Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 88
Thanks Tree50Thanks

Thread: Do liberals want to make the world safe for child molesters?

  1. #1
    New Member Havelock's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    824
    Thanks
    1008

    From
    U.S.A.

    Do liberals want to make the world safe for child molesters?

    There was a suggestion in a recent thread that the American Psychiatric Association (APA), in cahoots with “liberals” in general, were somehow conspiring to make the world safer for child molesters by revising the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to change the criteria for diagnosing pedophilia. This insinuation is misleading at best.

    In truth of course there has been ongoing discussion in the psychiatric profession regarding what used to be called “sexual perversions.” That’s been going on for decades and in that time we have seen attitudes and terminology change. For one thing, they’re now called paraphilic disorders and not perversions or deviations. Overall, the tendency has been to focus diagnostic criteria on harm to self and others rather than on how uncommon any particular constellation of sexual interests may or may not be. This is precisely the thinking that led the APA to remove homosexuality as a diagnosable disorder from the DSM way back in the ‘70s, not so by the way.

    The result is that now, today, in order to be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder one has to exhibit more than atypical sexual interests. A person may be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder if he or she exhibits sexual desires or behaviors that involve someone’s psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent. Assuming that none of those criteria apply, then a person may be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder if he or she feels personal mental distress about his or her atypical sexual interests and this distress stems from causes other than mere social disapproval.

    Apart from some relatively minor changes in terminology, this basic set of diagnostic criteria haven’t changed in a couple of decades now. So where’s the problem? Where’s the big conspiracy? It’s true that there was some discussion around the latest revision to the DSM about eliminating or significantly revising the entire diagnosis of paraphilia or paraphilic disorder. The rationale was that the diagnosis as it is currently employed amounts to “medicalizing” criminal behavior and is an unfortunate holdover from the past. That’s a debatable issue – I’d tend to agree with that critique myself – but in the end the changes that were adopted were quite minor.

    As for pedophilic disorder in particular, following are the specific diagnostic criteria:
    A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
    B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
    C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

    Again, these criteria have remained basically unchanged for many years. And again, what’s the problem? At no point during these discussions regarding paraphilias has there ever been any suggestion that laws regarding adult/minor sexual contact need to be relaxed. On the contrary…

    Bottom line: unless one believes in punishing potential crime or mere nonconformity, then there’s no benefit in branding someone who is mentally stable, functional, and hasn’t harmed anyone else as mentally ill. But if you do believe in punishing potential crime, then how far should we take that? ‘Cause if we want to take that principle to its logical conclusion then I can think of several folks who post to this forum who might be candidates for preventive detention – or at least for ongoing registration and supervision.

    Cheers.
    Last edited by Havelock; 3rd September 2017 at 06:30 PM.
    Thanks from Friday13, Madeline, labrea and 1 others

  2. #2
    ~Standing My Ground~ Sassy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    42,394
    Thanks
    16502

    From
    God Bless Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    There was a suggestion in a recent thread that the American Psychiatric Association (APA), in cahoots with “liberals” in general, were somehow conspiring to make the world safer for child molesters by revising the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to change the criteria for diagnosing pedophilia. This insinuation is misleading at best.

    In truth of course there has been ongoing discussion in the psychiatric profession regarding what used to be called “sexual perversions.” That’s been going on for decades and it that time we have seen attitudes and terminology change. For one thing, they’re now called paraphilic disorders and not perversions or deviations. Overall, the tendency has been to focus diagnostic criteria on harm to self and others rather than on how uncommon any particular constellation of sexual interests may or may not be. This is precisely the thinking that led the APA to remove homosexuality as a diagnosable disorder from the DSM way back in the ‘70s, not so by the way.

    The result is that now, today, in order to be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder one has to exhibit more than atypical sexual interests. A person may be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder if he or she exhibits sexual desires or behaviors that involve someone’s psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent.
    I have to stop you right there. They can have the desire and fantasize about it but if it doesn't bother THEM there is no disorder.

    A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that is currently causing distress or impairment to the individual or a paraphilia whose satisfaction has entailed personal harm, or risk of harm, to others. A paraphilia is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder, and a paraphilia by itself does not necessarily justify or require clinical intervention.

    https://medium.com/pedophiles-about-...-5-fcd17659889
    Thanks from Madeline and Claudius the God

  3. #3
    New Member Havelock's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    824
    Thanks
    1008

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sassy View Post
    I have to stop you right there. They can have the desire and fantasize about it but if it doesn't bother THEM there is no disorder.

