Widespread misunderstanding of pedophilia in the news

[birchswing]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've seen the word pedophilia misused from time to time in the news, but I was sort of surprised at how frequently it was used with regard to a politician in the news who may have had sexual contact with teenagers ranging in age from 14-16 when he was an adult (in his 30s). Network news anchors, talk show hosts, Twitter ranters, Facebook memes have all embraced the term for this situation. I used to sometimes correct people who used the term incorrectly, but as a lover of linguistics I feel the self-policing need to step back and allow language to evolve. To use the formal definitions, pedophilia would refer to someone who has a primary sexual interest in young children, and hebephilia would refer to someone who has a primary sexual interest in older children. The conditions from what I've read are considered to be largely intractable and as such considered orientations, and they are not defined by the actions a person takes or doesn't take.

My penchant to allow language to evolve and avoid prescriptivism is thwarted by my belief that the term pedophilia in its (at least previously) formal use was useful to describe a particular orientation of the mind.

I came across this blog of someone arguing conflation of the terms leads to greater risk for children:

Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse Are Two Different Things — Confusing Them is Harmful to Children – Journal of Medical Ethics blog

 

[Shikima]

And it begins... the slippery slope has arrived!

 

[LasVagus]

You're correct that the term is being misused. As an obsessive nerd, I've been cringing internally with the repeated misapplication in the media. I'm like a grammar geek who can't tolerate it when somebody uses the word "less" when they should use the word "fewer". That being said, I haven't been educating anybody in my social circle about the actual meaning of the word pedophilia. When an issue gets this heated, any factual correction is often attacked as a tacit approval of the behavior that is being condemned.
Cut to...

"So you're saying his behavior was OKAY?!?" "No, I'm just saying that it isn't technically pedophilia because... oh forget it..."

I've learned that when it comes to these kinds of media stories, psychoeducation is the appropriate strategy with the trainee ("open up the DSM 5 and read the criteria for pedophilia... you might be surprised), whereas empathic validation is the appropriate strategy with the layperson ("yeah, that does sound awful!").

 

[birchswing]

And it begins... the slippery slope has arrived!

I can tell you've put a lot of thought into this.

 

[NontradCA]

This is a bad look for Psychiatry. “This isn’t just semantics.” Um, to almost anyone reading that blog, it is. And the general public will certainly not look kindly to this kind of talk from physicians. Wrong fight, wrong time.

 

[birchswing]

This is a bad look for Psychiatry. “This isn’t just semantics.” Um, to almost anyone reading that blog, it is. And the general public will certainly not look kindly to this kind of talk from physicians. Wrong fight, wrong time.

While I disagree with you, the blog is written by an ethicist, not by a medical doctor.

 

[NontradCA]

While I disagree with you, the blog is written by an ethicist, not by a medical doctor.

But you, a physician, are sharing it.

 

[birchswing]

But you, a physician, are sharing it.

I'm not a physician either.

 

[Trollest]

.

 

[hamstergang]

I'm like a grammar geek who can't tolerate it when somebody uses the word "less" when they should use the word "fewer".

Now this is a fight I can get behind.

 

[hamstergang]

I'm not a physician either.

Why does a blog post by a non-physician posted here by a non-physician about a non-clinical issue belong on this forum?

 

[splik]

This bothers me too but we have such hysteria in this country about pedophilia and childhood sexual activity (to the point where even teenagers can be registered as lifetime sex offenders even if they pose no ongoing risk of sexual recidivism), no one cares and you'll be labeled as some sort of sex pest if you try to make a point of educating people about it. very few psychiatrists work with sex offenders, and many probably dont know much about pedophilia as it is not part of the core training of general psychiatrists in most residency programs. psychiatrists more often work with the victims of sexual violence than the perpetrators. the US lags behind other countries such as canada in doing research in this area too.

 

[LasVagus]

This bothers me too but we have such hysteria in this country about pedophilia and childhood sexual activity (to the point where even teenagers can be registered as lifetime sex offenders even if they pose no ongoing risk of sexual recidivism), no one cares and you'll be labeled as some sort of sex pest if you try to make a point of educating people about it. very few psychiatrists work with sex offenders, and many probably dont know much about pedophilia as it is not part of the core training of general psychiatrists in most residency programs. psychiatrists more often work with the victims of sexual violence than the perpetrators. the US lags behind other countries such as canada in doing research in this area too.

Agreed. I did a research project on pedophilia awhile back and it seemed like almost all of the good research on the topic was coming out of Canada.

 

[NontradCA]

I'm not a physician either.

 

[birchswing]

Why does a blog post by a non-physician posted here by a non-physician about a non-clinical issue belong on this forum?

The current formal conception of pedophilia resides within the field of psychiatry. And people who generally defer to the authority of medical professionals, like news anchors, keep using the term pedophilia in a way that isn't in line with how this field of medicine does. Based on all the public information about the politician in question, there's nothing there to say he is either someone who has pedophilia or any other paraphilia or does not. Yet that term that is continually used, incorrectly (as much as any term can be used incorrectly—as I alluded to above I have misgivings about the idea that terms should be static).

