5]), and so diagnosis may be grounded more in societal norms than in psychiatric health. Keenan [18] in her criticism suggests the inclusion of ‘paraphilic disorders’ in DSM-5 as redundant, unscientific and stigmatizing, and may cause personal distress by categorizing engagement in, or urges for, atypical sexual behavior as a psychiatric disorder. Some might think that this has parallels in the way certain states today still persecute gay and lesbian individuals who can legitimately seek asylum in ‘neoliberal’ states such as the U.S. [19]. This raises concerns as to whether such a category should be included at all for psychiatric diagnosis [2], and further needs to be considered with criminal and legal proceedings in mind. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769077/ (because yea, those examples you listed are not fetishes) so for now the consensus is: don't define stuff because people get hurt ... as to my point, it doesn't matter on what one gets fixated on(that would obviously depend on <current environment>) but whom or what drives the fixation. Tailor S. doesn't kick start ones fixation. the person with the itch is looking for something to fixate on, finds Swift and goes - ok, that will do; then starts jerking off or something. when only some fixate, a definition could be made that would see the ones fixating on things as damaged; and there are such definitions. psychopathology does just that: comes up with definitions for things(like personality disorders with symptoms that are an abnormal or maladaptive expression of traits) then has the psychiatrists/psychologists cure them. both the extent of the damage and the meaning of the word varies from destroyed/broken to blemished/imperfect or from object fixation to human fixation. define normal then you will find the damaged. as for the desire for (some)fantasies to become true there was a study (via phone + internet) published in " Journal of Sexual Medicine" (related article http://www.medicaldaily.com/defining-sexual-deviance-are-your-fantasies-unusual-and-dangerous-or-just-typical-308650 ) Show nested quote +Women can clearly draw the line between desire and fantasy. So while most will fantasize about themes associated with submission, few will actually want to do it. Men, on the other hand, report that they would love their fantasies to come true. and we were talking about internet porn and about wanting to. (the rest + Show Spoiler +That Christian Grey has unusual sexual preferences is a well-known fact for all fans of “Fifty Shades Of Grey.” But Christian's sexual fantasies are more like a natural a deviation from the mean; on the other hand, there are some fantasies that can be considered atypical.
At least, that's what new research from the Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal and Institut Philippe-Pinel de Montréal, affiliated with University of Montreal, says. In a study published today in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, a team of researchers has attempted to, for the first time, provide a scientific definition for "sexual deviation."
Atypical fantasies are not a new topic. There has been ample amount of literature on the subject, ranging from discussions on incorporating the concept of paraphilia to sexual interest in atypical objects or partners. The fifth edition of the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) explains "anomalous" fantasies while the World Health Organization has published on "unusual" fantasies in defining "paraphilias"—atypical sexual interests that either cause mental distress to a person, or makes the person a serious threat to the psychol;ogical and physical well being of other individuals (according to the DSM-5). While these past efforts address important issues related to the diagnostic criteria of paraphilia, they do not define what comprises an unusual sexual fantasy.
"Clinically, we know what pathological sexual fantasies are: they involve non-consenting partners, they induce pain, or they are absolutely necessary in deriving satisfaction. But apart from that, what exactly are abnormal or atypical fantasies? To find out, we asked people in the general population, as simple as that," said lead author Christian Joyal, in a statement.
"Our main objective was to specify norms in sexual fantasies, an essential step in defining pathologies," Joyal noted. "And as we suspected, there are a lot more common fantasies than atypical fantasies. So there is a certain amount of value judgment in the DSM-5,” he says referring to the fact that the DSM-5 clearly acknowledges that paraphilias may not always be pathological.
The study was conducted on university students. The adults willing to share their sexual fantasies included 1,517 Quebec adults (799 men and 718 women whose mean age was 30 years) who answered a questionnaire describing their favorite fantasy in detail.
Some of the more interesting results:
The general population has varied sexual fantasies. Fantasies can be grouped into rare, unusual, or typical categories. While fantasizing sex with a horse is rare, dreaming of a threesome is quite typical while thinking of “golden showers” is downright unusual.
Men report having more fantasies and were willing to describe them in more detail than women.
A significant number of women dream of submissive sex (e.g., being tied up, spanked, forced to have sex).
Women can clearly draw the line between desire and fantasy. So while most will fantasize about themes associated with submission, few will actually want to do it. Men, on the other hand, report that they would love their fantasies to come true.
Women seem to be generally more faithful than me: while women fantasize having their better halves in their sexual escapades, men more often dream of extramarital relationships.
There were a significant number of males reporting fantasies including shemales, anal sex among heterosexuals, and watching their partner have sex with another man.
"The subject is fascinating," said Joyal. The next step? Joyal says his team will be conducting statistical analyses of the data to" demonstrate the existence of homogeneous subgroups of individuals based on combinations of fantasies." The example he offers is that people who have submission fantasies also often report domination fantasies. In other words, though Christian Grey is ostensibly (spoiler alert) a sadist, he might also turn out to be, secretly, a masochist. ).
Get your homophobic bullshit off this forum. Citing a paper whose references and conclusions focuses on homosexual deviance and the legal actions that need to be taken on said deviants is a new low for you.
|
first article i quoted makes a quick summary on (sexual)norms and when talking about the history of it, for claims like + Show Spoiler +Various ‘preferences’ and sexual interests have fallen in and out of being defined as paraphilic, for example, up until 1973 homosexuality was classified as paraphilic under the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders)-II. Its subsequent removal led to some arguing that if homosexual orientation is not in itself abnormal, then the inclusion of other sexual behaviors classified as paraphilic cannot be justified as a concept and should be removed entirely from future editions [2]. Cantor [3] further outlined how even the interpretation of the word ‘paraphilia’ can dramatically alter what falls under its definition. 2. Silverstein C. The implications of removing homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder. Arch Sex Behav. 2009;38:161–3. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9442-x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref] http://f1000.com/prime/7180745433. Cantor JM. Is homosexuality a paraphilia? The evidence for and against. Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41:237–47. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9900-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] http://f1000.com/prime/718074544Conclusion
Delineating what is normal versus deviant or disordered sexuality is one of the biggest challenges when using the term paraphilia. The definitions under paraphilia within the DSM have been highly debated and highly controversial [22], and, given the lack of change to definitions and diagnostic criteria in the real sense, this would seem set to continue. The malleability of sexual pleasure across time and cultures creates problems for those defining and diagnosing paraphilia and the efficacy of treatment of paraphilias synonymous with sexual offending is inconclusive. The ability to imprison and/or commit an individual based on their future “dangerousness” using a mental disorder or psychiatric criterion as justification [35,36] may potentially violate due process rights [37]. At the heart of the issues still lies the much debated question: “what justifies the classification of a source of sexual pleasure or a type of sexual activity as a mental disorder” ([22] p.195)?
the other study has nothing to do with homosexuality either but if anyone is interested in the full table of the researchers' findings + Show Spoiler +, so i don't know what that guy was smoking.
|
On January 19 2017 04:46 xM(Z wrote:first article i quoted makes a quick summary on (sexual)norms and when talking about the history of it, for claims like + Show Spoiler +Various ‘preferences’ and sexual interests have fallen in and out of being defined as paraphilic, for example, up until 1973 homosexuality was classified as paraphilic under the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders)-II. Its subsequent removal led to some arguing that if homosexual orientation is not in itself abnormal, then the inclusion of other sexual behaviors classified as paraphilic cannot be justified as a concept and should be removed entirely from future editions [2]. Cantor [3] further outlined how even the interpretation of the word ‘paraphilia’ can dramatically alter what falls under its definition. it has to give credits + Show Spoiler +2. Silverstein C. The implications of removing homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder. Arch Sex Behav. 2009;38:161–3. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9442-x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref] http://f1000.com/prime/7180745433. Cantor JM. Is homosexuality a paraphilia? The evidence for and against. Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41:237–47. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9900-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] http://f1000.com/prime/718074544 and the conclusion has nothing to do with homosexuality + Show Spoiler +Conclusion
Delineating what is normal versus deviant or disordered sexuality is one of the biggest challenges when using the term paraphilia. The definitions under paraphilia within the DSM have been highly debated and highly controversial [22], and, given the lack of change to definitions and diagnostic criteria in the real sense, this would seem set to continue. The malleability of sexual pleasure across time and cultures creates problems for those defining and diagnosing paraphilia and the efficacy of treatment of paraphilias synonymous with sexual offending is inconclusive. The ability to imprison and/or commit an individual based on their future “dangerousness” using a mental disorder or psychiatric criterion as justification [35,36] may potentially violate due process rights [37]. At the heart of the issues still lies the much debated question: “what justifies the classification of a source of sexual pleasure or a type of sexual activity as a mental disorder” ([22] p.195)? . the other study has nothing to do with homosexuality either but if anyone is interested in the full table of the researchers' findings + Show Spoiler +, so i don't know what that guy was smoking.
