Yuill and Rind quoted in Psychology Today on "Hebephilia"

From William A. Percy
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 14: Line 14:
[[File:Yuill-Rind-chart.jpg|center|Rind and Yuill: Proponents' responses to published criticisms of hebephilia]]
[[File:Yuill-Rind-chart.jpg|center|800px|Rind and Yuill: Proponents' responses to published criticisms of hebephilia]]

Revision as of 14:37, 4 November 2012

The November, 2012, edition of Psychology Today quotes Richard Yuill and Bruce Rind in its coverage the recent (October, 2012) annual convention of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL) in Montreal as they considered the question whether "hebephilia" (essentially, attraction to post-pubescent youths) should be considered mental disorder. For the third time in two years the question was voted down by professionals in that field. In their deliberations, Yuill and Rind's June 2012 article ("Hebephilia as mental disorder? A historical, cross-cultural, sociological, cross-species, non-clinical empirical, and evolutionary review", Archives of Sexual Behavior; 41(4), 797–829, Jun 28 2012) was discussed.

Psychology Today reported:

Rind and Yuill said they undertook their extensive review of the historical and cross-cultural evidence after hebephilia proponent Raymond Blanchard (a member of the DSM-5 paraphilias subworkgroup) and his colleagues at Toronto's Centre Centre for Addiction and Mental Health brushed aside numerous published criticisms of the proposed disorder (see Table 1). Building on their earlier research, Rind and Yuill argue that hebephilia -- generally defined as sexual attraction to young pubescents in the age range of 11 to 14 -- is a biologically normal trait found to varying degrees in both human males and our closest mammalian relatives, such as higher apes. They blast hebephilia as a bold example of naked moral values masquerading as science:

Psychology Today included a block quote from their article, concluding:

"Blanchard et al. … did not invoke comparative evidence…. They did not invoke any evidence…. They declared it a disorder by fiat, bypassing scientific analysis in favor of a pre-given conclusion supportable only because it is, for the current time and place, culturally resonant. Had their pronouncement been the opposite (i.e., hebephilia is functional), their article would never have been accepted in a peer-reviewed journal without massive evidential backing. Strongly resonant opinion can facilely pass through without the kind of scrutiny demanded of non-resonant views."

Rind and Yuill: Proponents' responses to published criticisms of hebephilia
Personal tools