Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp 1231–1233 | Cite as

What’s Wrong With Sex?

  • Patrick SingyEmail author
Letter to the Editor

Several psychiatrists and psychologists have recently made important criticisms of specific diagnostic innovations proposed by the DSM-5’s Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group (DeClue, 2009; Frances, 2010; Green, 2010; O’Donohue, 2010). As a historian and philosopher of science, my goal here is more general: I want to show that what this Work Group is trying to accomplish undermines the definitions of “paraphilia” and “mental disorder” that have been operative since the DSM-III. If the revisions proposed by the Work Group are implemented, the DSM-5 will be closer to the DSM-I and DSM-II than to their successors. In order to understand why this is so, we need first to take a short historical detour and to look at how “mental disorder” and “paraphilias” have traditionally been defined. Only then will we be in a position to grasp the magnitude of what the DSM-5 is trying to accomplish.

As is well known, the DSM-I (American Psychiatric Association, 1952) and DSM-II(American...


Mental Disorder American Psychiatric Association Sexual Minority Sexual Arousal Sexual Interest 
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.


  1. American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and statistical manua: Mental disorders. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Blanchard, R. (2010). The DSM diagnostic criteria for Transvestic Fetishism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 363–372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cartwright, S. (1851). Report on the diseases and physical peculiarities of the Negro race. The New-Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, 7, 691–715.Google Scholar
  6. DeClue, G. (2009). Should hebephilia be a mental disorder? A reply to Blanchard et al. (2008) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 317–318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Frances, A. (2010, March 17). DSM5 and sexual disorders—Just say no. Psychiatric Times. Google Scholar
  8. Green, R. (2010). Sexual preference for 14-year-olds as a mental disorder: You can’t be serious!! [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 585–586.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. O’Donohue, W. (2010). A critique of the proposed DSM-V diagnosis of pedophilia [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 587–590.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Spitzer, R. L. (1999). Harmful dysfunction and the DSM definition of mental disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 430–432.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Thornton, D. (2010). Evidence regarding the need for a diagnostic category for a coercive paraphilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 411–418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Wakefield, J. C. (1992). Disorder as harmful dysfunction: A conceptual critique of DSM-III- R’s definition of mental disorder. Psychological Review, 99, 232–247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Wakefield, J. C., & First, M. B. (2003). Clarifying the distinction between disorder and nondisorder. In K. A. Phillips, M. B. First, & H. A. Pincus (Eds.), Advancing DSM: Dilemmas in psychiatric diagnosis (pp. 23–55). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  14. Zucker, K. J. (2010, February 22). DSM5: Pandora replies to Dr Frances. Psychiatric Times. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Bioethics ProgramUnion Graduate CollegeSchenectadyUSA

Personalised recommendations