English
Français
Deutsch
Español
;
Quotes from: Pedophilia, A Diagnosis in Search of a Disorder;
Arch Sex Behav;
41, 1083 - 1097,
Feb 25 2012
This article presents a critical review of the recent controversies concerning the diagnosis of pedophilia in the context of the preparation of the fifth edition of theDSM.
The analysis focuses basically on the relationship between pedophilia and the currentDSM-IV-TR’s definition ofmental disorder. Scholars appear not to share numerous basic assumptions ranging from their underlying ideas about what constitutes a mental disorder to the role of psychiatry in modern society, including irreconcilable theories about human sexuality, which interfere with reaching any kind of a consensus as to what the psychiatric status of pedophilia
should be.
It is questioned if the diagnosis of pedophilia containedin the DSM is more forensic than therapeutic, focusing rather on the dangers inherent in the condition of pedophilia (dangerous dysfunction) than on its negative effects for the subject (harmful dysfunction).
The apparent necessity of the diagnosis of pedophilia in the DSM is supported, but the basis for this diagnosis is uncertain.
This article presents a critical review of the recent controversies concerning the diagnosis of pedophilia in the context of the preparation of the fifth edition of theDSM.
The analysis focuses basically on the relationship between pedophilia and the currentDSM-IV-TR’s definition ofmental disorder. Scholars appear not to share numerous basic assumptions ranging from their underlying ideas about what constitutes a mental disorder to the role of psychiatry in modern society, including irreconcilable theories about human sexuality, which interfere with reaching any kind of a consensus as to what the psychiatric status of pedophilia
should be.
It is questioned if the diagnosis of pedophilia containedin the DSM is more forensic than therapeutic, focusing rather on the dangers inherent in the condition of pedophilia (dangerous dysfunction) than on its negative effects for the subject (harmful dysfunction).
The apparent necessity of the diagnosis of pedophilia in the DSM is supported, but the basis for this diagnosis is uncertain.
;
Hebephilia as Mental Disorder?;
Archives of Sexual Behavior;
41(4), 797–829,
Jun 28 2012
A Historical, Cross-Cultural, Sociological, Cross-Species, Non-Clinical Empirical, and Evolutionary Review
Blanchard et al. (2009) demonstrated that hebephilia is a genuine sexual preference, but then proposed, without argument or evidence, that it should be designated as a mental disorder in the DSM-5. A series of Letters-to-the-Editor criticized this proposal as a non sequitur. Blanchard (2009), in rebuttal, reaffirmed his position, but without adequately addressing some central criticisms.
In this article, we examine hebephilia-as-disorder in full detail. Unlike Blanchard et al., we discuss definitions of mental disorder, examine extensive evidence from a broad range of sources, and consider alternative (i.e., non-pathological) explanations for hebephilia.
We employed Wakefield's (1992b) harmful dysfunction approach to disorder, which holds that a condition only counts as a disorder when it is a failure of a naturally selected mechanism to function as designed, which is harmful to the individual in the current environment. We also considered a harmful-for-others approach to disorder (Brülde, 2007).
Examination of historical, cross-cultural, sociological, cross-species, non-clinical empirical, and evolutionary evidence and perspectives indicated that hebephilic interest is an evolved capacity and hebephilic preference an expectable distributional variant, both of which were adaptively neutral or functional, not dysfunctional, in earlier human environments. Hebephilia's conflict with modern society makes it an evolutionary mismatch, not a genuine disorder.
Though it should not be classified as a disorder, it could be entered in the DSM's V-code section, used for non-disordered conditions that create significant problems in present-day society.
A Historical, Cross-Cultural, Sociological, Cross-Species, Non-Clinical Empirical, and Evolutionary Review
Blanchard et al. (2009) demonstrated that hebephilia is a genuine sexual preference, but then proposed, without argument or evidence, that it should be designated as a mental disorder in the DSM-5. A series of Letters-to-the-Editor criticized this proposal as a non sequitur. Blanchard (2009), in rebuttal, reaffirmed his position, but without adequately addressing some central criticisms.
In this article, we examine hebephilia-as-disorder in full detail. Unlike Blanchard et al., we discuss definitions of mental disorder, examine extensive evidence from a broad range of sources, and consider alternative (i.e., non-pathological) explanations for hebephilia.
We employed Wakefield's (1992b) harmful dysfunction approach to disorder, which holds that a condition only counts as a disorder when it is a failure of a naturally selected mechanism to function as designed, which is harmful to the individual in the current environment. We also considered a harmful-for-others approach to disorder (Brülde, 2007).
Examination of historical, cross-cultural, sociological, cross-species, non-clinical empirical, and evolutionary evidence and perspectives indicated that hebephilic interest is an evolved capacity and hebephilic preference an expectable distributional variant, both of which were adaptively neutral or functional, not dysfunctional, in earlier human environments. Hebephilia's conflict with modern society makes it an evolutionary mismatch, not a genuine disorder.
Though it should not be classified as a disorder, it could be entered in the DSM's V-code section, used for non-disordered conditions that create significant problems in present-day society.
;
Hebephilia Is Not a Mental Disorder in DSM-IV-TR and Should Not Become One in DSM-5;
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law;
39(1), 78-85,
Feb 01 2011
The paraphilia section of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) is being misinterpreted in the forensic evaluations of sexually violent offenders. The resulting misuse of the term paraphilia not otherwise specified, hebephilia, has justified the inappropriate involuntary commitment of individuals who do not in fact qualify for a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of mental disorder. This article has two purposes: to clarify what the DSM-IV-TR was meant to convey and how it has been twisted in translation within the legal system, and to warn that the DSM-5 proposal to include pedohebephilia threatens to make the current bad situation very much worse in the future.
The paraphilia section of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) is being misinterpreted in the forensic evaluations of sexually violent offenders. The resulting misuse of the term paraphilia not otherwise specified, hebephilia, has justified the inappropriate involuntary commitment of individuals who do not in fact qualify for a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of mental disorder. This article has two purposes: to clarify what the DSM-IV-TR was meant to convey and how it has been twisted in translation within the legal system, and to warn that the DSM-5 proposal to include pedohebephilia threatens to make the current bad situation very much worse in the future.