sinisterporpoise Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 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. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 tml;sp (too much legalese; summary pleez) Link to post Share on other sites
. . .but there are sounds Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 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. Link to post Share on other sites
sinisterporpoise Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 Basically, Hypersexuality and a few other interesting disorders were new proposed disorders. The committee has decided to keep them out of the new edition. Link to post Share on other sites
5_♦♣ Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I have to register just to read it? Ridiculous! Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 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. Link to post Share on other sites
sinisterporpoise Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 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. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 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. Link to post Share on other sites
sinisterporpoise Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 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. Link to post Share on other sites
Calinlapin Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Really ? Hypersexuality won't be in the DSM V ? Anyway, they haven't updated their website : http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=415# How am I suppose to explain my friends that they won't be in the DSM, but that I still will be... ? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts