Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo

CNSNews.com ^ | 6/11/03 | Lawrence Morahan

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.

Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Most of the mental illnesses being considered for removal are known as "paraphilias."

Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa presented conferees with a paper entitled "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal."

People whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden or religiously proscribed should not necessarily be labeled mentally ill, they argued.

Different societies stigmatize different sexual behaviors, and since the existing research could not distinguish people with paraphilias from so-called "normophilics," there is no reason to diagnose paraphilics as either a distinct group or psychologically unhealthy, Moser and Kleinplatz stated.

Participants also debated gender-identity disorder, a condition in which a person feels discomfort with his or her biological sex. Homosexual activists have long argued that gender identity disorder should not be assumed to be abnormal.

"The situation of the paraphilias at present parallels that of homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM," Moser and Kleinplatz wrote.

A. Dean Byrd, vice president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Utah, condemned the debate. Taking the paraphilias out of the DSM without research would have negative consequences, he said.

"What this does, in essence, is it has a chilling effect on research," Byrd said. "That is, once you declassify it, there's no reason to continue studying it. What we know is that the paraphilias really impair interpersonal sexual behavior...and to suggest that it could be 'normalized' simply takes away from the science, but more importantly, has a chilling effect on research."

"Normalizing" pedophilia would have enormous implications, especially since civil laws closely follow the scientific community on social-moral matters, said Linda Ames Nicolosi, NARTH publications director.

"If pedophilia is deemed normal by psychiatrists, then how can it remain illegal?" Nicolosi asked. "It will be a tough fight to prove in the courts that it should still be against the law."

In previous articles, psychiatrists have argued that there is little or no proof that sex with adults is necessarily harmful to minors. Indeed, they have argued that many sexually molested children later look back on their experience as positive, Nicolosi said.

"And other psychiatrists have written, again in scientific journals, that if children can be forced to go to church, why should 'consent' be the defining moral issue when it comes to sex?" she said.

But whether pedophilia should be judged "normal and healthy" is as much a moral question as a scientific one, according to Nicolosi.

"The courts are so afraid of 'legislating someone's privately held religious beliefs' that if pedophilia is normalized, we will be hard put to defend the retention of laws against child molestation," Nicolosi noted.

In a fact sheet on pedophilia, the APA calls the behavior "criminal and immoral."

"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior," the APA said.

However, the APA failed to address whether it considers a person with a pedophile orientation to have a mental disorder.

"That is the question that is being actively debated at this time within the APA, and that is the question they have not answered when they respond that such relationships are 'immoral and illegal,'" Nicolosi said.

Dr. Darrel A. Regier, director of research for the APA, said there were "no plans and there is no process set up that would lead to the removal of the paraphilias from their consideration as legitimate mental disorders."

Some years ago, the APA considered the question of whether a person who had such attractions but did not act on them should still be labeled with a disorder.

"We clarified in the DSM-IV-TR...that if a person acted on those urges, we considered it a disorder," Regier said.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, author of a study on change of sexual orientation that he presented at the 2001 APA convention, took part in the symposium in San Francisco in May.

Spitzer said the debate on removing gender identity disorder from the DSM was generated by people in the homosexual activist community "who are troubled by gender identity disorder in particular."

Spitzer added: "I happen to think that's a big mistake."

What Spitzer considered the most outrageous proposal, to get rid of the paraphilias, "doesn't have the same support that the gender-identity rethinking does." And he said he considers it unlikely that changes would be made regarding the paraphilias.

"Getting rid of the paraphilias, which would mean getting rid of pedophilia, that would not happen in a million years. I think there might be some compromise about gender-identity disorder," he said.

Dr. Frederick Berlin, founder of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, said people who are sexually attracted to children should learn not to feel ashamed of their condition.

"I have no problem accepting the fact that someone, through no fault of his own, is attracted to children. But certainly, such an individual has a responsibility...not to act on it," Berlin said.

"Many of these people need help in not acting on these very intense desires in the same way that a drug addict or alcoholic may need help. Again, we don't for the most part blame someone these days for their alcoholism; we don't see it simply as a moral weakness," he added.

"We do believe that these people have a disease or a disorder, but we also recognize that in having it that it impairs their function, that it causes them suffering that they need to turn for help," Berlin said.

E-mail a news tip to Lawrence Morahan.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Well, I might be biased about "the gay sexual orientation".

More examples about sex sodomy is what you are not what you do.

[Clint N. Suhks]

This is exactly why the de-listing is such a non-story. Some Freepers are proclaiming this the validation of the slippery slope argument, and are waiting for pedophiles to freely roam the streets having sex with children...

