Are There “Hebephiles” Among Us? A Response to Blanchard et al. (2008)

Abstract

Blanchard et al. (2008) call for the addition of a paraphilic condition to the DSM-V termed hebephilia. Beyond the fact that there was no control group employed by Blanchard et al. in order to compare the obtained results against normative patterns of sexual arousal of men, there were multiple methodological issues that preclude a call for the establishment of hebephilia as a diagnostic entity in the DSM-V. I find no problem with the plethysmography methodology employed by Blanchard et al.; however, I would note that Blanchard et al. did not specify whether the procedure for eliciting self-report of the subjects described as ‘‘a great deal of exploration’’ preceded or followed the physiological measurements. It would have been more sound for this procedure to follow physiological measurement so as not to serve as a potential sensitizing factor which could confound the results. Further, the grouping algorithm employed concerns me. There appears to be a significant amount of variability among the defined groups. Why not instead analyze those who reported exclusive or near-exclusive ranges of sexual responding to target age ranges? If none or too few of the participants indicated primary sexual attraction to pubescent males/females in the 11–14 year range in an original sample close to 3000, this is telling in and of itself. Blanchard et al. take Fig. 1 to be evidence that ‘‘the classification algorithm worked.’’ My inspection of the data does not leave me with this conclusion. On a 5-point Likert-type scale measuring a subjective factor, inspection of Fig. 1 reveals a significant amount of variability that may not, in the end, appropriately identify the subgroupings as described in the text. I did not see any statistical analysis of the discriminability of the labels assigned other than gross percentage figures for maximum attractiveness. So the validity of the group memberships themselves is at issue here. The absence of 15–18 year old stimuli also was problematic. I would also like to have seen more multivariate testing performed before charging in to a number of dependent sample t-tests (family wise error rate?). What I find astounding is how Blanchard et al. strongly word their discussion that these results mean ‘‘that hebephilia exists and–– incidentally––that it is relatively common compared with other forms of erotic interest in children.’’ The data do not support the conclusions reached in this article, especially the inclusion of a significant change to the DSM-V. Again, the data do not support the conclusions reached in this article. There does not appear to be any homogeneity of groupings along the axes of sexual interest groups (alluded to above). If there are ‘‘hebephiles’’ among us, then this sexual interest/ arousal pattern appears to be a very heterogeneous one. If it is heterogeneous, how can it have diagnostic specificity as Blanchard et al. state it has in their conclusion? Look at Fig. 3. In the pedophile groups (especially Pedo 2), there was significant overlap between physiological arousal to both pre-pubescent and pubescent girls. As a matter of fact, in their Pedo 2 group, there was more arousal to pubescent girls than to pre-pubescent girls. And this relation does not seem to hold for homosexual males (even though Blanchard et al. state that the hetero/homo groups were remarkably similar). How is that a diagnostic indicator of pedophilia? Also, there was a statistical difference in their pedophiles between pubescent girls and adult women. Is this a group primarily composed of non-exclusive pedophiles? If so, does this have different implication from groupings that would contain exclusive pedophiles? There is no way to answer that question given the data in the study. If their pedophiles show discrepant findings J. J. Plaud (&) 44 Hickory Lane, Whitinsville, MA 01588-1356, USA e-mail: plaud@fdrheritage.org