Paraphilia
Paraphilia is a poorly-defined term applied to nonstandard sexual interests, including pedophilia. It has been a category of mental disorder in the DSM since DSM-III; previous editions used the more openly prejudicial if synonymous label "sexual deviation."[1] The DSM-IV, for example, defined paraphilias as featuring "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 1) nonhuman objects, 2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of at least 6 months." John Money, who popularized the term, told Paidika in 1991 that "paraphilia" has no connotation of pathology.[2] A minority of MAPs have embraced the term, some in an attempt to reclaim it, and some owing to their anti-contact beliefs. They point to the fact that since 2013, according to the DSM, to qualify as a psychiatric disorder, a "paraphilia" must be accompanied by negative factors such as distress.[3] Some "pro-para" personas also describe themselves as "pro-recovery", which may mean reorientation, or otherwise recovery from the distress caused by the "disorder" of pedophilia.
Gisela Blelbtreu-Ehrenberg views paraphilias -- having "forbidden" or "atypical" thoughts -- as a resurrection of the 18th and 19th century concept of moral insanity.[4] Charles Moser has argued vigorously for the removal of all paraphilias from the DSM. The construct of paraphilia is a "pseudoscientific attempt to regulate sexuality," according to Moser.[5][6] Frederick Suppe has similarly argued that the DSM's classification of paraphilias is without empirical grounding and "merely the codification of social mores."[7]
Official Guidance⁽ᵂʰᵃᵗ ᶦˢ ᵗʰᶦˢˀ⁾
Newgon Organization has for 15 years, opposed the idea that people with an attraction to minors are suffering from a "disorder". We also oppose the glibness of "reclaiming" the "paraphilia" label for what are historically ubiquitous, indistinct expressions of human diversity. We see it as being in the best interests of our members and beneficiaries (who may themselves be MAPs) that our alliances with/support for other identities considered "non-normative", goes forward under the strict proviso that we are not ourselves disordered or even "paraphilic". MAPs are regardless, strong enough and numerous enough to establish a position as a main protagonist among the various battles of minority groups for recognition and acceptance. History tells us that this approach is very necessary indeed, in that it immunizes us against being sidelined. This is not meant to imply that many of us do not support those who have adopted other identities, as in many cases they have been invalidated in almost identical ways. But any alliance, should it emerge organically - will be founded on that shared invalidation, not the archaic and offensive concept of MAPs as part of a larger "paraphilia" basket.
See also
External links
- List of paraphilias - Wikipedia listicle that claims up to 547 "paraphilic sexual interests" can be identified, and attempts to reify many. MAP Wiki, who endorse the "paraphilia" label are refining the list.
References
- ↑ DSM-II
- ↑ Geraci, Joseph and Mader, Donald (1991). "Interview: John Money," Paidika, 7, p. 4.
- ↑ MAP Wiki's (anti-c) article on Paraphilia
- ↑ Blelbtreu-Ehrenberg, Gisela (1988). "The Paedophile Impulse: Toward the Development of an Etiology of Child-Adult Sexual Contacts from an Ethological and Ethnological Viewpoint," Paidika, 3, p. 36.
- ↑ Moser, C. (2001). "Paraphilia: A Critique of a Confused Concept," in P. J. Kleinplatz (ed.), New Directions in Sex Therapy: Innovations and Alternatives, pp. 91-108.
- ↑ Moser, C. & Kleinplatz, P.J. (2005). "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An argument for removal," Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 17(3/4), pp. 91-109.
- ↑ Suppe, F. (1984). "Classifying sexual disorders: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association," Journal of Homosexuality, 9(4), 9–28.