Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sinisterporpoise

Hypersexuality won't be in DSM-5

Recommended Posts

Philip027

tml;sp

(too much legalese; summary pleez)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. . .but there are sounds

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog/frances/content/article/10168/2006997

You may need to have a login ID. It's not consistent about requiring one.

The article is about Hebephilia, but it does mention that two controversial disorders have been removed. I'd try to repost the text if I could, but that would violate copyright laws.

I don't believe it is saying the disorders are removed so much as not being added. I only looked in the index, it may be listed under a different name, but hypersexuality does not appear to be in the DSM IV TR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinisterporpoise

Basically, Hypersexuality and a few other interesting disorders were new proposed disorders. The committee has decided to keep them out of the new edition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

I have to register just to read it? Ridiculous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

tml;sp

(too much legalese; summary pleez)

The article's really about the diciness of diagnosing someone as hebephenic and how that affects them legally, so nothing really about hypersexuality. The point it makes about hebephenia is that once a diagnosis of something as "natural" as the attraction to children is enshrined in the DSM, it becomes possible to use it in court, and psychiatrists hired by the defense will do so. Because it's a mental illness definition, instead of going to prison, they will be sent to a mental hospital until they are either "well" enough to stand trial, or be let out free (in the US, sometimes one or the other happens). But that argument is a bit dicey itself, and the article is both confusing and shrill.

What I wonder is if hyposexuality is going to be in the DSM-V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinisterporpoise

tml;sp

(too much legalese; summary pleez)

The article's really about the diciness of diagnosing someone as hebephenic and how that affects them legally, so nothing really about hypersexuality. The point it makes about hebephenia is that once a diagnosis of something as "natural" as the attraction to children is enshrined in the DSM, it becomes possible to use it in court, and psychiatrists hired by the defense will do so. Because it's a mental illness definition, instead of going to prison, they will be sent to a mental hospital until they are either "well" enough to stand trial, or be let out free (in the US, sometimes one or the other happens). But that argument is a bit dicey itself, and the article is both confusing and shrill.

What I wonder is if hyposexuality is going to be in the DSM-V.

You're off slightly. There's a brief mention of hypersexuality and rape being removed as disorders. I suspect Lord Happy Toast has followed this debate more closely than I have and would be able to clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

tml;sp

(too much legalese; summary pleez)

The article's really about the diciness of diagnosing someone as hebephenic and how that affects them legally, so nothing really about hypersexuality. The point it makes about hebephenia is that once a diagnosis of something as "natural" as the attraction to children is enshrined in the DSM, it becomes possible to use it in court, and psychiatrists hired by the defense will do so. Because it's a mental illness definition, instead of going to prison, they will be sent to a mental hospital until they are either "well" enough to stand trial, or be let out free (in the US, sometimes one or the other happens). But that argument is a bit dicey itself, and the article is both confusing and shrill.

What I wonder is if hyposexuality is going to be in the DSM-V.

You're off slightly. There's a brief mention of hypersexuality and rape being removed as disorders. I suspect Lord Happy Toast has followed this debate more closely than I have and would be able to clarify.

Explain how I was off re the legalese in the article, unless you've alerted Lord Happy Toast to post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinisterporpoise

You were off by suggesting there was no mention of hypersexuality -- there is. The rest of the article is a debate Lord Happy Toast has been following with more interest than I have. He's also better informed about the issues surrounding the DSM-5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...