2024-07-31 at 3:14 PM UTC
The next DSM is going to list people who have sex with people that identify as a different gender as 'heterosexual.'
Meaning ina few years from the psychology perspective you are a completely heterosexual man even if you regularly suck your 'girlfriend's dick'
So Scron, I wanna say I am sorry. You are not a homosexual anymore.
2024-07-31 at 3:18 PM UTC
The fact you know what DSM is and I had to google is shows your familiarity with mental faggotry and my lack of experience with it.
MANNING IT UP SINCE 1967.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2024-07-31 at 3:25 PM UTC
I will continue to not read it or accept it as science
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2024-07-31 at 3:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Bradley
I took two psychology classes, one in high school and one as an elective in college.
Why?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2024-07-31 at 3:49 PM UTC
do you mnow the deifnition of pedophilia form a psychology perspective?
2024-07-31 at 3:56 PM UTC
HELP PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET ARE MAKING ME CRITICALLY THINK!!!!
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2024-07-31 at 4:06 PM UTC
I'm not on the internet, I'm sitting at my desk.
2024-07-31 at 4:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Warcry
do you mnow the deifnition of pedophilia form a psychology perspective?
The Misuse of the Diagnosis Paraphilia NOS, Hebephilia
Although it was first mentioned 100 years ago, hebephilia has sprung into sudden prominence only because of its recent use in forensic proceedings.6 The term hebephilia has been used to provide a mental disorder diagnosis for those SVP offenders whose targeted victims are pubescent, not the prepubescent targets of pedophilia. The numerous conceptual problems with the diagnosis of hebephilia and the extreme limitations of its research base have already been well described by authorities in the sexual disorders field.7–15 This background has not prevented hebephilia (in the official sounding guise of paraphilia not otherwise specified, hebephilia) from being misused as a qualifying diagnosis in legal proceedings, to justify what often becomes a lifelong involuntary psychiatric commitment.
We will attempt to correct the misunderstandings that are shared among many SVP evaluators about the DSM-IV-TR paraphilia section. These misunderstandings result in part from the imprecise DSM-IV-TR wording, which is best understood by reviewing how paraphilia was defined in DSM-III16 and how and why the wording was changed in DSM-III-R,17 DSM-IV,18 and DSM-IV-TR.19
DSM-III, which first introduced the term paraphilia, noted that “the essential feature of disorders in this subclass is that unusual or bizarre imagery or acts are necessary for sexual excitement” (Ref. 16, p 266). The text then went on to offer some examples of what would constitute unusual or bizarre imagery or acts, explaining that they “generally involve either: (1) preference for use of a nonhuman object for sexual arousal, (2) repetitive sexual activity with humans involving real or simulated suffering or humiliation or (3) repetitive sexual activity with nonconsenting partners” (Ref. 16, p 266). Because of concerns about the subjectivity and unreliability of the terms unusual and bizarre in the definition, these terms were omitted from DSM-III-R (Robert Spitzer, personal communication, July 8, 2010), leaving only the list of examples that were modified to mention “children” specifically, alongside “other nonconsenting persons.” Notably, the sentences explaining the etymology of the word paraphilia were retained: “In other classifications these disorders are referred to as Sexual Deviations. The term Paraphilia is preferred because it correctly emphasizes that the deviation (para) lies in that to which the person is attracted (philia)” (Ref. 17, p 279).
Those preparing DSM-III-R understandably did not anticipate that many years later their truncated definition of paraphilia would be placed under intense scrutiny and have such consequential impact in the context of sexually violent predator commitment hearings. The DSM-III-R listing of eight specific paraphilias, along with the inclusion of seven other patently abnormal examples in the NOS section (e.g., necrophilia (corpses), zoophilia (animals), and coprophilia (feces)), was thought to be sufficient to communicate to clinicians the variety of sexual arousal foci considered to be paraphilic. Subsequent editions have similarly failed to provide a general and abstract definition of what makes a particular sexual arousal pattern paraphilic. Nonetheless, the underlying principle governing inclusion in this category is that a person's focus of sexual arousal be considered deviant, bizarre, and unusual.
In our roles as Chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and its Editor of Text and Criteria, we must take responsibility for its insufficiently clear wording that has allowed the misuse of the Paraphilia section in SVP hearings. We did not anticipate the later forensic misuse of the section and dropped the ball by retaining the vague DSM-III-R wording that did not include anything approaching a clear and coherent definition of the overall concept of paraphilia. The boundaries of the term paraphilia are admittedly extremely difficult to define precisely, but in retrospect we should have provided more guidance and less room for the loose usage now found in SVP proceedings.
We will annotate the wording of the three introductory sentences in the DSM-IV-TR Paraphilia section, in an attempt to clarify the original intent of DSM-III, DSM-III-R, and DSM-IV and reduce the confusion caused by the unfortunate ambiguity in their wording. We chose these three sentences because they have been the most misinterpreted in forensic settings to justify the inappropriate use of the paraphilia NOS category. We hope that this insider's parsing of the intended meanings will help to set the record straight and prevent their further misuse in SVP proceedings.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2024-07-31 at 4:44 PM UTC
Genesis and anatomy of controversies
9 The notions of hebephilia and paraphilic rape are not the simple products of the work of revising the DSM-5, but they have an older history. In 1957, psychologists and psychiatrists Emmanuel Hammer and Bernard Glueck Jr. used the term hebephilia for the first time in a forensic study aimed at classifying perpetrators of sexual assault by type of offense or crime committed. The neologism was initially used to distinguish men preferring prepubescent children (characterized as pedophiles) from those preferring young adolescents of both sexes, on the threshold of puberty (then defined as hebephiles) (Hammer and Glueck, 1957). Later, the expression will also be used by certain psychiatrists to describe the exclusive attraction to young girls (Janssen, 2015). Although the concept is little used in medical publications on paraphilias, it has seen renewed interest since the end of the 1990s in the United States, while media and psychological discourse has expressed alarm at the "precocious" puberty of children. and more particularly the danger of “premature sexualization” of young girls (APA, 2007), considered more vulnerable to sexual predation (Roberts, 2015). Underlying this is the fear, relayed by national health organizations such as the American Psychological Association (APA), that men may project sexual desires onto young girls who appear older (APA, 2007).
10 The emergence of these categories is also part of the history of the medicalization of sexuality. As Alain Giami (2015) suggests, knowledge about sexuality transformed during the 20th century from a pathologization of non-reproductive sexual behavior to that of the absence of consent, while at the same time the notions of “sexual health” were valued. » and the right to pleasure. Illustrating this paradigm shift, the first proposal in the recent history of the DSM to include a paraphilia dedicated to rape appeared in March 1976, under the term “sexual aggression disorder” (Frances, 2011), i.e. three years after the vote sanctioning the official exclusion of homosexuality from the Manual . Then hotly contested, notably by feminist organizations, paraphilia was abandoned the first time, then a second time in 1983, this time under the term “coercive paraphilic disorder” on the grounds that the scientific research supporting its inclusion was unsatisfactory ( ibid ). The weight of lay people in its exclusion is nevertheless essential: we are concerned that a psychiatric diagnosis does not make it possible to plead the non-responsibility of the perpetrators of sexual violence (Tosh, 2015).
5 Described in the DSM-5 as “recurrent and intense sexual arousal involving (…) animals (…)
6 “Recurring and intense sexual excitement involving (…) corpses” (APA, 2013, 705, my translation (…)
7 “Recurrent and intense sexual excitement involving (…) urine” (APA, 2013, 705, my translation (…)
11 In the United States in the 1990s, media attention to criminal cases raised what has sometimes been described as a “moral panic” (Jenkins, 2004; Neuilly and Zgoba, 2008) around questions of sexual crime, and particularly pedophilia. Several states are adopting legislation known as Sexual Violent Predator Laws (SVP), allowing the adoption of internment measures in mental health centers for individuals convicted and having served their sentence for sexual violence, as long as their dangerousness is attested by a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis of “mental abnormality” (Fabian, 2011). The APA has since communicated its opposition to these measures which it presents as a threat to the integrity of psychiatry (Zonana et al, 1999) and has underlined the insufficiency of the diagnosis of paraphilia to assess the risk of recurrence of a perpetrator of sexual violence (First and Halon, 2008). Despite these precautions, there is significant diagnostic use of paraphilias in internment measures: several studies indeed consider that this is the diagnosis most commonly used in SVP procedures ( ibid ; Levenson and Morin, 2006). Among these experts, psychiatrists Jill S. Levenson and JW Morin estimate, in research on the state of Florida, that pedophilia and “unspecified paraphilia” are the forms of diagnosis most often used ( ibid ). Indeed, in addition to the different types of paraphilias, the Manual includes a concept of "unspecified paraphilia" allowing a diagnosis of paraphilia to be made, even if the exact sexual preference is not explicitly listed. This mention makes it possible in theory to code rarer paraphilias such as zoophilia 5 , necrophilia 6 or even urophilia 7 (APA, 2000, 666), but it is also frequently used in internment assessments to diagnose paraphilias that are not part of the DSM. Thus, if hebephilia and paraphilic rape are not present in the latest versions of the DSM, they are nevertheless used alongside the mention of “unspecified paraphilia” in the expertise of these internment procedures (Zinik and Padilla, 2016; Particularly for paraphilic disorder, the proposal to include these two new categories can be read as an attempt to regain control over uncontrolled uses of psychiatric terms. The working group thus justifies:
“There has been an unfortunate tendency to overdiagnose coercive paraphilic disorder (usually under the category of Paraphilia Unspecified) simply on the basis of repeated coercive sexual behavior. It is necessary to be careful, in basing the diagnosis on the behavior, that this really indicates that sexual coercion is a source of arousal (…) The diagnostic criterion proposed here makes this point clearer and should lead to a reduction in diagnostics which will be used more appropriately” (APA, 2010 cited in Leon, 2011, 131, my translation).
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2024-07-31 at 4:49 PM UTC
„ The neologism was initially used to distinguish men preferring prepubescent children (characterized as pedophiles) from those preferring young adolescents of both sexes, on the threshold of puberty (then defined as hebephiles) (Hammer and Glueck, 1957).”
there ya go. even if i was into 13 or wish i could fuck 13 bradley im not a pedophile. it doesnt fit into the criteria jsut ask ur professor.
2024-07-31 at 5:01 PM UTC
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/hebephilia-crime-not-mental-disorderIt is natural and no sign of mental illness to feel sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters. But to act on such impulses is, in our society, a reprehensible crime that deserves severe punishment. The proper disposition for those who break the law and selfishly violate the innocence of the vulnerable is prison-not a mental hospital.
And the scientific literature offered in support of “Hebephilia” contains very few and very poorly conducted studies-not coincidentally mostly done by the people associated with the DSM-5 Work Group. There are no data on how best to define “Hebephilia,” whether it can be diagnosed reliably, or its predictive validity. “Hebephilia” is being dropped into the definition of Pedophilia with no scientific support and no consideration of risks.
what a reasonable take
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2024-07-31 at 5:02 PM UTC
i hope wariats stops trying to have sex with kids
2024-07-31 at 5:07 PM UTC
theyre claled teens for a reason bradley or post pubescents or adolescents not kids. i would put this age gap of 12-16 as healthy. at least during the victorian times it was accepted as healthy by overall society now its just among the eudctae dthat know the turth that it is healtbhy bradley.
2024-07-31 at 5:09 PM UTC
ya when I can leave my house I am goign to find a romantic partner. HOpefully one betwene the ages of 21 and 40. Someone at the same ish stage of their life that matches my development.
It would be difficult to foster a deep connection with someone that's still in middle school or someone that's been retired for 5 years, since you know I'm 30 years old.
2024-07-31 at 5:12 PM UTC
I can relate to a 25 year old or a 35 year old well enough to foster a loving partnership.
I cannot do that with a 70 year old lady or a 12 year old. But you seem to be fixated ont he normalcy of what is ubiquitously understood to be gross/improper/retarded/pedophhilism
