Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 319–320 | Cite as

The Public Policy Implications of “Hebephilia”: A Response to Blanchard et al. (2008)

  • Karen Franklin
Letter to the Editor

Blanchard et al. (2008) present their article on “hebephilia” as an objective analysis of research data. In fact, it is a textbook example of subjective values masquerading as science. Avoiding the crucial public policy implications of their argument, Blanchard et al. advance hebephilia as if it exists in a cultural vacuum. Their recommendations are even more troubling in light of their study’s methodological flaws.

Blanchard et al. assert that their mere identification of hebephilia as a “discriminable erotic age-preference” qualifies it for inclusion in the forthcoming fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). They ignore a crucial question at the heart of the current debate over how the DSM should conceptualize sexual disorders (Kleinplatz & Moser, 2005): What makes hebephilia a pathology, as opposed to a normal variant of human sexuality? Indeed, Blanchard et al.’s logic applies equally well to...

Keywords

Personality Disorder Antisocial Personality Disorder Pedophilia Civil Commitment Sexual Disorder 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Blanchard, R., Lykins, A. D., Wherrett, D., Kuban, M. E., Cantor, J. M., Blak, T., et al. (2008). Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM-V. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9399-9.
  2. Doren, D. M. (2002). Evaluating sex offenders: A manual for civil commitments and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. First, M. B., & Halon, R. L. (in press). Use of DSM paraphilia diagnoses in sexually violent predator commitment cases. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Google Scholar
  4. Freund, K., & Costell, R. (1970). The structure of erotic preference in the nondeviant male. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8, 15–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Jenkins, P. (2004). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in modern America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346 (1997). Google Scholar
  7. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–133.Google Scholar
  8. Kleinplatz, P. J., & Moser, C. (2005). Politics versus science: An addendum and response to Drs. Spitzer and Fink. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 17, 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lane, C. (2007). Shyness: How normal behavior became a sickness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Marshall, W. L. (1997). Pedophilia: Psychopathology and theory. In D. R. Laws & W. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 152–174). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Quinsey, V. L., Steinman, C. M., Bergerson, S. G., & Holmes, T. F. (1975). Penile circumference, skin conductance, and ranking responses of child molesters and “normals” to sexual and nonsexual visual stimuli. Behavior Therapy, 6, 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Seto, M. C. (2008). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zander, T. K. (2005). Civil commitment without psychosis: The law’s reliance on the weakest links in psychodiagnosis. Journal of Sex Offender Civil Commitment: Science and the Law, 1, 17–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.El CerritoUSA
  2. 2.California School of Professional PsychologySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations