It feels a bit disjointed to transplant a response from the middle of a conversation outside of the context that generated it, but sometimes I write things that I feel are important even beyond the limited scope of the discussion at hand. And this time, it's about the meaning of the word "exhibitionism". A user on Reddit asked [NSFW] whether it's possible to be a "genuine naturist" and also an exhibitionist. Obviously, since I consider myself to be both, I had to chime in [NSFW]. But the consensus of the discussion was unsurprisingly that nudism and exhibitionism are as incompatible as oil and water. The sticking point, however, was this idea (propagated in particular by a certain poster, who has expressed this position before) that the term "exhibitionism" should be strictly limited to its usage as a medical diagnosis. To which I replied [NSFW]:
You're implying that "exhibitionism" doesn't have any worthwhile use outside of the concept of a deviant pathology. But it does. You can't just eliminate the phenomenon of non-deviant exhibitionism just because it's "normal" and "common" for everyone to like being seen in a sexual context. That's not even true. Some people have sex with the lights out.
Anyway, how do you differentiate between someone who likes to be seen in the bedroom by their spouse, versus someone who gets excited having anonymous strangers making sexual comments on images of their body? The latter is absolutely not a universal experience. Neither is it criminal, though. Nor would I call it deviant, or pathological.
What are we supposed to call these people? What of their identity that helps them to understand this aspect of themselves? I agree that a distinction must be made between healthy people who like to be looked at and criminal deviants. Associating exhibitionism exclusively with criminal behavior is damaging. But we can't just toss this phenomenon to the dogs because it's been tainted by medical literature.
I think the psychological community's approach toward sexual pathology is flawed at best, and history bears out this perspective. As a society, we're simply not good at explaining good sexual attitudes and bad sexual attitudes. Our newfound focus on consent is an important step forward in this respect. It's not about what kind of sex you have - it's whether you're having it with people who also want to be having it.
So, the fact that a confused society has associated the desire to be seen in a sexual context with deviants going around violating others' consent doesn't mean that that's all there is to the story. Unless your fetish is specifically the violation of consent, it can manifest in both consensual and non-consensual forms (and even with non-consent, there is the outlet of fantasy and roleplay). Tell me what it is about becoming sexually aroused from being seen that relies on the violation of consent. It could go that way. But it could go the other way, too. So why focus on one to the exclusion of the other?
Defining the fetish as the pathology is inaccurate and damaging. If you ask me, there should only be one "paraphilia" listed in the DSM, and that is the decidedly non-sexual inability or unwillingness to honor the consent (or lack thereof) of another person (or persons). Whether you do this by means of penetrative intercourse, whips and chains, or tugging your rowboat on the subway is a matter of individual variation. That you prefer one or the other may say a lot about your mental state, but it isn't the thing that determines whether or not your mind is "diseased" or you commit criminal behavior. The purpose of the DSM isn't (or shouldn't be, rather) to moralize about people's sexual perversions.
