Artistes react to Beenie's statement .................

Since the release of a video with Grammy winning artiste Beenie Man's video statement to the gay community, many artistes have also voiced their opinions on the matter.

Bounty Killer, leader of the Alliance and Beenie Man's long-standing nemesis, recently took to Twitter to bash Beenie Man. Not known to hold back words, Bounty Killer unleashed a slew of tweets directed at the 'King of the Dancehall'.

In one of his cleaner tweets, Killer stated:

"Your view is your view, every one have the right to their opinion. Giving an apology simple mean you stoop to their level and have second thoughts of your opinion, so simply you never believe in your opinion from first."

Producer Skatta Burrell, however, applauded Beenie Man on his apology. Speaking with THE STAR, Skatta said that all judgement should be left to God.

"Instead of dancehall uniting, we have allowed it to progress to the point where the gay society are able to target our shows and venues and are successful in preventing us from performing and earning a living. If Beenie Man gets up and apologises then nothing is wrong. We are hypocrites, because even though we say we are a homophobic society, Jamaica is in the top 10 Caribbean countries with the most gays. We have bigger issues than condemning Beenie Man," Skatta told THE STAR.

Artiste Ce'Cile also sided with Beenie Man and his apology to the gays. In some of her tweets she said:

Low di doctor

"Everybody gonna jump on Beenie now, he's a great artiste and have nuff other things to sing about! As long as Beenie is sincere, we all good, cause mi waa see Beenie mash up more shows and I support him! Lots of you dudes don't even treat women good! Low di Doctor!"

When asked what he thought about Beenie Man's video statement, Tony Rebel said that he did not think about it. However, he went on to say that entertainers must be careful of the lyrics they put out so that it does not come back to haunt them.

"Beenie Man a him owner man. I'm not here to say if he is wrong or right. If him do things and him haffi apologise then that's his business. Tony Rebel nuh haffi apologise to dem and me straight. Him must know wha him a do why him need fi apologise. Mi nah apologise to no gay, no day, but if him feel fi apologise then that's his prerogative. Entertainers over the years were promoting gays, they claim they were bashing them but they were actually promoting them. If a man continue fi talk bout gays, why him need fi do dat? We have nuff more tings fi talk bout," Tony Rebel told THE STAR.

I never apologised - Beenie

Beenie Man also issued a release to THE STAR saying he did not apologise.

"I never apologised. Jamaican people need to be more literate about life. Five years ago, we stop sing certain songs, and start focus more on dancehall to make it what it is today. I said that they (the gays) should leave us alone, don't have us up for what we said when we were young. That happened 20 years ago, nobody is the same person they were 20 years ago," Beenie was quoted as saying in the release.

The release also addressed the sound system selectors who have been lambasting his decision to do a videotaped statement.

"I told them to leave us alone, to try to understand where we are coming from, but still yu have some selectors weh go pon the mic and talk a bagga tings. So when the gays put on dance and want to spend $150,000, you selector bwoy, don't tek dem money, run dem outta the dance. Dem caan use dem little bird brain pon me, man ah lion," Beenie Man said.

He also addressed Bounty Killer's tweets about his video.

"Bounty Killer need fi tweet say ah eight people lef inna the venue outta 8,000 fi see him perform after him ah insist say him waan close the show over Amsterdam Reggae Festival, ah dat him fi tweet. After mi perform, the show done and everybody lef ... nobody never waan see him."

MSM Homelessness back in the spotlight ............

Hello readers

This is my first post on homelessness outright for 2012 and purposely so as I wanted to see if any new developments would have come following the pressure and assistance that came late last year to the advocacy structures, meanwhile my well deserved hiatus was cut short as I wanted to take a break from blogging but too many things have popped up since, the gay marriage support from President Obama (which does not mean that the individual states will vote for same) the subsequent child abuse issues that arose around the same time with the public outrage but the church seems too quiet on the matter, the anti gay lobby rise to continue their opposition to homosexuality as it were, the talk shows fired up with callers about buggery, the Portia promise to review the law and the threats from voters saying they will not support the PNP if they legalize "homosexuality" although it has been pointed out over and over that only buggery is illegal. The Gay lobby and sections of the community in strong opposition towards the anti gay lobby supports Obama's position and Portia's suggestion to review the buggery law but ignoring the homeless msm issues yet again sadly.

Then comes the numerous incidents and threats towards the fast becoming invisible homeless men in the eyes of the advocacy structures and in LGBT community influentials that being the homeless MSM community some consider the men unworthy of any assistance as they are lazy or uninterested in seeking to lift themselves from their quagmire. The nomadic homeless msm community has lost nearly all its support it had due to supposed "bad behaviour" while overlooking the advocacy issues that are screaming for attention. The men have moved from captured or illegally occupied property to other spots with unfortunate result after unfortunate result and they are blamed for attracting too much attention too themselves, a criticism that has some truth to it. The last major spot where they occupied nearing the Tastee store just opposite the Green Gables Theatre was the scene of a large 15 man plus attack on the some 9 homeless persons who used the vacant lots to live in makeshift tents and also carry out what is deemed to be commercial sex work to eek out a living. No sort of intervention seems to be occurring from the advocates at all, not even condoms normally quietly distributed so as to keep safer sex messages alive in the minds of this high risk group. The attack took place on May 8 and 11 respectively as the men are now known in the Half Way Tree area as their reputation precedes them as some members of the LGBT community would have said. 

Behavioural problems/mishaps

The bar hinted to above was a fixture during the week for members of the LGBT community who were invited by the owners of the property to lyme and have a drink or two at reasonably priced servings. Problems were visible from early as the men who would crowd the yard on a given night brought with them their own followers and the behaviour that is complained about by others to the spot thus attracting unneeded attention. So much so that the owner of the property who personally operated the bar and with whom I have had conversations was concerned about the noise and non patronage of the bar by the men as they were deemed to be blocking would be patrons. I too was concerned as the bottom line was indeed being affected as some persons expressed safety concerns as the presence of the men darting across the street regularly was not comforting. Other problems occurred in New Kingston at the previous gathering spot by the old Super Plus Store where refurbishing exercises are in progress for a new business but the workmen on the site have vowed to damage all "gays" who come in that vicinity also the threats from the major supermarket staff in the area are still held true and acted on only recently where two younger inexperienced members were stoned nearing the Office of the Registrar allegedly by the said supermarket staff as they walked from a fast food joint where they had purchased food. 

Another mishap occurred only this Monday night where one of the men was chased by some four men after they passed a wooded area nearing the Towers building where they men heard "sexual" sounds coming from the shrubs, the men waiting hoping to see a man and a possible female commercial sex worker emerging however to their dismay it was two men, the "purchaser" left in his high end vehicle but the young homeless msm was chased all the way to Chelsea Avenue where he got away by darting through vehicles at the JIS/Half Way Tree Road intersection stop light around three in the morning. 

Then came the brothers in St Catherine who had to beat a hasty retreat from an empty house in a residential area as angry residents descended in a surprise ambush and ordered the men out of their community destroying their personal effects but sadly among the group were schoolers who hung out with the men, this drew the ire of the residents as the older men were blamed for indoctrinating the teens into gay activities. The house has since been boarded up and the neighborhood watch has been keeping an eye on the space according to reports. 

Downtown Kingston's waterfront is also another spot for some problems for the homeless men bearing in mind the landscape changes being the new Digicel headquarters and other changes to buildings nearby has caused some displacement to previous traditional cruising spots in that vicinity. The men were seen by a spot talking to another well dressed man which reportedly aroused the suspicion on workmen from the Digi sight they verbally chastised the men and eventually chased them away.

Then also came news of a murder of an ally in Vineyard Town as his body was found with multiple stab wounds with his throat slashed in a decomposing state this following a missing persons report was filed, he has been instrumental in assisting some of the homeless msms who wanted to pursue studies and other areas of self improvement, Lance as he was affectionately known will be missed dearly especially by me as were worked in his private capacity in some crisis intervention for lgbt persons where he could. 

He had financially assisted persons as well who displayed a propensity for diligence and personal development. He is survived by two children and his wife who resides overseas.

Another stabbing incident also has come to the for since May 18th with a former member of the Couture Elements support base, he has since updated his status message from his hospital bed assuring all concerned that he is recovering which is rather good news in the middle of all the madness taking place.

