Nah, pedophilia is a paraphilia. And if someone suffers from pedophilic disorder, it’s kinda impossible for anyone other than healthcare to know that – unless they’ve made some attempts to abuse someone.
To be fair, paraphilias were listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as disorders before that definition was moved in DSM-5 to paraphilic disorder to be distinct from paraphilia (no longer de facto a disorder).
Anyway, pedophilia is a paraphilic disorder, which makes it a paraphilia and a mental disorder!
Miss me with that American junk. But with the same logic, would you also say that gender incongruence is a mental disorder? It’s in the same books, in similar sections. It’s faux pas to call something a mental disorder without focusing on why it’d be that.
The ICD (and I would hope the DSM) focuses mostly on the distress the patient gets from their condition. Someone’s attraction to kids, without any actions, isn’t enough to get diagnosed, as it’s simply a paraphilia. If they’re distressed by it, or act out, then it’s a diagnostic criteria and something they’d be able to get treatment for.
Yes, gender incongruence may be in the same book now, but being in the book does not necessarily mean it is a disorder (e.g. paraphilia). In fact, in DSM-5, gender incongruence (they call it gender dysphoria) was actually renamed from “gender identity disorder” to avoid the word “disorder”.
DSM-5 defines a paraphilic disorder as “a paraphilia that brings distress, or when satisfied, brings harm to self or others” (paraphrased). I think pedophilia fits that description, because “if satisfied”, that’s what we’d consider “bringing harm to others”. Perhaps the ICD has a different definition?
I mean, I didn’t set the standards or write the books. All of these things have way too much complexity to properly categorize in the ever-shifting standards of society in different geographic and cultural regions, so of course different countries and different experts would treat these things differently. That also means what counts as a “mental disorder” can vary wildly from region to region. I daresay this is a universe where you and I are both right on the matter!
I’m not sure about the criterion differences between the ICD and DSM-5, and I for sure do not know enough to be an authority on the matter.
kungen@feddit.nu 4 weeks ago
Nah, pedophilia is a paraphilia. And if someone suffers from pedophilic disorder, it’s kinda impossible for anyone other than healthcare to know that – unless they’ve made some attempts to abuse someone.
HatchetHaro@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
To be fair, paraphilias were listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as disorders before that definition was moved in DSM-5 to paraphilic disorder to be distinct from paraphilia (no longer de facto a disorder).
Anyway, pedophilia is a paraphilic disorder, which makes it a paraphilia and a mental disorder!
kungen@feddit.nu 3 weeks ago
Miss me with that American junk. But with the same logic, would you also say that gender incongruence is a mental disorder? It’s in the same books, in similar sections. It’s faux pas to call something a mental disorder without focusing on why it’d be that.
The ICD (and I would hope the DSM) focuses mostly on the distress the patient gets from their condition. Someone’s attraction to kids, without any actions, isn’t enough to get diagnosed, as it’s simply a paraphilia. If they’re distressed by it, or act out, then it’s a diagnostic criteria and something they’d be able to get treatment for.
HatchetHaro@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
Yes, gender incongruence may be in the same book now, but being in the book does not necessarily mean it is a disorder (e.g. paraphilia). In fact, in DSM-5, gender incongruence (they call it gender dysphoria) was actually renamed from “gender identity disorder” to avoid the word “disorder”.
DSM-5 defines a paraphilic disorder as “a paraphilia that brings distress, or when satisfied, brings harm to self or others” (paraphrased). I think pedophilia fits that description, because “if satisfied”, that’s what we’d consider “bringing harm to others”. Perhaps the ICD has a different definition?
I mean, I didn’t set the standards or write the books. All of these things have way too much complexity to properly categorize in the ever-shifting standards of society in different geographic and cultural regions, so of course different countries and different experts would treat these things differently. That also means what counts as a “mental disorder” can vary wildly from region to region. I daresay this is a universe where you and I are both right on the matter!
I’m not sure about the criterion differences between the ICD and DSM-5, and I for sure do not know enough to be an authority on the matter.