Nudes in the news

[John P]

Sorry, for some reason that address won't function as a URL when you just click on it. It seems to be OK if you copy the text and paste it into a browser address bar. It starts off like this:

DSM-5 Category: Paraphilic Disorders
Introduction

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) classifies the condition of Exhibitionistic Disorder as a mental health illness that centers on a need to expose one’s genitals to other people. The audience of this type of behavior is usually unsuspecting strangers; the result is sexual satisfaction for the exhibitionist. Exhibitionistic Disorder is classified under the larger category of Paraphilic Disorders. The term paraphilia refers to an intense sexual interest outside of normal genital stimulation. The majority of exhibitionists are males; and those with the disorder may deliberately arrange to be observed while having sex with other people. The behavior may be deliberate or unconscious; and the disorder may begin to manifest in the late teens or early adulthood. The DSM-5 does indicate that although all people with exhibitionistic disorder have a pattern of sexual conduct called exhibitionism, not all exhibitionists qualify for this diagnosis (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The DSM-5 clarifies and emphasizes that the definition for exhibitionistic disorder is separate from the definition for exhibitionism as a general pattern of behavior (Zucker, 2013).

Possibly the last couple of sentences could be confusing--"exhibitionistic disorder" as opposed to "exhibitionism as a general pattern of behavior". I'm not smart enough to sort that out.

[jbeegoode]

The last issue that I saw was DSM IV (TR) and these were still classified as disorders. I should clarify that this stuff is used by Psychiatrist as diagnosis and Psychologist also use it, because of the medical model that it supposes. It is used for billing and record keeping. It is driven strongly by insurance companies as a structure and validity as to billing.They want specifics for their bucks and prefer medical models. The exhibitionist and the voyeur are generally something of a forensic tool where somebody has already been busted for something and is in the legal works.

I have been scouring the web. We are now at the DSM V, which you refer to. There is a DSM V (R) a revised issue dealing with the controversy from the changes from the DSM IV changes to DSM V. I see no reference to the DSM VI out as of yet (maybe in 2020). So, I managed to find a revised pdf of the changes as of October 2017 and found nothing on any elimination of the disorders.

I was in a board meeting of the sweat alliance (TFSA) last spring and mentioned something about exhibitionism as we were reviewing a future "Code of Conduct." My psych Ph.D candidate spoke up and quite authoritatively corrected that the latest version had eliminated these two. I was stunned and relieved. Relieved because, one, I don't like classifying and two it is way subjective and complex a subject to not get conflicting and erroneous diagnosis from different people. Putting Jbee's inner rebel aside, I find no evidence that my friend is correct. Ph.D's are not infallible. They are often full of it, but he is a very bright young man in the thick of his career development.

So, at this point I'm certainly okay with what you have presented. My friend has since moved to Rode Island to pursue his research and do an internship. I'm going to get on him, even though I would be surprised to find that he was not just plain wrong. I'm thinking that his phone #changed and certainly, he isn't using his U of A email anymore. But I know who has been in contact.

That disorder vs. exhibitionism is pretty much as clear as mud, especially after one reads the DSM. One works for court better and one acknowledges that it is mostly hooey unless someone is really messed up with this kind of behavior. This is what I was referring to above. There can be misdiagnosis, labeling, confusing a therapist, wrong impressions read into someones behavior. I think it is dangerous. Not smart enough?! These are people that make a living, get in teams and write this stuff and they are not "smart" enough! They are arguing constantly about how they see the same thing. Just let me tell you about their BS IQ tests!

The best that I have found on the net is nearly 2 years old. He told me this just a few months ago. I suspect that those two years haven't changed such a controversial subject. I believe that I repeated some misinformation. Glad that you most likely corrected it.
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

I believe that men who say exhibitionism is harmless need to hear about it from a woman. As with a fair number of male behaviors, actually.

A lot of men complain about female behavior too.   Somehow behavior only becomes criminal when men do it.   I still see no harm in exhibitionism that rises to a level above being rude.  Nobody has ever been able to document someone suffering actual harm from seeing another member of his or her own species.  If such documentation exists, nobody has ever been able to point to it on the many time's I've asked on public forums.

I am not so condescending about women being too frail to see men.  Condescension is sometimes said to be the worst form of prejudice. Women are much stronger than fluffy flowers who fall into mush upon seeing a man.  Even when she cries, "Boo hoo, I'm a victim," no, she is not.

Reading the above link to DSM, the Shrinks say Exhibitionism is a form of "paraphilia" I had to look up a definition for paraphilia. 

Paraphilia is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals. Such attraction may be labeled sexual fetishism. No consensus has been found for any precise border between unusual sexual interests and paraphilic ones.Wikipedia

The shrinks are not able to form a consensus regarding what sexual interest is unusual and what is not.  On its face it could be argued that gay or lesbian is Paraphilia, but of course all the gay, lesbian, and PC shrinks would object to that just because.  Far better to attack men who get sexually aroused around women.   

I still fail to see where any exhibitionism amounts to anything more than being rude.   Despite all the hysteria, I have never seen any documented evidence that anyone of either sex or any age has ever actually been harmed by seeing another member of his or her own species.  In general, its another way to hate men and punish men as criminals for emotion driven behavior.  All that hate is just wrong for a decent society. 

