Pedophilia Officially Classified

mickeyrat

teensy little correction

http://www.charismanews.com/us/41597-pe ... a-mistaken


The American Family Association (AFA) sounded an alarm on Wednesday, pointing to a shocking announcement from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in its latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). But was the report accurate?

Charisma News started digging a little deeper on Thursday morning into the AFA’s claims that the APA now classifies pedophilia as a sexual orientation or preference instead of a disorder.

The AFA’s Cindy Roberts told Charisma News that its public relations firm, Hamilton Strategies, conducted the initial research on its claim. The PR firm has not responded to our requests for more information.

Further research reveals the American Spectator incited more fervor on the topic, pulling from a University of Southern California report indicating that “the American Psychiatric Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.”

But Dr. Greg Popcak, director of the Pastoral Solutions Institute, an organization dedicated to helping Catholics find faith-filled solutions to marriage, family and personal problems, says the DSM criteria for pedophilic disorder shouldn’t bother anyone.

“The name of the disorder did change in the DSM V from Pedophilia to Pedophilic Disorder to keep the nomenclature consistent with other categories,” he writes. “But that was an editorial change, not a clinical one and it has no significance for diagnosis of treatment of the disorder.”

Stand by. The APA is sending Charisma News an official statement in the next hour.

Correction: This article corrects issues in an Oct. 30 article based on an AFA report. Click here to read the original article.

justam

Ah, it seems as I suspected then.
Some kind of twisted, distortion of fact in a right-wing publication to get people riled up!

Pingfah

justam wrote:

Ah, it seems as I suspected then.
Some kind of twisted, distortion of fact in a right-wing publication to get people riled up!

The AFA's atttempt to link homosexuality and pedophilia in their statement, before they even got to complaining about the issue they are supposedly up in arms about should probably have been a clue.

justam

Pingfah wrote:

justam wrote:

Ah, it seems as I suspected then.
Some kind of twisted, distortion of fact in a right-wing publication to get people riled up!

The AFA's atttempt to link homosexuality and pedophilia in their statement, before they even got to complaining about the issue they are supposedly up in arms about should probably have been a clue.

Frankly, it WAS.

BinauralJam

That's a Bad Touch

brianlux

I won't believe any of this until I read it in the latest edition of the DSM.

Go Beavers

When one person posts kooky links, we all pay.

Cosmo

You know...
since the media does not seem to fact check anything anymore... and Web Loggers NEVER fact check anything...
And Forum Readers take everything that is SPAM-Mailed to their mail boxes by their looney Aunt Thelma as true facts...
...
It is probably a good idea for us... US as in 'us individual people'... who fail to swallow up every kooky thing we see pop up in front of us... it is probably a good idea to FACT CHECK things for ourselves.
...
I think that is why God invented our minds for us... to THINK FOR OURSELVES... rather than filling it with other people's shit. We all have a brain... we should really try to use it more often than we do.

mickeyrat

Cosmo wrote:

You know...
since the media does not seem to fact check anything anymore... and Web Loggers NEVER fact check anything...
And Forum Readers take everything that is SPAM-Mailed to their mail boxes by their looney Aunt Thelma as true facts...
...
It is probably a good idea for us... US as in 'us individual people'... who fail to swallow up every kooky thing we see pop up in front of us... it is probably a good idea to FACT CHECK things for ourselves.
...
I think that is why God invented our minds for us... to THINK FOR OURSELVES... rather than filling it with other people's shit. We all have a brain... we should really try to use it more often than we do.

what? You mean think critically and do some actual work on our part? Thats crazy talk.

Well thats what www.crazyshittopostonforums.com said.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Cosmo wrote:

You know...
since the media does not seem to fact check anything anymore... and Web Loggers NEVER fact check anything...
And Forum Readers take everything that is SPAM-Mailed to their mail boxes by their looney Aunt Thelma as true facts...
...
It is probably a good idea for us... US as in 'us individual people'... who fail to swallow up every kooky thing we see pop up in front of us... it is probably a good idea to FACT CHECK things for ourselves.
...
I think that is why God invented our minds for us... to THINK FOR OURSELVES... rather than filling it with other people's shit. We all have a brain... we should really try to use it more often than we do.

I had to give myself one of these: :fp: for biting on one of this forum's most notorious posters of nonsense.

I'm hating myself right now. Just hating myself.

But I have this to say to this OP: Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

badbrains

Maybe if we all start ignoring this posters posts, eventually that poster will go away. I'm gonna do my fucken hardest to ignore whatever that person posts again. :fp: :nono:

Cosmo

People shouldn't beat themselves up because of some story, old wive's tale, legend, myth, misinformation, half-truth or outright lie told to them by someone else. Basic Rule of Thumb #2... 'Consider the Source'. Take into account the possibility/probability of the story being a description founded in fact and/or truth... or the twisting of truths or a total fabrication to fit and support an underlying agenda or belief system.
For example, A person with intense hatred of something will only find those things that support their hatred, regardless of those feelings/opinions not being based in fact or truth... and usually founded in emotion. And it's not just hate... love can also have the same affect.
...
Anyways, go with the the attitude that if it sounds kinda kooky... like stories that sounds like things you'd hear Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann or Glenn Beck say... it's probably something you'd want to avoid taking at face value.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Cosmo wrote:

People shouldn't beat themselves up because of some story, old wive's tale, legend, myth, misinformation, half-truth or outright lie told to them by someone else. Basic Rule of Thumb #2... 'Consider the Source'. Take into account the possibility/probability of the story being a description founded in fact and/or truth... or the twisting of truths or a total fabrication to fit and support an underlying agenda or belief system.
For example, A person with intense hatred of something will only find those things that support their hatred, regardless of those feelings/opinions not being based in fact or truth... and usually founded in emotion. And it's not just hate... love can also have the same affect.
...
Anyways, go with the the attitude that if it sounds kinda kooky... like stories that sounds like things you'd hear Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann or Glenn Beck say... it's probably something you'd want to avoid taking at face value.

