Posted on 11/01/2013 2:56:29 PM PDT by Houmatt
Washington, DC—The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has changed the definition of pedophilia again. In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V) of Mental Disorders, the APA changed the classification of pedophilia from a “disorder” to a “sexual orientation,” but following the public outcry, APA released a statement that it was a mistake. “‘Sexual orientation’ is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder, and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read ‘sexual interest.’”
When releasing the original DSM-V, APA said it “marked the end of more than a decade’s journey in revising the criteria for the diagnosis and classification of mental disorders,” with collaboration from “professionals from the mental health and medical communities, patients and their families, and members of the public.”
“Clearly, if reclassifying pedophilia was merely an ‘error,’ it would have been caught in the ‘decade’s journey,’” says Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.
“Whether it is classified a ‘sexual orientation’ or a ‘sexual interest,’ any effort to legitimize pedophilia will provide pederasts with all the arguments they need to remove age of consent laws, and children will suffer,” says Staver.
The nonscientific, APA changes of pedophilia have been ripe with controversy over the years.
In the third edition of the DSM, APA said that one who acted upon one’s sexual attraction to children was a pedophile.
In DSM-IV, APA changed the criteria, saying that pedophilia was only a disorder if it “caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.”
The Rind study followed and concluded that man-boy “consensual” relationships were not necessarily harmful.
Following the public outcry of the Rind study, APA said moral values trumped the scientific study.
The original printing of the most recent DSM-V changed pedophilia to a “sexual orientation,” but again the public outcry prompted psychology experts to admit an “error” that will be corrected in “the next printing of the manual.” The DSM-V has been under consideration for ten years. It is hard to accept that its publication was a mistake or an error. It is more likely that the public outcry prompted the APA’s recent press statement.
“The APA has lost credibility with this recent blunder over the classification for pedophilia. The APA has become co-opted by a political agenda. It is hard to see the APA any other way,” says Staver. “The implications of reclassifying natural law, whether it be for same-sex marriage or adult-children relationships, are far-reaching,” Staver concluded.
“Following the public outcry of the Rind study, APA said moral values trumped the scientific study.”
These are the same moral values that didn’t trump their pseudoscientific studies back when they pushed homosexuality.
What a joke, and a sick one at that.
Once you’ve redefined buggery as normal, it’s hard to know where to put the stake in the ground anymore. But the good news is that eventually psychiatrists will redefine themselves right out of business. After all, when nothing’s abnormal, there’s nothing left to treat.
The cure for pedophilia will then be plumbum fulminus — burning lead.
How about Punishable By Death? That has a nice ring to it.
I can describe pedophilia:
“Death Sentence”.
ping
the leftist perverts have an agenda and the rest of the APA are half-crazy themselves
bump!!!!
Especially for the children.
/v/ (vomit tag)
They have already convinced the lawmakers that we no longer have to institutionalize the mentally disturbed we can treat them all at out patient clinic facilicties because WE ALL know they can be trusted to take thier meds. So the walk the street of big cities. These docs are crazier than the people they treat
If they manage tp redefine to sexual orientation, any and all reaction to pedophiles will be illegal.
In DSM-IV, APA changed the criteria, saying that pedophilia was only a disorder if it “caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.”
Call me unsubtle, but it occurs to me that molesting kiddies does constitute "distress or impairment in social functioning." I note, too, the focus of the second definition is on clinically significant distress or impairment in social, etc, functioning on the part of the molester. What it causes in the victim appears not to be considered at all.
There has been a large hue and cry of late in the arbitrariness of pedophilia laws in the case of, say, an 18-year-old prosecuted for having sex with a 17-year-old. By focusing on that sort of case the clinicians blur the distinction between that and a 50-year-old molesting a pre-teen. It isn't even close to the same thing. And if they write their clinical definitions to cover both cases they're kidding themselves and everyone else.
And they almost got away with it but for those meddling kids...
Was the Rind study consucted by homosexual scientists?
May we call it what it really is? Child molestation!
Give them the choice: Death or Unga-Bunga.
;'}
The sex positive agenda seeks to end all moral judgments regarding sexual pairings of any kind regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).
They see orgasm as a birthright to be enjoyed at every age.
They are decidedly anti-abstinence not because ‘it doesn’t work’ but because it is counter to their hedonist worldview.
Was the Rind study consucted by homosexual psychiatrists?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.