[jbeegoode]

Amen.

The DSM gets into exhibitionism, leaning into it as an example of the act of having sex so that others can see. It is all about sex.

Some get off on a perceived power trip, still a sex thing.

John P. Somewhere along the line a woman needs to stand up. Maybe just get vocal. Some allow victimization. Some get a chip on their shoulder and become overzealous. Some women are as the men's behaviors that are complained about and feel liberated because of it. There is a whole lot of not knowing. It is a general social issue and everyone needs to see themselves in it, not just demonize one side. I don't know if we are disagreeing or agreeing, by your quote here, but...well here ya go, Jbee's take.

Jbee

[ddoger]

This is from an overview of the new dsm-5

PARAPHILIC DISORDERS • Paraphilic Disorders...
– Voyeuristic Disorder (spying on others in private activities)
– Exhibitionistic Disorder (exposing the genitals)
– Frotteuristic Disorders (touching or rubbing
against a nonconsenting individual)
– Sexual Masochism disorder (undergoing humiliation, bondage, or suffering)
– Pedophilic Disorder (sexual focus on childrren)
 
 PARAPHILIC DISORDERS • Paraphilic Disorders...
– Fetishistic Disorder (using nonliving objects or having a highly specific focus on nongenital body parts)
– Transvestic Disorder (engaging in sexually arousing cross-dressing)

[jbeegoode]

The overview doesn't relate where this becomes a problem. Most are common behaviors. Some are very common. Much of it is caused by oppressive, suppressive, social impositions that healthy nudity can diminish or make disappear. Some of it is nothing about nudity.

There is vague, grey line vehemently debated among these professionals about much of this. The question is, at what point does it define as a disorder?
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

The ordinary and accepted behavior of one generation can flip two generations down the line, in a manner of speaking. There are lots of examples. Slavery is perhaps the best example and it doesn't seem like there is really yet a consensus, to be honest about it. It's also another example of selective application of what is acceptable. In other words, if slavery is acceptable, then logically, anyone could be a slave. But enough about slavery.

Smoking was considered acceptable when I was little. That is, you could smoke almost anywhere and tobacco products could be sold to anyone. That's not generally true today. Ironically, certain other products for smoking seem to becoming more acceptable.

We, or Westerners generally, have always had a highly developed sense of hypocrisy. We looked the other way; we pretended things didn't exist or happen; and the law was anything but evenly applied. I imagine the reason was that people really didn't care. People on the other side of town was at the bottom of the list when it came to city or government services. But we didn't care because everything was just fine in our part of town. We never had a homeless problem because our servants the police ran them out of town or even arrested them. Every now and then a do-gooder would manage to get a slum neighborhood torn down and replaced with nice high-rise apartments and feel proud of their accomplishment, totally ignoring the fact that in reality, a neighborhood where people lived had been demolished, forcing the residents to move away. On more personal levels, we pretended that the neighbor who kept late hours was still a good husband or that another neighbor really didn't drink too much or beat his wife because we minded our own business, even if it was sometimes discussed over the kitchen table or the backyard fence when the kids weren't around. And sometimes lives could be destroyed by unfounded rumors. All of these things still happen, unfortunately.

[Greenbare Woods]

Brooks Koepka Slams Critics of Nude ESPN ‘Body Issue’: ‘They Don’t Have the Balls to Do It’

Watching the PGA Golf Tour Championship today.  $15,000,000 prize for winner.   One of the leaders is Brooks Kepka.  The TV golf coverage showed his nude photo which is larger than life on a building beside the parking lot where golfers arrive.  He sidestepped reporter questions and said he's just there to play golf.

I love to see this kind of publicity for major sports people being seen Larger Than Life naked and on major sports TV.  The announcers talked about it for several minutes.  It gives normalcy for nude champions and other people.  ESPN is a big sports TV venue so their publication of nude athletes is also good for nude in general.

PGA rules don't allow players to wear shorts, long pants, etc. are required on the golf course. 

Story:  https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2019/08/23/brooks-koepka-slams-critics-nude-espn-body-issue-they-dont-have-balls-to-do-it/

[BlueTrain]

Okay, but golf? Something wrong with bowling?

[Greenbare Woods]

Okay, but golf? Something wrong with bowling?

A lot of influential people pay and watch golf.  Getting nude among golfers is good publicity.

[jbeegoode]

Excellent publicity and then there are all of those meathead comments below from the Brieghtbart crowd. Interesting how they are threatened by him. He is either exalted, or slammed by hate, jealousy, or created concepts that try to hide or oppress the writer's inferiority feelings and anyone else that they can pick on. Same crowd, would attack us, for the same reasons. They are out there, they are the ones that we a concerned about, when we take a walk. Those with those same conversations going on inside of their brains when they see someone naked and they just don't understand.
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

Koepka ended up getting 2nd in the FedEx 2019 Tour Championship.   2nd Prize was $5 Million.  Being naked on the side of a barn at the tournament didn't seem to hurt his golf any.   Very good worldwide publicity for nudity, and for being comfortable being seen naked. 

[eyesup]

Golf spelled backwards is “FLOG”. Coincidence?

Duane

[BlueTrain]

Your thinking is backwards.

[jbeegoode]

Flogging is torture and punishment, correct?....
...yea.....
Jbee