> > > The contents of the DSM ebb and flow politically all the time. I > > > believe there already *is* a section of religious disorders, it just > > > doesn't go as far as I think it should. > > > > Funny, I happen to have a copy of the DSM-IV-TR right here and it goes out > > of it's way to say that pretty much any condition that looks like a mental > > disorder, but that can be viewed in the context of it's culture as normal, > > is ok and not a mental illness. This is specifically addressed in the > > context of the Disassociative Disorders. > > I.e.. Voudou or Santeria practitioners are not mentally ill. > > Political necessity, isn't it? Which is what I was saying to begin > with. I'm not sure what you're saying here. If it's merely a troll don't bother, but if not could you please expand? > > In fact the whole of the DSM series has been less 'ebb and flow' and more > > 'tightly defining' of mental illness. I threw away my copy of the DSM-III-R > > when I bought the new version or I'd give you some quotes. > > The big difference that I can recall is the change in DID (Multiple > > Personalities) which has been tightened up considerably in the aftermath of > > the whole satanic cult nonsense of the 90's. > > III had most of the BDSM consensual sexual activities as diagnosable > disorders; they booted that out for IV. Nope. They still do under Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders, the key difference (IIRC) is that have to cause significant distress, interpersonal relationship difficulty, or social/occupational impairment of functioning. Non-consenting partners is also a big no-no... David