Monday, October 31, 2016

Is Weiner Pix Texting Psychopathology, Update. Paraphilia is now Paraphilic Disorder DSM V. Comey. You messed up.

Paraphilia in Politics. Weiner Pix-Texting. Sexting Psychopathology.  

Anthony Weiner's behavior now arises to  Paraphilic Disorder. Update October 2016. Consider DSM-V. 

Topic: The behavior of Anthony Weiner in
a) now perhaps committing a crime (sexual exploitation of a minor);  and
b) furthering that activity using a computer with others' material on it,
c) disregarding the negative likely consequences affecting involuntary third parties.

Effect: These behaviors arise to the level of Paraphilic Disorder according to DSM-V, suggests this Everyman's Observer.  Anthony Weiner's disregard of the harsh negative effects of his storing his means of communication on computers where others' information is stored seems to require a strong diagnosis of pathology. 
  • It is predictable that his behavior would invite legal examination in drawing in a minor, if he did; it is predictable, then, that material of others on his means of communication would then be exposed.  
  • Did he also back up the other's information there, or did Huma Abedin do that herself, and did she use that computer as a primary sender as to some or all? There is now a serious impact on voters, even if not Weiner's own voters any more. 
Director Comey in mis-joining two separate investigations:  Three fatal flaws. 
1) A three-week delay in your learning from your staff of the emails on Mr. Weiner's computer(s) (possibly pertinent to another investigation, Clinton), and  
2) The resulting three-week delay in getting the necessary additional warrant for examination of the other emails (is there really probable cause here, or did the dump put pressure on that issue as well?), displays incompetence as a non-partisan leader (Hatchery).  
3)  Your scantily clad Friday night news dump disclosing your late knowledge but before a warrant had even been issued, confirms it. People, vote fairness here. That is the only matter which is certain.
......................................................

 Weiner Pix-Texting. Is it a Psychopathology?
Sexting diagnoses. What category?

Is it mere Paraphilia (one example in a spectrum of non-normative sexual behavior),
When does mere deriving pleasure from a behavior
 reach the clinical-intervention level of Paraphilic Disorder.
Ask DSM-V.

Either way, the issue  of identification of a situation-condition soon gets caught in technicalities. The important matter, however, with the new DSM-V is the nature of any harm caused by the behavior. As to Anthony Weiner, make a little list:  These descriptions and consequences, and not categories of some manual, will decide a candidacy:

  • Descriptive: To some, the Weiner Conundrum Syndrome is exploitive, foisting reasonably anticipated edgy visual and text on others without advance consent; it is a power play. You are worthless, I do what I want, is the communication. Can't catch me. I am beyond accusation. It disrespects women, is clueless, says the wise Pelosi. Keep going:  Flawed candidate judgment, self-control, trust diminution. Can one who uses women in this way be trusted to represent their interests against other impositional behavior.
  • Pathology:  Not necessarily, but with the negative impact by his behavior on his constituents' confidence in his judgment, trustworthiness, the harm he does to himself may tip the descriptive to the pathological.
  • And so the media and chatter go on.  My interest in what concrete diagnoses from the DSM-V might address Mr. Weiner's situation. The Pope says he will not judge one group of relationships, and Buddha proposes a similar non-judgmental approach: generosity, compassion, wisdom, see http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2013/07/buddha-and-weiner-exposure-disorder-or.html
Update on possible diagnoses-from-news: Even the overview in the NYT, offering possible speculative diagnoses based on the news coverage, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/nyregion/weiners-behavior-prompts-a-question-why-did-he-do-it.html?_r=0; includes no reference by a mental health professional to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V, current).  What cubby would they use in the DSM-V.  They refer to an addiction with neurological roots possibility, but sexual addiction is not in the DSM-V, we think. Mere indiscretion blown big because of our own fears of the topic?

A.  Meanwhile, fill in the gaps as to the categories, the professional angles seen by an amateur.  So far, these seem to be so, and the good news is that we are beyond (in the DSM-V) trying to list what is normal and what is not.  What matters is the impact, the consequence.  There pathology enters in, not before.

