Psychopathia Sexualis

Psychopathia Sexualis (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

losttreasure -> Psychopathia Sexualis (11/19/2006 10:54:17 PM)
Has anyone read "Psychopathia Sexualis" or studied Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing? While I understand his work mirrored the mores of his time and from what I've read, I don't subscribe to much of his theories, I did find it interesting that he did not consider masochistic behavior to be a perversion for women. I also found it interesting to see that a film had been made based on some of his research. Psychopathia Sexualis It looks to have had a limited release... has anyone seen it? Edited for formatting problems

Mikal -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 12:02:32 AM)
I'm going to be taking a psych course on deviancy and sexuality next September... his name sounds familiar, so perhaps I'll be studying his theories. [8\|] Haven't seen the movie either... grin

LadyEllen -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 1:51:37 AM)
Hi LT I bought a copy of PS about ten years ago at a book fair; purely for psych research you understand!? Same with the Nancy Friday books - honest! I find it a fascinating read, particularly with regard to fetishes, some of which these days have become redundant - ladies' handkerchiefs for example (I've yet to hear of any male desiring a Kleenex!), and others which seem to be eternal - ladies' shoes and stockings and so on. I think it goes to show how environment plays such a part in the whole fetish thing. Similarly with the whole B/D and S/M and D/S fields, if they can be adequately divided. So much has remained constant through to our time whilst other (fewer) instances, arising from the culture of the time when KE wrote have fallen by the wayside or have been modified by comparison to today. Its also interesting I think, to read how KE deals with all this. I realise he wrote in his time and culture, but to me at least, he didnt seem to indicate anything like "these people are evil scum" - rather he seemed to write from the point of view of a psychologist attempting to understand and cure what he took for undesirable psychological conditions, in a way which was as objective and effective as possible in that time. Next to the rantings of Freud, Krafft Ebbing is a towering figure, and its a shame he doesnt seem to share in the fame as a pioneer of psychology. I particularly was interested in the desenstization technique which he picked up from a patient. The man in question had a fetish for women's shoes, which he hoped through marriage to overcome. Except even when married, he could not get an erection without the shoe being present. He allegedly desensitized himself to its presence and dissipated his fetish by willed effort, thereby being able to have a normal life with his wife. I often wonder if that is true. E

MisPandora -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 2:16:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure Has anyone read "Psychopathia Sexualis" or studied Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing? While I understand his work mirrored the mores of his time and from what I've read, I don't subscribe to much of his theories, I did find it interesting that he did not consider masochistic behavior to be a perversion for women. Given that his "theories" were published in 1886, I can't say that ALL of his theories are going to be felt to be "current -- however, his book was the first that said that homosexuality was not a mental illness or perversion! Concerning this, the big push now is to remove paraphilias from the DSM so that pedophilia can be criminalized rather than being treated as a medical or psychological disorder. Psychopathia Sexualis is referred to numerous times in the discussion and support material for this argument.

leatherzack -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 2:25:14 AM)
The problem with Krafft-Ebing is that he wrote Psychopatia Sexualis from the things he saw in an asylum. As all the pepole he was looking wer menatlly insane, the sexual behavior was considered to be related to their illness so making them "deviant".

LadyEllen -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 2:29:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MisPandora Concerning this, the big push now is to remove paraphilias from the DSM so that pedophilia can be criminalized rather than being treated as a medical or psychological disorder. Psychopathia Sexualis is referred to numerous times in the discussion and support material for this argument. Thanks for that. Will be interesting to see how it works itself out, but I still dont understand how paedophilia cannot be a psychological disorder. Personally, I separate two types of paedophiles; those preying on children at and below puberty and those who seek older, but still under age victims. The former I would say are paedophiles and must have some sort of mental disorder which accounts for their desires - thus though their acts are criminal, they have a psychological root. The latter I would say are simple criminals, who have knowingly breached the socially imposed (for good reason) age limit. The test for me I suppose is the level of physical development of the victim, and I can see how a guy (and it is mostly guys) would find a (for example) fifteen year old girl physically attractive enough to warrant attention, even though she is psychologically, socially and sexually not an adult (thus the socially imposed age limit). Does anyone else see a difference there? E

