Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 233–235 | Cite as

APA Guidelines Ignored in Development of Diagnostic Criteria for Pedohebephilia

  • Richard KramerEmail author
Letter to the Editor

This Letter describes how the proposed DSM-5 criteria for pedohebephilia have been developed without following four key guidelines specified by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and to point out significant flaws that have resulted. It also proposes solutions.

First, the paraphilias subworkgroup apparently ignored the DSM research agenda development process, which addressed developmental issues, questions of disability and impairment, potential contributions from neuroscience, and cross-cultural and gender considerations (American Psychiatric Association, 2010e). Developmental issues are crucial for determining the ages at which pedohebephilic disorder can be diagnosed and the bases for diagnosis at various ages, since attraction to children develops during childhood (Farella, 2002; Freund & Kuban, 1993). The other considerations would inform ongoing debates over impairment and distress in diagnosing pedophilia (e.g., Green, 2002; O’Donohue, Reger, & Hagstrom, 2000) and over...


American Psychiatric Association Diverse Perspective Pedophilia Developmental Issue Paraphilic 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.


  1. Abel, G., & Harlow, N. (2001). The stop child molestation book. Xlibris.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2010a). Current activities: Report of the DSM-5 Task Force (March 2009).
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2010b). Definition of a mental disorder.
  4. American Psychiatric Association. (2010c). DSM-5: The future of psychiatric diagnosis.
  5. American Psychiatric Association. (2010d). DSM-V planning conference series monographs.
  6. American Psychiatric Association. (2010e). Phase 1: A research agenda for DSM-V: White paper monographs.
  7. American Psychiatric Association. (2010f). Phase 2: Refining the research agenda for DSM-V: NIH conference series.
  8. Blanchard, R. (2010). The DSM diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 304–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bullough, V. L. (1990). History in adult human sexual behavior with children and adolescents in Western society. In J. Feierman (Ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 69–90). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Farella, C. (2002, July 1). The unthinkable problem of pedophilia. Nursing Spectrum.
  11. Franklin, K. (2009). The public policy implications of “hebephilia”: A response to Blanchard et al. (2008) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 319–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freund, K., & Kuban, M. (1993). Toward a testable developmental model of pedophilia: The development of erotic age preference. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 315–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goode, S. D. (2009). Understanding and addressing adult sexual attraction to children: A study of paedophiles in contemporary society. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Green, R. (2002). Is pedophilia a mental disorder? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 467–471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, G., Hirschman, R., & Oliver, L. (1995). Sexual arousal and arousability to pedophilic stimuli in a community sample of normal men. Behavior Therapy, 26, 681–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li, C. K. (1990). Some case studies of adult sexual experiences with children. Journal of Homosexuality, 20(1–2), 129–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moser, C., & Kleinplatz, P. J. (2005). DSM-IV-TR and the paraphilias: An argument for removal. In D. Karasic & J. Drescher (Eds.), Sexual and gender diagnoses of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM): A reevaluation (pp. 91–110). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  18. O’Donohue, W., Regev, L. G., & Hagstrom, A. (2000). Problems with the DSM-IV diagnosis of pedophilia. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Okami, P., & Goldberg, A. (1992). Personality correlates of pedophilia: Are they reliable indicators? Journal of Sex Research, 29, 297–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Snyder, H. N. (2000). Sexual assault of young children as reported to law enforcement: Victim, incident, and offender characteristics (Report No. NCJ 18399). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  21. Wilson, G., & Cox, D. (1983). The child-lovers: A study of paedophiles in society. London: Peter Owen Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.B4U-ACTWestminsterUSA

Personalised recommendations