snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   NFBSK (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Pedophilia now an orientation instead of a disorder (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=87606)

snopes 31 October 2013 08:11 PM

Pedophilia now an orientation instead of a disorder
 
Comment: Pedophilia Officially Classified as Sexual Orientation by
American Psychiatric Association. Is this real?

http://www.charismanews.com/us/41571...gy-association

There are many posts/remarks going back and forth on whether this is real
or not but I have not been able to find anything solid on this. I'm hoping
this is not the case and that this is some sort of troll.

Wolf333 31 October 2013 08:32 PM

New facts!


Just the AFA talking out of their butts again.

A Turtle Named Mack 31 October 2013 08:54 PM

Not really. The follow-up shows that 'pedophilia' under that name has been recognized as an orientation and that pedophilic disorder is when one does not or cannot stop oneself from acting on that orientation. AFA did not give the full context and probably did not have it, but just got the basic info and issued its report. Yeah, it would be nice if reporters got the full context of the stories they post, but this is very common throughout the media.

Wolf333 31 October 2013 09:14 PM

That's a really round about way to say the the AFA was talking out of its butt again.

erwins 31 October 2013 09:18 PM

Does the DSM define sexual orientations? Because the follow up I see just says they changed the name to pedophilic disorder to standardize the nomenclature, that it was an editorial change, not a change in criteria. It seems that people are deducing from that bit of grammar change that that means that DSM is somehow recognizing something they didn't before. I don't think there's any evidence of that yet.

Lainie 31 October 2013 09:22 PM

No, the DSM does not define orientations, because they are not disorders or diseases.

erwins 31 October 2013 09:45 PM

That's what I thought.

This:
Quote:

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack (Post 1779110)
Not really. The follow-up shows that 'pedophilia' under that name has been recognized as an orientation and that pedophilic disorder is when one does not or cannot stop oneself from acting on that orientation. AFA did not give the full context and probably did not have it, but just got the basic info and issued its report.

is flat wrong.

ganzfeld 31 October 2013 11:15 PM

There may be some truth to it. I'm not saying it's likely but it's within the realm of possibility that the AFA is unable to use Google due to being too stupid.

Avril 31 October 2013 11:31 PM

What I don't get is that the language that describes what is wrong with the person is exactly the same as in the DSM-IV. It's just changed the name of it from "pedophila" to "pedophiliac disorder." So how did the AFA go from that to waving its flags around?

geminilee 31 October 2013 11:50 PM

I think it fulfills the definition of an orientation, in that it typically cannot be cured any more than homo- or heterosexuality.

Does that mean I think it is ok, should be legal, or any of that nonsense? Hell no. I would like to see some more understanding of the condition/orientation. That way, (to use a phrase I heard first from Dan Savage) " Gold Star" pedophiles can get the help and support they need to remain "Gold Stars".

I can imagine it must be difficult, to know that if you ever had a sexual relationship with one you are attracted to, you will damage them. That is totally not to belittle the very real suffering caused by the other type, and not to distract or detract from them.

Avril 01 November 2013 01:47 AM

I'm not sure that whether or not something can be "cured" is what makes it a disorder. Lots of disorders can't be cured.

ichabodius 01 November 2013 06:43 AM

Posted this elsewhere:
Heres a detailed explanation of the changes made earlier this year:

http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.or...icleid=1685438

Quote:

Most apparent to clinicians will be the distinction between paraphilias—defined as atypical sexual practices—and paraphilic disorders, which include distress or impairment in functioning. Specific criteria for paraphilic disorders are not changed except for the addition of specifiers for “in remission” or “in a controlled environment” to indicate course of illness; the latter specifier would be used, for instance, in the case of someone with a pedophilic disorder who no longer engages in sexual activity with children because the individual is incarcerated.
Peophilia is still considered a paraphilic disorder it has not changed there have only been qualifiers added to indicate "in remission" or "in a controlled environment" i.e prison.

Pedophilia is not being normalized.
This will explain further:

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraph...ct%20Sheet.pdf


Quote:

Characteristics of Paraphilic Disorders
Most people with atypical sexual interests do not have a mental disorder. To be diagnosed with a paraphilic
disorder, DSM-5 requires that people with these interests:
• feel personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society’s disapproval;
or
• have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or
death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal
consent.
To further define the line between an atypical sexual interest and disorder, the Work Group revised the
names of these disorders to differentiate between the behavior itself and the disorder stemming from
that behavior (i.e., Sexual Masochism in DSM-IV will be titled Sexual Masochism Disorder in DSM-5).
It is a subtle but crucial difference that makes it possible for an individual to engage in consensual atypical
sexual behavior without inappropriately being labeled with a mental disorder. With this revision,
DSM-5 clearly distinguishes between atypical sexual interests and mental disorders involving these
desires or behaviors.
The chapter on paraphilic disorders includes eight conditions: exhibitionistic disorder, fetishistic disorder,
frotteuristic disorder, pedophilic disorder, sexual masochism disorder, sexual sadism disorder,
transvestic disorder, and voyeuristic disorder.
Please note this:
Quote:

In the case of pedophilic disorder, the notable detail is what wasn’t revised in the new manual. Although
proposals were discussed throughout the DSM-5 development process, diagnostic criteria ultimately
remained the same as in DSM-IV TR. Only the disorder name will be changed from pedophilia
to pedophilic disorder to maintain consistency with the chapter’s other listings.

electricitycat 05 November 2013 09:19 PM

I don't think it should be 'normalised' in the sense that is considered acceptable to act upon those impulses, but we can't pretend that paedophilia is not an inherent condition and needs to be treated or managed in whatever way keeps the person and any potential victims of abuse safe.

I'm tired of seeing "PAEDOPHILE CAUGHT" when what they mean is child molester. I can only imagine how many people have those feelings and fight it every day and never act on it, they do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush. Max Pemberton who is an NHS psychiatrist mentioned working in a children's home and meeting a 12 year old boy who had tried to commit suicide on more than one occasion because he wanted to have sex with, and kill, small children, and he didn't want those thoughts in his head anymore.

I can't find a reference to that online, I think it was in one of his books, but here is an article he wrote on the subject of paedophilia in general:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10...e-illness.html

Blatherskite 08 November 2013 01:24 AM

In my opinion the argument whether a sexual inclination can be called a 'disorder' is a red herring waved about to distract us from the most critical issue of whether it's consensual or not. Certain kinds of people class homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality as 'disorders' to de-normalise them and to ignore the total lack of harm they cause to either the 'sufferer' or their 'targets'. If a disorder causes no suffering other than what is inflicted by the negative response of society, is it really a disorder? It seems to me that the only people who suggest paedophilia is not a disorder are either remorseless paedophiles themselves or those who seek to tarnish the word 'orientation' by stroking paedophiles with the same brush. It is a demonstrably harmful act, so the desire to perform it is disordered.

I have a great deal of sympathy for paedophiles who seek help to stop themselves acting on their desires towards children who are by nature unable to give meaningful consent. But they are in no way comparable towards homosexuals, even reluctant homosexuals, who seek relationships with consenting adults.

Esprise Me 08 November 2013 04:57 AM

This story has gotten me thinking--if we can create such convincing child porn bait for the purpose of catching predators without any actual children being involved, is it perhaps time to make that technology available to pedophiles who are looking for ethical ways to cope with their desires?

Shoggoth 09 December 2013 07:28 AM

No. Anything realistic enough to provide an outlet would be considered promoting the real thing. Even non-realistic things can get someone in trouble with obscenity laws.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.