Opportunities missed

Here we had a golden opportunity to turn an ugly scenario into a positive one for the men and begin to deal with the issues with the men being so near in a social environment but no one is concerned anymore it seems, the previous influentials who once showed interest including the new advocacy group The Underlined Response have simply dropped the men from their agenda with no renewed interest so far. The suggestion to house the men in an enclosed area adjacent to the bar itself where they usually are while allowing them to use the space for their enjoyment while not crossing to the main bar was mulled over by the owner but she hesitated to implement the plan, other influentials including those with pyscho social expertise were willing to engage the men in specific nights while paid patrons enjoyed the main bar noninterference by the occupied men. As the delay in operationalizing the separation idea to life the awful mobbing took place.

Now that the men are scattered yet again it is hard to trace them and they are known in the Half Way Tree, New Kingston and dowtown spots all places they could once hang out but now they are literally cowering in fear as threats have been reissued especially since the gay marriage and Portia buggery matters have resurfaced in the public domain with hostile reactions from some talk show hosts and members of the public, not a day goes by that the matter is not raised and the phone lines are flooded with anti gay sentiments.

How can we begin to help the homeless men in particular the Kingston and St. Catherine populations to recognize their own potential and tap into it? since we have lost an ally just days before International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia IDAHO and the other community influentials and advocates including JFLAG have no interest in this group at this time it seems as other matters supersede their plight, where do the rest of us who are anxious to see the lives of the men improve turn to or attempt to assist with limited resources? Some persons and readers say I should not stick my neck out for the men as I hinted before as they don't want to really change and improve their conditions but if the necessary support mechanisms are absent then how can they begin, they certainly won't just snap their fingers and change their anti social behaviours overnight.

Let us continue to watch this and any ideas please share them via lgbtevent@gmail.com 

Peace and real tolerance for the least amongst us.

H

click the "Homeless MSM in Jamaica" tab immediately below for previous entries on the subject

Not Impressed!!!! Beenieman ................... artist supposedly backtracks on gay stance

News came this afternoon that the self professed King of The Dancehall has supposedly backtracked on his anti gay stance via a video posted on youtube. The vid does not look genuine to me and is just a public relations stunt to remain on the Rotatam Sunsplash bill as pressure continues to be mounted on Jamaican artists by various lobby groups worldwide to stop murder music coming from the stage.

Here is the video:

Beenie backtracks on gay stance
Begs gay community to forgive him for anti-gay songs

A repentant Beenie Man has issued an emotional apology to the international gay community. Beenie Man is booked to perform on the Rototam Sunsplash in Spain in August and seemed to apologise in an effort to stem any protests from the gay community which may prevent him from performing.

The entertainer has posted a video message in which he expressed his respect for persons of all races, creeds and sexual preferences.

"I respect each and every human being, regardless of which race or creed, regardless of which religious belief and regardless of which sexual preference you have including gay and lesbian people," he said.

According to the artiste he said he penned his anti-gay songs when he was much younger and immature and begged for forgiveness.

"Do not fight against me for some songs that I sing 20 years ago. There is no one in this world is the same person as how they was 20 years ago. I know I am not. I was a kid and I come from Waterhouse in one community. I never know what the world is like and the world is all about. Now I know that people live in the world that live their life differently from my life, I still have to respect and love human beings. So please I am begging you," he said.

As far as I am concerned he needs to retract ALL the songs he has done including the infamous "All Battyman fi Dead" (All Gays Must Die) or remove them from his repertoire as he and others like him are still earning royalties via publishing and sales outside of using PR stunts to appease the gay lobby.

All batty man fi dead! [All gays must be killed!
From you fuck batty den a coppa and lead
If you fuck ass, then you get copper and lead [bullets]
Nuh man nuh fi have a another man in a him bed
No man must have another man in his bed

Ya

Wha u nuh fi do, fuck bottom
Wha u nuh fi do, suck pum pum
Wha u nuh fi do, fuck bottom
Wha u nuh fi do, suck pum pum
Wha u nuh fi do, fuck bottom
Wha u nuh fi do, suck pum pum
wha u nuh fi do, fuck bottom

Chorus

From u fuck well a copper an lead
nuh man nuh fi have aneda man inna him bed
naaaa aaaaaa, battyman fi dead (shot up dem bloodclaat)
Tell dem aready, mi nah go tell dem again
from u suck pussy u are not my friend

naaaa aaaaaa, bowcat fi dead (smaddy pass mi lass)

Anyway

Verse 1

long time di battyman ting get fi cut out
all fish get gut out
Tink say a lie?
all dem eye we a cut out

How di man ting drop in?
an woman a get shut out
pop out mi glock an dem forhead we butt out
some gyal a lesbian, have nex gyal a suck out
u have some nasty boy have man tongue a suck out
u nuh nasty bloodclaat fi have a nex man a fuck out
battyboy head fi get pluk out

Chorus

Verse 2

pum pum fi get tear out, some man a tun queer
pum pum roun a front , wha u doin at di rear
u inna reverse my ute change yuh gear
gyal say she want cocky u a tell her u scare
some man a tun pussy inna bulla an pear
can cook panty meat(?) caw yuh teet full a hair
some man a use dem hood cotch man like a chair
fi battyboy mi have some chat from Ziare

Chorus

Eeh, if a Bob Marley tell dem say emancipate yuhself from mental slavery
a pare bumboclaat battyman dung a emancipation park
but mi nuh know a wha a gwaan a bloodclaat Jamaica u nuh
but my yute mi can tell u one bloodclaat ting

Verse 3

Serious my youth mi nah laugh
a mi glack a mek a walk a emancipation park
mi hear say battyboy down deh a tek photograph
an some head fi chop off an some life fi lock off
mi ago see if dem nah run when mi gun start bark
nuh pussy cyaa laugh when bad man a talk
unu push up unu head like some rassclaat girrafe
bus it inna two like moses staff
pick an stick a bare blood man a cough

Ya

Chorus

Pity that it took outsiders to get a half hearted apology in order to get his ass on the show and his own Jamaican kin despite their sexual orientation he pens and voices a song advocating gay men are to be shot in their heads. He MUST retract the songs from all mediums for me to be satisfied, we have had enough as far as I am concerned.

Here is a response via the Jamaica Observer

and cartoonist Clovis up to his antics again:

Peace and tolerance

H

Gays' Threat To Free Speech ........... veteran journalist Ian Boyne ...............

Anti-gay demonstrations, like this 2006 protest by Pastor Donald Stewart, could be in danger if Jamaica follows Nordic Europe and Canada in dubbing criticism of homosexuality as hate speech

Ian Boyne, 

Journalists, including the local fraternity, celebrated World Press Freedom Day last Thursday, and our minister of information, in a Senate statement, basked in Jamaica's enviable record of press freedom. Fine. But there are some disturbing contemporary trends regarding free speech which are not getting any attention from our media here, but which are now mainstreamed in America, which sets the trends here.

There is an ever-widening definition of 'hate speech', which threatens to erode our traditional notion of free speech. It is increasingly becoming accepted that people have a right not to be offended; that it is a violation of their civil liberty to offend them by using strong language or expressing certain oppositional views - even if one evokes a free-speech defence.
For example, conservative Christians should not have the right to condemn homosexuality as abhorrent, abominable, inherently degrading, something which God will punish by hellfire. No, that is abusive 'hate speech' which demeans and dehumanises human beings and should not be allowed in any civilised society.

I strongly disagree with any attempt to block people's right to condemn any behaviour or orientation. I believe people must have the right to express their stupidity and absurdities. Some people in the gay-rights movement, who claim to be so cosmopolitan, sophisticated and liberal, would take illiberal steps to shut down anti-gay rhetoric by conservative Christians. That's dangerous and can have major unintended consequences for free speech generally.

When we start shutting down Christians' right to use strong language to attack homosexuality, by what moral authority or rational consistency can we tell the Chinese Communist party bosses in Beijing that they can't shut down any Internet site that attacks their rule and which condemns their autocracy? How can liberal, sophisticated, free-speech libertarians attack the Saudi authorities for banning certain types of literature and for not allowing Playboy in Riyadh?