"about a non-clinical issue belong on this forum"
I agree that the described behavior could very likely be non-clinical, but it's precisely that argument that calls for a distinction between sexual predation of children and the orientation that psychiatry describes, which does have clinical manifestations to both the person afflicted and potentially to victims of abuse. I would assume it would be of interest to psychiatrists if other terms they have defined that relate to illnesses they treat became widely misused or misunderstood. In this particular case, the troublesome issue is specifically that there is a conflation between an illness/orientation and criminal sexual abuse, which as was argued would prevent people from seeking help. As some others have posted, perhaps psychiatry in the US isn't geared toward providing that type of help. I have seen PSAs in other countries where help for people with pedophilia is offered via anonymous phone numbers and there are meetings led by mental health professionals that in form take after AA a bit. If you consider that people with pedophilia will continue to be born regardless of what punitive action is taken on offenders, there is obviously a population that both needs to be designated as separate from offenders and offered some help in their distress and maintaining non-offending status. If you treat the problem the way it has been to this point, which seemingly is not to treat it or to even identify this class of people, you will have the same results. So why is this relevant to this forum . . . I suppose that even among psychiatrists but obviously in the wider world it appears that there is a lack of understanding of what pedophilia is and isn't.

 

[hamstergang]

I would assume it would be of interest to psychiatrists if other terms they have defined that relate to illnesses they treat became widely misused or misunderstood.

Bipolar and OCD get terribly misused. It doesn't affect my clinical work except that I have to ask people what they mean when they use those words, and I have to provide some definitions when discussing diagnoses. I'm sure similar issues arise in other fields outside of medicine where the lay public uses terms differently. It's a feature of language, not an issue of the profession. Maybe someday we'll have to change the clinical term, as we did with idiot and ******ation for example, but that's not really that big a deal.

 

[Stagg737]

This bothers me too but we have such hysteria in this country about pedophilia and childhood sexual activity (to the point where even teenagers can be registered as lifetime sex offenders even if they pose no ongoing risk of sexual recidivism), no one cares and you'll be labeled as some sort of sex pest if you try to make a point of educating people about it. very few psychiatrists work with sex offenders, and many probably dont know much about pedophilia as it is not part of the core training of general psychiatrists in most residency programs. psychiatrists more often work with the victims of sexual violence than the perpetrators. the US lags behind other countries such as canada in doing research in this area too.

I think people don't care about some aspects and care too much about other aspects (like even mentioning it with any tone other than complete outrage). I think everyone realizes it can be a touchy subject, but the sensitivity can be so ridiculous that you can't even talk about it. I'm actually somewhat interested in the area as I've seen a couple pedophiles and people with 'abnormal' sexual behaviors/interests/orientations on my rotations, and I'd love to do research in the area. At the same time, I'm honestly afraid to talk about it with attendings or other medical professionals because I don't want someone to take it the wrong way and have it come back at me in a negative way.

 

[Crayola227]

Why does a blog post by a non-physician posted here by a non-physician about a non-clinical issue belong on this forum?

I see no reason to be exclusionary here, given what the topic is. Doctor may mean teacher in Latin, but I also like to think the most effective way to do our jobs is to be students of human nature, if you will.

This forum's main mission is to help students in the pursuit of healthcare careers, to that end, the mission has also been expanded to include participation of say, attending physicians, and others further along the path. I think it's also been recognized that those outside healthcare careers on a formal basis, such as laypeople and patients, have something to offer in furthering the official mission.

Rather than being rude to someone as if SDN is a club that merely belongs to people with letters after their name, I think it's just as easy not to participate in a thread that you don't feel belongs on the forum. Or report to a moderator if you feel so strongly about it.

Perhaps you didn't mean to be rude, in which case, I hope I addressed your question with my view on it.

 

[deleted407021]

I think people don't care about some aspects and care too much about other aspects (like even mentioning it with any tone other than complete outrage). I think everyone realizes it can be a touchy subject, but the sensitivity can be so ridiculous that you can't even talk about it. I'm actually somewhat interested in the area as I've seen a couple pedophiles and people with 'abnormal' sexual behaviors/interests/orientations on my rotations, and I'd love to do research in the area. At the same time, I'm honestly afraid to talk about it with attendings or other medical professionals because I don't want someone to take it the wrong way and have it come back at me in a negative way.

As in just having an academic and clinical interest in that stuff might come off as weird somehow?

 

[michaelrack]

xx

 

[WisNeuro]

As in just having an academic and clinical interest in that stuff might come off as weird somehow?

Assumptions definitely get made depending on one's academic focus in research. They don't call it "mesearch" for nothing.

 

[Stagg737]

As in just having an academic and clinical interest in that stuff might come off as weird somehow?

I won't go into too much detail, but I'm interested in the biological factors that play a role in determining sexual orientation. The interest is purely academic, as I've had the opportunity to work with a few pedophiles/hebephiles who were caught and convicted and it really made me wonder why these people had the abnormal sexual orientations they did (same can be said for why anyone has any 'abnormal' sexual orientation, but those were the cases that actually got me interested in trying to answer that question).

As to my hesitancy to talk/ask about it, I've had people make some pretty bad assumptions and negative comments about my career goals just when mentioning I'm entering psychiatry, so I'm not very keen on mentioning I'm curious about a subject that is so political and socially charged, especially given I have plenty of other interests in the field that aren't so controversial. As others said, people make stupid assumptions or decide to characterize you based on interests/career, it happens all the time even when speaking to highly intelligent people (see any thread about orthos being meatheads). It's just an area that I personally wouldn't want someone to make assumptions about, which is why I don't bring it up.