Who Teaches the Sadist?

[iseult]

to clarify (and avoid any conflict around the concept of sadism as a phychiogical disorder). It is my personal opinion the sadism should NOT be included in the DSM criteria, or if it is that the tiny subset of 'sadists' who are pathological be clearly labeled as something else 'abusive personality disorder' or something similar, I think having it in the criteria muddies the waters for people who do not understand DBSM and adds to the confusion. And there is a growing school of thought that this should be the case amongst psychiatrists with many actively petitioning for the word 'sadist' to be changed to a different lable (for instance abusive personality disorder) and reserved for the very few where consent is not sought and infact actively discouraged) or when those traits are pathological/harmful to the person or others. The argument for keeping it in is that in forensic pathology is that there are (very few) cases where a pathological 'sadist' is responsible for the harm and that by including this subset of people in the criteria it allows for further research/funding into the issues around it. But once again, I don't consider the sane safe and consensual sadist to be 'damaged' or 'pathological' quite the opposite those I have met have been amongst the most psychologically healthy people I know. I think
of it like anything else food,sex,Alcohol all are normal and healthy aspects of life which most people enjoy with no adverse effects in a small minority these things can become harmful and taken to the extreme become addictions and damaging. My argument is that you wouldn't have 'social drinker' as a BDSM psychological disorder you have 'alcohol addiction' so I believe that 'sadism' has no place in the criteria but 'abusive disorder' or similar where there is a loss of control to the extent that Consent fails to be considered should. *takes deep breath.....* does that make sense?