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.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

While obviously "normalizing" pedophilia is crazy (no pun intended), would removing it from the DSM-IV actually help court cases against pedophiles? It would still be illegal, and this could remove the mental-illness defense.

Nope, won't work that way.

The argument will run along these lines:

a) The behavior is within normal parameters of acceptable behavior, because if it wasn't it would be abnormal behavior and it isn't listed so in the DSM-IV.

b) If the behavior is normal, then what right does the State have in regulating normal behavior between consenting people?

c) Children consent to all sorts of things, joining a sports team, working on a school paper, participating in religion, why should they not have consent over their own sexuality? Lower the age of consent to 12.

This is the agenda of these people.

[JLO]

"murderers are not necessarily mentally ill. "

Oh really? I beg to differ that thought...

[Qwerty]

"Oh really? I beg to differ that thought..."

Go ahead. Make the case that all murderers are mentally ill..

[dsc]

"And I'm saying that I'm not seeing a similar trend with pedophilia."

And I said before that I think you need to look a little more closely.

"I don't think that removing it from the DSM would give it any credibility of any kind"

It did with homosexual behavior--SSAD.

"if anything, it would reduce the credibility of the DSM"

Every time I've hoped for something like that I've been disappointed.

"I've heard this before. I've not seen any reliable documentation."

I have. As a matter of fact, at the time it was common knowledge in every Psych department of every university in the country.

"First, this discussion is about pedophilia...Pedophilia refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children."

Okay, fair enough, but a step from 18 to 16 is a step in the direction the pervofascist activists want to go.

"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."

Matter of fact, the age for buggering a girl was 18, as was the age for buggering a boy. The laws were the same for heterosexual buggery and homosexual buggery.

What this move did, aside from giving SSAD sufferers access to younger victims, was to place homosexual buggery on the same plane as normal sexual behavior.

The law also reflected a judgment that the AOC should be higher for behaviors that are potentially more self-destructive than others. The AOC for whiskey is 21 (depending on the location), for bubble gum there is no prohibition.

Frankly, given the self-destructive and socially corrosive effects of legitimized SSAD, I'd say the AOC for homosexual behavior should be much higher than for normal sexual behavior.

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

Because if it were just consenting adults behind closed doors, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But keeping it between adults behind closed doors is what the pervofascists call "being in the closet," and that's a bad thing for them. Nothing less than full freedom to rub it in everyone's faces and demand enthusiastic endorsement of their sickness will do for them.

Then, too, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if SSAD sufferers didn't prey on the young so much.

"Some homosexuals aren't attracted to teens"

Even if true, and I've never seen any indication that it might remotely in anyone's wildest dreams be true, the ones who are attracted to teens are busy enough to take up the slack.

"unless you decide not to mention the bit about some heterosexuals being attracted to teens in order to falsely bias the argument."

Actually, it's introducing it that biases the argument. It's a false equivalence.

Healthy men who find sexually mature teens attractive are far less likely to even consider acting on those desires than SSAD sufferers, for a host of reasons.

My rib eye steak is waiting, so I'll just hit a couple.

Firstly, a person whose sexuality is not disordered is in far better control of himself than a person whose sexuality is disordered.

Secondly, a healthy man is more likely to be dissuaded by the immorality of the act. A typical SSAD sufferer has been committing immoral acts for years and years; he's accustomed to it.

Thirdly, a healthy man is much more likely to be dissaded by the thought of the harm he would do to his victim than a SSAD sufferer, who was himself a victim but has rationalized his own molestation into a postive experience that introduced him to the wonderful "gay" lifestyle. He'd just be doing the boy a favor to bugger him.

And, in fact, the actual numbers bear this out quite well. Although they are only 2 or maybe 3 percent of the population, SSAD sufferers commit somewhere around a third of sex offenses involving underage victims. You do the math.

"Ah, so your argument isn't based on what you know what will happen but rather "what if this happens!""

No, it's based on a rational, informed judgment of what is very likely to happen, based on past experience and an educated analysis.

I qualified my remarks with "if" in recognition of the fact that none of us mortals is omniscient.

[Zack Nguyen]

It focuses on the pedophilia to get people enraged, but the real story is the gender identity issue. This is thesis, antithesis, synthesis in bold print. Thesis: Legitimize pedophilia. Antithesis: That's too extreme. Synthesis: Okay than we'll just legitimize a little thing like gender identity confusion.

Very interesting analysis. This would be Hagel's legacy, no? I have just become acquainted with this stuff over the last 2-3 years or so.

[dsc]

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

For the medical and technological advances I would. Establishing civil rights was also a good thing to do. Every other change has been a mistake that degraded the quality of life.

"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."

It will be an important element of the propaganda campaign. Just as it was with SSAD.

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

There are affluent, experienced activists determined to prove you wrong, with Satan at their back.

[Qwerty]

Trust me, it will never be legal for adults to have sex with kids.

Most people have kids, or at least nieces and nephews. No one likes the idea that an adult would be able to have sex with them. It will NEVER gain popularity.

Homosexuality was different, because a lot of straight people have homosexual friends or family members who they loved and who seemed just like them.

No one relates to a pedophile in such a way. The victimization of children will always be the most horrible crime.

[Dimensio]

Thirdly, a healthy man is much more likely to be dissaded by the thought of the harm he would do to his victim than a SSAD sufferer, who was himself a victim but has rationalized his own molestation into a postive experience that introduced him to the wonderful "gay" lifestyle. He'd just be doing the boy a favor to bugger him.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, so I'll just address this right now.

Your statement seems to imply a belief that absolutely every homosexual on the planet has, at some point, been sexually molested. I can tell you now that this statement is only made by people who are completely out of touch with reality.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that even a significant majority of homosexuals were molested in their lives. I've certainly not seen evidence that absolutely every single homosexual was a victim of sexual abuse.

[dsc]

"I've seen no evidence to suggest that even a significant majority of homosexuals were molested in their lives. I've certainly not seen evidence that absolutely every single homosexual was a victim of sexual abuse."

The phrase I customarily use is "molested or seduced before maturity."

What in the world do you think the cause of SSAD is? Like PTSD, the cause is trauma. Could be the trauma of molestation, could be the trauma of being seduced into homosexual behavior while a teenager.

If you haven't seen that yet, well, a lot of effort goes into hiding and denying it, and relatively few people as yet have gotten it.

[Dimensio]

What in the world do you think the cause of SSAD is? Like PTSD, the cause is trauma. Could be the trauma of molestation, could be the trauma of being seduced into homosexual behavior while a teenager.

Yeeah...this is where you've assumed your conclusion and built additional arguments around it. Unfortunately, facts do not bear out your conclusion. There may be some people who have become sexually dysfunctional as a result of childhood molestation (or seduction), but I doubt that you'll be able to demonstrate that this applies universally to all homosexuals.

[dsc]

For you, I have four words: "Historical perspective--get some.

"Most people have kids, or at least nieces and nephews. No one likes the idea that an adult would be able to have sex with them. It will NEVER gain popularity."

That's exactly what they said about SSAD.

"Homosexuality was different, because a lot of straight people have homosexual friends or family members who they loved and who seemed just like them."

Except that they like to nail teenage boys in the butt, that is.

Applying a little historical perspective to this, one sees that this business of SSAD sufferers seeming "just like" healthy people is a *very* recent phenomenon, and resulted from a propaganda campaign that outstripped anything the Soviets did in terms of both scope and success.

I can remember when nobody thought that SSAD sufferers were "just like them."

"No one relates to a pedophile in such a way."

Do you really think a SSAD sufferer who likes 15-year-old boys is repelled by one who likes 12-year-old boys?

"The victimization of children will always be the most horrible crime."

Yeah, and tulip bulb futures will never fall. Sex with children has not always been *regarded* as "the most horrible crime" in all places and times, while homosexual behavior *has* been regarded as a horrible crime.

On what is based your confidence that the forces of evil, which have misled a vast swath of our society into believing that homosexual behavior is harmless, cannot mislead that same swath into "tolerance" of sex with children?

[dsc]

"this is where you've assumed your conclusion and built additional arguments around it."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yadada yadada yadada. I reached that conclusion over decades of observation and studying the problem.

Recasting a person's considered opinions and observations as "assumptions" is as common in certain quarters as it is tiresome, but it is neither valid nor honest.

"Unfortunately, facts do not bear out your conclusion."

Unfortunately, they do.

"but I doubt that you'll be able to demonstrate that this applies universally to all homosexuals."

Now that I know I'm dealing with someone who tries to recast conclusions as "assumptions," I doubt I could "demonstrate" to your satisfaction that water is wet, even by throwing you in the ocean.

[vaudine]

50 years ago, as an 18 yr old, I worked for CID, Dept. of the Army, at BAMC, SA,TX. The major in charge of our office thought I was too young and innocent to be taking statements from criminals, so he sent me over to interview with a Psychiatrist to be her secretary. I came back and told him "No, way!. That woman is crazy and scary."

Truly vindicated, at last.

vaudine

[Dimensio]

Alright. Present your proof that every single person with same-gender attraction expereinced molestion or, at the very lest, seduction as a child/teenager.

I could counter with several people whom I've met who weren't molested, but you'll just claim that they are lying about it which I suppose makes your position undefeatable simply because of your incredible arrogance.

[dsc]

"...but you'll just claim that they are lying about it which I suppose makes your position undefeatable simply because of your incredible arrogance."

Well, I saw a couple of notes ago that this is where you were headed.

So far we've sunk from recasting observations as "assumptions" to "incredible arrogance"...by which one must assume you mean the incredible arrogance to disagree with you.

I don't care to walk any further down that path.

By the way, if you're the kind of person who can get people to talk to you, under the right circumstances you would be able to get your friends to admit to you that they were in fact molested or seduced.

Bye now.

[Dimensio]

Well, I saw a couple of notes ago that this is where you were headed.