You're right, we didn't see that with homosexuality did we? Er, except for rest stops. Er, public bathrooms. Er, parks. Er, uh oh??? Sorry I was wrong.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Well, I guess that's as close as it gets to you admitting no "rights" have been violated.

I know laws have no meaning to those who break them

Of course they are. You enjoy having your personal morals enforced by the government.

The legislature last time I looked was not about MY personal beliefs.

Fortunately you're on the losing side. The tide turned against you, and it's only going to change faster.

With the help of a liberal/homosexual activist group called the APA.

Explain how homosexuals seek to pervert and negatively affect society.

Demanding special rights. Indoctrinating children to believe your pathology is normal. Et al…

Make predictions about what will happen if gay couples have civil unions. Then we can see if you're right, since it will probably happen within my lifetime.

Pretending to be normal by virtue of government sanction perverts right and wrong…Duh!

If you want to start a thread on pedophilia and euthanasia, then I'll explain my viewpoint on those subjects there. Focus on this one idea for once...

It’s all about the excuse of personal consent and I AGAIN remind you this thread is about paraphilic disorder, your pathology…remember???

[RobbyS]

Their view of sexual morality seems to be that it is merely conventional.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Pot, Kettle, black...sorry to confuse you with nursery school analogy..yada yada yada...I’ll try to speak more to your IQ next time."

Oh, I figured you were trying to make that pot-kettle charge, but ignored it because I know it's just not true and you couldn't make it stick. Here's the thing, you 'I'm-rubber-you're-glue' chucklehead, you just have to look at Buffalo Kevin's forum threadlist to see what an 'interesting' group of threads he's playing on, and that is why I made that comment, as I stated in my original post. You're proving your powers of observation only extend to the edge of your flaming nostrils. But again, it's easier for you and your kind to project your sickness on others, and make the weak attack that Libertarians are the perverse ones, when in fact it's you and your buddies, defending the sick, sad, demented status quo so that you can get your jollies more securely.

"...Liberals and Liberaltarians share more in common with “DU fans” than conservatives but why would I expect you to understand those subtleties? Go figure?"

Oh, you've got all the subtlety of the Cookie Monster in a Keebler factory. I knew full well that you'd avoid the issue, which is that neostatists like you fling accusations of 'Liberal!' like they'll stick, when all you really want is to be government expansionists in your own right. C'mon, you and your ilk practically slip in your own drool every time someone says theocracy. The only problem is, there aren't enough snakehandlers of your crazy stripe to run one as big as you'd like it to be.

Go back to playing with a pygmy python, giggles, and leave off the politics. You might get bit by bigger snakes than an itty bitty rodent like you can handle.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Oh, I figured you were trying to make that pot-kettle charge, but ignored it because I know it's just not true and you couldn't make it stick.

Bwahahahaaa…do you lie or a living?

Here's the thing, you 'I'm-rubber-you're-glue' chucklehead,

Sorry, but that’s so hysterical…no I’m not, are too, no I’m not, are tooooo

you just have to look at Buffalo Kevin's forum threadlist to see what an 'interesting' group of threads he's playing on, and that is why I made that comment, as I stated in my original post.

You don’t get around much do you?

You're proving your powers of observation only extend to the edge of your flaming nostrils.

Stop it, I can’t take I anymore, my side is hurting. Giggle, giggle hehe…

But again, it's easier for you and your kind to project your sickness on others,

Conservatism is a sickness???

and make the weak attack that Libertarians are the perverse ones,

Uh Liberaltarians are the weak, 2% really, they indulge what is wrong to be right.

when in fact it's you and your buddies, defending the sick, sad, demented

You mean like homosexuals, pedophiles, incestuals and bestials?

status quo so that you can get your jollies more securely.

Our founding fathers didn’t think those behavioral disorders were so wrong…did they?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Oh, you've got all the subtlety of the Cookie Monster in a Keebler factory.

Nice sophistry.

I knew full well that you'd avoid the issue, which is that neostatists like you fling accusations of 'Liberal!' like they'll stick, when all you really want is to be government expansionists in your own right.

No expansion here, status quo is just fine.

C'mon, you and your ilk practically slip in your own drool every time someone says theocracy.

Never mentioned it but thanks for playing the fool.

The only problem is, there aren't enough snakehandlers of your crazy stripe to run one as big as you'd like it to be.

Who want’s snakes, YOU?

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Apparently APA membership needs to be defined as a mental disorder. The absurd nature of the question being asked discredits the APA's decision to delist homosexuality.

[kuma]

I know I won't be getting all the tax dollars back but there are so many reasons my hubby and I have decided to finally remove our children from public schools this year.