Of course, these sophisticated Western gays would say they have science, rationality and common sense on their side, while the Chinese Communists and the Saudi leaders are just in a gigantic time warp, railing against the winds of history. Settled truth is on their side. It might well be. But a pluralistic society has to allow space for other voices, other 'truths' in this postmodernist age. If truth is a social construct, as postmodernism asserts, and there still exist communities which believe, as fundamentalist Christians do, that homosexuality is an abomination, they must be allowed to speak their 'truth', however unpalatable and repulsive it might be to modern, urbane ears. It's the price of living in a democratic society.

Gone overboard

But Europe and North America (especially Canada) have gone overboard with political correctness and their hate-speech bogey. No wonder some conservative Christians here, like Shirley Richards, are afraid that if civil rights are accorded to gay people, they might eventually threaten Christians' freedom to preach. I heard one fundamentalist express that fear vividly on 'Direct' with Garfield Burford two weeks ago when he said, "Garfield, somebody has to be in the closet. If the gays come out, it is we Christians who are going to have to go into the closet."
Now that does not follow, of course, but his fears are fuelled by actual experiences in countries like Sweden and Denmark, which lock up people who are simply preaching what Leviticus says about homosexuality. That's a denial of the European heritage of free speech. Voltaire was said to have remarked (though some have contested it), "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it." That was the old view of tolerance.
The old view of tolerance says, let all views contend in the marketplace of ideas. No one has any monopoly on truth; humans are fallible and finite and, therefore, the best way to ferret out truth is to let contending views have their place and, perhaps, we might determine what is right. The new view of tolerance says it is inherently intolerant to believe that you are right or that there is anything called absolute truth. The new view of tolerance says we can't determine objective truth, so no one should have the right to condemn anybody else's 'truth' or lifestyle. This is a genetically bad philosophy.

The United Nations actually has a Declaration of Principles of Tolerance which says, "Tolerance ... involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism." No wonder it lobbied so hard to get countries to pass a resolution that would make criticism of Islam akin to hate speech. The US, for its own reasons, strongly opposed it, and it was eventually defeated. But some of those same people in the US, Canada and Europe who saw through that anti-democratic, anti-free-speech ruse are willing to persecute Christians and others who feel they have a right to criticise others.

In 2005, the Cooperative Bank in Manchester, England, asked a Christian organisation, Christian Voice, to close its accounts at the bank because its views were "incompatible" with those of the bank. The bank explained: "It has come to the bank's attention that Christian Voice is engaged in discriminatory pronouncements based on the grounds of sexual orientation ... . This public stance is incompatible with the position of the bank. Cooperative Bank publicly supports diversity and dignity in all its forms for our staff, customers and other stakeholders."
What about the freedom of these Christians to publicly preach their beliefs - however wrong-headed or stupid one might think they are? Muslims in the West have rioted, burnt buildings and caused unrest because their prophet was insulted. Now insulting any religious founder might be in poor taste and could be considered uncivil, but people must have the right to do so. Christians will agree with me when that is in reference to Muhammad, Buddha, Bahá'u'lláh or Joseph Smith, but would swarm the blogs if I dared suggest that people should be free to insult Jesus! Now it's true that most Christians are not likely to be violent if Christ is blasphemed (as they would see it), but the fact is that Christians, too, are inconsistent about this matter of free speech. They would ban carnival, horse racing and shut down dance halls if they had theocratic power.

One French writer was taken to court by Muslims because he had made "derogatory remarks" and "incited religious hatred" by attacking the Koran and Islam.

Intolerant view of tolerance

Today, free speech suffers not only in the 48 countries that Freedom House in its latest Freedom of the World survey describes as "not free", but in the heart of the liberal democracies of North America and Europe, particularly Nordic Europe. There is now what I call an intolerant view of tolerance. It is a very dangerous view. We are reverting to those backward days of seditious speech and blasphemy laws, even as we celebrate World Press Freedom Day.

In 1798, the US Congress passed a law that punished any disrespectful comment on the president. In that year, the Senate passed the Sedition Law - which attracted the death penalty. A century later, under another congressional statute, some men were sentenced to 20 years for criticising a policy decision of President Woodrow Wilson. But before that in Britain, King Henry VIII issued a proclamation requiring anyone who wanted to print something to get a licence.

I believe that even racist ideas have a right in the public square (to forestall the regular rejoinder of anti-libertarian gays.) As has been stated, the response to hate speech should be "more, better speech", not censorship or suppression. (Don't come with that regular canard about "shouting fire in a packed theatre", used by assorted totalitarians to justify repression and abuse of free speech.) More, better speech. Let the racists be free to say Ian Boyne is a nigger, is not fully human, is intellectually inferior to a one-day-old Caucasian and that his race was created by Satan having sex with Eve (which is actually taught by some, by the way.)

It was recently reported that Bavaria, Germany, will soon be republishing Hitler's racist rant, 'Mein Kampf', a despicable anti-Semitic book not published for more than 70 years. Germany should rightfully republish, and so should the literature of the KKK. Let not just a hundred flowers bloom but let the weeds bloom.

There have long been people giving 'eloquent' defences of the suppression of free speech. In 1800, a supporter of the Sedition Act, Henry Lee, said in the Virginia House of Delegates in contradiction of James Madison: "To contend that there does not exist a power to punish writings coming from within the description of this law would be to assert the inability of our nation to preserve its own peace and to protect themselves from the attempts of wicked citizens who, incapable to quiet themselves, are incessantly employed to devising means to disturb the public repose. But government cannot thus be secured if, by falsehood and malicious slander, it is to be deprived of the confidence and affection of the people."

It is the same kind of arguments used by homosexuals, Muslims, theocratic, ultra-fundamentalist Christians and ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem who believe those who disagree with them should have no right to offend them and their sacred beliefs. I say the right to free speech must include offensive speech. Let your emotions be disturbed in the interest of democracy!

Ridiculous

This rage against dogmatism and exclusivism has become ridiculous. Noted social psychologist Professor Jonathan Haidt, a self-described atheist and liberal, in his just-published and enlightening book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012), has this story: "A graduate student was surprised by my claim that religions are often good for society and she said, 'But religions are exclusive.' I asked her what she meant, and she replied, 'Well, the Catholic Church won't accept anyone who doesn't believe its teachings.' I couldn't believe she was serious. I pointed out that the graduate programme of the University of Virginia was more exclusive than the Church - we rejected almost all applicants."

That is where this intolerant and anti-liberal rage against exclusivist claims has reached. We must watch out for signs of that same pernicious spirit here.

Ian Boyne, a veteran journalist, is the 2010-11 winner of the Morris Cargill Award for Opinion Journalism. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

DSM 5 Rejects 'Hebephilia' Except for the Fine Print ..................

In light of our public discourse on sexual abuse of children and or teenagers this development with the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, DSM 5 which is to be released in May 2013 is timely, see what you make of it:

by Allen J. Frances, M.D. in DSM5 in Distress from Psychology Today 

1) Defining Pedophilia: Serious forensic mischief still lurks in the recently proposed wording.  Here is the problematic DSM 5 criterion:

"A. Over a period of at least 6 months, an equal or greater sexual arousal from prepubescent or early pubescent children than from physically mature persons, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors."

The phrase 'equal or greater" strikes just the wrong note. The interpretation (or misinterpretation) of these three small words can have huge consequences concerning the constitutionality of involuntary psychiatric commitment as it is applied in Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) cases.  SVP statutes explicitly require that mental disorder be distinguished from simple criminality. The sex offender must be mentally disordered to qualify for SVP commitments. In our country, it is never constitutional to force simple criminals into psychiatric hospitals to keep them off the streets as a form of preventative detention.

This crucial distinction (made explicitly by the Supreme Court) seems to be completely lost on the DSM 5 Sexual Disorders work group. An accurate definition of 'Pedophilia' must separate the rarely encountered, mentally disordered 'pedophile' from the much more common run-of-the-mill sex criminal. 'Pedophilia' requires that the offender be intensely and recurrently sexual aroused by prepubescent kids and that they are his preferred or obligatory source of sexual excitement. The contrast is with the simple criminal who preys on kids opportunistically because they are vulnerable or available or perhaps because he is disinhibited by drugs.

This brings us back to the lack of precision in the DSM 5 wording. A drug addled criminal may be attracted 'equally' to just about anything that walks—that doesn't make him a mentally disordered 'Pedophile'. Before diagnosing Pedophilia, there must be an established fixation on prepubescent kids .  

The solution is pretty straightforward. The DSM 5 wording should substitute 'preferred or obligatory' for 'equal or greater'. The phrase 'preferred or obligatory' is central to the concept of paraphilia, already appears in the differential diagnosis section in DSM IV,  and deserves greater prominence in the DSM 5 criteria set. "Equal or greater" will perpetuate the great confusion about Paraphilia that has plagued the proper application of SVP statutes. And one wonders how "equal or greater" would ever be measured reliably—lets hope this isn't meant as an excuse for expanding phallometric testing beyond its proper competence.

2) Restricting Pedophilia to prepubescent children: Adding 'early pubescent' youngsters is an unwarranted and radical change from the standard definition of Pedophilia. It reflects the fact that the DSM 5 work group is lopsidedly dominated by researchers connected to one center. They have displayed a stubborn ambition to find a place in DSM 5 for their pet diagnosis: 'hebephilia' supported by the unproven suggestion that  men attracted to pubescent kids have a mental disorder. Aside from its deep conceptual flaws and extremely thin research base, the proposal ignores the fact that statutory rape is committed for a whole variety of other much more common reasons (eg opportunistic crime, a vulnerable victim, unavailability of other partners, immaturity, substance disinhibition, date rape, etc.). Paraphilia would explain only a vanishingly small proportion of the sexual crimes committed with pubescent victims who are under the age of consent. And we already know that 'hebephilia' has been much abused in SVP hearings by evaluators who casually pin the mental disorder label on simple criminals to end run the constitutional protections against preventive detention.  

Confronted by universal opposition from the rest of the field, the DSM 5 group has been forced progressively to whittle down their pet, but they so far have refused to just drop it altogether.  'Hebephilia' first lost its free standing independence and was cloaked as Pedohebephilia. When this didn't fly, the term was dropped altogether in the title but the concept was slipped into the definition of Pedophilia—which was expanded out of recognition by having a victim age cut-off of 14 years. No one accepted this outlandish suggestion and now finally the work group comes back with  'early pubescent children' and tries to keep 'hebephilia' as a term in the subtype. The instability of the criteria sets associated with this concept is additional evidence that the fervor for its adoption stems from emotional loyalty rather than reasoned review of its weak conceptual and research base. How can the group vouch for the reliability of the diagnosis when the concept and criteria are changing every month? This is no way to develop a diagnostic system.         

The work group may try to justify inserting 'early pubescent children' on the grounds that it is mentioned in ICD-10. This is misleading in three ways: first, ICD-10 is inconsistent- its research criteria include only prepubescent children; only its clinical description  mentions 'early pubertal children'; second, the goal of DSM-5 is to achieve compatibility with ICD-11 (not ICD-10) and my understanding is that the ICD-11 workgroup has already identified the phrase 'early pubertal children' as an error that will be corrected ; and third, ICD is much freer to be loose in its language because it not much used for forensic purposes (let alone in SVP commitment hearings that bear so consequentially on the proper application of our constitution and the proper uses of psychiatry in our society.

3) Drop the subtype:  "Hebephillic Type—sexually attracted to early pubescent children (Tanner Stage 2-3)".

Come on guys. This is absolutely absurd just on the face of it. Do clinicians really know what the Tanner stages are? Even if you did, how would you possibly ever determine the Tanner stage of the victim. And how reliably can the different Tanner stages be diagnosed? One waggish critic scorned the Tanner stages as a futile exercise in 'splitting pubic hairs'. Putting Tanner stages in DSM 5 is really that silly. So back to the drawing board, DSM 5 sexual disorders work group. The grand dream is lost- now at least make sure you don't mess up on the fine print.  

And one more thing. Recognizing that the jig is up on the grand design, members of the DSM 5 sexual disorders work group have been heard saying they may have to settle for an Appendix placement for their 3 hothouse creations. This would create forensic dangers. We have learned from the abuse of ' Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified' in SVP cases that any (even remote) legitimization by DSM 5 is certain to be misconstrued and misused in the courtroom.

I commend you to an excellent discussion of this and many other issues pertaining to the DSM 5 Paraphilia section in an Open Letter authored by Richard Wollert and Thomas Zander. Mental health professionals concerned with these issues can sign on in an effort to improve  the DSM 5 paraphilia so that it doesn't continue or greatly worsen the confusion we caused by the poorly written section in DSM IV. .

See: http://bit.ly/LetterDSM