Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reply to Letters Regarding Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and the DSM-V

  • Letter to the Editor
  • 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

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. The definitions of erotic age-preferences used in our laboratory are modeled on the examples given by Freund (1981, p. 161): “let us define pedophilia as a subject’s sustained erotic preference for children (within the age range up to and including 11 or 12) as compared to this subject’s erotic inclination toward physically mature persons, and under the condition that there is a free choice of partner as to sex and other attributes which may co-determine erotic attractiveness. In this definition the term ‘child’ denotes primarily a person characterized by a particular typical set of gross somatic features. Let us define analogously the term hebephilia as an erotic preference for pubescents and let us define the age bracket of pubescents to be approximately 11 or 12 to 13 or 14 for girls, and to 15 or 16 for boys.”

References

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.

  • 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., Lykins, A. D., Wherrett, D., Kuban, M. E., Cantor, J. M., Blak, T., et al. (2008). Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM-V. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9399-9.

  • DeClue, G. (2008). Should hebephilia be a mental disorder? A reply to Blanchard et al. (2008) [Letter to the editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9422-1.

  • Franklin, K. (2008). The public policy implications of “hebephilia”: A response to Blanchard et al. (2008) [Letter to the editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9425-y.

  • Frenzel, R. R., & Lang, R. A. (1989). Identifying sexual preferences in intrafamilial and extrafamilial child sexual abusers. Annals of Sex Research, 2, 255–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freund, K. (1981). Assessment of pedophilia. In M. Cook & K. Howells (Eds.), Adult sexual interest in children (pp. 139–179). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freund, K., & Blanchard, R. (1989). Phallometric diagnosis of pedophilia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 100–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freund, K., Langevin, R., Cibiri, S., & Zajac, Y. (1973). Heterosexual aversion in homosexual males. British Journal of Psychiatry, 122, 163–169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freund, K., McKnight, C. K., Langevin, R., & Cibiri, S. (1972). The female child as a surrogate object. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2, 119–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinplatz, P. J., & Moser, C. (2005). Politics versus science: An addendum and response to Drs. Spitzer and Fink. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 17, 135–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plaud, J. J. (2008). Are there “hebephiles” among us? A response to Blanchard et al. (2008) [Letter to the editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9423-0.

  • Tromovitch, P. (2008). Manufacturing mental disorder by pathologizing erotic age orientation: A comment on Blanchard et al. (2008) [Letter to the editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9426-x.

  • Zander, T. K. (2008). Adult sexual attraction to early-stage adolescents: Phallometry doesn’t equal pathology [Letter to the editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9428-8.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kurt Freund Laboratory, Law and Mental Health Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250 College Street, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5T 1R8

    Ray Blanchard

Authors
  1. Ray Blanchard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ray Blanchard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blanchard, R. Reply to Letters Regarding Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and the DSM-V . Arch Sex Behav 38, 331–334 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9427-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9427-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation