NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/alt/support/bigfolk/714

Text File | 1992-12-12 | 1.7 KB | 38 lines

Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!artemis
From: [e-mail] (Michelle Dick)
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:58:00 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fiona Webster) writes:
>Michelle writes:
>>Also, the little pathology discussion was a bit disturbing in that I
>>would prefer that psychology only recognize fetishism as a disorder if
>>the individual was bothered by it (and a successful resolution of the
>>problem would include the individual's acceptance of their desires as
>>well as a conventional "cure").  We do so love to persecute.
>
>Gosh.  I thought if anything I went to the length of overkill, in making
>just that very point.  Try harder next time, I guess.

Yes, I think you did make that point.  Sorry.  My comments were
directed at the part of the DSM (or whatever the initials were) that
said the diagnoses was made if the individual was upset with the urges
*or* acted upon them.  If the individual where happy about the desires
and acted upon them, I might use the term fetishist colloquially but I
wouldn't consider it a problem or a pathology.

>Oh, and for whatever it matters, and I guess it matters to me, it's
>*psychiatry*, not psychology.

Do people ever come to you wanting help with an irrational prejudice
against psychology and psychiatry?  :-)

--
Michelle Dick
[e-mail]