I have no problem with with removing all the other categories OTHER than pedophilia. That is a crime period. Crossdressing.. who cares, to each their own.

San Fransisco, go figure.

They want to make sick bastards who harm kids simple practitioners of an alternate lifestyle? I guess rapists too should be classified as simply "alternative lifestyles" too.

Sado Masochism and tansvestisim, as well as gender idenitity problems are rightfully mental illness, because they either stem from or cause serious drops in quality of life. They are abberations. But generally, they are harmless abberations, except in certain cases. Remove them as mental illness? No. But treat them more as colds than SARS? Yes. They are personal issues that effect only the person doing it.

Pedophilia is sick. Sex with kids, is well................sick beyond measure. i smell NAMBLA in here. Do any of you know what NAMBLA is? Its a sick nasty disgusting group of degenrate filthy scumbags h=who believe it should be legal for homosexual men to sodomize and have sex with young boys, as it will benefit the boys development.

If these lines are crossed, there is no return.

Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa presented conferees with a paper entitled "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal."

Very interesting find, Dragon. The reason this is being discussed is to potentially reduce mental healthcare workers' potential legal and ethical nightmares. This is a matter of billing, though. It hurts the treating clinician, when these folks get referred for treatment.

Incidentally very few treatments are empirically-supported in terms of efficacy as well as efficiency, for these diagnoses. Those that show short-term gains show relapse in the long-term.

It is better for society to lock these people up and keep them locked up in prison- rather than let them enjoy life in a long-term psychiatric hospital. By the time the treating clinician finds out the patient has done ANYTHING to a child, it must be reported by law. So giving the criminal an excuse to avoid facing responsibilities isn't good for society- take away the diagnostic category and he goes to prison.



I'd want a full diagnostic mental health HISTORY in any referred cases, for that very reason.

On the other hand, the transvestism and fetishes are really not disorders. There are fairly large subgroups of people in society who practice these things, all showing the same behaviors and most importantly-- they keep to themselves, for the most part. They're not really a danger to anyone, except themselves. But it is voluntary.

In terms of Pedophilia, I agree it should still be considered for inclusion. It takes a completely different (and aberrant) cognitive processing model to engage in those behaviors.

Micheal Jackson was given the key to the city of Gary, Indiana, today at a ceremony in Gary City Hall.

Sporting an umbrella (it didn't rain today) and a homemade army uniform, he then went outside to greet the youth of the city.

Originally posted by observer
I have no problem with with removing all the other categories OTHER than pedophilia. That is a crime period. Crossdressing.. who cares, to each their own.

Careful. Go tinkering with age-old taboos, mores and norms and eventually you'll have nothing.

But a fireball. And someone's old lady who turns to a pillar of salt because she can't help but to look back.

Yes TC, we're now living in a new Sodom and Gomorrhe
like world. " Thanks " to those who " gave " us the politically correct.

Guys... remember that laws against pedophilia are NEW -- not age old.

In the 1300's, it was common to be married (and having sex/babies) by age 13. And yes, older men often took young girls as wives. In Europe (England is the country I'm most familiar with in regards to these parctices), in the 1700's and 1800's, girls (and boys) were often sold as prostitutes at age 10. It was believed you could cure siphyllis by having sex with a virgin.

The practice stretches far back in time and is, in fact, not something that the Bible speaks against. Under Muslim law, a girl can be taken as wife/sex partner at age 9, but this isn't the youngest "accepted" age. Under Jewish law dating back to the time of Moses, a girl was considered old enough to marry or taken as concubine at the ripe old age of 3 years and one day old. In fact, if you read the Bible you'll see where God gives his armies several thousand very young girls ("females who have not known men" ... and remember, the traditional age of marriage was 13 or younger so they killed the ones that were 13 and older.)

And of course, these weren't symbolic marriages. This was sex-involved marriages.

In MANY states today, a child can marry and have sex at age 13 (with parental consent.) A friend of my son's did that 8 years ago -- married at age 13.

So it's not "age old taboos," I'm afraid.

And that said, I am in favor of striking it off the DSM as a "Mental Disease" and leaving it on the books as against the law. I think the reporter had it all wrong -- with it not being a "tragic mental condition," then there's no psychiatric excuse to lighten sentences or let them out on the promise that they've had treatment and will be good.

[Edited on 12-6-2003 by Byrd]

Originally posted by MKULTRA
Very interesting find, Dragon. The reason this is being discussed is to potentially reduce mental healthcare workers' potential legal and ethical nightmares. This is a matter of billing, though. It hurts the treating clinician, when these folks get referred for treatment.

Exactly. We don't need the psychiatric system clogged up with these people. Stick them in jail.

Incidentally very few treatments are empirically-supported in terms of efficacy as well as efficiency, for these diagnoses. Those that show short-term gains show relapse in the long-term.

Dead on there, too. They often prey on family members or the children of family members.

Ok Byrd. And what ? Do you mean that we have to go back to the " old good days " ?

Also, you're speaking about heterosexual realations. NAMBLA is speaking about men/boys sexual relations...Homosexuality. Do you remember what the Bible, Qu'ran and Thora are saying about homosexuality ?

And anyway, I don't care if these books tell us that it's ok to have sex with kids. Bible or not, Qu'ran or not, Torah or not, NOBODY will touch my daughter. And if someone try to do it, he/she will have to pay the price. The price of the blood.

I don't know for you, but when it comes to my children, I'm ready to kill. And I don't care if it's a sin or not to kill someone in this case.

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
Ok Byrd. And what ? Do you mean that we have to go back to the " old good days " ?

Hardly.

In fact, I'm for getting AWAY from the "good old days."

Also, you're speaking about heterosexual realations.

Actually, all sexual relations. And yes, I'm aware of NAMBLA... but doing away with pedophilia as a psychiatric excuse does not do away with it in the lawbooks.

Here's an example from law:
If they take kelptomania (which is a psychological compulsion to steal) out of the DSM, all it does is take away ineffective treatment programs for kleptomania. It does not mean that the laws to not steal get revoked.

It means that people can't get away with crying about how their bad childhood gave them a psychological problem and they should be sent to mental hospitals and nursed back to health. It means they get sent to jail.

Do you remember what the Bible, Qu'ran and Thora are saying about homosexuality ?

Yes, but I'm not sure what it has to do with this case. I have helped some folks deal with sex offenders (one was caught and is going back to jail as the result of what I was able to come up with via computer searches.) 99% of the pedophiles really are men having sex with little girls.

...and I'm not so sure why it's more horrible for men to have sex with little boys, while treating sex with little girls as something that's bad but is not worth shooting him over. BOTH are equally wrong, and in equal measures.

And I think the Q'ran and Bible and Torah are ALL wrong in permitting sex with little girls (and incest, but that's another story.)

Well,
If you do away with it in the DSM... what standards can you use to make it illegal and keep it on the lawbooks? What you're left with is the idea that people under a certain age can never give actual 'consent'... an idea which itself can be scrutinized under the same arguments that say pedophilia is not a disease.

And, as for people marrying at age 13 in 1200 and some states allowing stuff like that today... well, I'm pretty sure that people matured, physically, at a faster rate in those days. Also, even if the rate of physical maturation was the same then as now, modern culture and early (pre-18) marriage are no longer compatable. A person, in the USA, today is not only expected, but, in terms of their social responsibilities, almost required to complete a high school education and acquire either a vocational/technical skill or move on to higher education... Modern civilization cannot function on medieval personal norms. So, sure, you can, phyiscally, have sex and produce children at the age of 13, but you cannot fulfill your other obligations to society nor, as an individual, can you reach your own personal potential... So, in this case, culture outweighs biology.

I assume that those states that still permit marriage at 13 will not do so for very much longer.

In terms of kids actually maturing faster than they did 800 years ago... the studies you're referring to deal, mostly, with populations that we have no records for 800 years ago. Also, so far as ANY population in the USA goes, today, do you think that ANY 13 year old boy could knock over a 13 year old from 1300? Sure, the modern kid is much healthier, will live longer, and in a few years will be stronger than the kid from 1300 would've been at the same age... But that's the point I'm trying to make: The maturation process, for most people, is being decidely stretched out over a growing lifespan. Notice how the articles you refer to treat the earlier maturation process of SOME populations within the USA as a problem... It's only considered a problem because the scientist conducting the survey know that these kids are going against the overall trend encouraged by society. Sexually mature at 8, a mother at 12 = Your life is a mess in the modern world.

As far as the DSM and the law goes... you're absolutely right, the DSM is not the basis for law. However, the 'societal norms' you speak of are influenced by the same thinking the DSM is. If the scientific community doesn't think that something is abherent, why should society think so? Aren't you, in essence, arguing that, if there is, scientifically, nothing wrong with this situation, that it should still be outlawed due to a baseless form of cultural discrimination?

...and, if you say that there is nothing wrong with an adult having relations with a 10 year old, you are also implying that 10 years have effective consent. If 10 year olds do have consent, then relationships with them would have to be legal, eh?

PS
I understand what you're saying, Byrd, about how morals haven't always been what they are... But in the case of Man-Boy relations or whatever, you'd have to go back to ancient Greece to find the last time that was grudgingly accepted. Still, then, even, as much as people like Plato could go on and on about how great it is to be with boys, the average people resented this behavior (a common insult laid before caesar by the armies of his opposition was that, as a young man, he had slept with the king of some Roman protectorate -- If pederastry was totally 'OK' then, why would this be an insult at all *and, yeah, I know Caesar lived 400 years after Plato*).

A 14 year old in the year 1200 was considered an adult. In 2003 they're considered a child. The 'pedaphilia taboo' didn't apply to 14 year olds in 1200 becauyse they were, for all purposes, adults.

Originally posted by Byrd

...and I'm not so sure why it's more horrible for men to have sex with little boys, while treating sex with little girls as something that's bad but is not worth shooting him over. BOTH are equally wrong, and in equal measures.

And I think the Q'ran and Bible and Torah are ALL wrong in permitting sex with little girls (and incest, but that's another story.)

Then Byrd, we agree on everything.

I just didn't know that 99% were men having sex with little girls. Where did you find this rate ?

I help the police department distribute (electronically) the sex offender list to local Crimewatch citizens groups.

You can google for these lists and look for yourself. There'll be several who abuse both boys and girls, but the overwhelming majority are men abusing girls. I forget how many are on our current list, but there's just 6 who are in for male-male offenses. One is in for pulling down his pants and exposing himself (not for sex with boys.)

In the years I've done this, I've only seen 5 women on the list; one was for "compelling prostitution."

I visted the Human rights center in Los Angeles for physciatry. The gentalmen doing the tour showed me a case file that was taped. A state research ananlysit made the testimony that in no proir past or recent date has any child evre had a noticable brain malfunction. Or any reason to be be medicated.
Medication is for nothing more than marketing sceams.