Reduxx can reveal that the man who led a decades-long campaign pressuring the World Health Organization (WHO) to destigmatize fetishism, sadomasochism, and fetishistic transvestism, which is now included under the transgender umbrella, was a celebrated gay rights activist who ran a BDSM dungeon in Oslo.
There seem to be a lot of those who we end up finding out were destructive manipulative perverts the whole time they were pretending to fight for love 💕
It’s probably evolutionary as regards your first sentence. However I’ve never committed an actual rape and neither has any man I’ve known in meatspace or otherwise.
It's the leap from "not a psychiatric disorder" to "good to display in public" that seems to be the nub of the problem. I think the WHO is right to say there's no need to list as a disorder mental states for which treatment is not needed or sought. But why it should then follow that such behaviours can be on public display or in front of children is beyond me. Most adults know not to have sex in the presence of children, or to dress or act in an excessively sexualised way. There are social norms. So why does removing BDSM as a disorder means people can wear BDSM clothing on the street, in a TV studio or in the classroom?
I bet the WHO did not intend that to be the consequence of removing those disorders. Or do you think they did intend that?
You realize that almost all crimes are not listed as disorders. Because they’re not. They’re just WRONG.
I agree with the gist of your tone here. There is movement to remove both ASPD (psychopathy, sociopathy) and pedophilia as disorders along the same grounds.
We can only hope that this dead degenerate enjoys Satan’s dungeon at this very moment. May he be so busy with enduring his beloved torture that he never gets to exist in human flesh again.
Transvestic fetishism is not a private behavior. Before it became so publicly exhibitionist, such men acted out their fetishes on their wives and children. Sadomasochistic behavior is also associated with sexual crimes against women and children.
Having sexual pathologies classified as such assists in court cases involving sex offending based on such behavior. When you normalize sexual pathology you normalize that type of sexual offending. We can clearly see this in cases where trans widows have been accused of discrimination for wanting to divorce their fetishistic husbands.
I understand the argument but respectfully disagree.
Utility as a legal separation strategy seems a poor reason for classifying an unwanted sexual behavior as a mental illness.
Let me tell you why.
Gay ‘widows’ have the same issue. With age, many men find it unbearable to suppress bisexuality or homosexuality, and without any desire to be abusive they acknowledge they can’t continue their heterosexual sex life, it has become intolerable.
I know several men who were married with children, and came out to their spouse, and when it was handled well, it resulted in amicable divorce and both partners reconstituting their life. No mental illness was involved.
The issue is managing the spousal revelation and feelings, not the behavior. Adding leverage as a legal strategy seems likely to exacerbate already poor situations.
If a spouse revealed they had a fetishistic enjoyment with heights, and wanted their spouse to participate, is that a mental disorder?
Fetishes by their nature can be quite peculiar because the way they arise in life. I frequently meet people who enjoy Lycra spandex clothing, jockstraps, or rubber.
It’s very hard for me to consider that a mental illness.
Spouses who reveal these behaviors accompanied with abuse are abusive spouses. There’s only a single legal issue to me.
A fetish is not the same as sexual orientation. Skeid advocated for recognizing paraphilias as identities. This perspective is what facilitated the framing of women who oppose public fetishism as "bigots" or "transphobes." It is also the same reasoning - as I described in the article - being used to soften language around pedophilia.
Genevieve literally had to explain to this "let me tell you why" critical dumbass what *private behavior* means. If it's private, why does it affect larger society? If it's private, why public displays of it?
You argue that you know about individuals living in these situations. I do as well.
Minimizing the effects on family members is the very definition of blindness/dishonesty : many spouses/girlfriends get to « consent » to please their partners, not the other way around. Furthermore, would you know about this circle, you’d certainly not ignore that paraphilias are usually going along with other highly dangerous sexual behaviors such as pedophilia which is everything but a private matter but an entire society’s issue. Overlooking it by stressing that pedophilia occurs in other circles such as families makes you a creep, to say the least.
Btw, why would kids’ education go through these fringe topics to please fetishistic men ? Bc these men come in disguise with a human rights’ shield : It is not & including minors into such an « education » is def sick & harmful.
If you don’t admit this, get your sh** together & stay away from underages.
And maybe work on your utter misogyny.
We, women/mothers won’t allow it, especially when most prolific pedo activists made it clear through history how much mothers are their worst enemies.
This is exactly what you sound & trust women to be perfectly aware of the red flags you’re displaying here while pretending it’s only a « morals » issue or a humans’ rights matter.
all sorts of "private" behaviours could fall into the categaory of deviant, mental illness or are even illegal - consider child abuse, assault (often described as domestic violence), addiction to substances, et al
I genuinely don’t understand how you ended up on this page.
Abuse is not only illegal, for obvious reasons, but also, when societies gather enough resources to « help » abusive ppl not to reoffend, psychiatry is the only field involved. When shrinks are into it, there are disorders. Simple as that.
Depathologizing is the best way to avoid the consequences of such patterns & normalizing anti social behaviors deemed to harm society as a whole & individuals. Stay in your lane mate.
“Abuse,” assault, and indeed almost all crime for that matter is not mentally disordered. Criminals are in general quite sane.
Most crime falls into the areas of moral philosophy and law. These are matters of right and wrong and good and bad, not crazy and sane or disordered and nondisordred.
Just because psychologists are involved in something doesn’t mean it’s a mental disorder. Psychologists deal with the entire array of human behavior, not just mental illness.
A leading Gay Rights activist!!!!
There seem to be a lot of those who we end up finding out were destructive manipulative perverts the whole time they were pretending to fight for love 💕
Is there any more proof positive that males are designed to be predators and war mongers and rapists?
I feel such heartbreak for women who birth men...I was fortunate to deliver a beautiful girl into this world.
But, good gawd, these horrific men have mothers...What the actual?????????????
It’s probably evolutionary as regards your first sentence. However I’ve never committed an actual rape and neither has any man I’ve known in meatspace or otherwise.
vomit
It's the leap from "not a psychiatric disorder" to "good to display in public" that seems to be the nub of the problem. I think the WHO is right to say there's no need to list as a disorder mental states for which treatment is not needed or sought. But why it should then follow that such behaviours can be on public display or in front of children is beyond me. Most adults know not to have sex in the presence of children, or to dress or act in an excessively sexualised way. There are social norms. So why does removing BDSM as a disorder means people can wear BDSM clothing on the street, in a TV studio or in the classroom?
I bet the WHO did not intend that to be the consequence of removing those disorders. Or do you think they did intend that?
You realize that almost all crimes are not listed as disorders. Because they’re not. They’re just WRONG.
I agree with the gist of your tone here. There is movement to remove both ASPD (psychopathy, sociopathy) and pedophilia as disorders along the same grounds.
We can only hope that this dead degenerate enjoys Satan’s dungeon at this very moment. May he be so busy with enduring his beloved torture that he never gets to exist in human flesh again.
I wasn’t even aware that this kind of private behavior was deemed a psychiatric illness. Live and learn.
Transvestic fetishism is not a private behavior. Before it became so publicly exhibitionist, such men acted out their fetishes on their wives and children. Sadomasochistic behavior is also associated with sexual crimes against women and children.
People who involve unwilling participants are problematic in all contexts, not just fetishistic transvesticism.
The vast majority of child and spousal abuse does not involve fetishistic transvestitism or BDSM.
Having sexual pathologies classified as such assists in court cases involving sex offending based on such behavior. When you normalize sexual pathology you normalize that type of sexual offending. We can clearly see this in cases where trans widows have been accused of discrimination for wanting to divorce their fetishistic husbands.
I understand the argument but respectfully disagree.
Utility as a legal separation strategy seems a poor reason for classifying an unwanted sexual behavior as a mental illness.
Let me tell you why.
Gay ‘widows’ have the same issue. With age, many men find it unbearable to suppress bisexuality or homosexuality, and without any desire to be abusive they acknowledge they can’t continue their heterosexual sex life, it has become intolerable.
I know several men who were married with children, and came out to their spouse, and when it was handled well, it resulted in amicable divorce and both partners reconstituting their life. No mental illness was involved.
The issue is managing the spousal revelation and feelings, not the behavior. Adding leverage as a legal strategy seems likely to exacerbate already poor situations.
If a spouse revealed they had a fetishistic enjoyment with heights, and wanted their spouse to participate, is that a mental disorder?
Fetishes by their nature can be quite peculiar because the way they arise in life. I frequently meet people who enjoy Lycra spandex clothing, jockstraps, or rubber.
It’s very hard for me to consider that a mental illness.
Spouses who reveal these behaviors accompanied with abuse are abusive spouses. There’s only a single legal issue to me.
A fetish is not the same as sexual orientation. Skeid advocated for recognizing paraphilias as identities. This perspective is what facilitated the framing of women who oppose public fetishism as "bigots" or "transphobes." It is also the same reasoning - as I described in the article - being used to soften language around pedophilia.
Genevieve literally had to explain to this "let me tell you why" critical dumbass what *private behavior* means. If it's private, why does it affect larger society? If it's private, why public displays of it?
The larger question is, “Is it a mental disorder?”
You argue that you know about individuals living in these situations. I do as well.
Minimizing the effects on family members is the very definition of blindness/dishonesty : many spouses/girlfriends get to « consent » to please their partners, not the other way around. Furthermore, would you know about this circle, you’d certainly not ignore that paraphilias are usually going along with other highly dangerous sexual behaviors such as pedophilia which is everything but a private matter but an entire society’s issue. Overlooking it by stressing that pedophilia occurs in other circles such as families makes you a creep, to say the least.
Btw, why would kids’ education go through these fringe topics to please fetishistic men ? Bc these men come in disguise with a human rights’ shield : It is not & including minors into such an « education » is def sick & harmful.
If you don’t admit this, get your sh** together & stay away from underages.
And maybe work on your utter misogyny.
We, women/mothers won’t allow it, especially when most prolific pedo activists made it clear through history how much mothers are their worst enemies.
This is exactly what you sound & trust women to be perfectly aware of the red flags you’re displaying here while pretending it’s only a « morals » issue or a humans’ rights matter.
How manipulative…
all sorts of "private" behaviours could fall into the categaory of deviant, mental illness or are even illegal - consider child abuse, assault (often described as domestic violence), addiction to substances, et al
Abuse is also not a psychiatric illness as far as I know. I found the article surprising.
I genuinely don’t understand how you ended up on this page.
Abuse is not only illegal, for obvious reasons, but also, when societies gather enough resources to « help » abusive ppl not to reoffend, psychiatry is the only field involved. When shrinks are into it, there are disorders. Simple as that.
Depathologizing is the best way to avoid the consequences of such patterns & normalizing anti social behaviors deemed to harm society as a whole & individuals. Stay in your lane mate.
“Abuse,” assault, and indeed almost all crime for that matter is not mentally disordered. Criminals are in general quite sane.
Most crime falls into the areas of moral philosophy and law. These are matters of right and wrong and good and bad, not crazy and sane or disordered and nondisordred.
Just because psychologists are involved in something doesn’t mean it’s a mental disorder. Psychologists deal with the entire array of human behavior, not just mental illness.
Sick