Saturday, 2 November 2013

Whopping Pedophilia 'Sexual Orientation' Error Sparks Common Sense Freakout

So, further to my previous posting, it looks like (unfortunately to all the paedophiles and their supporters - unlucky!!), LGBT is to stay as LGTB and not with the added "P" in it.

"In a text discussion of changes it made to the way it refers to sexually deviant behaviours in its updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM, for short), the APA accidentally called paedophilia a "sexual orientation." Conservative media outlets and pundits pounced on the statement and disseminated it on blogs and social networks.
The APA issued a statement to the press on Thursday, saying it had acted in "error," and clarifying that the only difference in how paedophilia is referred to from the last DSM is that "the disorder name was changed from 'paedophilia' to 'paedophilic disorder'" in order to "maintain consistency with the chapter’s other disorder listings.""

So common sense prevails, this makes complete sense - orientation being "an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender" (Wiki). Thus meaning you can (quite obviously I would have thought) have paedophiles of any orientation - whether they be LGB or T.

So, if it doesn't sit as an orientation, where does it sit within the DSM / APA? Quite rightly now in DSM-5 it is listed in their "Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet". For those who are not sure what exactly this means, according to the Free Online Dictionary, paraphilia  is described as a group of psychosexual disorders characterized by sexual fantasies, feelings, or activities involving a nonhuman object, a nonconsenting partner such as a child, or pain or humiliation of oneself or one's partner

One of the key words here being "nonconsenting". Nonconsenting in layman's language being rape. And rape being illegal. Thus no longer being "normalised", no longer being legitimised by DSM-5 or APA. The way it should be now, and the way it should always be going forward. Instead of over-analysing the cause of paedophilia and trying to find excuses for those who sexually abuse children, we should be accepting that some people are sexually inclined this way, and be concentrating more on both catching offenders who actively practise it, getting sentencing and future deterrence correct, and be providing proper, non-prejudicial justice and support for it's victims.


  1. Do you mean that if someone want to claim their orientation is to go around setting unwilling people on fire they can't claim it's a recognised orientation worthy of legal protection? Wow. Because, if consent is NOT the key, what would stop someone who is oriented to harming strangers from claiming a human right to act on that? Obviously, consent, and being of full ability and age to provide informed consent, must be the first consideration for any acceptance of "orientation."

    Thank you for calling attention to the child protection related topics which sometimes fly under our radar.


    "More than 100 Britons were among 1,000 men caught trying to pay a computer-generated child to perform sex acts online, after a Dutch children's charity set up a fake profile.

    Terre des Hommes carried out a 10-week sting near Amsterdam, posing on video chat rooms as "Sweetie", a 10-year-old Filipina girl.

    Some 20,000 men contacted her, with 1,000 found to have offered her money.

    The names of these men - including 110 Britons - were passed to police."