This is one. Along with an article about how they have found pedophiles (registered with the Police) teaching in schools and in boys clubs etc... They are no longer just hanging out at parks. The conservative estimates are that approximately 1 out of 6 boys are sexually abused before they turn 16. http://www.jimhopper.com/male-ab/

I have 2 sons and an obligation to protect them and raise them properly. It's too bad that the APA has to continue pushing agendas for adults who should be seeking to get better not just get acceptence & their deranged idea of fun. In 1973, even in the APA delisting Homophilia was considered extreme. Robert Spitzer is an activist not a doctor with concerns for the well being of his patients and society.

Unfortunately I don't see many if not all of these paraphilias being removed as something far-fetched and the activism for social acceptence will be closely following.

[from occupied ga]

I'm giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, but you're probably right. There are some real jackboot worshiping statists, armchair drug warriors, etc. who post regularly on this forum, and he seems to fit the mold more rather than less.

[dsc]

"Thing is, people's attitudes toward homosexuality were changing before it was removed from the DSM."

The propaganda campaign had already begun, true. I'm not saying taking it out of the DSM started the whole thing, just that it lent a false credibility to claims that deviant sex is normal.

However, as I recall from the 50s and 60s, it was the fringe, the left, the New York not-so-intelligent-sia that were on the bandwagon back then.

Hippies (or "freaks," as we said back then) made a grand show of tolerance, but you didn't see SSAD sufferers and those of normal sexuality hanging together much. I mean, deviant sexuality just naturally creeps people out, and it takes a lot of propaganda, brow-beating, and desensitization before people can deny and repress that to the degree some do today.

"In fact, that attitude change was very likely one of the factors behind its removal."

The facts, actually, don't support that. Intimidation--threats of violence to career and body--were used to gain the acquiescence of moral cowards. That's all it took.

"On the other hand, I'm not seeing widespread or even growing approval of sex with children."

You might want to look harder. England just lowered the age of consent for buggering boys to 16 from 18.

Then, too, look at all the "useful idiots" the pervofascist movement can draw on, people who leap to the defense of the disorder, prattling on about "consenting adults behind closed doors," as though that had anything to do with the matter.

Such people have bought in hook, line, and sinker to the nonsense that SSAD sufferers aren't attracted to teens. They have an *enormous* emotional investment in the proposition that there's nothing at all wrong with homosexual behavior or those who engage in it.

When the push really gets going to drop the age of consent, these people will first insist that it's "just a few extremists" and "most 'gays' are fine people who would never do that."

But then, when and if it becomes undeniable that SSAD sufferers not only are attracted to teens, but act on that attraction in numbers that are hugely disproportionate to molestation of girl teens by heterosexuals, what will they do?

Will they just chuck that emotional investment? Will they cheerfully abandon the sense of moral superiority that their "tolerance" gives them? Will they be willing to deal with the thorny implications of the fact that their friends, brothers, sons, uncles have been lying to them, and that they in fact do engage in behavior that is not only highly immoral but arguably evil?

When monkeys fly out of my butt.

They will, in large numbers, allow themselves to be persuaded by the arguments that you and I find so offensively specious. Much easier to decide that sex with children is not immoral than to admit they've been wrong all along, that these people who are so important to them are, as they have denied for so many years, disordered.

"I don't think that people will be changing their minds just because the inclination to have sex with a six year-old is no longer considered a "mental illness".

Well, not "just because," no. Of course not. But it won't be "just because." The removal of the disorder from the DSM will be just one brick in the wall, but an important one. How many times have we heard people refute the assertion that homosexual behavior is disordered by pointing to the fact that it was removed from the DSM? It will be the same with pedophilia.

"I personally lack the credentials to really make a call on whether or not pedophilia should be considered a mental illness"

Nah, you've just been browbeaten into doubting yourself. You're qualified to make that call.

"I believe that there are other and more valid criteria for outlawing it"

Well, certainly. It's not illegal because it is disordered, but because there are victims. But here we're discussing whether it should be listed in the DSM, not whether it should be illegal.

"I think that there's quite a bit of political pressure aside from that to keep such a decision from being made"

Perhaps, but the thing about those in thrall to Satan is that they never give up, and when they die, there's always another waiting to take their place. If they don't get it this year, they'll spend the year propagandizing, and try again next year...and the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that, for as long as it takes.

"idiots can't tell the difference between saying that pedophilia is not a mental illness and saying that child sexual abuse is not a bad thing."

Bingo.

[dsc]

"What, are we comparing the 70's to now?"

Something wrong with that? Actually, I was thinking more of the 50s, though.

