Discussion of asexuality in an article arguing for the removal of the "paraphilias" from the DSM

[Lord Happy Toast]

There is a brief discussion of asexuality in a peer-reviewed article, Defining Paraphilia: Excluding Exclusion, in which the author discusses the "paraphilias," which a section of the DSM that lists as mental disorders various "deviant" sexual interests. Many find objectionable what all is grouped together: sadomaschisism, cross-dressing, pedophilia, flashing people, fetishes, and a few others. The inclusion of all of these in the DSM is controvercial. Some people object to including harmless sexual interests in the DSM. For things like pedophilia, some object to this because is seems to make (certain kinds of) crime into mental disorders.

In the paper, the author considers arguments that have been used to justify including these in the DSM, and some of these justified including them (in those cases where this sexual interest was preferred to "normal" ones) on the same grounds as including the sexual dysfunctions in the DSM: they were an impairment in experiencing the "full sexual response cycle." (Under this, these aren't mental disorders because of the presence of "deviant" sexual interests, but the lack of "normal ones.") The author objects to this on two grounds. First, there is a lack of evidence that the "paraphilias" actual do cause sexual dysfunction. Second, he objects to the idea that the "full sexual response cycle" should be seen as a universal norm, first citing some feminist criticism and then discussing asexuality:

Recent work on asexuality, which is often defined in terms of experiencing little or no sexual attraction, challenges the pathologization of asexuality [citations omitted], and some regard asexuality as a non-pathological variation of human sexuality, further challenging any universal sexual norm

I guess I was curious what people thought of this. It creates some additional visibility for asexuality, including arguments for the depathologization of asexuality--and gives citations for some of that work. On the other, I can imagine some people being uncomfortable at even mentioning asexuality in the context of arguing against having these in the DSM--especially the super hot-button issue of pedophilia. Thoughts? Comments?

[Lord Happy Toast]

The above mentioned article was one of two by the same author discussion a definition of "paraphilia" proposed for DSM-5. (It was actually the second of the two, though it was published first.) The other article was published earlier this week and also makes reference to asexuality at one point in the argument.

Defining Paraphilia in DSM-5: Do not disregard grammar addresses the following definition which is actually being seriously proposed for the primary classification of mental disorders in the US, which is extremely influential internationally:

The term paraphilia refers to any intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners.

At one point, the noun phrase "preparatory fondling" is considered. Asking whether preparatory is to be interpreted as a restrictive or non-restrictive adjective:

The former is peculiar and might make paraphilic preferring cuddling to sex and would probably make extreme cases of premature ejaculation paraphilic. The latter can be criticized for regarding certain behaviors as inherently sexual (and inherently preparatory for genital stimulation) regardless of how those behaviors are actually understood by the people involved. Research on asexuality has drawn into question whether a number of activities, including masturbation, are necessarily sexual (e.g. Scherrer, 2008).

I find it interesting how my work regarding the "paraphilias" is creating a certain degree asexual visibility in rather unexpected places. For instance, this paper was recently blogged about by the forensic psychologist Karen Franklin: Linguist lambasts DSM-5 proposal as gibberish

She opens:

Leave it to an asexual linguist to lay bare the convoluted nature of the paraphilia diagnoses being proposed for the DSM-5. Andrew Hinderliter, a former English teacher and grad student at the University of Illinois, says his activism regarding the DSM's Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder led him to stumble across disturbing global flaws in the DSM-5 sexual disorders morass.

[thylacine]

Didn't the DSM once define PMS as a "mental disorder" a few decades back? I mean, can we rely on that book for anything, really? Or is it just a listing of the opinions of upper class, educated white men?

[Sally]

"The former is peculiar and might make paraphilic preferring cuddling to sex and would probably make extreme cases of premature ejaculation paraphilic. The latter can be criticized for regarding certain behaviors as inherently sexual (and inherently preparatory for genital stimulation) regardless of how those behaviors are actually understood by the people involved. Research on asexuality has drawn into question whether a number of activities, including masturbation, are necessarily sexual (e.g. Scherrer, 2008)."

Ah yes. Wouldn't it be lovely if the content and meaning of our activities were actually defined by us? Since the DSM is inherently a compendium of definitions by "them", that will be difficult, but some day...

Thanks for your work, Mandrewliter.