But otherwise I agree with Mike. The DSM-IV happens to be the current bible for insurance and social work purposes. If there had been one fifty years ago, it would have listed homosexuality as an aberration, and then Brian would not be almost quoting from it.
Joanna
Mike Ferro wrote:
>These invocations of the DSM-IV by those who know nothing of it, for the
>purpose of attempting to inflate the power of an argument seems kinda "sick"
>to me.
>
>By the way, there's no mention of "sadism" in the DSM-IV. There are, however
>categoric designations for various types of abuse, physical, sexual and
>emotional of adults and children.
>
>The DSM-IV is hardly the last word in definition of mental disorders. It's
>value these days is mostly as a way of providing documentation for
>health-insurance purposes. Often therapists will consult with their clients
>as to how they want to be described, so that the insurance money will flow.
>
>Mike Ferro
>
>
>on 9/20/04 8:24 AM, ravi at gadfly at exitleft.org wrote:
>
>
>
>>Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Chris Doss writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Being a sadist means being turned on by causing pain, i.e., sick in the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>head.
>>>
>>>Have they re-written the DSM-IV or is it just that you have your own
>>>personal edition calibrated to match your hatred, ignorance, and peculiar
>>>notions of reality?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>brian,
>>
>>i do not know what the DSM-IV is, but since you quoted dictionary
>>definitions in response to joanna, here's the definition of sadism from
>>dictionary.com:
>>
>>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>