tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post7272023506021129044..comments2024-03-05T01:05:37.027-08:00Comments on IN THE NEWS: DSM-V: Will shoddy manual implode years before launch date?Karen Franklin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-68627204542009715482011-08-16T16:04:22.144-07:002011-08-16T16:04:22.144-07:00@ Anonymous:
I doubt you will read this, since it...@ Anonymous:<br /><br />I doubt you will read this, since it has been a while that you posted, but I am leaving my comments for others to read as well so they can consider the points made . . .<br /><br />>>If pedophilia is not inconsistent with a large swath of normal human variation then it is unclear to me how psychology can provide *any* basis for the claim that “sex with under age victims should be discouraged as an important matter of public policy.” In fact, psychology should be arguing that public policy is ill served by such criminalization. On the other hand, if pedophilia is inconsistent with normal human variation then where is the difficulty with it’s criminalization being accomplished by “mental disorder fiat”. That is an entirely unpersuasive quibble about methodology, especially in light of the de facto reality that hundreds of psychologists over the last 20 years have testified that pedophilia=the devil.<<<br /><br />First off, be careful how you use the term 'pedophilia". Despite the fact that so many people in mainstream American society tend to misuse it doesn't give you or anyone a green light to do the same, especially on a professionally- and intellectually-oriented forum such as this. When you do, I cannot help but dispense with your comments as possessing anything serious. Please know about that which you are discussing.<br /><br />For clarity's sake: Pedophilia is the ongoing attraction by an adult (as socially determined) for prepubescent children. If psychologists have been saying all this time that pedophilia is harmful, then that's likely in reference to sex between said adults and PREPUBESCENT children (i.e. those who have not yet entered puberty). That behavior, I would agree, is always harmful, as said children are not yet physically or psychologically ready for copulation. Adolescents, however, are a different story, and my research has found that adult-teen sexual intercourse (which is NOT pedophilic in nature and also common) is not necessarily detrimental to the youth, especial since, in many cases, the youth is the one who engages with the adult. This sort of thing happens every single day and has since time began. Adults who have had ongoing sexual encounters with adults when they were teenagers have looked back fondly on their experience and with no ill effects. That's not saying that harm doesn't occur with teenagers, only that this isn't always the case. The lower AoC in various other country's (where adult-teen sex is legal as long as [1] sex isn't forced, and [2] the youth's age falls within the AoC) testifies to this.<br /><br />All that said, I am not saying that I condone such behavior or that I encourage anyone to break the law; I am only clarifying that pedophilia has a specific reference for a reason--that prepubescent youth are incapable of engaging in sexual intercourse--and that this is probably why psychologists have called it harmful in the past. The AoC is arbitrary and not indicative of natural or evolutionary conditions, only the social attitudes and legal stances in a particular region. <br /><br />a.k.a. R1researcheronehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576084808353132904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-63722673362729921132010-02-25T04:33:30.835-08:002010-02-25T04:33:30.835-08:00Good post. My feeling is that DSM-V is, in an impo...Good post. My feeling is that DSM-V is, in an important way, already dead - precisely because it's being criticized and discussed by so many people both inside and outside of psychiatry, before it's even arrived.<br /><br />With DSM-III and DSM-IV, the public, and professionals not involved in drawing it up, were basically presented with a big book of mental disorders and told "This is the truth". Which lent these earlier versions a lot of authority - that's why everyone called them the "Bible" of psychiatry. Sure there were critics, but they were the underdogs.<br /><br />Whereas now everyone can see that DSM-V is not absolute truth, it's the product of a long process with a lot of politics and tricky issues etc. along the way. So I think, when DSM-V does arrive, people just won't care as much as they used to.Neuroskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06647064768789308157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-44291994147120885342010-02-21T07:18:01.647-08:002010-02-21T07:18:01.647-08:00Also see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010...Also see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100220204806.htm -- "How Far Should Neuroscience Evidence Go in Court Trials?"Truth in Justice Fileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11287997013742675577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-22880013606561351912010-02-20T14:44:08.519-08:002010-02-20T14:44:08.519-08:00I had not seen Dr. Frances comments before but the...I had not seen Dr. Frances comments before but they gave me a grim laugh, especially his comments about pedophilia. It’s remarkable that after all this time he has finally conceded that the DSM IV lead to a major mess and now is hurriedly trying to stuff the cat back into the bag. Too little, too late. <br /><br />Dr Frances writes, “Expanding the definition of pedophilia to include pubescent teenagers would medicalize criminal behavior and further the previously described misuse of psychiatry by the legal system. Certainly, sex with under-age victims should be discouraged as an important matter of public policy, but this should be accomplished by legal statute and appropriate sentencing, not by mental disorder fiat.”<br /><br />The problem with his statement is that it entirely ignores the last 20 years. Sex with under-age victims (however defined) has been criminalized because psychologists have insisted for the last 20 years that it’s medically harmful. The DSV V isn’t proposing anything new in this area. It’s simply codifying what psychologist have been telling state legislatures for years; an activity that was encouraged in no small part because of the changes overseen by Dr. Frances in the DSM-IV.<br /><br />The more fundamental problem is illustrated by Dr. Satel’s comment about “large swaths of normal human variation.” If pedophilia is not inconsistent with a large swath of normal human variation then it is unclear to me how psychology can provide *any* basis for the claim that “sex with under age victims should be discouraged as an important matter of public policy.” In fact, psychology should be arguing that public policy is ill served by such criminalization. On the other hand, if pedophilia is inconsistent with normal human variation then where is the difficulty with it’s criminalization being accomplished by “mental disorder fiat”. That is an entirely unpersuasive quibble about methodology, especially in light of the de facto reality that hundreds of psychologists over the last 20 years have testified that pedophilia=the devil.<br /><br />The basic point it this. It’s entirely unconvincing for psychiatry/psychology as a profession to now go around claiming that it is being “misused by the legal system” when it has, at a bare minimum, submissively complied with that misuse and in reality has frequently encouraged the law in the behavior it now condemns. Psychology has paltered with its reputation as a science in order to achieve public influence. What is going on with the DSM V is the inevitable result of that exchange.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com