Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 217–220 | Cite as

Pragmatic and Darwinian Views of the Paraphilias

  • Vernon L. QuinseyEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In this article, I discuss the question of the pathological nature of various sexual orientations and paraphilias and provide arguments for and against the inclusion of various paraphilias in future versions of the DSM. Practically, it is proposed that most of the paraphilias can be usefully conceptualized as involving sexual behaviors directed toward non-consenting individuals. From a Darwinian standpoint, it seems clear that at least some of the paraphilias should not be considered to be pathological because they are potentially associated with enhanced fitness.

Keywords

Paraphilias DSM Darwinian Pathology Sexual orientation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the pension funds of Queen’s University and the Government of Canada. The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful comments of Martin Lalumière and Paul Vasey. A version of this article was presented at the University of Lethbridge Workshop, The Puzzle of Sexual Orientation: What Is It and How Does It Work? Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, June 2010. The author was an advisor to the Paraphilias Subworkgroup of the DSM-5 Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Workgroup.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Blanchard, R. (2010). The DSM diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 304–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Camilleri, J. A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2009). Testing the cuckoldry risk hypothesis of partner sexual coercion in community and forensic samples. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 164–178.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, S. B. (2005). Endless forms most beautiful: The new science of evo devo and the making of the animal kingdom. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  5. Coen, E. (1999). The art of genes: How organisms make themselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Freund, K. (1988). Courtship disorder: Is the hypothesis valid? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528, 172–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freund, K. (1990). Courtship disorder. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories and treatment of the offender (pp. 195–207). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  8. Freund, K., & Blanchard, R. (1989). Phallometric diagnosis of pedophilia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 100–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Chaplin, T. C., & Earls, C. (1992). Maximizing the discriminant validity of phallometric data. Psychological Assessment, 4, 502–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krueger, R. B. (2010). The DSM diagnostic criteria for sexual sadism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 325–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marks, K. (2009). Lost paradise. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  12. Quinsey, V. L. (2010). Coercive paraphilic disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 405–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Quinsey, V. L., & Lalumière, M. L. (1995). Evolutionary perspectives on sexual offending. Sexual Abuse, 7, 301–315.Google Scholar
  14. Vasey, P. L., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2010). Avuncular tendencies and the evolution of male androphilia in Samoan Fa’afafine. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 821–830.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations