Papers by Andrew Hinderliter
Psychology & Sexuality, 2013
ABSTRACT Since around 2000, asexuality – conceptualised as a sexual orientation – has begun to em... more ABSTRACT Since around 2000, asexuality – conceptualised as a sexual orientation – has begun to emerge as an identity and a movement. Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), which emerged in the late 1970s with the rise of sex therapy and is currently listed in the DSM, has gained increasing attention – promotion and a backlash of criticism – with the increased influence of the pharmaceutical industry in sex research. The relationship of these categories has often been noted but largely unexplored, and when explored, authors have tended to focus only on how much they do or do not overlap. This article examines the relationships and differences between asexuality and HSDD by examining the histories of each, the conceptual sources that each has primarily drawn on (various clinical/medical traditions vs. LGBT discourses and reactions against dominant beliefs about sexuality that asexuals find incongruent with their experiences); it examines how each functions in the primary contexts where they are used (asexual spaces and clinicians' offices, respectively) and in larger social discourses.
Archives of sexual behavior, 2009
Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2010
The development of the classification of the paraphilias is considered, with emphasis on justific... more The development of the classification of the paraphilias is considered, with emphasis on justifications for their inclusion in DSM-III in light of the declassification of homosexuality. These justifications are found to be tenuous and do not work for the paraphilias in DSM-III-R because of changes made. Rationale for these changes is discussed based on inquires made to DSM-III-R paraphilias committee members. Changes in DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR are also discussed. After considering and critiquing more recent arguments for including the paraphilias in the DSM, recommendations are made regarding proposals for DSM-5, whether the paraphilias belong in the DSM, and whether they should be used in SVP commitment.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 2010
Blanchard (2009a, 2009b, 2009c) proposed a definition of paraphilia for Diagnostic and Statistica... more Blanchard (2009a, 2009b, 2009c) proposed a definition of paraphilia for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-5, delimiting a range of so-called normative sexuality and defining paraphilia as any intense and persistent sexual interest other than that. The author examines the wording and intended meaning of this definition, and he argues that there are many problems with it that "correct" interpretation requires ignoring what it says. Because of these problems and the possibility of civil commitment under sexually violent predator/person laws on the basis of a diagnosis of paraphilia NOS, caution and careful consideration of grammar and wording is urged in drafting a definition for paraphilia for DSM-5.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2010
… , and Humanities in …, 2012
In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development ... more In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM -whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.
… Ethics, and Humanities …, 2012
In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development ... more In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM -whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.
… , and Humanities in …, 2012
In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development ... more In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSMwhether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part 1 of this article took up the first two questions. Part 2 took up the second two questions. Part 3 now deals with Questions 5 & 6. Question 5 confronts the issue of utility, whether the manual design of DSM-III and IV favors clinicians or researchers, and what that means for DSM-5. Our final question, Question 6, takes up a concluding issue, whether the acknowledged problems with the earlier DSMs warrants a significant overhaul of DSM-5 and future manuals. As in Parts 1 & 2 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.
Uploads
Papers by Andrew Hinderliter