Paedophilia, According to the DSM
7 July 2007The definition of paedophilia in the DSM is commonly misinterpreted; many people interpret a diagnosis of paedophilia to require the action of sex with a pre-pubescent child. This is a misinterpretation, often distributed by people with anti-paedophile agendas.
All three criteria must be met for a diagnosis of paedophilia, however the ways in which people supposedly meet these criteria are frequently manipulated, again by people with anti-paedophile agendas and those who make money from the sex abuse industry.
Here are the criteria for a diagnosis for paedophilia:
- (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.
This means the following:
Criterion A:
People who meet this criterion have frequent sexual fantasies about pre-pubescent children which are arousing, and/OR frequently engage in sexual activity with pre-pubescent children.
The common situational offender, who often doesn’t offend frequently, is therefore not a paedophile, but is someone who harms children. A person can be diagnosed with paedophilia without having sex with children.
Criterion B:
The person must have acted on their urges, but sexual activity without the involvement of a child is sufficient for the criterion to be met; sex with an actual child is not required in order to meet this criterion.
If the person does not engage in any sexual activity, either personal (masturbation) or with the involvement of a child, the fantasies must cause marked distress or social difficulties in order to meet this criterion. This can include distress or social difficulties caused by society’s hatred of paedophilia.
Someone who masturbates to fantasies described in Criterion A is a paedophile if they also meet the Criteria A and C, even if they do not have sex with children or violate the law.
Criterion C:
The person must be at least 16 years old and must be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children at least 5 years younger.
–
It is a common misconception that paedophilia is a synonym for child molestation
14 Responses to “Paedophilia, According to the DSM”
July 8th, 2007 at 4:02 am
“The person must have acted on their urges, but sexual activity without the involvement of a child is sufficient for the criterion to be met”
Where is this from please?
“Someone who masturbates to fantasies described in Criterion A is a paedophile if they also meet the Criteria A and C, even if they do not have sex with children or violate the law.”
Or that?
WM
July 8th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Those are my comments about how the criteria should be interpreted.
Currently, people “believe” that sexual activity means sexual activity with children, which is incorrect. For a diagnosis of paedophilia, the person must feel distressed or have acted, but clearly personal masturbation qualifies as sexual activity, even if no child is involved.
July 8th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Yes,
I thought so.
Of course, I understand, fully, what you are saying, and I completely agree with your premise that a paedophile is not a hands-on offender, per se, by any official definition, only by the incorrect, colloquial usage (this stems from the historical application of the term, particularly in the UK).
It is, of course, quite true, that the medico-legal term does not need any hands-on dimension, if the person is experiencing “… sexual urges or fantasies [which] cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty”. However, to suggest that having “acted on their urges” means anything other than a hands-on offence is not illustrated in any work or court case that I have seen. I believe this interpretation is to be avoided. What if someone got an erection, due to a minor, and then relieved themselves to adult images … what would they ‘be’ then?
Conversely, one who commits a hands-on offence may not be a paedophile, as they may not ‘qualify’ under the other criteria you have provided. There are a number of court cases, where someone committed such a hands-on offence and the judge has indicated that they are not a paedophile.
Someone who masturbates to images of minors (an ‘action’, but not one mandated by diagnostic paedophilia), and has ‘no problem’ with this (i.e. is not ego-dystonic), will not be a paedophile … they are clearly a MAA, to some degree.
Thus, I believe your comment “… but clearly personal masturbation qualifies as sexual activity, even if no child is involved” is both incorrect in practice and dangerous in principle.
Cheers.
WM
July 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am
“However, to suggest that having “acted on their urges” means anything other than a hands-on offence is not illustrated in any work or court case that I have seen.”
Of course it hasn’t been illustrated in court. One can’t be prosecuted for masturbating.
“What if someone got an erection, due to a minor, and then relieved themselves to adult images … what would they ‘be’ then?”
A teleiophile, not a paedophile.
“Conversely, one who commits a hands-on offence may not be a paedophile, as they may not ‘qualify’ under the other criteria you have provided.”
I mentioned that in my article
“Someone who masturbates to images of minors (an ‘action’, but not one mandated by diagnostic paedophilia), and has ‘no problem’ with this (i.e. is not ego-dystonic), will not be a paedophile … they are clearly a MAA, to some degree.
Thus, I believe your comment “… but clearly personal masturbation qualifies as sexual activity, even if no child is involved” is both incorrect in practice and dangerous in principle.”
I disagree. It is impossible to deny that personal masturbation is a sexual activity, it just isn’t hamrful.
Sexual activity is not defined by the APA, but technically masturbation is a sexual activity, so I assume that they will use this definition.
Do you have an e-mail address for contacting the APA members who edit the DSM?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
“Of course it hasn’t been illustrated in court. One can’t be prosecuted for masturbating.”