    A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that is currently causing distress or impairment to the individual or a paraphilia whose satisfaction has entailed personal harm, or risk of harm, to others. A paraphilia is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder, and a paraphilia by itself does not necessarily justify or require clinical intervention.

    https://medium.com/pedophiles-about-...-5-fcd17659889
    I don't see how what you've posted contradicts anything I posted. You seem to be restating the same criteria I posted. So where's the need to "stop me right there?"

    Cheers.
    Thanks from Friday13 and Panzareta

  4. #4
    ~Standing My Ground~ Sassy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    42,394
    Thanks
    16502

    From
    God Bless Texas
    Because you said this is one criteria which is not true: a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent.

    They can desire that but if they don't feel distressed about it, it doesn't count. Which is actually more disturbing than a person who (rightfully) feels distressed over it.

    A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);

    B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;

    C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
    Thanks from Madeline

  5. #5
    New Member Havelock's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    824
    Thanks
    1008

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sassy View Post
    Because you said this is one criteria which is not true: a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent.

    They can desire that but if they don't feel distressed about it, it doesn't count. Which is actually more disturbing than a person who (rightfully) feels distressed over it.

    A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);

    B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;

    C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
    Okay, I see. You seem to be conflating my general description of when a paraphilic order may be diagnosed with the specific description of when pedophilic disorder should be diagnosed. Yes, it's true that in general sexual desires -- absent any action -- cannot be diagnosed as a disorder if they do not cause mental distress regardless of whether or not those desires involve unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. So, what's your point? Other than that, you're merely repeating the specific diagnosis that I gave in my OP. My larger points still stand. Do you intend to address them?

    Cheers.
    Thanks from Friday13, Madeline and Panzareta

  6. #6
    ~Standing My Ground~ Sassy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    42,394
    Thanks
    16502

    From
    God Bless Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Okay, I see. You seem to be conflating my general description of when a paraphilic order may be diagnosed with the specific description of when pedophilic disorder should be diagnosed. Yes, it's true that in general sexual desires -- absent any action -- cannot be diagnosed as a disorder if they do not cause mental distress regardless of whether or not those desires involve unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. So, what's your point? Other than that, you're merely repeating the specific diagnosis that I gave in my OP. My larger points still stand. Do you intend to address them?

    Cheers.
    I don't agree that the change is minor. I think it is huge that it's no longer a disorder to have sexual urges and fantasies about children.
    Thanks from Madeline

  7. #7
    New Member Havelock's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    824
    Thanks
    1008

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sassy View Post
    I don't agree that the change is minor. I think it is huge that it's no longer a disorder to have sexual urges and fantasies about children.
    Right. So fundamentally you're objecting to a "huge" change that occurred decades ago and hasn't had any discernible negative effect on the incidence of child molestation. And your rationale for this objection is...?

    I'll wait.

    Cheers.

  8. #8
    ~Standing My Ground~ Sassy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    42,394
    Thanks
    16502

    From
    God Bless Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Right. So fundamentally you're objecting to a "huge" change that occurred decades ago and hasn't had any discernible negative effect on the incidence of child molestation. And your rationale for this objection is...?

    I'll wait.

    Cheers.
    It didn't occur decades ago. It occurred with the latest version of the DSM.
    Thanks from Madeline

  9. #9
    ~Standing My Ground~ Sassy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    42,394
    Thanks
    16502

    From
    God Bless Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Right. So fundamentally you're objecting to a "huge" change that occurred decades ago and hasn't had any discernible negative effect on the incidence of child molestation. And your rationale for this objection is...?

    I'll wait.

    Cheers.
    My rationale is that it's sick and the DSM should not have stopped calling it sick.
    Thanks from Madeline

  10. #10
    New Member Havelock's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    824
    Thanks
    1008

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sassy View Post
    It didn't occur decades ago. It occurred with the latest version of the DSM.
    That's simply not true.

    Cheers.
    Thanks from Panzareta and OHjulie

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trump Vows to 'Make America Safe Again'
    By the watchman in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 9th July 2016, 04:09 PM
  2. California Gun laws make us safe?
    By aboutenough in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 8th December 2015, 08:57 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 18th September 2014, 11:28 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 1st June 2010, 07:34 PM
  5. Jewish child molesters that are never on the NEWS - WHY
    By Octoldit in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 5th May 2009, 10:54 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed