The NCSF is attacking the DSM (dosent list kink, less widely used) but is not attacking the ICD (does list kink, more widely used). If this campaign actually honestly was about ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ they would be attacking the ICD as much or more.

Just another indication to me that the true goal of the ‘kinky is not a diagnosis’ movement isnt honestly about sexual freedom, but is just an underhanded way to seek revenge against Zucker and Blanchard and try to ruin their carers.

And thank you for the link to http://www.revisef65.org/ …. I was not aware of it until now, and this is absolutely something I would want to investigate more.

I know zilch about the NCSF, and I think you’re raising a number of valid points here, but let’s not forget that although the DSM-IV-TR has delisted S&M and fetishism as sexual disorders, they’re still right there in the World Health’s Organisation ICD-10, which is applied far more widely. That’s what ReviseF65 ( http://www.revisef65.org/ ) is all about, since Reiersøl & Skeid wrote their seminal 2006 paper.

And it seems that long-time BDSM scholar Charles Moser isn’t entirely happy with the wording that the DSM-IV-TR has adopted regarding sexual behaviour, as his article with Peggy Kleinplatz (available here: http://home.netcom.com/~docx2/mk.html) shows. So I wouldn’t call this a settled issue.

This, of course, is peripheral to the specific case you mention. But my take is that a broader context never hurts. YMMV.

Cheers,

WM