Please read your article.
It deems sex that is anything but:
any powerful and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in copulatory or pre-copulatory behaviour with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners
A possible mental disorder and is upset when they can't just jail any non-breeding couples because:
The ability to imprison and/or commit an individual based on their future “dangerousness” using a mental disorder or psychiatric criterion as justification [35,36] may potentially violate due process rights [37].
That is some homophobic bullshit supported by the fact that the sources for the study is comparing Homosexual behavior with Mental Disorders; wherein the only conclusion it makes is that they couldn't find a way to ignore due process.
Get this kind of hate articles out of this website. At least pretend to be a decent human being when posting here.
|
the article doesn't make its own conclusions; almost all lines are quoted for from the linked articles.
[35,36] are legal cases and [37] is an argument on the definition of paraphilia.
35 - Kansas v. Crane 534 U.S. 407 (2002) CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 00-957. Argued October 30, 200l-Decided January 22, 2002
In upholding the constitutionality of the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, this Court characterized a dangerous sexual offender's confinement as civil rather than criminal, Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346, 369, and held that the confinement criterion embodied in the statute's words "mental abnormality or personality disorder" satisfied substantive due process, id., at 356, 360. Here, the Kansas District Court ordered the civil commitment of respondent Crane, a previously convicted sexual offender. In reversing, the State Supreme Court concluded that Hendricks requires a finding that the defendant cannot control his dangerous behavior-even if (as provided by Kansas law) problems of emotional, and not volitional, capacity prove the source of behavior warranting commitment. And the trial court had made no such finding.
36 - KANSAS v. HENDRICKS
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 95-1649. Argued December 10, 1996-Decided June 23,1997*
Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act establishes procedures for the civil commitment of persons who, due to a "mental abnormality" or a "personality disorder," are likely to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence." Kansas filed a petition under the Act in state court to commit respondent (and cross-petitioner) Hendricks, who had a long history of sexually molesting children and was scheduled for release from prison. The court reserved ruling on Hendricks' challenge to the Act's constitutionality, but granted his request for a jury trial. After Hendricks testified that he agreed with the state physician's diagnosis that he suffers from pedophilia and is not cured and that he continues to harbor sexual desires for children that he cannot control when he gets "stressed out," the jury determined that he was a sexually violent predator. Finding that pedophilia qualifies as a mental abnormality under the Act, the court ordered him committed. On appeal, the State Supreme Court invalidated the Act on the ground that the pre commitment condition of a "mental abnormality" did not satisfy what it perceived to be the "substantive" due process requirement that involuntary civil commitment must be predicated on a "mental illness" finding. It did not address Hendricks' ex post facto and double jeopardy claims.
and [37] is - Abstract
Blanchard (2009a, 2009b, 2009c) proposed a definition of paraphilia for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-5, delimiting a range of so-called normative sexuality and defining paraphilia as any intense and persistent sexual interest other than that. The author examines the wording and intended meaning of this definition, and he argues that there are many problems with it that "correct" interpretation requires ignoring what it says. Because of these problems and the possibility of civil commitment under sexually violent predator/person laws on the basis of a diagnosis of paraphilia NOS, caution and careful consideration of grammar and wording is urged in drafting a definition for paraphilia for DSM-5. there's nothing about homosexuals in there; it's all in your head. you can try as much as you want but the homophobia issue is again - all in your head.
to throw you a silver lining, i know of articles in which researchers take the subset of homosexuality and split it into normal gay and deviant gay subsets. good luck there.
Edit: yea and welcome to the world in which definitions matter/need to exist for medical and legal purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
