Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Voyeurism: Is it really a disorder?

themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 7:34:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Paraphilic disorder (DSM-V): "A paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others".

Voyeurism (Wikipedia): "The sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other actions usually considered to be of a private nature".

Firstly, it should be noted that I could not find the DSM-V definition for Voyeurism, so that may make this whole post moot, but in the mean time, I would like to question the fact that the DSM-V states that Voyeurism can be a disorder.

For a person to be considered to have a paraphilic disorder, they must be committing some act of a paraphilia that either harms, impairs, or causes distress in themselves or others. Voyeurism, by definition, does not involve any physical contact, let alone physical harm. Voyeurism should also not cause any distress, as the voyeur is secretly spying on the person. This secrecy, and therefore ignorance on the part of the person being spied on, means that the person being spied upon would have no reason to be under any sort of distress.

Therefore, Voyeurism, by definition, does not fall under the definition of a paraphilic disorder per the current edition of the DSM, and therefore should not be in the DSM as a possible paraphilic disorder.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 1:22:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would classify it equally to kleptomania, psychologically and morally-speaking. They are basically identical types of actions, as you are overcome with lust (I define lust broader than strictly sexually) and make a socially-negative decision (stealing privacy, stealing merchandise) that doesn't really hurt anybody significantly (in one case the "victim" never even knows, and in the other it's usually a big store that barely feels the damage of being stolen from). The acts do give you a thrill however, and they are habit-forming. They are arguably self-destructive as well, because there is shame involved as well as fear that you will be caught in the future. Fear and guilt can be significantly unpleasant!
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 10:06:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 1:22:56 AM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
They are arguably self-destructive as well, because there is shame involved as well as fear that you will be caught in the future. Fear and guilt can be significantly unpleasant!

In which case cookie eating is a disorder in a society that tells you to be ashamed of eating cookies and will punish you for doing so..

Now voyeurism does not necessarily require secret spying despite what wikipedia says. If they let you watch and you get a kick out that, especially if you find it just as good as participating yourself that is still classified as voyeurism.

A great many of us our have voyeuristic tendencies or porn would be a dead industry.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 10:08:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 1:22:56 AM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
I would classify it equally to kleptomania, psychologically and morally-speaking. They are basically identical types of actions, as you are overcome with lust (I define lust broader than strictly sexually) and make a socially-negative decision (stealing privacy, stealing merchandise) that doesn't really hurt anybody significantly (in one case the "victim" never even knows, and in the other it's usually a big store that barely feels the damage of being stolen from). The acts do give you a thrill however, and they are habit-forming. They are arguably self-destructive as well, because there is shame involved as well as fear that you will be caught in the future. Fear and guilt can be significantly unpleasant!

That is an interesting way of looking at it, as I never really thought of Voyeurism as a way of 'stealing' privacy. Although, as I understand it, Kleptomania IS a habit (along the lines of an addiction), whereby Voyeurism is along the lines of a fetish, that isn't by itself a disorder (the DSM-V explicitly states that paraphilias are not ipso facto disorders). Technically speaking, a destructive habit could probably be called a disorder if you ask me.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 4:36:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 10:06:08 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 1:22:56 AM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
They are arguably self-destructive as well, because there is shame involved as well as fear that you will be caught in the future. Fear and guilt can be significantly unpleasant!

In which case cookie eating is a disorder in a society that tells you to be ashamed of eating cookies and will punish you for doing so..

Eating cookies certainly is a disorder, provided you are unable to keep it to a reasonable amount. If someone who is obese is eating cookies, it's hard to look at it any other way!

Now voyeurism does not necessarily require secret spying despite what wikipedia says. If they let you watch and you get a kick out that, especially if you find it just as good as participating yourself that is still classified as voyeurism.

A great many of us our have voyeuristic tendencies or porn would be a dead industry.

Again, you are trying to make something sound unreasonable that isn't. I won't disagree that porn has a voyeur element, and if your point is to use porn as a legitimately justifiable industry - hence, justifying voyeurism as acceptable - then I will point out that porn is not justifiable. If somebody is a true exhibitionist and wants to show themselves off to the public having sex or whatnot, then they don't need the porn industry to do that. The porn industry is not made up of people who simply are trying to exhibit, it is made up of people who are sacrificing their privacy for profit in the same way that prostitutes do. Prostitutes and porn actors don't necessarily want to do these things, they are simply trying to have the freedom of not having to work a 9-5 along with all the burdens that come with that lifestyle and are probably making decisions they will later regret, particularly in 20 years when their bodies have degraded and now have to re-enter the workforce anyway to survive. By supporting the porn industry you are creating that financial incentive for them to make that mistake, and I believe that is unethical. I believe we have a responsibility to make sure our dollars don't support activities that are negative.
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 4:45:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 10:06:08 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

In which case cookie eating is a disorder in a society that tells you to be ashamed of eating cookies and will punish you for doing so..

"The biggest killer in America isn"t cancer, it"s obesity. 66% of the U.S. is obese, including a lot of children and teens, and 1 in 4 people in America dies of a preventable, food-related disease."
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 5:01:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 4:36:14 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 12/7/2013 10:06:08 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 1:22:56 AM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
They are arguably self-destructive as well, because there is shame involved as well as fear that you will be caught in the future. Fear and guilt can be significantly unpleasant!

In which case cookie eating is a disorder in a society that tells you to be ashamed of eating cookies and will punish you for doing so..

Eating cookies certainly is a disorder, provided you are unable to keep it to a reasonable amount. If someone who is obese is eating cookies, it's hard to look at it any other way!