Zensee -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 3:08:38 AM)
The film is scheduled for DVD release in January. One source promising to carry it is HERE. Looking forward to it. [hijack] Lady E. It seems that Predatory Pedophilia is both criminal and pathological. Each aspect needs to considered separately but each offender needs to be treated in totality, for both the crime and its cause. By using incarceration solely as punishment, laws and courts limit it effectiveness. Violent offenders who refuse treatment must be released when their time is up. Nothing lasting is accomplished besides the probable refining of their criminal expertise. Incarceration (and parole) should be used 1) to protect public safety and 2) to ensure those released from custody are most likely not going to re-offend. Yes I am talking indefinite sentences for violent criminals. That said there must be meaningful help available for offenders while they are incarcerated and equally effective assistance for them on the outside. [/hijack] Z.

LadyEllen -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 3:28:14 AM)
IMO, paedophiles (by my definition) cannot really be cured, so indefinite sentences are required for public protection - but in a psych setting, rather than a general prison. That's if the chemical castration study in France at the mo, is unsuccessful. It sounds harsh maybe, but less so when one considers these people ill, rather than criminal. On the other hand, the criminals who breach the age limit, should go to prison as now for one off offences. Repeat offences would mean increasingly longer sentences, so that effectively, three strike and they're out (or in forever). I also dont think it entirely fair to register a guy as a paedophile, if he unknowingly sleeps with a girl just under age - that happened to someone I know; she had moved in with him and everything and then announced she was having her 16th birthday party at his house. He had no idea, as she didnt go to school (she had been expelled) and was receiving social benefit payments etc. (ergo must be over 16). Of course, one can say he should have checked, but honestly, does anyone here ask for a birth certificate when they meet someone? E

LordODiscipline -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 3:33:29 AM)
I have read the book and did not realize that there was a movie on it. It is an interesting read from the aspects you mention and several other angles, and would be hilarious if not for the misunderstanding and basic simpliscity of the understanding of humanity contained within it. A great book for an historical understanding of psychology though.. and, the case studies (which is a majority of what it is) are interesting. ~J

Lordandmaster -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 3:37:44 AM)
Krafft-Ebing thought he was doing a good thing. He genuinely believed that homosexuals, sadists, and so on were sick, and he advocated for humane treatment for them--as he would for any other patient. The problem is that there's no reason to believe TODAY that the kinds of sexual preferences he was talking about are symptoms of disease. Few people in the psychiatric profession would rely on Krafft-Ebing's book as a guide anymore, but many retain his basic attitude.

Rover -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 3:42:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MisPandora quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure Has anyone read "Psychopathia Sexualis" or studied Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing? While I understand his work mirrored the mores of his time and from what I've read, I don't subscribe to much of his theories, I did find it interesting that he did not consider masochistic behavior to be a perversion for women. Given that his "theories" were published in 1886, I can't say that ALL of his theories are going to be felt to be "current -- however, his book was the first that said that homosexuality was not a mental illness or perversion! Concerning this, the big push now is to remove paraphilias from the DSM so that pedophilia can be criminalized rather than being treated as a medical or psychological disorder. Psychopathia Sexualis is referred to numerous times in the discussion and support material for this argument. Can you name for me even one jurisdiction in which pedophilia is NOT criminal? Can you name for me even one degreed psychology professsional who advocates the removal of pedophilia from the DSM? To be kind, I know the source of your information (as you know, I was also in attendance). The crusade you cite is one non-degreed individual and to make it seem as though it's anything more is disingenuous (to say nothing of how nonsensical the proposition is in the first place). John

LordODiscipline -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 3:50:27 AM)
*Most of the psychiatric community is now convinced that recidivism with paedophiles is so great that there can be considered to be no cure.* The rate for reoccurrence of the crime are nearly 51% (charged) for patients who were counceled and treated within ten years and about 58% for those who were not treated. Even chemical castration was deemed not effective where the percentages of people recharged with the crime was still statistically significant. Many jurisdictions in the US have abandoned counceling as ineffective and a large percecentage of councelors have agreed that it is an incurable ailment and incarcerationhas been relegated to warehousing/punishing these individuals away from the public they prey on. ~J quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee It seems that Predatory Pedophilia is both criminal and pathological. Each aspect needs to considered separately but each offender needs to be treated in totality, for both the crime and its cause. By using incarceration solely as punishment, laws and courts limit it effectiveness. Violent offenders who refuse treatment must be released when their time is up. Nothing lasting is accomplished besides the probable refining of their criminal expertise. Incarceration (and parole) should be used 1) to protect public safety and 2) to ensure those released from custody are most likely not going to re-offend. Yes I am talking indefinite sentences for violent criminals. That said there must be meaningful help available for offenders while they are incarcerated and equally effective assistance for them on the outside. [/hijack] Z.

Rover -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 4:17:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *Most of the psychiatric community is now convinced that recidivism with paedophiles is so great that there can be considered to be no cure.* The rate for reoccurrence of the crime are nearly 51% (charged) for patients who were counceled and treated within ten years and about 58% for those who were not treated. Even chemical castration was deemed not effective where the percentages of people recharged with the crime was still statistically significant. Many jurisdictions in the US have abandoned counceling as ineffective and a large percecentage of councelors have agreed that it is an incurable ailment and incarcerationhas been relegated to warehousing/punishing these individuals away from the public they prey on. ~J I will certainly let Pandora speak for herself, but perhaps this might explain the obvious confusion. An "incurable ailment" does not make one healthy ("I have good news, Mr. Jones. Your cancer is terminal, meaning you're fit as a fiddle!!!"). Though it strains credulity beyond comprehension to assert that any number of pedophiles have managed to dodge criminal conviction and sentencing due to their disorder. Any judge falling for that ruse demands immediate impeachment from the bench. John

Zensee -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 4:25:02 AM)
LoD. I hadn't seen those sad statistics. I'd like to think that most people can change but must admit that a large number seem irreparable. Of course there are the other 49% but then which of them have been cured and which just haven't been caught? I think abandoning treatment is premature. Those who can be helped should be. Those who can't should not be released while they pose a threat to the public. Liberty is for those who respect other people's entitlement to it. *I plead Late Night Posting Syndrome.* I just realised from the quote above, that my 1 and 2 are pretty much the same. I think I'd change 2 to read; to encourage those in custody to pursue realistic treatments which coud allow them to be released without a danger they will re-offend.

Rover -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 4:29:58 AM)
If removed from the DSM, all treatment for pedophilia will effectively come to an end as neither the government, nor private insurance companies, will pay for treatment of a non-recognized disorder. The net result may be to increase the already astronomical recividism rate, and create more victims. Just some food for thought. John

LadyEllen -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 4:33:51 AM)
The reality is, if we treat paedophiles as offenders who should be locked up to serve a sentence, then sooner or later they will be released, and do the same again. Even if there is only minor risk of re-offending, that is too much. And once in the criminal justice system, they are treated as any other prisoner (albeit segregated). In the UK, we have a paedo by the name of Craig Sweeney. He was released for a prior offence, and then within a week or so, abducted a small girl from her home. He took her, would you believe it, to the bail hostel where he was required to remain whilst on parole, and there abused her for hours on end. The police caught up with him, but he made a run for it, turning over the stolen getaway car, in which he had secreted the girl too and injuring her physically in addition to the abuse. So, this guy is sentenced. He gets I think, ten years. However, he is treated like any other prisoner and is therefore entitled to a 50% reduction in his sentence because he "confessed" - even though of course he couldnt do otherwise. So, he has to do 5 years - except, he can be considered for parole half way through his sentence - so thats 2.5 years, and then we take off time served awaiting trial - another six months. This monster could be back on the streets - he has a string of similar offences, in two years. Meanwhile, that little girl (4 I think) is destroyed for life, as well as her family. This is but one example, why these people should not be treated as criminals, but locked away forever in a suitable psychiatric setting where their conditions can be kept under control, and the public protected from them. Treating them as criminals just doesnt work. E

