Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 1109–1116 | Cite as

Hebephilia: A Postmortem Dissection

Special Section: DSM-5: Classifying Sex

Abstract

In 2008, the concept of hebephilia, which denotes an erotic preference for “pubescent children,” was suggested by Blanchard and his team for inclusion in the DSM-5 (Blanchard et al., 2009). Four years later, the APA’s Board of Trustees opted for the status quo and rejected that proposal. This essay sheds light on the reason for this rejection. I consider three important questions related to hebephilia: Does hebephilia exist? Is it a disease? And what would have been the social consequences of including it in the DSM? I argue that if Blanchard failed to convince others that hebephilia should be included in the DSM-5, it is not because he focused too much on the first question and was unable to offer a convincing answer to the second one, but because he made the mistake of dismissing the third one as extraneous. The DSM is not intended to be a pure research manual, and a category like hebephilia cannot be evaluated without taking into account its potential forensic impact. In part or in whole, the decision to include a new diagnostic category in the DSM is, and always should be, a political decision.

Keywords

Hebephilia Pedophilia Paraphilia DSM-5 Forensic psychiatry 

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  4. Appelbaum, P. S. (2014). Commentary: DSM-5 and forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42, 136–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Balon, R. (2014). Politics of diagnostic criteria: Specifiers of pedophilic disorder in DSM-5. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1235–1236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayer, R. (1987). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blanchard, R. (2009). Reply to letters regarding pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM-V [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanchard, R. (2010). The specificity of victim count as a diagnostic indicator of pedohebephilia [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1245–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanchard, R. (2012, January 24). The proposal to add intense or preferential sexual interest in early pubescent children to the DSM-5 diagnosis of pedophilic disorder. Retrieved from http://sajrt.blogspot.com/2012/01/guest-blog-by-dsm-5-paraphilias.html.
  10. Blanchard, R. (2013). A dissenting opinion on DSM-5 pedophilic disorder [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 675–678.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blanchard, R., Kolla, N. J., Cantor, J. M., Klassen, P. E., Dickey, R., Kuban, M. E., & Blak, T. (2007). IQ, handedness, and pedophilia in adult male patients stratified by referral source. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 19, 285–309.Google Scholar
  12. Blanchard, R., Lykins, A. D., Wherrett, D., Kuban, M. E., Cantor, J. M., Blak, T., … Klassen, P. E. (2009). Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM-V. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 335–350.Google Scholar
  13. Brooks, R. A. (2007). Psychiatrists’ opinions about involuntary civil commitment: Results of a national survey. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35, 219–228.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cantor, J. M. (2012). The errors of Karen Franklin’s pretextuality. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11, 59–62.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., & Barbaree, H. E. (2009). Sexual disorders. In P. H. Blaney & T. Millon (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 527–548). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cartwright, S. A. (1851). Report on the diseases and physical peculiarities of the Negro race. New-Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, 7, 691–715.Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, R. (2015). Must disorders cause harm? The changing stance of the DSM. In S. Demazeux & P. Singy (Eds.), The DSM-5 in perspective: Philosophical reflections on the psychiatric Babel (pp. 83–96). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Decker, H. (2013). The making of DSM-III: A diagnostic manual’s conquest of American psychiatry. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Demazeux, S. (2013). Qu’est-ce que le DSM? Genèse et transformations de la bible américaine de la psychiatrie. Paris: Ithaque.Google Scholar
  21. Demazeux, S., & Singy, P. (Eds.). (2015). The DSM-5 in perspective: Philosophical reflections on the psychiatric Babel. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Duschinsky, R., & Chachamu, N. (2013). Sexual dysfunction and paraphilias in the DSM-5: Pathology, heterogeneity, and gender. Feminism & Psychology, 23, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. First, M. B. (2014). DSM-5 and paraphilic disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42, 191–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (2003). Abnormal (G. Burchell, Trans.). New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  25. Frances, A. (2010). DSM in philosophyland: Curiouser and curiouser. Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry Bulletin, 17, 3–7.Google Scholar
  26. Frances, A. (2012, May 3). DSM 5 rejects “hebephilia” except for the fine print. Retrieved from www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201205/dsm-5-rejects-hebephilia-except-the-fine-print.