Then it is quantity not quality that makes a disorder?

Now voyeurism does not necessarily require secret spying despite what wikipedia says. If they let you watch and you get a kick out that, especially if you find it just as good as participating yourself that is still classified as voyeurism.

A great many of us our have voyeuristic tendencies or porn would be a dead industry.

Again, you are trying to make something sound unreasonable that isn't.

lol, and for my next trick I will make something unreasonable sound reasonable ;p

I won't disagree that porn has a voyeur element, and if your point is to use porn as a legitimately justifiable industry - hence, justifying voyeurism as acceptable - then I will point out that porn is not justifiable.

Says you, it's certainly not theft as you describe above.

If somebody is a true exhibitionist and wants to show themselves off to the public having sex or whatnot, then they don't need the porn industry to do that.
however the fact that people would like to see that (if they're good) means there is an industry.

The porn industry is not made up of people who simply are trying to exhibit, it is made up of people who are sacrificing their privacy for profit in the same way that prostitutes do. Prostitutes and porn actors don't necessarily want to do these things, they are simply trying to have the freedom of not having to work a 9-5 along

The porn industry is primarily composed of people who consent to what they're doing. If wanting a better job is the mark of the oppressed there are many many oppressed people and not just in the porn industry.

Yea yea I know all about the poor girl who needs to make a living and turns to porn and prostitution while holding back tears, but that story is no different in fundamentals from the boy who turns to hard labor. There are others who are a lot happier to be where they are, they are not ashamed they would not be anywhere else.

You want to worry about the former case, I'll join you; but don't even hint at using force (the law) to prevent a mutually consenting interaction or I'll bail. You do that then you got girls whose freedom you violated to prevent them from getting a job, pimps and porn companies whose rights you trampled on to prevent them from getting employees, plus now you got to go steal some money to keep the girl from starving to death.

That's the violation of three rights vs a grudging career choice.

"with all the burdens that come with that lifestyle and are probably making decisions they will later regret, particularly in 20 years when their bodies have degraded and now have to re-enter the workforce anyway to survive."
You mean kind of like models, professionals sports players, most musical bands etc...

"By supporting the porn industry you are creating that financial incentive for them to make that mistake, and I believe that is unethical."
It's not a mistake just because it's not a good option, if the people in the porn industry are mostly desperate then they mostly don't have much of a choice. It's the correct option if it lets them live without mooching off others.

"I believe we have a responsibility to make sure our dollars don't support activities that are negative."
You don't know it's negative. In fact almost all the negative things that my money supports go through the tax route, I would start there.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:18:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 1:22:56 AM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
(in one case the "victim" never even knows, and in the other it's usually a big store that barely feels the damage of being stolen from).

Not that I'm some huge supporter of big businesses, a commodity driven society, or retail management in general, but shrink is, in fact, a pretty big deal to them.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:19:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 5:01:46 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 4:36:14 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 12/7/2013 10:06:08 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 1:22:56 AM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
They are arguably self-destructive as well, because there is shame involved as well as fear that you will be caught in the future. Fear and guilt can be significantly unpleasant!

In which case cookie eating is a disorder in a society that tells you to be ashamed of eating cookies and will punish you for doing so..

Eating cookies certainly is a disorder, provided you are unable to keep it to a reasonable amount. If someone who is obese is eating cookies, it's hard to look at it any other way!

Then it is quantity not quality that makes a disorder?

Absolutely. You disagree?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 6:26:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:19:23 PM, Such wrote:
At 12/7/2013 5:01:46 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Then it is quantity not quality that makes a disorder?

Absolutely. You disagree?

I find the classification and terminology of disorders in contradiction with their nature if that was the case. You would not classify voyeurism as a disorder or not, you would classify some degree of voyeurism as a disorder.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 10:07:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2013 7:34:28 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Paraphilic disorder (DSM-V): "A paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others".

Voyeurism (Wikipedia): "The sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other actions usually considered to be of a private nature".

Firstly, it should be noted that I could not find the DSM-V definition for Voyeurism, so that may make this whole post moot, but in the mean time, I would like to question the fact that the DSM-V states that Voyeurism can be a disorder.

For a person to be considered to have a paraphilic disorder, they must be committing some act of a paraphilia that either harms, impairs, or causes distress in themselves or others. Voyeurism, by definition, does not involve any physical contact, let alone physical harm. Voyeurism should also not cause any distress, as the voyeur is secretly spying on the person. This secrecy, and therefore ignorance on the part of the person being spied on, means that the person being spied upon would have no reason to be under any sort of distress.

Therefore, Voyeurism, by definition, does not fall under the definition of a paraphilic disorder per the current edition of the DSM, and therefore should not be in the DSM as a possible paraphilic disorder.

I'm not sure about the DSM-V, however the DSM-IV notes that "no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of "mental disorder." The concept of mental disorder, like many other concepts in medicine and science, lacks a consistent operational definition that covers all situations." And while specific criteria are useful indicators for diagnosing mental disorders, "none is equivalent to the concept, and different situations call for different definitions." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]

Specifically with regards to voyeurism in the DSM-V, atypical sexual behaviours usually aren't considered mental disorders and voyeurism isn't necessarily a paraphilic disorder unless the person feels personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society"s disapproval. If the person is personally concerned about their desire to spy on other people being naughty (and not simply distressed about what people would think if they found out), then voyeurism would be classified as a mental disorder. [http://www.dsm5.org...]

So voyeurism fits and should stay.