1.  Paraphilia in itself, a non-normative sexual preference, is not necessarily psychopathological.  It only becomes psychopathological where it cannot be contained or changed and there is danger or harm to others, or to the person -- including his extreme distress, where the person becomes virtually incapacitated.  Such is the change in analysis in the new DSM-V.  No longer are mere behaviors listed and called paraphilia, and so stigmatized.   The added factors are needed to create the now stand-along paraphilic disorder.

2.  Analysis of sexual behavior, and what to categorize as a pathology, has changed.  Mere paraphilia, or non-normative sexual behavior, is now not a psychopathology in itself, requiring or suggesting clinical intervention.  There must be more.  The behavior must either cause distress or impairment to the individual, or bring on a likelihood of or actual harm to the person or others. Then the behavior qualifies as more than mere paraphilia, non-normative sexual behavior.  It becomes paraphilic disorder.  That is the new and only category in the new DSM V.  See the changes in the DSM-V from DSM-IV.  *

3.  That means that the mental health professional community guided by the Diagnistic and Statistical Manual no longer list what is norm-al, and what is not. What individuals find rewarding and pleasurable vary, without a listing needed, and may be left alone.  But if they overstep the harm category, to self or others, broadly, then pathology analysis may step in. 

B.  What harm in his displays?  Can it be broadly drawn, where some are exploiting their receipt of pix-texts for their own financial gain, even now.  Harm to them?  They are making bundles. 

Go past the ones riding his coat-tails, or jock-elastics.

Anthony Weiner: his behavior in finding pleasure in pix-texting is not enough in itself to disqualify him as a candidate on grounds of a pathology.  Instead, what may disqualify this candidate in the view of an electorate are issues unrelated necessarily to any psychopathology -- a pattern of poor judgment and exploitation in doing it, repeating despite the public eye likely to follow. 

1) Weiner's failure to disclose material facts in a timely way, before seeking supporters' support, 

2) Weiner's flawed ability to analyze a totality, predict consequence, weigh, see his behavior as exploitive, and change his worldview if he really valued elective office, supposedly serving the public.  

C.  If he tried to change and failed this time, can we assume that the behavior will be an ongoing indulgence when he represents the City of New York. What does he propose to ensure, yes, ensure, he does not humiliate himself and exploit others in the future.

Impact on voters:  Would he describe himself with the diagnosis of paraphilic disorder.  Now, would even that disqualify him?  What disorders disqualify a person from office?  This one? Not necessarily. Wait and see. That's why we have voters.  And why we need educated, informed voters.
In your court, sir. 



*  Changes in DSM. See DSM-V.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, see http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/changes%20from%20dsm-iv-tr%20to%20dsm-5.pdf

I. Old DSM-IV.

A.  Paraphilia is something like intense arousal to atypical objects or situations, with a spectrum range from the harmless to the threatening. Nobody has found a bright line between unusual or merely out-of-norm sexual tastes and paraphilia. Amateurs head to Wikipedia's Encyclopedia for a reasonable overview -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia/  Learn that the behavior qualitatively may or may not be illegal-criminal.  It may be a mere choice, something that pleases the person. To change the behavior (as when there is harm or other pressure to change), requires long term therapy, and there should be subject to immediate interventions if there is danger to self or others, or the activities may create legal problems for themselves, see http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/paraphilias-overview?page=3 

B.  Paraphilic Disorder.  The behavior-spectrum paraphilia rises to paraphilic disorder as a matter of consequences, not a description of the act itself: Tthe person experiences distress from it, or is impaired by it, or the behavior is or is likely to cause harm to others.

New DSM-V.  These two categories, found in the old DSM IV and leading to different conclusions as to treatment,  have been combined into one category where both the qualititative description (a place on the spectrum) and the consequences occur or are likely to.  That is the new Paraphilic Disorder.

That, in the new DSM-V, leaves the first category, the mere paraphilia, as meaning simply not in the norm.  There is no pejorative.  A person may have non-normative sexual preferences, but no harm no foul.  Paraphilia does not mean psychopathological. 

The old qualitative description of Paraphilia of DSM IV, the description;  was separated from the consequence side, the old Paraphilic Disorder of DSM IV

No comments: