Analecto

21 de janeiro de 2019

What I learned reading “Hebephilia is not a mental disorder in DSM-IV-TR and should not become one in DSM-5”.

Filed under: Saúde e bem-estar — Tags:, , — Yurinho @ 15:54

Hebephilia is not a mental disorder in DSM-IV-TR and should not become one inDSM-5″ was written by Allen Frances and Michael B. First. Below, what I learned from reading this text.

  1. The DSM can be misinterpreted by people in the forensic field.
  2. This is because some vague categories, such as “unspecified paraphilia,” allow people who do not qualify as “mentally ill” to be diagnosed as such.
  3. It is not always possible to tell the difference between a healthy criminal and a mentally ill criminal.
  4. One of the reasons for hurried diagnosis is that the healthy criminal stays in state custody for less time in the United States, while the “mentally disordered” criminal stays under state custody (in mental health programs, for example) even after serving his sentence.
  5. Thus, the DSM can be interpreted in an intentionally twisted way, to ensure that a person is deprived of their freedoms for a longer time.
  6. Is pedophilia really an illness?
  7. The term “hebephilia” has only become popular because of its recent use in the forensic field as a way of justifying diagnosis for people who have sexual relationships with pubescents rather than prepubescents.
  8. There is little research on hebephilia, although there is a lot about pedophilia .
  9. Because hebephilia is not a disorder, but people feel that hebephiles are dangerous enough to deserve extended tutelage (through forced medical treatment), forensic psychologists use the diagnosis “non-specific paraphilia” to justify such tutelage.
  10. Thus, the idea that hebephilia is a disorder comes from the forensic field.
  11. The DSM-III stated that a subject has an unhealthy paraphilia if the subject “has sex” to non-human objects, to people who would feel humiliated by the act or people who didn’t give their consent, but in a later review ( DSM-III-R ) the term ” children ” was placed right next to “non-consenting partners”.
  12. The DSM fails to say what makes a particular sex drive sick or healthy.
  13. For a sexual desire to be considered unhealthy in the DSM , it must involve objects, suffering or people who aren’t consenting.
  14. The problem is that “paraphilia” itself is a medical construct and, as any construct, medical or otherwise, can be misinterpreted.
  15. The fact is that the introductory text that says that a sickly sexual desire involves objects, suffering, among others, is not absolute: it is only an introduction to the specific types of paraphilia that follow in the text.
  16. Thus, the introduction alone does not make anything unhealthy and can not be used out of context.
  17. “Strange” or “bizarre” sexual desire is inaccurate: which desires are strange or bizarre and to whom?
  18. “Paraphilia” is as inaccurate as “mental disorder.”
  19. Thus, the diagnosis “non-specific paraphilia” depends on the person in charge of the evaluation.
  20. Hebephilia has never been in the DSM in any of its editions, because its incidence is too high to be considered unusual or bizarre: which man will say he has never seen a hot teen?
  21. The clinical definition of “child” in the DSM does not therefore include pubescents (usually you are no longer a child at fourteen and puberty comes earlier with each generation).
  22. If you are attracted to someone who has started puberty, you are not a pedophile: what attracts the pedophile is the absence of puberty.
  23. So if you’re flirting with a twelve-year-old, you’re not sick, but you certainly are a criminal .
  24. The use of “nonspecific” diagnosis is useful in medicine, but not in the forensic field.
  25. Two physicians may disagree on the need to issue a “non-specific diagnosis” to any subject.
  26. “Non-specific diagnosis” should not be routinely issued by the forensic sectors, because there are implications that need to be taken into account.
  27. This practice should not become common: virtually any criminal could be considered ill if we could just give everyone a “paraphilia, unspecified” diagnosis, allowing indefinite state tutelage to a giant number of people.
  28. “Non-specific diagnosis” can not be routinely accepted as evidence.
  29. Intelligence quotient, level of instruction, head trauma, dominant hand, and height are not reliable indicators of mental disorder.
  30. Very general diagnoses are less reliable.
  31. As the diagnostic terms for pedophilia in DSM-IV-TR were vague (“recurrent” or “intense” desires), pedophiles could undergo evaluation and not receive diagnosis, just as people could be diagnosed with pedophilia without being pedophiles.
  32. These problems would be amplified with the introduction of the diagnosis of hebephilia.
  33. “Number of children with whom the subject had sex” does not serve as a diagnostic criterion.
  34. Falometry doesn’t give conclusive evidence.
  35. Data obtained by sampling from specific groups have a lower generalization factor.
  36. There are several reasons that lead a person to have sex with a child or adolescent and pedophilia or hebephilia are just two of them.
  37. Moreover, it is not always possible to point out signs of puberty to qualify the diagnosis of hebephilia.
  38. Attraction to pubertal children and adolescents is common, it is a “norm” and is therefore normal.
  39. This is not to say that all people who feel desire for the younger ones will have sex with them, especially if they know that it is illegal (the age of consent in Brazil is fourteen, that is, any libidinous act with a person under the age of fourteen is illegal , even if both parties are under the age of fourteen).
  40. In a study conducted in the 1970s, the level of sexual arousal towards adolescents was high both among sex offenders and law-abiding citizens.
  41. The media knows this: look at how youth is sexualized in media.
  42. It follows that classifying hebephilia as a mental disorder would imply offering therapy to half of the world.
  43. So hebophilia is normal, but sex with a teenager is still a crime (depending on where you are, tho).
  44. A psychiatric authority can not sanction a new diagnosis without a solid empirical foundation, without regard to the cost-benefit ratio.

Deixe um comentário »

Nenhum comentário ainda.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Deixe um comentário

Preencha os seus dados abaixo ou clique em um ícone para log in:

Logotipo do WordPress.com

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta WordPress.com. Sair /  Alterar )

Foto do Google

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Google. Sair /  Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Twitter. Sair /  Alterar )

Foto do Facebook

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Facebook. Sair /  Alterar )

Conectando a %s

Este site utiliza o Akismet para reduzir spam. Saiba como seus dados em comentários são processados.

%d blogueiros gostam disto: