Playing Games at the APA
Sometimes it pays to stick to your guns, and not let all the doubters and naysayers deter you from standing up for truth. Some well meaning folks, but also some perhaps cowardly folks, gave me some flak over a recent article I wrote on the American Psychiatric Association’s stance on paedophilia.
Many of these critics of course just wanted things verified, and fair enough. However many others just caved in altogether. Some folks who shared my material later apologised for doing so! I told these guys not to put up the white flag of surrender just yet, and that we had nothing to apologise for.
Well it seems that vindication has arrived. For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about here, let me backtrack a bit. Several days ago I wrote a piece on how the APA is now calling paedophilia a “sexual orientation”. I wrote: just as they caved in to the homosexual militants 40 years ago, now they are caving in to the paedophile activists.
And there most certainly are paedophile activist groups out there, demanding their “rights” just as homosexuals demanded theirs. I quoted from some of these groups in my article, and showed how they want to “de-stigmatise” their behaviour, and see it as just something you are born with and cannot help.
But all that can be seen here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2013/10/31/perversion-promotion-paedophilia-comes-out-of-the-closet/
As I say, some folks were rather dubious, if not critical, and even said that it may have been a hoax, or that the claims had been retracted. I told these folks that the University of Southern California, which was a main source of information on this, had not at all backtracked or retracted anything so far. Their statement can be found here:
So I stood by my article, and insisted that there was no need for a premature white flag of surrender going up here. I thought that until the USC or the APA itself came out and fully denied all this, I for one was not going to back down. Well, it seems that all the public pressure and uproar about this has finally forced the APA to say something.
And guess what: it is entirely true. The DSM-5 most certainly did call paedophilia a “sexual orientation”. But incredibly they are now claiming that it was just an “error”! Here is the entire text of a press release the APA just put out on this:
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.
Yeah right, so all this was just an error. How did it get in there with all the proof reading, all the revision, and all the editorial oversight? Something this important, this major, just happened to be a ‘little mistake’ that absolutely no one noticed and no one picked up on? Puh-leeese!
As one associate rightly said: “That was no mistake; in scholarly academia works go through numerous revisions and the data is checked and reviewed before it is published. There is no way a mistake like that could be made – a serious scholar would have taken issue and have had it corrected before final submission.”
Sorry, I am not buying this “error” baloney for a moment APA. You are backtracking big time after all the public outcry over this evil. It was only because of all the flak you got that you have had to now publicly change your tune! What a sleazeball outfit the APA is! And the push for full normalisation continues apace. Indeed, the APA has long been caving in here. Consider this from an article penned back in 2009:
In 1998, the APA released a study by three psychological researchers from Temple University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Michigan, claiming that the “negative potential” of adult sex with children was “overstated” and that “the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.” It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were “positive,” and suggested that the phrase “child sex abuse” be replaced with “adult-child sex.”
The APA not only passed the paper through its peer review process where it was approved by multiple psychologists associated with the organization, but actually published it in one of its journals, Psychological Bulletin. Moreover, when objections were raised by radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and various pro-family groups, the organization defended the article for an entire year. It was also defended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which chillingly stated that it “saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article’s authors.”
Although the sheer insanity and destructiveness of the content should have prevented the APA from publishing the article in the first place, the sexual libertines in charge of the organization only issued a muted retraction after the U.S. Congress joined the fray, passing an unprecedented resolution condemning the study.
The publication of the paper was only one example of such lunacy by mental health professionals in peer-reviewed journals. One of the three authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, has a history of publishing pedophilia-advocacy “studies,” including one for the now-defunct journal Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia, whose editors admitted to being pedophiles.
Since the 1998 article, Bauserman and fellow author Bruce Rind have gone on to write more articles defending child sex abuse, which have appeared in such mainstream journals as the Archives of Sexual Behavior (2001) and Clinical Psychology (2003). Apparently, the psychology profession is comfortable with Bauserman and Rind’s work, and intends to continue publishing it.
This is just a sampling of the evidence. Groups like the APA have long been toying with the idea of softening the public up for full acceptance of paedophilia, just as it did with homosexuality. So this “retraction” by the APA is no such thing.
And this was not an “error” at all. It is all part of the process of the radical social engineers to fully normalise and promote “intergenerational sex” – that is, paedophilia. This push to make sexual perversion acceptable and utterly normal has been going on for quite some time now. This is simply another skirmish in the overall war.
One can argue that the APA was simply testing the waters here. This time the public outcry was too great, so they had to backtrack just a little – at least in terms of PR. But make no mistake; they will keep pushing until the eventual silence gives them full permission to do their thing.
My friends, we are in a war, and at stake are our children and grandchildren. If this does not move you off your beds and out of your comfort zones to start taking a stand, then we are lost as a culture. We must wake up and stand up for what is right. We must stand for our children.
If you refuse to get involved, or are just too apathetic and lazy, then you are no better than the paedophiles.
Click to access 13-67-DSM-Correction-103113.pdf
11 Replies to “Playing Games at the APA”
Do they define what “paraphilia” is?
It seems to imply “pseudo-love” or “kinda love”???!!!
From Psychology Today:
A paraphilia is a condition in which a person’s sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme.
What we would call a fetish!
Quite so John. The APA has been seeking to normalise the abnormal and excuse the inexcusable for years now.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
How convenient to claim an error. I bet they were testing the waters and quickly withdrew only to re test in a year or so.
I will fight paedophilia till my last breath.
Or decades, even.
The same thing happened in 2003, when there was a move to remove all the paraphilias ie essentially call all sexual deviations normal. That move died the same way this one did: in a barrage of popular indignation that paedophilia was being normalised.
Thank you for the lifesitenews link. That’s quite a good article. The proposition that homosexuality is normal is not scientific but ideological. There is simply too much contrary information for the “it’s normal” claim to pass unchallenged and of course one can get caught up in verbal games over the definition of “normal”. It’s better to focus on the typical sexual behaviours of homosexuals and ask why any rational informed society would not only define them as normal but actually collude in promoting them. And we should also identify and probe the beliefs associated with those behaviours and candidly report them as delusional if that is what they are.
On the matter of re-orientation therapy, if we can accept that human beings generally can and do change their behaviours, habits, addictions, compulsions and obsessions, then why can’t we accept that some homosexuals, if not all, can change their preferences and convert to heterosexuality?
if it is immoral and unnatural then it is a Sin, nothing more and nothing less a Sin spelt with a Capital S and if Sin is abnormal behavior so is every deviant practice under Heaven yet the APA is saying or trying to say all deviant behaviors are normal. Give me a break, their message is simply ” sic em Rex, go get em” translated “we the APA believe all deviant practices are normal and we want all the Public to believe the same and accept these deviant practices (Sins) as normal every day behaviour.
This being the case in point those associated with the APA need psychiatric assessment themselves and a certification that they are Sane, and fit to make such baloney Statements in the Name of Science and Medicine.
Leigh D Stebbins
Thanks for your tireless work Bill. I’m sure you do get tired of course, but you know what I mean. Congrats on the massive volume of articles and comments. You are indeed fighting the good fight and inspiring many others to do likewise.
I was talking about this topic with my neighbour’s son (Gen Y) a few days ago, using material from your previous article. He was disgusted, but like most Gen Y folk, he had had his moral compass and ability to strongly object somewhat worn down by the education system.
The irony of this great young fella is that he is in the Army Reserve. I made the point that the very freedoms Diggers had bled and died for and that he and his mates would potentially die for, are being seriously smashed and eroded by groups such as the APA.
That indeed got him thinking!
To top of an awesome conversation, one of his university mates is a strong Christian and attended the March For The Babies. That’s also got him thinking! I told him that he and his mates need to have the same sorts of discussions that we had just had.
God bless you and the wonderful work you do.
Many thanks George.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Me thinks the author of PC is the father of lies, as these wrong ideas don’t just show up in one place, but allover the place, thereby not being able to be pinned down to one person. Not sure if it could be either, because PC is so complex and manifold, too much for one person to think up. I find it difficult to believe what I am hearing though. I mean, would we find it okay if neo-Nazis wanted to justify burning Jews and using disabled people for medical experiments because Hitler did it? Not even the lefties would want to take that on board, surely.