I was exaggerating, but there is an element of truth to what I was saying.

And I'm wondering why nobody picked up on me stammering away like GW did in one of his many ridiculous moments?

You can't get fooled again.

Prince Of Dorkness

I seem to remember a few months ago someone posting the same bullshit and saying that marriage equality would lead to people fucking their kids.

I think I said something along the lines of "go fuck yourself."

And hilarity ensued. I was so disgusted that the mods here would leave such a false, inflammatory and downright slanderous thing up that I stopped posting here for months.

I've seen that while a small minority of Christians aren't discoid able liars, most of the hardcore ones will spend their time spreading made up, vile bullshit like this because their numbers are shrinking along with their donations, and they're getting desperate.

People.... If you read some totally inflammatory, shocking and baffling thing - especially from someone like the one who posted this with a history of posting totally asinine, bogus, made-up, bonkers, Batshitcrazy, paranoid, delusional and downright dumbass shit... Assume that the opposite is true. Because you're going to be right 100.01% of the time. It's over 100% because the bullshit is kinda supersaturated at this point.

aerial

APA Statement on DSM-5 Text Error
Pedophilic disorder text error to be corrected

The American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) has recently been published after a comprehensive multi-year
research and review of all of its diagnostic categories.

In the case of pedophilic disorder, the diagnostic criteria essentially remained the same as in
DSM-IV-TR. Only the disorder name was changed from “pedophilia” to “pedophilic disorder” to
maintain consistency with the chapter’s other disorder listings.

“Sexual orientation” is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its
use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read “sexual interest.” In fact, APA
considers pedophilic disorder a “paraphilia,” not a “sexual orientation.” This error will be
corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual.

APA stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit
children and adolescents. We also support continued efforts to develop treatments for those
with pedophilic disorder with the goal of preventing future acts of abuse.


In other words, folks who are *so* quick to condemn should not condemn me for posting what was legit at the time. It was true! But will be changed in the next edition. Did I know they made a mistake? No......
Here is a thought....would it have been changed if it was not reported?
The the final, approved DSM-5 was released in May 2013 at APA's Annual Meeting.


http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/13-67-DSM-Correction-103113.pdf

brianlux

aerial wrote:

APA Statement on DSM-5 Text Error
Pedophilic disorder text error to be corrected

The American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) has recently been published after a comprehensive multi-year
research and review of all of its diagnostic categories.

In the case of pedophilic disorder, the diagnostic criteria essentially remained the same as in
DSM-IV-TR. Only the disorder name was changed from “pedophilia” to “pedophilic disorder” to
maintain consistency with the chapter’s other disorder listings.

“Sexual orientation” is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its
use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read “sexual interest.” In fact, APA
considers pedophilic disorder a “paraphilia,” not a “sexual orientation.” This error will be
corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual.

APA stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit
children and adolescents. We also support continued efforts to develop treatments for those
with pedophilic disorder with the goal of preventing future acts of abuse.


In other words, folks who are *so* quick to condemn should not condemn me for posting what was legit at the time. It was true! But will be changed in the next edition. Did I know they made a mistake? No......
Here is a thought....would it have been changed if it was not reported?
The the final, approved DSM-5 was released in May 2013 at APA's Annual Meeting.


http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/13-67-DSM-Correction-103113.pdf

Oh dang! And I thought we had a real issue going on here.

Prince Of Dorkness

aerial wrote:

In other words, folks who are *so* quick to condemn should not condemn me for posting what was legit at the time. It was true!

Well... no. you said it had been "officially classified" and what had actually happened was a misprint.

Not quite the same thing.

And it wasn't "legit at the time."

Many of the right wing nut sites were reporting it as "legit" but it was always known that this was a misprint.

Bentleyspop

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

aerial wrote:

In other words, folks who are *so* quick to condemn should not condemn me for posting what was legit at the time. It was true!

Well... no. you said it had been "officially classified" and what had actually happened was a misprint.

Not quite the same thing.

And it wasn't "legit at the time."

Many of the right wing nut sites were reporting it as "legit" but it was always known that this was a misprint.

We also know that the right wing nut sited will NEVER print or post a retraction or correction.

aerial

Bentleyspop wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

aerial wrote:

In other words, folks who are *so* quick to condemn should not condemn me for posting what was legit at the time. It was true!

Well... no. you said it had been "officially classified" and what had actually happened was a misprint.

Not quite the same thing.

And it wasn't "legit at the time."

Many of the right wing nut sites were reporting it as "legit" but it was always known that this was a misprint.

We also know that the right wing nut sited will NEVER print or post a retraction or correction.

I guess you missed that post.

aerial

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

aerial wrote:

In other words, folks who are *so* quick to condemn should not condemn me for posting what was legit at the time. It was true!

Well... no. you said it had been "officially classified" and what had actually happened was a misprint.

Not quite the same thing.

And it wasn't "legit at the time."

Many of the right wing nut sites were reporting it as "legit" but it was always known that this was a misprint.

They did not retract till
For Immediate Release:
Eve Herold, 703-907-8640 October 31, 2013