Rover -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 4:40:08 AM)
Then problem, then, is one of sentencing... inadequate terms. I, for one, would be fully in favor of life sentences without possibility of parole or release. The issue is not one of criminality... it's already a crime. John

LordODiscipline -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 4:47:02 AM)
Un(?) fortunately - This attitude/stance has been the "norm" with American (and, I believe Canadian) psychiatric circles for about ten years. ~J quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee LoD. I hadn't seen those sad statistics. I'd like to think that most people can change but must admit that a large number seem irreparable. Of course there are the other 49% but then which of them have been cured and which just haven't been caught? I think abandoning treatment is premature. Those who can be helped should be. Those who can't should not be released while they pose a threat to the public. Liberty is for those who respect other people's entitlement to it. *I plead Late Night Posting Syndrome.* I just realised from the quote above, that my 1 and 2 are pretty much the same. I think I'd change 2 to read; to encourage those in custody to pursue realistic treatments which coud allow them to be released without a danger they will re-offend.

MstrssPassion -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 4:51:02 AM)
That book & a few others were the only sources that I was able to locate at a library over 20 years ago when I first started trying to make sense of my thoughts & feelings. The books that so many people refer to today were not published for another 10 to 15 yrs. I found the books fascinating. I took into account that in those times that most everyone who didn't "fit" into the norms of society would find themselves in an asylum. I knew myself to be quite sane & I knew that this was most likely the case with many of the people who were studied as well... so I read past this.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Psychopathia Sexualis (11/20/2006 4:57:20 AM)
*In the US, he would be treated under a law called 'Megan's Law' (named after a girl once abducted and murdered by such a person) -* They would (in the words of the great Jimmy Cagney) "Throw the book at de bum" and assure his incarceration without parole for at least twenty years (kidnapping, sodomy, rape, assault, contributing the the delinquencey of a minor, picking his nose and chewing gum on a public street) *And, as it is considered to be a criminal act it would definitively be segregated lock up for them...* ~J quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen The reality is, if we treat paedophiles as offenders who should be locked up to serve a sentence, then sooner or later they will be released, and do the same again. Even if there is only minor risk of re-offending, that is too much. And once in the criminal justice system, they are treated as any other prisoner (albeit segregated). In the UK, we have a paedo by the name of Craig Sweeney. He was released for a prior offence, and then within a week or so, abducted a small girl from her home. He took her, would you believe it, to the bail hostel where he was required to remain whilst on parole, and there abused her for hours on end. The police caught up with him, but he made a run for it, turning over the stolen getaway car, in which he had secreted the girl too and injuring her physically in addition to the abuse. So, this guy is sentenced. He gets I think, ten years. However, he is treated like any other prisoner and is therefore entitled to a 50% reduction in his sentence because he "confessed" - even though of course he couldnt do otherwise. So, he has to do 5 years - except, he can be considered for parole half way through his sentence - so thats 2.5 years, and then we take off time served awaiting trial - another six months. This monster could be back on the streets - he has a string of similar offences, in two years. Meanwhile, that little girl (4 I think) is destroyed for life, as well as her family. This is but one example, why these people should not be treated as criminals, but locked away forever in a suitable psychiatric setting where their conditions can be kept under control, and the public protected from them. Treating them as criminals just doesnt work. E

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125