  27. Frances, A. (2013). Saving normal: An insider’s revolt against out-of-control psychiatric diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the medicalization of ordinary life. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  28. Frances, A., & First, M. B. (2011). Hebephilia is not a mental disorder in DSM-IV-TR and should not become one in DSM-5. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39, 78–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Franklin, K. (2010). Hebephilia: Quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 751–768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Franklin, K. (2012, January 20). Federal judge tosses hebephilia as basis for civil detention. In the News: Forensic Psychology, Criminology, and Psychology-Law. Retrieved from www.forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/01/federal-judge-tosses-hebephilia-as.html.
  31. Glueck, B. C. (1956). Final report. Research project for the study and treatment of persons convicted of crimes involving sexual aberrations. June 1952 to June 1955. New York: New York State Department of Mental Hygiene.Google Scholar
  32. Green, R. (2002). Is pedophilia a mental disorder? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 467–471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenberg, G. (2010). Inside the battle to define mental illness. Wired. Retrieved from www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv/all/1.
  34. Hirschfeld, M. (1906). Vom Wesen der Liebe. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Lösung der Frage der Bisexualität [On the nature of love. Also a contribution to the solution of the question of bisexuality]. Jahrbuch für Sexuelle Zwischenstufen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Homosexualität, 8, 1–284.Google Scholar
  35. Horwitz, A. V. (2002). Creating mental illness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Horwitz, A. V., & Wakefield, J. C. (2007). The loss of sadness: How psychiatry transformed normal sorrow into depressive disorder. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Horwitz, A. V., & Wakefield, J. C. (2012). All we have to fear: Psychiatry’s transformation of natural anxieties into mental disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Huttenbach, E., & Grudzinskas, A. (2014). Differences in legal and psychiatric criteria of mental illness for sex offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42, 381–383.Google Scholar
  39. Janus, E. S. (2009). Failure to protect: America’s sexual predator laws and the rise of the preventive state. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kendler, K. S., Appelbaum, P., Bell, C. C., Fulford, K. W. M., Ghaemi, S. N., Schaffner, K. F., et al. (2008). Issues for DSM-V: DSM-V should include a Conceptual Issues Work Group. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 174–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krafft-Ebing, R. V. (1965). Psychopathia sexualis: A medico-forensic study. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  42. Mazaleigue-Labaste, J. (2014). Les déséquilibres de l’amour. La genèse du concept de perversion sexuelle, de la Révolution française à Freud. Paris: Ithaque.Google Scholar
  43. Miller, G. (2011). Foreword. In P. R. Adriaens & A. De Block (Eds.), Maladapting minds: Philosophy, psychiatry, and evolutionary theory (pp. vi–x). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Moser, C. (2009). When is an unusual sexual interest a mental disorder? [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 323–325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murphy, D. (2006). Psychiatry in the scientific image. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Plaud, J. J. (2009). Are there “hebephiles” among us? A response to Blanchard et al. (2008) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 326–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shuman, D. W. (2002). Softened science in the courtroom: Forensic implications of a value-laden classification. In J. Z. Sadler (Ed.), Descriptions and prescriptions: Values, mental disorders, and the DSMs (pp. 217–228). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Singy, P. (2015). Danger and difference: The stakes of hebephilia. In S. Demazeux & P. Singy (Eds.), The DSM-5 in perspective: Philosophical reflections on the psychiatric Babel (pp. 113–124). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Singy, P., & Demazeux, S. (2013). Du DSM-IV au DSM-5: le jour d’après [From the DSM-IV to the DSM-5: The day after]. Slate.fr. Retrieved from http://www.slate.fr/tribune/72919/dsm-iv-dsm-5-psychiatrie.
  50. Tromovitch, P. (2009). Manufacturing mental disorder by pathologizing erotic age orientation: A comment on Blanchard et al. (2008) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsou, J. Y. (2015). DSM-5 and psychiatry’s second revolution: Descriptive vs. theoretical approaches to psychiatric classification. In S. Demazeux & P. Singy (Eds.), The DSM-5 in perspective: Philosophical reflections on the psychiatric Babel (pp. 43–62). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Tucker, D., & Brakel, S. J. (2012). DSM-5 paraphilic diagnoses and SVP law [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 533.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wakefield, J. C. (1992). The concept of mental disorder: On the boundary between biological facts and social values. American Psychologist, 47, 373–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wakefield, J. C. (2011). DSM-5 proposed diagnostic criteria for sexual paraphilias: Tensions between diagnostic validity and forensic utility. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34, 195–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wakefield, J. C. (2015). The loss of grief: Science and pseudoscience in the debate over DSM-5’s elimination of the bereavement exclusion. In S. Demazeux & P. Singy (Eds.), The DSM-5 in perspective: Philosophical reflections on the psychiatric Babel (pp. 157–178). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Zonana, H., Abel, G., Bradford, J., Hoge, S. K., Metzner, J., Becker, J., et al. (1999). Dangerous sex offenders: A task force report of the American Psychiatric Association. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Union CollegeSchenectadyUSA

Personalised recommendations