"it isn't going to help lower the age of consent"

You a betting man?

"and the age of consent will never be four."

Maybe not, but at the turn of the 20th century, it was 10 in several of the United States.

[ampat]

The shrinks want to delete those "illlnesses" because they can't dispense any pills for them.

[ampat]

The silver lining in this cloud is criminals in these categories can't claim mental illness as a defense anymore. But then their attorneys will probably find a way around that.

[Qwerty]

"More examples about sodomy is what you are not what you do."

This makes no sense.

[Qwerty]

"You're right, we didn't see that with homosexuality did we? Er, except for rest stops. Er, public bathrooms. Er, parks. Er, uh oh??? Sorry I was wrong."

Er.. actually you are wrong. Again.

Public sex is still illegal for heterosexuals AND homosexuals. If you see it's happening when you go to parks, rest stops, and bathrooms, call the cops.

Public sex is not private behavior.

[Qwerty]

"I know laws have no meaning to those who break them"

Laws aren't rights. You said rights were being violated. You were wrong.

"The legislature last time I looked was not about MY personal beliefs."

I didn't say it was. I said you enjoy it when the law follows your personal beliefs.

"With the help of a liberal/homosexual activist group called the APA."

Everything looks like a liberal homosexual activist group, compared to you.

"Demanding special rights. Indoctrinating children to believe your pathology is normal."

Demanding special rights is wrong, you have it confused with equal rights. My non-pathology IS normal, since homosexuals have been around a long time and in all cultures.

"It’s all about the excuse of personal consent and I AGAIN remind you this thread is about paraphilic disorder, your pathology…remember???"

I'll just file this under "When you're a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail."

[Qwerty]

"Actually, I was thinking more of the 50s, though."

You want to compare the 50's to now? I'd rather live now.

It isn't going to help lower the age of consent "You a betting man?"

No, since I'm a woman. But I do enjoy Vegas or Atlantic City once in a while. And I'd bet that removing pedophilia as a disorder will NOT make people think it's ok for adults to have sex with children.

"Maybe not, but at the turn of the 20th century, it was 10 in several of the United States."

Barring a return to a more primitive way of life where life expectancies are cut drastically, we aren't going back.

[Dimensio]

The propaganda campaign had already begun, true. I'm not saying taking it out of the DSM started the whole thing, just that it lent a false credibility to claims that deviant sex is normal.

And I'm saying that I'm not seeing a similar trend with pedophilia. I don't think that removing it from the DSM would give it any credibility of any kind -- if anything, it would reduce the credibility of the DSM because of the attitude that I mentioned before of mistaking removal of classification as a mental illness as declaration of it as a good thing.

The facts, actually, don't support that. Intimidation--threats of violence to career and body--were used to gain the acquiescence of moral cowards. That's all it took.

I've heard this before. I've not seen any reliable documentation. I've heard exactly one person claim that this happened, and he didn't have anyone else who backed up his story.

You might want to look harder. England just lowered the age of consent for buggering boys to 16 from 18.

There are two problems with your "example". First, this discussion is about pedophilia. I'm not claiming that an adult having sex with a sixteen year-old is a good thing, but most sixteen year-olds that I've seen (which admittedly hasn't been much since high school since I tend to avoid children) have experienced a significant time of puberty. Pedophilia refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children. As such, lowering the AoC to 16 doesn't do much for an argument that pedophilia is being normalized. Second, the AoC for heterosexual sex was already at sixteen. English law was just changed so that the AoC for homosexual sex was the same as the AoC for heterosexual sex. If you're going to argue it as a bad thing, do comment on why the AoC for heterosexual sex was already at sixteen.

Then, too, look at all the "useful idiots" the pervofascist movement can draw on, people who leap to the defense of the disorder, prattling on about "consenting adults behind closed doors," as though that had anything to do with the matter.

And why doesn't it? Because you find it "icky" just to think about it?

Such people have bought in hook, line, and sinker to the nonsense that SSAD sufferers aren't attracted to teens.

Yeah, I've heard that line before and I've rejected it too. Some homosexuals aren't attracted to teens, but that is not a universal truth. Some homosexuals are attracted to teens. Heck, some heterosexuals are attracted to teens. Of course, I'm not sure that is really an effective argument against homosexuality, unless you decide not to mention the bit about some heterosexuals being attracted to teens in order to falsely bias the argument.

But then, when and if [...]

Ah, so your argument isn't based on what you know what will happen but rather "what if this happens!". I tried using that argument against Bush's tax plan, arguing "what if an alien race decides that passing the tax plan would put us on a course to wipe out their civilization, so they destroy ours as a first strike". No one was convinced.