No, the point is, that a court would not state that a person was a paedophile, simply for self-masturbation, for the reasons I will now give. The P word is not even a legal term, but when they do use it, they restrict themselves to the contents of the diagnostic manuals (do not forget ICD-10):
*****
“The ICD-10 category for disorders of sexual preference is shown in table 13.1,
(this is the paedophilia portion from the table):
F65.4 Sexual preference for children, usually prepubertal or early pubertal.
These may variously be referred to as paraphilias, perversions or sexual deviances, although the latter two labels have become regarded as stigmatizing in many circles, perhaps because of the overlap between these disorders and sexual offences. Disorders of sexual preference are characterized by sexually arousing fantasies, urges and/or activities which are not part of normative sexual functioning and which interfere with reciprocal affectionate activities. Some of these activities are illegal, but this can vary between jurisdictions.”
Textbook of Psychiatry, B.K. Puri, P.J. Laking and I.H. Treasaden, Churchill Livingstone, 1998, 245-256.
http://www.critest.com/MBSold/The%20Paraphilias.htm
*****
A teleiophile, not a paedophile … A paedophile, not a teleiophile … anon.
How can they be a teleiophile if the initial reaction originated from arousal by a minor?
“Sexual activity is not defined by the APA but technically masturbation is a sexual activity”
But not a dysfunctional one. That is why it is not part of being a paedophile in a DSM. These tomes describe dysfunction. Molesting a child is part of a dysfunction, in today’s society, whereas being gay and/or masturbating is not.
But they were, of course.
“so I assume that they will use this definition.”
They will not and nor should they for the reasons I have just given.
“Do you have an e-mail address for contacting the APA members who edit the DSM?”
They would be easy to find, but they may not be too forthcoming in clarifying the issue.
Cheers.
WM
July 9th, 2007 at 3:20 am
“But not a dysfunctional one. That is why it is not part of being a paedophile in a DSM. These tomes describe dysfunction. Molesting a child is part of a dysfunction, in today’s society, whereas being gay and/or masturbating is not.
I think if someone masturbated to fantasies of a child, that would be considered “dysfucntional.”
July 9th, 2007 at 5:51 am
Ah, but then, one gets into fantasies and thought crime etc.
This is an area where even the professionals fear to tread.
Remember:
Fantasy and Sexuality 1
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dAAVdmnHtJI
What is a pedophile? 101
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMaMq78uQA
In the DSMs, sexual ‘dysfunctions’ take three forms:
1 - Those of ‘deep’ psychology e.g. transgenderism
2 - Those of the ‘organic’ type e.g. vaginismus
3 - Those of ’sexual preference’ e.g. paedophilia, homosexuality (ooops).
Which is why, of course, (3) has no place in such manuals.
I do hope you are not taking much of psychiatry to be anything other than quackery and cultural relativism?
WM
July 9th, 2007 at 7:37 am
“I do hope you are not taking much of psychiatry to be anything other than quackery and cultural relativism?”
Of course not, but you have to remember that I need to back up my statements with official studies and defintions.
If an anonymous paedophile and Mr Murdoch’s Manipulation Machine (The Sun) say opposite things without a reliable source, who are the mobs going to listen to?
Posts such as these serve as official sceintific/psychological references in debates.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Oh yes,
I delight in using their swords against them. This is one of my favorite pastimes.
The mob will believe what it chooses. Look at religion.
But, do not lose focus on what the issues are, by the introduction of (dangerous) ideas which do not even fall within the ‘official studies and definitions’.
Cheers.
WM
July 9th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
It’s high time pedophiles used their OWN swords on the public
Mr Murdoch’s Manipulation Machine
BLue - with all of these illiterated characterisations, you’re becoming quite the pedo equivalent of Richard Littlejohn. Here’s an idea - you should make yourself the world’s first pedo columnist. Use a bitmap for close control and upload it to ANU.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
“It’s high time pedophiles used their OWN swords on the public
”
Personally, I prefer peaceful protesting
“BLue - with all of these illiterated characterisations, you’re becoming quite the pedo equivalent of Richard Littlejohn.”
Hmm…. I don’t consider myself to have any similarities with a Daily Mail columnist….
July 9th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
…he isn’t simply a Daily Mail columnist. Littlejohn is the columnist, and an astronomical earner. Although what he says is utter twattery, his style begs for imitators, and will surely go down in history.
I have a level of respect for Littlejohn, based upon (among other things) the fact that his clearly internalised homophobia, comic book racism etc may just be big joke on every Mail reader.
So sure, Littlecock’s vacancy is nice work if you can get it. Still, the fact that you couldn’t make it up that a single soul takes him seriously, clearly shows that we’re going to hell in a handcart.
See what I did there
P.S. - you probably won’t. You were only 14 when the bugger was on TV.
June 12th, 2010 at 6:51 am
Great post!
July 7th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
You are wrong here and I regard this post as anti-pedo propaganda.
Do you have a source masturbation is sufficient for criterion B???
Since most pedophilies probably masturbate, if what you are saying is true, it would mean most pedophiles have a mental disorder. Otherwise it would mean most pedophiles dont have a mental disorder, just a different orientation.