Dear Heidi

Dear Heidi

Re your husband's recent article on Investigate Magazine Online titled "The Secret Life of the Minister for Social Development" please consider the validity and ethical nature of his alledged claims considering in the article's 'Ethical Guidelines' he unethically states:

13. That Green MP Sue Bradford’s labeling of pro-smacking campaigners as sexual deviants illustrates that sado-masochism is not regarded as normal, even among the Greens.

Which begs me to ask dear Heidi is your husband prone to lying or does he feel lying was justified in this article? For what Sue Bradford did say is:

"Personally, I have no problem with sadomasochism carried out between consenting adults using safe sex practices – what I do have a problem with is a legacy of hidden sexual violence practised on children and young people under a mantle of so-called discipline." http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech10204.html

Which leads nicely on to his last bullet point:

16. That sado-masochism is recognized in psychology textbooks and journals as "destructive" and "a form of sexual perversion", "alongside behaviours such as child sexual abuse and rape" (Sexualities, Vol 4, No.3, 293-314, 2001) *

And when you are done asking him that dear Heidi, can you please ask him to point out to me where in the study cited does the word "destructive" and/or the phrase "a form of sexual perversion" appear in relation to sado-masochism?

Considering I have now searched the document a number of times and not having found these words, I am want to know why your husband Heidi, insults his readers in such a manner? If you or your husband dear Heidi are yet to read the study in it's entirity you can find a copy of it here: Sexualites Vol 4(3): 293–314, Taylor G & Ussher J, Making Sense of S&M: A Discourse Analytic Account http://sexualities.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/3/293

And while he's stumbling over his tongue trying to explain the moral thinking of man who would mislead his audience thus, dear Heidi can you please ask your husband for his thoughts on reporting fact vs fiction? As an example he states on page 6:

"given that BDSM is still listed by psychiatrists as a mental health problem."

Please bring to your husband's attention that BDSM is not listed in the American diagnosis list DMS-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and never has been.

Guidelines for the diagnosis of Sexual Sadism (SS) or Sexual Masochism (SM) as paraphillias however are. But don't go popping the champagne just yet, for in 1994 the American Psychiatric Association's added modifying criteria that with both masochism and sadism, both A & B criteria for diagnosis must be met in order to make a diagnosis of a mental disorder. That is, the fact that you have SS or SM fantasies and urges "[they] must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" in order for a mental disorder or impariment to be diagnosed.

So can you please ask your husband dear Heidi why he is at pains to point out, wrongly I will add, to his readers that consensual sado-masochism is a paraphillia despite the fact that 12 years ago the DMS was modified to reflect the current psychiatric discourse that it was not, and that 11 years ago Denmark took the political decision that the disease classification for sado-masochism would no longer be used in the indexing of (psychiatric) diseases http://www.revisef65.org/denmark.html

Also dear Heidi your husband states in his article that:

"The psychology of sado-masochism has been covered in medical journals and psychology text books. "Sado-masochism is described as pathology in current psychological and psychiatric textbooks," write the authors of one scientific
study in the journal Sexualities, Vol 4, no 3, in 2001, "and is often discussed alongside behaviours such as child sexual abuse and rape. Individuals who engage in SM are invariably positioned as experiencing intra-psychic conflict ameliorated through the displacement of the sexual drive."" (pg 6)

However the abstract for the study that this part of his article quotes, the authors' readily go on to state that this "is a limited and one dimensional analysis of a complex phenomenon."

I can only assume dear Heidi your husband's idea of 'balanced reporting' is largely unbalanced in style and slant.

Taylor & Ussher further state that subsequent theories have therefore tended to concerntrate on the pathology of SM, in that "they have tended to assume priori that those who engage in SM are psychologically unwell, despite many empirical studies testifying to the relative psychological health of those who engage in SM".

The study further discusses the participants’ adherence to their own rituals and conventions, likening SM to religious flagellation and to "non-western spiritual practices involving the endurance and infliction of pain and suffering."

The references to non Western practices is worth further consideration given Dorothy Hayden, CSW, a New York-based psychotherapist who specializes in fetishes and sexual addiction states on her website,

"Mental health professionals in the west criticize Chinese and Soviet therapists for pathologizing people who hold political beliefs that are not normative. Western clinicians, however, make a similar mistake when they pathologize people who have unconventional sexual predilections and interests." http://www.sextreatment.com/bdsm.htm

Taylor & Ussher go on to state the accounts of SM presented in their study "cannot be seen in a vacuum" as they "reflect broader social trends in relation to sexuality and sexual expression" and suggest psychological theories "need to be able to incorporate variability, contradiction and dissent within their abstraction” and for theorists to remain aware of “ freedom and autonomy” of the individual, especially in regard to the role society and culture play “particularly in the definition, regulation and organization of sexuality".

The authors’ go on to suggest that any theorizing about sado-masochism "needs to be firmly grounded in the actual experiences and psychologies of persons who practice SM, rather than making judgmental a priori assumptions."

So while, dear Heidi, your husband professes on page 3 that the intention of his article was to “[not] blow the BDSM community wide open” and I am sure they are extremely thankful to him for that; he does appear to go to absurd lengths to (wrongly) pathologize the practice of BDSM to lend credence to his expose on the alledged sado-masochist activities one David Benson Pope as been that of a man not fit to hold public office.

So it begs the question dear Heidi. Do you agree with your beloved that adults indulging in unconventional consensual sexual activities should remain the domain of shame and public ridicule?

Thus I will leave you dear Heidi with this thought,

“Freedom of speech is like driving a car. We can do it recklessly or responsibly. We can do it without giving thought to its impact upon others, or we can do it carefully, safely, being tolerant of others. The reckless driver has the power to inflict serious injury and grief upon others.” http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/?sid=51&id=562


Yours
Mort Whitman