[a_c_s]

You clearly don't understand how the diagnosis of these things works.

There is a spectrum of behaviors, raging from healthy to problematic.

Drinking alcohol has a range too: from abstaining to enjoying in moderation to alcoholism. Neither abstaining nor moderate enjoyment are problematic. While the parallel is awkward, just as occasionally having one beer too many doesn't constitute alcoholism, occasionally avoiding social situations is different from always avoiding them (the reasons for avoiding them are important too!).

If you don't understand the criteria for determining when a behavior is problematic enough to warrant a symptom and when it is not, and you read through the DSM-IV (which defines mental disorders), you will think you qualify for many of the disorders listed: in all likelihood you do not qualify for any of them. Why are the definitions written this way? Because mental disorders are often characterized by normal behaviors happening to an extreme degree (being anxious before a big potentially career-altering presentation is healthy, having panic attacks as a result of everyday situations is problematic). Also because the DSM-IV is meant to be used by trained professionals who already understand this distinction.

[fein]

My issue is not with the vetted characterizations of symptoms in DSM-IV, but with the nature of the original article and pseudo psychologists like some middle school counselors. This is a subject that needs to be treated with some form of scientific rigor, not feel good fluff pieces.

[eliasmacpherson]

Perversion also has a spectrum. Calling it a spectrum allows you to talk about two people, one with an extreme condition, and another relatively normal, in the same breath. One would wonder why one would be inclined to use language like that, unprofessional almost.