In other words, you saw that I wasn't going to accept your assertions without real-world evidence, so you weren't surprised that when you claimed that homosexuality is always, without exception, caused by childhood sexual trauma I requested that pesky thing called "evidence", and now you've decided that I'm totally unreasonable because I don't accept your unsupported assertions as totally infallable.

[dsc]

"In other words, you saw that I wasn't going to accept your assertions without real-world evidence"

No, I saw you were headed toward personal rancor, and toward the infinite "dueling sources" loop that wastes so much time on the Internet.

I think that the most a person should expect from on-line debate is food for thought. Decisions on important matters should not be based solely on such a limited flow of information. It's up to the individual to follow up with research, thought, discussion, and all the other things that go into the formation of a considered opinion.

When someone challenges an opinion of mine *with*an*argument*I*haven't*already*examined*thoroughly, my first reaction is to try and determine whether that argument is valid.

As a result, since I first started participating in online discussions on UNEWS around 1990 or so, I have changed my opinions on abortion, divorce, sexual morality, religion (although other things also went into that one), legalization of drugs, the UN, and maybe some things that don't come to mind right now.

I had had strong opinions on these matters. Nobody "proved" on line that I was wrong, but they advanced assertions that I was morally obligated to deal with off line, to explore until I knew why they were valid or why they were not.

This explains why one of the Twelve Commandments of Flaming (No. 6.) is, "Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Harry's pasta preferences, then Harry's obviously lying."

Demanding "proof" on line, except perhaps for the very simplest of issues, is not a reasonable thing to do, but is rather an indication that the other fellow is fighting to "win" rather than fighting to find the truth of the matter.

There is a world of difference between asking "Why do you think that?" and demanding that someone "prove that." For one thing, there is no amount of proof that cannot be declared "inadequate," and no source that cannot be pronounced "unreliable."

For another, an interested person discussing in good faith would presume that the other fellow must have *some* reason for thinking as he does, rather than presuming that only "bigotry" or "hatred" could underly such an opinion, and so would be asking the first question rather than demanding the impossible.

A demand for "proof" is prima facie unreasonable, and an indication of bad faith.

"you've decided that I'm totally unreasonable because I don't accept your unsupported assertions as totally infallable."

No, I've decided that you're being unreasonable on this issue for the reasons explained above. And, if one needed more support, your malicious attribution to me of delusions of infallibility would pretty much close the case.

And I just realized that you got me. Tired and busy as I am, I completely forgot that I had decided not to respond further. Oh, well, a slip is not a fall.

[Qwerty]

"Except that they like to nail teenage boys in the butt, that is. "

What about heterosexuals who try to nail teenage girls? Also, plenty of adult homosexuals don't try to "nail" teens. I don't, for one.

"Do you really think a SSAD sufferer who likes 15-year-old boys is repelled by one who likes 12-year-old boys? "

Maybe not, but I am repelled and so are most people.

"On what is based your confidence that the forces of evil, which have misled a vast swath of our society into believing that homosexual behavior is harmless"

Homosexual behavior is harmless, by itself. Promiscuity on the other hand...

"cannot mislead that same swath into "tolerance" of sex with children? "

Oooh.. I smell a bet...

[LibertarianInExile]

I'm not sure which 'reply' to respond to, but I'm pretty sure I can't, either. Not because it's full of such stunning logic and incredibly gripping rhetoric, but because it's simply reinforcing what you (and I said before), and that's that you simply can't admit your theocrat leanings.

"Be afraid, Jesus says, be VERY afraid, burning alive isn’t even close. "

"All the citizens didn't heed Lot's warning and, therefor, like you and the rest of the pro-sodomy supporters that cohere may receive the same fate."

If you wish to establish laws based upon Scripture, admit it and come out of the closet already. If you're saying that private action is just that, then how about you admit that these folks have every right to do what they're doing? The APA isn't a government body. It isn't even an association of American psychiatrists. It's a group of left-wing American psychiatrists. What does their behavior have to do with good government?

I remember three parts of the New Testament that you forget, and I'll always consider Jesus' words more important than anything that came before him.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Before you pluck the mote out of your brother's eye, pluck the mote out of your own."

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Of course, I also remember a favorite Bloom County quote:

Chairwoman Tippy: "Well, Mr. Dallas, we've heard your smut masquerading as songs, and we've heard how teen prostitution, pregnancy, drug use, cults, runaways, suicide and poor hygiene are sweeping this nation. We thought you might like to share with the committee any particular causes you might see for those latter problems."

Steve Dallas: "I dunno. Maybe the proliferation of narrow, suffocating zealotry masquerading as parenting in this country."

[dsc]

"What about heterosexuals who try to nail teenage girls?"

Most people find them repellent, however, they are a much smaller segment of the healthy population than SSAD sufferers who engage in those behaviors.

"I don't, for one."

If I had known I was talking to a victim of SSAD, I wouldn't have engaged.

"Also, plenty of adult homosexuals don't try to "nail" teens...but I am repelled and so are most people."

Don't find that credible, sorry.

Bye now.