Skip to main content
Log in

DSM-5 Pedophilic Disorder: Are the Age and Number of Victims Significant Variables?

  • Commentary on DSM-5
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. In our sample, the proportion of men who showed a deviant profile of sexual interest was higher than what is commonly reported in other studies. This is only because we decided to exclude from the study all the men whose profile of sexual interests measured in penile plethysmography did not reach our criteria of validity. This led to the exclusion of approximately 30 % of all assessed men. The majority of these men would have otherwise been assigned to the non-deviant group, which would have lowered the proportion of men classified as pedophiles.

  2. One problem we can face when using the offenses period or the number of sexual interactions as indicators of deviant sexual interest is if, for instance, the offenses started when the victim was 12 and lasted 7 years, until she was 19. In this case, the offenses duration is not really an indicator of pedophilia anymore since the victim was pubertal or post-pubertal most of the time. Then, in these cases where the offenses persisted until the victim was pubertal or post-pubertal, only the period where the victim was prepubertal or early pubertal should be taken into account. In our study, this was the case for a 6 men with a single victim (4 intrafamilial and 2 extrafamilial offenders). Their victims were aged between 4 and 13 years old when the offenses started and they were 15 or 16 when the offenses stopped. For those men, we limited the period of offenses to those that occurred when their victim was 14 years old or less.

  3. There was only one man whose only victim was 14 years old and he showed a deviant profile of sexual interest.

  4. The stimuli we used in penile plethysmography were audio and we only had stimuli depicting sexual interactions with prepubertal children, so we could not evaluate sexual interest in early pubertal children with plethysmography.

References

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2010). Proposed draft revisions to DSM disorders and criteria. http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=186.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, R. (2011). Misdiagnoses of pedohebephilia using victim count: A reply to Wollert and Cramer (2011) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1081–1088.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, R. (2012). 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.ca/2012/01/guest-blog-by-dsm-5-paraphilias.html.

  • Blanchard, R. (2013). A dissenting opinion on DSM-5 pedophilic disorder [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 675–678.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, R., Klassen, P., Dickey, R., Kuban, M. E., & Blak, T. (2001). Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for pedophilia in nonadmitting sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 13, 118–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, R., Kuban, M. E., Black, T., Cantor, J. M., Klassen, P. E., & Dickey, R. (2006). Phallometric comparison of pedophilic interest in non admitting sexual offenders against stepdaughters, biological daughters, other biologically related girls, and unrelated girls. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, R., Lykins, A. D., Wherrett, D., Kuban, M. E., Cantor, J. M., Blak, T., … Klassen, P. E. (2009). Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM-5. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 335–350.

  • Cantor, J. M. (2012). The errors of Karen Franklin’s Pretextuality. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11, 59–62.

  • D’Orazio, D. M., Wilson, R. J., & Thornton, D. (2011, November). Prevalence of pedohebephilia, paraphilic coercive disorder, and sexual sadism diagnoses with the proposed DSM-5 criterion sets. Paper presented at the Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), Toronto.

  • Fernandez, Y., Harris, A. J. R., Hanson, R. K., & Sparks, J. (2012). STABLE-2007 coding manual (Revised 2012). Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.

  • First, M. B. (2010). DSM-5 proposals for paraphilias: Suggestions for reducing false positives related to use of behavioral manifestations [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1239–1244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, D. G., & McDonald, W. L. (1998). Characteristics of intrafamilial and extrafamilial child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 915–929.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frances, A. (2011, December 15). Hebephilia is a crime, not a mental disorder. Retrieved from http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog/frances/content/article/10168/2006997.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Good, P., & Burstein, J. (2012). Hebephilia and the construction of a fictitious diagnosis. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200, 492–494.

  • Hames, R., & Blanchard, R. (2012). Anthropological data regarding the adaptiveness of hebephilia [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 745–747.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matala, K. L. (2008). Differences between extrafamilial and incest offenders with a comparison of stepfathers based on the amount of time they resided with their victim. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville.

  • Muschang, V., Rouleau, J.-L., Barsetti, I., & Lavallée, K. (2004). Ressemblances entre abuseurs intra familiaux et extra familiaux. Revue Québécoise de psychologie, 25, 259–274.

  • O’Donohue, W. (2010). A critique of the proposed DSM-5 diagnosis of pedophilia [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 587–590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, D. E. H. (1986). The secret trauma: Incest in the lives of girls and woman. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2001). A brief screening scale to identify pedophilic interests among child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tétreault, S. (2005). L’intérêt sexuel et l’évaluation du risque de récidive chez trois types d’abuseurs sexuels d’enfants. Thèse de doctorat inédite, Université de Montréal.

  • Wilson, R. J., Pake, D. R., & Duffee, S. (2011, November). DSM-5 pedohebephilia, paraphilic coercive disorder, and sadism diagnoses: Reliability in Florida with comments on hypersexual disorder. Paper presented at the Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), Toronto.

  • World Health Organization. (1992). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (10th rev., Vol. 1). Geneva: Author.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanne-Lucine Rouleau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mongeau, V., Rouleau, JL. DSM-5 Pedophilic Disorder: Are the Age and Number of Victims Significant Variables?. Arch Sex Behav 43, 1247–1252 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0373-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0373-4

Keywords

Navigation