tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post5461238686370325165..comments2024-03-20T19:17:02.285-07:00Comments on IN THE NEWS: Leading psychiatrists critique proposed sexual disordersKaren Franklin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-72506300190573528122011-06-27T16:31:48.369-07:002011-06-27T16:31:48.369-07:00I submitted my comment at the DSM-5 site and subse...I submitted my comment at the DSM-5 site and subsequently posted here, at a different blog entry, for others to read. Let's keep our fingers crossed.<br /><br />By the way, do you think that Pedophilia, like homosexuality, will eventually be dropped from the DSM as well? Apparently, this construct also has weak underpinnings (if I recall, you and others have mentioned this). If the legal system and law enforcement agencies have their way it won't be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-60694132610553098952011-06-24T06:28:30.245-07:002011-06-24T06:28:30.245-07:00Nothing is set in stone. It hasn't been review...Nothing is set in stone. It hasn't been reviewed by the recently established scientific review task force. When that group sees the incredibly weak and irrelevant research underlying the construct, it should dump it in the scrap heap. If this does not happen, many eyebrows will rise.Karen Franklin, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-20936223641553663752011-06-23T14:54:55.492-07:002011-06-23T14:54:55.492-07:00As for the DSM-5 site, I plan on it. I read somewh...As for the DSM-5 site, I plan on it. I read somewhere that reviewers require an account in order to post. Sadly, I am not quite sure if my input would make that much of a difference.<br /><br />R1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-64625874993964532032011-06-23T14:48:09.270-07:002011-06-23T14:48:09.270-07:00Thanks Karen,
As you may know, I am aware of the ...Thanks Karen,<br /><br />As you may know, I am aware of the construct and the notion to which it refers. I knew that the debate has been ongoing as well. Many of your blog entries on this were posted after the crossdreamers post, so I thought the decision wasn't yet determined. The Crossdreamers post seems to suggest that the construct will, in fact, be entered into the DSM-5, that the decision has been made. That was what caused my confusion.<br /><br />By the way, is there still a chance that the pedohebephilia construct might not be approved for the DSM-5? So many in your field (and others) are dead set against it. How can the sub-group or APA approve it with so such a heavy opposition within it's ranks? Europe will likely laugh at it and then disregard it, as many AoCs in Europe are 14.<br /><br />As for why they are clinging tenaciously to it, I can understand why. The reasons have absolutely NOTHING to do with science. At least the construct hasn't gone so overboard as to include adolescents up to 18 (i.e. ages 15, 16, 17), although the forces that be are likely pushing for that to eventually happen and ensure that pathology runs concordance with age, as if there is a difference. With the continuing rise of hysteria and creation of laws to fight SVP (sexually violent predation) in this country, said forces will go to any extent to stifle such behavior as adult-teen sexual interaction. I don't condone breaking the law, but the collective powers seem to think they can change evolutionary programming simply because it conflicts with social mores. They won't. They are persistent indeed.<br /><br />By the way, why direction do you believe this will be heading? What do you believe will happen?<br /><br />R1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-13308526915351807682011-06-22T17:24:04.549-07:002011-06-22T17:24:04.549-07:00You're not misreading. In the current proposal...You're not misreading. In the current proposal, Hebephilia is folded into Pedophilia as a brand-new disorder called "Pedohebephilia." The Sexual Disorders Work Group has backed off on another controversial proposal, to turn rape into a mental disorder (Paraphilic Coercive Disorder), but they are clinging tenaciously to this one despite the fact that it's making them look foolish to mainstream clinicians, researchers, etc. around the world. I've blogged about this a lot; you can do a search for the term on my blog site to find out more. The DSM-5 public comments period has been extended until mid-July, so you can write to the DSM-5 and share your thoughts.Karen Franklin, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-40962466080843619902011-06-22T15:57:54.858-07:002011-06-22T15:57:54.858-07:00Hey Karen,
Am I reading right on this? Crossdream...Hey Karen,<br /><br />Am I reading right on this? Crossdreamers.com seems to suggest in its April 1, 2011 entree on Paraphiliphilia that the APA has decided to include Hebephilia into the upcoming DSM-5. Or did I misread this? Do you know the status on this?<br /><br />http://www.crossdreamers.com/2011/04/paraphiliphilia-makes-it-into-dsm-5.html<br /><br />I can only say: Heaven help the world and the fields of psychology and psychiatry if this is true!<br /><br />R1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-85087934180522982842011-06-08T10:47:30.436-07:002011-06-08T10:47:30.436-07:00. The category lacks a principled basis for consid...<i>. The category lacks a principled basis for considering inclusions and exclusions, which makes it vulnerable to societal pressures rather than advances in science.</i><br />Of course it lacks a conceptual basis. The perversions arouse in 19th century forensic practice, and were rooted in the idea that procreation is the purpose of the human sexual instinct, such that any sexual instinct not directed at potentially procreative activities was perversion (different from perversity, which was immoral sexual behavior). Now that the perversion of perversions of old (homosexuality) has been (largely) normalized (at least in the mental health professions) and a potentially-procreative sexual ethic has itself become marginal, the whole concept of "paraphilia" is based on a foundation we no longer accept.<br /><br />Thus, you have Federoff basically taking our "between consenting adults" ethical standard as though it were a scientific concept ("informed consent" is an ethicolegal concept, not a scientific one!) as his basis for paraphilia. (And then he ignored this for TF.)<br /><br />Berlin is honest about his basis for regarding things as paraphilias--it's a value judgment through and through. But that leaves little room for distinguishing between mental disorder and crime (both of which are things we devalue).<br /><br />First (in another article in JAAPL) basically embraced the idea that the core of the concept of "paraphilia" is that they are sexual interests that are "bizarre." Well..."bizarre" according to who?<br /><br />Combine all this with the fact that of all the variations in human sexuality that exist that might be regarded as perversion, the only ones to become specific diagnoses are those that have a forensic history, the fact that the perversions are primarily studied by in forensic contexts, with data on their very high prevalence in the general population (so high that they really can't be judged deviant in any scientifically meaningful sense) basically ignored.<br /><br />Unless you can tell me what sex is for, you have no foundation for a concept of "paraphilia."ACHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643809450938135601noreply@blogger.com